Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Pretty soon, you'll no longer have film,' projectionist predicts

This is topic Pretty soon, you'll no longer have film,' projectionist predicts in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=002424

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 09-01-2003, 10:30 AM:

Pretty soon, you'll no longer have film,' projectionist predicts

Business News

Pretty soon, you'll no longer have film,' projectionist predicts

08/31/03
Janet H. Cho
Plain Dealer Reporter

Chris Baxter, 30, started his career selling popcorn at Cinemark Movies 10 in Willoughby Hills. As he rose through the ranks, he was trained as a film projectionist, learning to operate the refrigerator-sized projectors that shoot images onto the screens.

But as projectors became more sophisticated, he found himself needing less time in the booth. He now serves as managing director of the 20-screen Loews Cineplex at Richmond Town Square and spends only a fraction of his day as a film projectionist.

"Everything's automated," Baxter said, walking along the row of projectors in the cavernous control room. "You can have one person monitor 14 screens. [After starting the movie], you don't even have to have a person up here anymore."

The old movie houses required two projectors for every movie, and a projectionist had to splice together several 20-minute reels to show one film. Projectionists also had to dim the house lights, start the movie, keep the picture focused, monitor the white-hot bulb, keep an eye on the flammable nitrate film and manually rewind the movie.

But now, it takes Baxter only a minute to thread a film around several spools, through the projector, around more spools and through a giant platter that automatically rewinds the reel as it spins. Except for replacing the occasional burned-out bulb, "everything else is done by machine," he said.

In the early 1990s, movie theater jobs were far more segmented. People were hired for specific duties: serving popcorn, selling tickets or sweeping floors. Being a projectionist was a prestigious specialty, a craft handed down from veterans to select apprentices. Even at Baxter's theater, only six of his 60 employees are trained as projectionists, and each performs other roles.

Before television, there were more than 400 people in the local projectionists union; now, there are about 50 full- and part-time projectionists, said John Galinac, business agent of Cleveland Local 160 of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees. Yet they are doing it at a wider range of venues, from drive-ins and OmniMax theaters to concert videos and multimedia shows. Experienced projectionists can make $15 to $20 per hour.

"The industry had to change," said Baxter, who does not belong to the union. "Pretty soon, you'll no longer have film. You'll just put the movie into a computer and hit Play.' "

To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:

jcho@plaind.com, 216-999-5069

© 2003 The Plain Dealer.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 09-01-2003, 10:42 AM:

Hmmm...nitrate and xenon overlapping. Mmmkay.

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 09-01-2003, 10:52 AM:

It amazes me that people believe you'll be able to "just hit play" and forget about DLP machines. I've had my home computer crash for no reason in one month more times than I have had a film projector go down for as long as I've worked in the booth.

Yeah, put it in the computer and hit play. Then figure out what to do when your patrons complain that "the movie is rebooting" in the middle of the show.

And aren't film projectors more resistant to power surges than computers?

=TMP=

Posted by Matthew Nock (Member # 1575) on 09-01-2003, 10:56 AM:

yes, well thats what happens when half a journalist interviews the least experienced person they can find who knows what a projector looks like!!

I mean, really... "The rest is all done by machine?" next, he will be telling us that 35mm film is just like 16mm and we can just poke it near the projector at the start of the day, and it will thread itself!

Look out, my craft is dying.... NOT!

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 09-01-2003, 11:07 AM:

quote:
a projectionist had to splice together several 20-minute reels to show one film. Projectionists also had to... monitor the white-hot bulb, keep an eye on the flammable nitrate film and manually rewind the movie.

Oh, he's an old-timer, alright! By gosh, they used to have to splice those reels together to show them! What work that must have been!

Why didn't they just interview the business agent?

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 09-01-2003, 12:56 PM:

Yeah, I miss having to splice reels together before they go on the platter.

quote:
next, he will be telling us that 35mm film is just like 16mm and we can just poke it near the projector at the start of the day, and it will thread itself!

Hey, if IMAX's new multiplex projectors can do it with 70mm, why not. [Smile]

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 09-01-2003, 03:48 PM:

"Everything's automated," Baxter said, walking along the row of projectors in the cavernous control room. "You can have one person monitor 14 screens. [After starting the movie], you don't even have to have a person up here anymore."

Now that sounds familiar, doesn't it? Sort of reminds you of the corporate mentality of the big chains, doesn't it? After all, Mr. Baxter is now a "Managing Director". And at the tender age of 30 to boot.

I'll bet his career as a "projectionist" was quite brief and probably undistinguished as well. He was probably bored and waiting his chance to move up.

Here's another example of corporate inattention to the booth. Lose a show? No problem- give 'um all passes. Scratched prints? So what- not many people complain, and when the do, give 'um passes. Equipment breaks down? No problem- give 'um passes and call the company tech. After all, you don't even have to have a person up there anymore.

This guy should not even be associated with being a projectionist. Nor should the person who wrote this [bs]

be associated with being a journalist.

Makes me want to [puke]

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 09-01-2003, 05:40 PM:

"The industry had to change," said Baxter, who does not belong to the union.

Noted.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 09-01-2003, 05:55 PM:

quote:
Cinemark Movies 10 in Willoughby Hills

So everyone knows this theater is a discount theater in ohio. He probably never cared about projection. I can find a lot of things to do in the booth that is benaficial to the job.

it will be a long time before thos 20 minute reels disapear.

In the old days of carbon arc you didn't have to worry about splicing the reels together.

No automation is full proof

quote:
But as projectors became more sophisticated, he found himself needing less time in the booth.

Why does that sound like it controdicts its self. IF they are mor sophisticated wouldn't you need to be more aware about what was going on.

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 09-01-2003, 06:27 PM:

Back in the days when projectionists "had to splice together several 20-minute reels to show one film" what were the two projectors for, then?

Don't you just love when clueless people demean your work in such an offhand manner?

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 09-01-2003, 06:59 PM:

Hillary, he's talking about 6,000 ft. capacity reels, with a changeover in the middle of the show. Evidently, he had no clue that was an advance in technology, just as he had no clue there were carbon arcs before xenon lamps. That's why I made the sarcastic remark about him being "an old-timer".

[Wink]

Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 09-01-2003, 07:23 PM:

Who did this so-called "journalist" interview....George Lucas???

Posted by Dennis Atkinson (Member # 345) on 09-01-2003, 07:51 PM:

"Projectionists also had to dim the house lights, start the movie, keep the picture focused"

It's been a long time since I have seen a feature in focus at a multiplex. I usually say something, sometimes it even gets fixed [Eek!]

Dennis

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-01-2003, 08:04 PM:

I have to laugh at these so-called news articles about the tech-side of movie presentation. Who does the Cleveland Plain Dealer use as the primary source of their article? Some fellow at a bargain house extolling the virtues of running things more on the cheap!

Why doesn't the press ask authorities on projection like Brad Miller or Steve Kraus about this kind of stuff? [Roll Eyes]

I suppose talking to some actual experts wouldn't support the spin of their puff piece.

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 09-01-2003, 10:47 PM:

GUYS!

CHILL OUT!

I dont personaly know Chris but one of my best friends is the person who trained him as a manager and speaks extremely highly of him and often compares him to me as bieng my clone, LOL. I know that the person who trained Chris is extremely compotent and I am sure that Chris is as well. I can almost Gaurantee that his words were taken out of context or mis represented. I have been compared to this person by about 6 people in the company I used to work for and I dont think they would have compared me to someone who does not know the booth well, as I am very serious about projection, and presentation.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-01-2003, 10:53 PM:

So how many of us have written to jcho@plaind.com to give this person a clue??

Everything else besides the threading is done by machine....yeah, all the building up, tearing down, film-guard-pad-soaking, cleaning, removing other people's automation cues, etc. Where can I get this machine?

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 09-01-2003, 10:59 PM:

And... pretty soon we won't need theater managers either!

It used to be they had to count this green stuff called "money" and watch out for these strange people called "employees" but no longer. Manager's jobs are all done by computers over the internet.

Customers hook into the movie exhibitors website and pay by credit card. They print out an "electronic ticket". When they get to the theater they slip their electronic ticket into a slot next to the door of the auditorium. All the financial transactions are done in advance by computer.

Nowadays, one technician can keep ten or more theaters running single handedly, only having to enter the building when some (redundant) "popcorn shucker" breaks the equipment!

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 09-01-2003, 11:02 PM:

Yes, Randy. Don't forget that magic prediction word: "will". They WILL have this, and the equipment WILL do that... as if they already know what's going to happen. That's always irked me.

Posted by George Roher (Member # 91) on 09-02-2003, 12:20 AM:

And they don't need live people to clean theatres anymore either. The Sharper Image is selling robot vacuum cleaners that run by themselves.

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 09-02-2003, 12:27 AM:

Robot vaccum cleaners??

I thought the thrifty way to do it now is to not even clean.

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 09-02-2003, 04:46 AM:

Tim,

When they nostalgically talk about two projectors, it seemed to me they meant 20 minute reels. That's why the splicing part in that sentence confused me. Since my only professional booth experience is the 20 minute changeover, reading that description of 6,000 reel/changeovers, I feel REALLY out of it (as if platters didn't do that enough [Smile]

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 09-02-2003, 05:58 AM:

quote:
Chris is extremely compotent

What does that mean? Compotent is not in my dictionary. Did you mean impotent?

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-02-2003, 06:30 AM:

I think that this is a case of bad reporting.

Not counting DLP (which isn't really a commercially viable product yet), have there been _any_ significant changes in cinema automation since the '80s? If anything, I'd guess that running a first-class booth has become harder since then, as sound systems have become better and more sophisticated. Sure, there are probably fewer all-manual houses as a per centage of the total now than there were twenty years ago, but automation equipment and platters/large reels all existed at that time. And, arguably, the automated multiplex may be "easier" to run than a manual single-screen, but I believe that it requires a more knowlegeable and resourceful operator to be able to keep 10-20 screens in top shape and to fix any problems that may arise.

And just because the multiplexes are automated doesn't mean that all booths are (or even need to be). There are still lots of manual booths out there, and many of these are used for once- or twice-only showings, and so will never benefit from automation.

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 09-02-2003, 12:17 PM:

Sorry for the spelling error, I guess I am not a competent speller.

In case your still curious;

competent: ADJECTIVE: 1. Properly or sufficiently qualified; capable: a competent typist.
OTHER FORMS: competently

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-02-2003, 01:23 PM:

Not the first time Film-Tech people have been upset with articles in the Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper:

Bill Lammers Discussion 1

Bill Lammers Discussion 2

Posted by William H. Ward (Member # 1797) on 09-09-2003, 06:47 PM:

It is all going DVD as soon as they refine the security measure for one thing and the other is refinement of the video projection process. I understand they have a theatre in Las Vegas, a multiplex, that is total video. I also understand they are working with HD projectors for theatre use. Bye Bye film....

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 09-09-2003, 07:15 PM:

and how many screens do we have in the world. Multiply that by $150,000. or look at it this way if you have a theater chain with 35,000 screens multiplied by $150,000 = $52,500,000. Hell they still owe that for loans on builds.