Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Retro Cinemas

This is topic Retro Cinemas in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=001709

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 06-08-2006, 11:20 PM:

Ok. I have worked in the industry for almost 12 years. I like the older flat cinemas instead of these stadium seating theatres. Currently I work at a older cinema (with no stadium) and a newer theatre with stadium. Stadium seating is a gimmick because balcony theatre were stadium and never survived.

What does everyone think of making a retro neighborhood theatre? It would have stadium seating in one theatre. Flat seating in the other. The theatre would be designed old, similar to an ballpark like Camden Yards and the theatre would have all the ammentities of the newer cinemas.

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 06-08-2006, 11:45 PM:

It is a completely unfeasible idea. Unless it is a specialty venue, people WILL NOT patronize sloped floor theatres when they have a stadium choice. Call it a gimmick all you want, but it's a gimmick that works.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 06-09-2006, 12:29 AM:

Fair enough but I work at a theatre that is stadium seating and one that is flat. Every other week the stadium seating theatre is outgrossed by the flat theatre.

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 06-09-2006, 12:49 AM:

Maybe the auditorium in the flat seating has something else going for it that the stadium auditorium doesnt? Bigger screen? Digital sound? Better movies? People just dont look at flat seating and Stadium seating and CHOOSE flat...there has to be other reasons.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 06-09-2006, 01:26 AM:

Personally, I dont think dress circles have died out! here in sydney australia, we have several new cinemas that have them, overall, upstairs tends to be busier, The Reading Cinema at Rhodes (14km from cbd) 2 of 8 screens have a balcony (complete with a 20 ft projector lift) The Randwick ritz a 1930s single screen (8km from cbd) (aprox 1100 people over 2 levels), 3 of the 5 new screens built beside the complex have dress circle and stalls. And at Worrywood (20 km from cbd) the GRAND also has a circle 1 of 7, All these cinemas have higher than usual figures.
FLAT OR STADIUM? personally I dont like looking up at the screen :

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 06-09-2006, 02:30 AM:

There are just some people who don't like the climbing up the terraced steps per each row...they'd just rather simply walk down an sloped aisle to the row of their choice to get to a seat..

Worked in a stadium complex and seen elderly people stumble and fall down due to the stepped aisles..let along getting exhausted in the climb....due to that they are not used to such constuction design for a cinema..

Posted by Christopher Crouch (Member # 3784) on 06-09-2006, 04:51 AM:

I once worked at a 20 plex that had ten sloped auditoriums (original complex) and ten stadium auditoriums (later addition). The patrons began refering to the original side as the "crappy side" and the stadium side as the "good side". These monikers were based on nothing more than the seating style, as the original auditoriums were much larger and provided better sound. Due to public demand, we had to adjust print placement more towards seating style than seating capacity (going with 280 seat stadium auditoriums over 400 seat sloped auditoriums for major releases).

Even given the choice, patrons prefer stadium seating (aside from disabled people and senior citizens).

Posted by John Koutsoumis (Member # 1855) on 06-09-2006, 04:55 AM:

Although it's now closed [Frown]

, here in Melbourne the best Cinema was at the Village City Center (Cinema #1) which had part sloped and part raised seating. I always sat in the sloped section. This cinema had 800+ seats and to me was the best design for the multiplex.
Stadium seating in a way is a gimmick because Cinema chains use to promote their cinemas as being "new" or "better" yet the presentation technically still sucks. And all the stadium style cinemas have very uncomfortable seats. And in some venues if you sit at the back you are actually looking down at the screen [Confused]

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 06-09-2006, 06:43 AM:

Maybe - the difference has to do with the cultural background of the people going to see the movies?

I notice the majority of the people conversing about this - are people from outside the US. Maybe the stadium seating craze hasn't really caught on outside the US? Just a thought. Since I prefer to watch movies completely by myself - I don't care about it either way. I care about the picture on the screen and the sound coming out of the speakers.

It just so happens that we are converting our largest auditorium to Stadium seating next week. So I will really get to see if the people in our little town prefer one over the other. I have a feeling the senior citizens will hate it and the younger set will love it.

Posted by Matt Kerekes (Member # 2777) on 06-09-2006, 07:53 AM:

I agree with Dennis. Seems to be the normal thing that seniors don't like stadium and younger people don't like slope.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-09-2006, 08:15 AM:

It also depends on the stadium design. The "good" stadium where the risers are over a foot allows an average sized person to see over the head of another average sized person. The "bad" stadium found in some retrofits has risers less than a foot and is actually worse than sloped because you have to look through the heads to the screen. With sloped you looked up over the heads.

Posted by Kara J. McVay (Member # 1285) on 06-09-2006, 09:30 AM:

I run a 90 year old theatre that has 3 screens, the main floor has never be touched, it has a sloped floor that by the time you get to the front of the stage you are 5ft. below street level. In 1986 the balcony was closed off and made our 3rd screen, it is a big screen that folks either love or hate, the majority that hate it, hate the fact that they have to climb the stairs to get there. Our 2nd screen was built in 1982 and was never part of our original theatre, a storefront in the same building, it is just a "bowling alley" screen.

I am very close to Columbus, OH, I have a brand new Rave 18 screen about a 15-20 min. drive (when I have to PAY to watch a movie that is where I choose to go). Those who want the stadium seating go to Rave, those who love our beautiful historic downtown stay.

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 06-09-2006, 10:06 AM:

PAY to watch a movie? What the hell??

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-09-2006, 12:33 PM:

People like being able to see the screen. That's why stadium seating is popular.

I've been to lots of traditional sloped floor auditoriums and I have always disliked having to look through or around the heads of other viewers just to see the screen.

With stadium seating, you could have some 6' 10" guy sit in front of you and not worry about his melon blocking your view. In a normal auditorium you would have to switch seats -which often means going to pick a really shitty seat off to the side somewhere and leave behind that "sweet spot" seat you picked near dead center of the room when you arrived nice and early for the show. All was well until the undiscovered NBA basketball star player chose to sit right in front of you once the auditorium got crowded.
[Mad]

My only big complaint about stadium seating is sound quality. For some odd reason sound quality just seems to work out better in normal sloped auditoriums. This factor is more noticeable when the seating capacity gets to high levels. If you have a huge stadium seated auditorium then echo tends to be a problem. There's also a lot more cubic area of airspace in there for speakers to manipulate. In the end many stadium seated auditoriums have way underpowered speaker systems. Also most are not THX certified. The whole stadium seated theater building craze did a heck of a lot of damage to THX. Theater operators figured they didn't need to build for THX since stadium seating and digital sound were both enough when it came to what they considered "marketing gimmicks."

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 06-09-2006, 12:36 PM:

Stadium seating must be a nightmare for insurance liability.
The rep. from our insurance carrier comes by every few years and has said that the claims from stadium seats are quite a bit higher than for traditional sloped theatres and are a significant factor in rates. Our main floor is sloped and the balcony is stadium. I guess stairs in dim light are not good.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-09-2006, 01:30 PM:

Bobby is right....it's not about the seating design but just about seeing the image without having to see around some meathead's meat head. I don't mind slopes because since I hate people (at least when they are in crowds), I never go to movies at peak times. You will NEVER see me in a line on a Friday night. So sloped is just fine because I can almost always find a seat with no one in front of me. Plus, I like to sit where the left & right edges of the screen just come to my perriferal sight, i.e., nearly fills my view; most people like sitting further back, as I can attest when my friends are walking behind me as we all walk down the isle and I inveriably hear, "Damn, where are you going?" long before I am ready to pick a row.

And then there are good slopes and lousy ones. The good ones have a lot of space between each row and the seats are staggered so that you only need to find a seat where there is no one in a seat in the row in front of you, beyond that, they won't obstruct.

Likewise, there are good stadium designs and lousy ones. The good ones allow good leg room and multiple entry levels so that you need not walk up stairs to get to the higher tiers, but can walk up a sloped isle outside the room and then enter at higher levels. The lousy ones have you mountain climbing the whole way, which no doubt must be hell for older folk. And older folk are still a dominant force in the market with that demographic still growing (older [Big Grin]

) so it is unwise to be dismissive of their likes and dislikes.

And what I hate most about the bad stadium design is when they have cramped leg room. I have literally been sitting with my knees touching the seat in front of mine in this one multiplex (and if that were their ONLY crap issue they would be WAY ahead of the game). That alone will put such a theatre on my "Theatres To Avoid Like The Plague or Avian Flu" list.

Go to movies on Monday matinee....then stadium or slope won't matter. [thumbsup]

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 06-09-2006, 07:43 PM:

As I read the rather spirited defense of stadium seating I am inclined to believe it's a generational thing. Those who are fairly new to our business believe stadium seating, DTS and xenon lamps are the only way to go as sloped floors (they're NOT flat), carbon arcs and magnetic stereo are "old fashioned" while the newer technology MUST be superior because it was developed during their lifetime and is identified with their generation.

I will be moving to a very small town in Iowa in a few days to take over as GM of a 248 seat sloped floor, restored, art-deco, single screen house that sells out almost every week. It is equipped with an Apogee projector and strong platter and Sony stereo surround sound. It has a single admission price - .99 cents - and pays just 35% to the distributors. It looks like something that came straight out of the 50s. The nearest competition is about 30 miles away. The theatre is owned by a non-profit community group. It has solid support from the community who don't seemed to be the least bit concerned that it is a sloped floor operation. It has been re-opened for about three years and the corporation does not have to subsidize it as it actually makes a profit.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 06-10-2006, 06:11 PM:

Congrats, Robert.
Glad to see something came along to get you out of the old folks' home! [Big Grin]

Best of luck...

Jack

quote: Mike Spaeth
Unless it is a specialty venue, people WILL NOT patronize sloped floor theatres when they have a stadium choice.

Don't think I'd agree with that, either.

Our area has 32 screens. 10 of them are in one building, which is the only stadium house we have. It does very well... however, it's also new, and has a fairly good chunk of the county to itself. 12 of those screens are in our county's major shopping hub. They do the majority of the indoor business around here, get the majority of the young-patrons' business, and NONE of them are stadium.

Location still means something in this business.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 06-12-2006, 11:14 AM:

As the reinventor of the stadium theatre, if the location is next door, the stadium theatre gross will be 3 times the normal theatre, all other things being equal.

AMC/Cinemark in Dallas showed this. (Stadium is not new; Greeks & Romans had them and quite a few were built locally in the 1930's.) Louis

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 06-12-2006, 03:24 PM:

It's my belief that customers are more concerned with "atmosphere" than they are with quality. Whether it's a food joint or a movie theatre.

I know of several stadium theatres in this area that have absolutely horrid presentaion, but do a heck of a biz. While the ones with better (but non-stadium) than average presentation suffer.

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 06-12-2006, 04:21 PM:

Why not do half & half? I mean, closer to half than most new builds? The Riverview in Minneapolis has had great success with such. They have well over ten rows in the front half of the auditorium, and from the middle of the room back is standard stadium style. Liebenberg/Kaplan built several single screens around Minneapolis with this style.

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 06-13-2006, 07:13 PM:

When we were a five plex, a competitor built an 18 screen stadium theater five miles up the road. You could sit out front and count the cars drive by us as they went to the new theater.

As a matter of survival, we closed, expanded and retrofitted with stadium seating. Had we not done so, I probably would not have retired, and still be teaching school and working projection part-time for another employer.

You can argue slope vs stadium all you want. You can't argue economics, at least not in our heavily populated, over-screened area.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 06-18-2006, 07:14 PM:

Steve; the BEST stadiums are half and half, with 48" between rows and a max of 10-12" HIGH. aisles on the side to maximize seating "in the center". This way, if the screen isn't TOO big, the older people can still stand it in the sloped section or the first 1 or 2 rows of the stadium. Louis