Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Poorly planned exit doors etc

This is topic Poorly planned exit doors etc 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=002272

Posted by Mike Croaro (Member # 3123) on 10-06-2009, 08:05 PM:

Greetings:

Is it only me that find this bothersome: Modern movie theatres in which the screen is off certer to accomodate poorly planned exit doors? We are all used to this in the older single screen theatres that were chopped up. In some cases it was unavoidable; In other cases theatre owners took shortcuts. But whats the excuse in modern day construction?

In these same autitoriums, the screens typically come within 6 inches of the oposite wall. This causes stray light to illuminate the wall.

This is how new theatres in the San Francisco area are typically built. I appreciate newer facilities being built but would like it if more went into the auditorium design.

Mike

Posted by Alex Edwards (Member # 5413) on 10-06-2009, 08:42 PM:

From what I've seen, many theaters are built with minimal space between screen and wall because they like to pack in as many screens as possible in a certain space which then creates tiny shoeboxes that they call auditoriums. Lunatics...

By the way, this should probably be in the Ground Level Forum

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 10-07-2009, 08:21 AM:

Regarding specifically San Francisco, I assume you're talking about Century.

I don't have that much of a problem with Century's design. The entry is parallel down the same side and the seating is still centered to the screen and front channel speakers. The surrounds on the entry/exit side can be balanced to compensate. The exit itself becomes nearly invisible when the lights are down since the "EXIT" sign is usually by the door and not glowing at you during the presentation.

There are lots of others who don't do this as well, and I have lots of issues with Century builds as far as too many small auditoriums and small screens, but if they were going to insist on this particular design characteristic, I think they did it as well as one could.

In any case, it's not a problem for Century anymore... [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-07-2009, 11:16 AM:

I am in the camp of there is no excuse for such a design. My preferred solution is to use a curved masking track and fixed scope masking, such that the movable masking ends up on the side walls of the auditorium when in scope (letting the fixed masking do the job), or for flat the curtains move in.

Shrink the damn screen if you have to by a foot on each side, but don't put it off center of the room. [Mad]

I also have few nice things to say for people who put colored curtains ANYWHERE on the screen wall. For that matter, nothing but black curtains should ever be used for the first 15 feet of the room...barring actual screen curtains, which must become hidden behind black strips once opened.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 10-10-2009, 10:49 PM:

Brad: you have it exactly right. Have done this since 1974. Louis

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-10-2009, 11:10 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
Shrink the damn screen if you have to by a foot on each side, but don't put it off center of the room.

(Should show you picts of some houses over here that have off-centered screens as mentioned above .. just plain horrible..)

Yea, the black emphasizes the screen more readilly...especially with the usage of dubatene - that flat black, light absorbing material..

-Monte

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 10-11-2009, 09:46 AM:

Monte: Yes, the real advantage is that the screen swims in a sea of blackness. It is not possible to reference anything against the room; corners and wall-to-ceiling angles disappear in blackness. Louis

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-11-2009, 09:59 AM:

I've had several customers over the years do completely black theaters. I like it and there is absolutely nothing distracting one from the screen in these locations. There IS nothing in general in a multiplex you need to show off anyway... If you do somethng glitzy in a room then it tends to be distracting.

I tend to find watching films in old movie palaces distracting. I tend to let me eyes wander around during the film looking at how the light from the screen illuminates the different objects in the room and so on.

Mark

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 10-11-2009, 01:01 PM:

Movie palaces were built in a time when the movies were so bad they had to build theatres to look at. Marcus Loew once said he sold tickets to theatres not to movies.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-11-2009, 02:22 PM:

I've heard that to Bill but I don't agree that movies were bad back then. Better for sure!

Posted by Mike Croaro (Member # 3123) on 10-11-2009, 03:42 PM:

Hi Everyone:

Thanks for your thoughts.

Black auditoriums......UA painted the interior of their San Francisco Vogue Theatre this way. Wainscoating is black, upper walls and ceiling are charcoal. Subtle blue molding down the sides. Looks great and works well.

Mike

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 10-11-2009, 04:03 PM:

quote:
I've heard that to Bill but I don't agree that movies were bad back then. Better for sure!

Mark:

Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap.

Applies to movies back then, too. It is just there were so damn many of them being cranked out in the Golden Age we only remember the good ones. Look at a Boxoffice Magazine release chart for any year in the 1940's. Really, how many Ma & Pa Kettle (and knockoff) movies did the world need?

On the other hand, yes movie palaces can be distracting, but at least they give you something to look at during a boring movie. It's like stained glass windows at church;>

Posted by Mike Croaro (Member # 3123) on 10-11-2009, 08:09 PM:

Brad Wrote:

"I also have few nice things to say for people who put colored curtains ANYWHERE on the screen wall......."
_______________________________________________________________

What makes the above even worse, is when they overcut the aperature plate so the "spill over" goes beyond the black masking and lights up the colored drapes.

Mike

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 10-13-2009, 01:47 PM:

Really, how many Ma & Pa Kettle (and knockoff) movies did the world need?

These movies may look quaint and dated now, but they were very successful in their day. Remember that in the 1940's, much of America was still rural and the issues the Kettles humorously faced were very real to many people.

Every generation has had their good and bad movies. Sometimes due to changing tastes over the years, movies that were popular become not so, or the opposite. For example, The Wizard Of Oz was a financial failure in it's initial theatrical runs. The film did not turn a profit until it was sold to television some 20 years later.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 10-13-2009, 01:52 PM:

quote: Mitchell Dvoskin
These movies may look quaint and dated now, but they were very successful in their day.

I didn't say they weren't successful -- quality has nothing to do with attendance [evil]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-13-2009, 04:16 PM:

quote: Martin McCaffery
Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap.

Applies to movies back then, too.

Perhaps its an age related thing but I'd rather watch ten movies with Ma and Pa Kettle than 10 moveies with Adam Sandler!!!

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 10-13-2009, 05:43 PM:

Pick your poison [evil]

Although the Kettle movies are shorter.