This is topic Lost that moviegoing mojo 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=005665
Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 12-30-2008, 04:22 PM:
 
I turned 40 recently. I realized one sad fact. I do not feel the same thrill I did earlier in my life at going to the movies. In the 90s, there was a time when I would watch nearly 2 movies a week on the average in theaters(average boosted by the nearly 3 movies a week I would watch in the summer). I would watch all kinds of movies back then - indie movies, foreign ones, action, silly comedies, even the genial bland ones. Sometimes, I would even stay past my movie and walk into the next auditorium and sample a part of a bad movie out of plain morbid curiosity(example: Batman and Robin). Earlier this decade, that number fell to one a week. But over the last couple of years, I am having a hard time watching movies in the theater on a twice a month basis. This was a decent summer, so I watched 12 movies during the summer. Though at other times, it is down to once a month and sometimes I go just because a life's worth of moviegoing habit built in a sense of obligation for me to go watch.

I have become content watching movies on my 60 inch HD screen despite the pan and scan atrocities(2.35 movies modified to fit 16x9) of HBO and Starz. Showtime at least shows OAR. Now I got a PS3. So I will start renting discs again. In a couple of years, 70 inch LCDs should become affordable and I will upgrade my TV at that point.

There are many reasons for my decreased moviegoing habit
1) Just natural aging. We have seen it all. Variations of the same theme over the ages. I actually have a hard time sitting still in a movie theater over an average movie that i would find perfectly fine on TV. In the 90s, I would sit and enjoy such movies in the theater. Now I get very restless if the movie is just OK. That was something I would feel in the past only for bad movies.

2) Worse projection standards in theaters. Better home theater quality. HD has really made me prefer to watch genial movie comedies and small dramas at home. Also borderline movies with stars , i can safely watch at home while multitasking. This multitasking thing is a big key for me.
3) The decline of indie theaters in my area. I think Madstone was the last hurrah in that regard. Landmark has a couple of theaters but they are too far away for me to attend unless the movie is great.
4) My peer group has been totally domesticated. They are more into what is good for their kids.
5) There are still talented filmmakers out there, but not all of it is in the movies. I think pay cable has picked up the slack for TV series that are movie like. (Example: I love Dexter).

6) Shortening video window:
Anyway, I might go watch Slumdog Millionaire or Benjamin Button today. haven't decided yet. As badly as I want to see them, the shortening video window makes me not have to wait too long if I don't see it. Plus, if you do not catch a movie in the first week, frequently they get shunted to the small auditoriums in most theaters.
 
Posted by Joshua Waaland (Member # 287) on 12-30-2008, 05:30 PM:
 
Pravin,

I feel the same way you do. I lost my moviegoing mojo long before the new millenium hit. Everything that the Hollywood machine has pumped out in the last ten to fifteen years, with the exception of a few, is pretty much crap. I find myself rating movies now not based on their merits, but on their level of suckiness. With so many sucky films coming out, when one comes out that is low on the suckiness scale then I usually regard that movie as one I can stand to watch again.

I can't believe how many recent films I have seen and then found out it was a remake. They seem to be real big on that in Hollywood right now.

If it weren't for my love of the film equipment itself and the overall feeling I get from being in a theater then I might have walked away from movie watching all together. As it is, I hardly watch any movies anymore since our eight month old makes it hard without having to start and stop the movie at least six times throughout the DVD. He is also going through a period of seperation anxiety from my wife and I and cries himself to sleep when we try to leave him with anyone else so we don't leave the house without him which makes it impossible to watch a film in the theater.
 
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-30-2008, 05:43 PM:
 
quote: Pravin Ratnam
Worse projection standards in theaters. Better home theater quality.
...which these are the main factors that is gonna hurt the industry - why cinemas are heading towards Digital ... to keep the "WOW" factor alive..

..along with needed major attitude changes towards the POSITIVE: ("Welcome to our Cinema - make yourself at home") with these operations.

I know how that all goes: I know some managers who has the attitude on "what the 'F' are you doing in my Cinema - why are you bothering me?" (and do you think that the head office wants to do anything about it??? they turn a flippin' blind eye on the matter..)

They play the wrong lobby music-rap crap or hip-hop stuff that they (the staff) wants to hear, not what the welcoming music that the public needs to hear to feel that they're in a professional occupation.

No safety factors noticed: Gee! the lobby looks a mess, counters never kept clean..reduction of auditorium checks and the BATHROOMS, esp the womens - wonder how many women go in there and come out totally disgusted...?

Businesses like this deserve to lose customers since they've destroyed that moviegoing mojo ...

they're isn't anymore flipping "MAGIC IN GOING to the MOVIES" with these sub-standard operations !

Customer service is one thing-(you can have a lobby full of vending machines that can offer the same service to a customer), BUT, customer satisfaction is the main supreme in any business!

..and we wonder why home theatre digital cinema is on the massive upswing...

-sorry for the rant- . .. Monte
 
Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 12-30-2008, 06:08 PM:
 
I know exactly how you feel as well.

I still try to go to the movies, but I'm a lot more selective now. I agree- there are not as many really great movies these days... the sorts that you want to see again the moment you walk out of the theatre.

This is one reason I really support classic films. If it's good enough to show up in a flashback screening, it's probably pretty good. I've seen Temple of Doom and It's a Wonderful Life on the Big Screen this month, and had more fun at both than most new features.

I wish more theatres would show classics. It doesn't make sense to me that Beverly Hills Chihuahua is in 4 auditoriums, but there isn't any place I can take my daughter to see E.T.

I disagree that the move to digital will improve things. I saw Ben Button on a large screen at the Denver Pavilion 15 (auditorium 6) and there was an annoying clipping whenever the high end got loud. Will digital projection fix that?

I saw Bolt in Digital projection and there was a mark or stain or something right in the center of the screen. Digital projection didn't seem to make it go away.

Wait... Actually, I have Digital Projection at home, with no marks on the screen and excellent sound. I guess Digital Projection IS solving my problems.

[Frown]
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-30-2008, 06:35 PM:
 
If it wasn't for the one good theater in my town and a couple of good ones in the metro Oklahoma City area I would be doing all of my movie watching at home. That is especially true these days with the big improvement Blu-ray now offers.

I have no patience for mediocre or bad quality presentation. I have little toleration for various audience behaviors that disrupt the show as well. I'm willing to put up with that crap to a point if the theater's presentation quality is really good. If it isn't, then I may not be returning.

I used to drive 200 miles to Dallas to watch certain movies -back when the Northpark 1-2 theater was still in operation during the 1990s. I looked forward to visiting that theater like a kid would look forward to visiting Six Flags.

Over this past decade the only movie watching I've done in the Dallas area has mostly been at Brad Miller's real home theater. The only exceptions have been Fantasia 2000 at a Cinemark IMAX theater and a couple of curious looks at early D-cinema in Plano.

A few of my relatives live in the Colorado Springs area. I'm willing to watch certain movies in the IMAX auditorium at the Cinemark Carefree Circle theater. I've been disappointed with show quality too many times to bother with any of the 35mm houses there.

Regardless of my age, I'm still able to feel that "movie high" if the movie is really good. Unfortunately, so much of what Hollywood is regurgitating is so derivative or forgettable it's difficult to feel good about any of it even if the movie executes the formula perfectly. You're still left with that "been there, done that" nagging feeling.

Life gets more complicated as you get older and free time is more valuable -even if you're single and without kids like me. So it's actually more difficult to set aside the time to get out to the theater. I'll do so if I think the film is worth it. Unfortunately for so many movies it's a lot easier for me to just say, "I'll just rent it when it hits Blu-ray." And there's no guarantee I'll even do that. I end up seeing a lot of well-reviewed movies for the first time when they finally end up on HBO or some other cable channel. There is a lot of other movies I never bother watching at all.
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-30-2008, 07:26 PM:
 
This has been pretty much a dud year for movies, based on what I've seen. There are three 2008 releases that I really liked (Wall-E, Man on Wire, and Encounters at the End of the World). A few others were decent (Wendy and Lucy, Sita Sings the Blues, Diving Bell/Butterfly, The Counterfeiters, In Bruges, a few others). Pretty much everything else just bored me to tears.

Agreed that classic screenings are far more interesting. Fortunately, there are several venues nearby that regularly screen older titles. Unfortunately, titles that should do well can suffer due to poor promotion. The reissue of "The Godfather" played for a week at an AMC house with no advertising. Too bad.
 
Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 12-31-2008, 09:06 PM:
 
The problem is that the big companies seem to have completely lost the concept of the "experience" part of going to the movies. A lot of recently-built complexes have common-width screens, which really shouldn't be done. People can already watch letterboxed movies at home, when they go out the widescreen movies should look BIGGER.

If I may be so bold, I think small auditoriums (with under 200 seats) simply should not be included in new complexes either. The effect of many of these is like being shoved into a broom closet, and it says that you're a loser for choosing the movie playing there- the people seeing the "cool" movie got the bigger auditorium, but at least you got to pay the same price they did. If there isn't enough business to warrant playing it with a larger seating capacity, don't bother playing it at all- I'll just wait til I can watch it at home.

An ideal theater is one that people will want to go to REGARDLESS of what movie is playing there- even if there's nothing but crap out, at least they'll know it's being presented the best it can be, and the theater itself should be reason enough to go out. At the end of the movie, customers should be thinking "I can't WAIT to see another movie here!" instead of the usual "let's get the hell out". I don't know what it will take for the powers that be to realize this. They seem to think they're doing everything right as long as not too many people complain about anything, and whenever shows play to an audience of zero they blame it on the movie- it couldn't possibly be that their screens are too small, prices too high or their general presentation is sub-par.
 
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-31-2008, 09:36 PM:
 
I think a fair of the blame for the lost magic of the movies has to fall back on the customers. People have become so used to watching movies in the comfort of their living rooms, that they have forgotten the etiquette that goes along with watching movies in a shared environment. The talk and text on their cell phones, they talk to each other, put their feet up as if it's a recliner (I admit that I'm sometimes guilty of this one). And when confronted, many have the attitude of "I paid my $10, I have a right to watch the movie".

I almost never get a chance to see a movie with the crowds on opening weekend. I'm either watching by myself late at night or I'm going on the weekdays when it's not very crowded. When there is a good movie on the screen, I find I'm not so critical of all the other things. Last night I went to the Rialto theatre in Santa Rosa to watch Doubt and The Reader. Both movies were on relatively small screens and for The Reader I could hear the projector chatter the whole time. But I enjoyed both movies and plan to visit this theatre again.

I can honestly say that I'm more concerned about the quality of the film than the quality of the presentation - as long as it's not distractingly bad. I can't recall ever deciding to skip a movie in the theatre just because it might look better on my TV at home.

Probably the biggest change in my movie going habits is I'm more selective about what I watch. The last 6 movies I paid for were Doubt, The Reader, Frost/Nixon, Milk, Slumdog Millionaire, and The Boy in the Striped Pajamas. But I'll still go see somethings I'm less interested in just to pass the time.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-31-2008, 09:42 PM:
 
That's what you get for turning 40. Imagine how Phil must feel!
 
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-01-2009, 02:06 PM:
 
quote: Justin Hamaker
fair of the blame for the lost magic of the movies has to fall back on the customers
But, if a theatre owner can have the right tact and knowhow, he can bring those customers back by rejuvinating that magic in his cinema.

But true though: we're in a different generation of the industry now were the majority of our prospective customers really don't know what the definition of "theatre magic" is.

They're used to the "McCinema" form of operation: get them in, show them the movie, and get them out and repeat the cycle for the next set.

Also, in the "McCinema" form of operation is the "McJob" work atmosphere: staff that are almost in a 'robotic' form of customer service to the patrons: deadpan attitudes and appearances.

Booth personnel with the same attitude: built the print, thread the machine, push "PLAY" and walk away without having a clue on ensuring what is presented on the screen.

Dang! "Ronald McDonald" really set the tone for our workforce these days....

Oh, and a "HAPPY NEW YEAR to all!"
-Monte
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-01-2009, 03:36 PM:
 
It is exhibition and Hollywood's fault. That is, between the two, they've taken the profit out of actually showing the movie so the exhibitor HAS to worry mostly about the concession stand.

As a result, the whole theatre environment has changed. The theatres are not ushered anymore...which has taught the most recent generations that it is okay to talk and be disruptive.

The Theatres themselves are also pretty piss-poor. Not that they don't have up-sides but "pre-show entertainment" isn't one of them. Stadium seating was an outgrowth of inept auditorium designs with piss-poor sight lines. A well designed theatre doesn't have sight line problems, slope-floor or stadium. If you are going to do a stadium...DON'T have people walk down to the front of the theatre and then CLIMB their way back. The lack of such luxuries like curtains move the cinema experience closer to something less special...they are part of the atmosphere. Speaking of wall coverings...acoustic treatment...DO IT...the RT60 should be proper and the STC isolation should be high (in excess of STC-70 with STC-75 being a better goal). Projection and Sound...whats cheapest isn't normally what is best....it the big picture, it translates to the overall experience.

One of the things I learned early on in my career was that EVERY theatre is an ambassador to the industry...a failure at any theatre, even if it isn't in your chain, sends a negative impression about the entire industry...not just about that one bad theatre.

Hollywood...STOP REMAKING MOVIES THAT WERE ALREADY GOOD...write NEW ones. And they have to be good stories BEFORE you start adding effects and crap. Shoot the movies in the best format of the day (whatever the day may be). Right now, it is 65mm, not 35mm and not digital. The higher the quality of the original, the better it is going to look for all time...not just on the release date. Cheapening out on production, hurts the movie. I've rarely seen where over-paid actors really helped the movie, particularly long-term. Sure there are some high-power talent that can pull-in extra grosses but look at some of the highest grossing films of all time...they don't necessarily have high-power actors in them (especially not high-end actors when the movies were made....think Star Wars...The three main characters were practically nobodies when it came out...the biggest actor in the film, Sir Alec Guiness was NOT the draw in that film).

For me, movies used to be fun escape. The shows, by and large, were well presented in interesting theatres. Nowadays, they seem to be just something to do if all else fails. There are exceptions, of course.

As to Jesse's 200-seat rule. That one I disagree with. Some of the best auditoria in the world are quite intimate. Seat count also does not necessarily convey theatre size. I'll put Silver III (AFI/Silver) up against many an auditorium many times larger. Technically, it is very good though it is only 75-seats. I'll put Silver II at only 200-seats (the bottom of Jesse's seat count) against about 99% of the theatres out there. I wish it had a curved screen...but that is my personal preference.

Steve
 
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 01-01-2009, 04:01 PM:
 
Do you think some of it is your tastes and standards just changed? I swore I would never like coffee when I was young - or classical music. I also used to think it was a good idea to get in line hours before the Pantera concert so I could fight for 2 hours to keep on the front rail, ending up drenched in sweat and beer and unable to hear much for three days. Not so much any more.

I don't watch as many movies as I did before, but its not because of the theatres. Like you said, Pravin, its largely variations of the same movie. 30 years ago, you probably saw variations of older movies too, but you were just seeing them for the first time, so to you they weren't variations.

I think another reason may be that you have more money as an adult. Movies are relatively cheap entertainment, but as you establish a career, you have money for new hobbies. I like guns and like to shoot - something I didn't have the money to support until the past few years. I still enjoy movies, but am very selective. I'd rather go hunting than sit through an Adam Sandler picture.
 
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 01-01-2009, 04:39 PM:
 
quote: Steve Guttag
If you are going to do a stadium...DON'T have people walk down to the front of the theatre and then CLIMB their way back
Unfortunately a lot of the blame for the design of stadium seating is the result of ADA lawsuits. Theatres have been sued for not having accessible seating near the center of the auditorium or for positioning the accessible seating where people will be walking in front of them.

The various ADA regulations are something that really bother me. I fully agree with the concept of providing reasonable accommodations to those who are disabled. However, the overwhelming majority of the population (I'm guessing close to 99%) should not be deprived of better accommodations or a subject to diminished experience for the benefit of a small minority.

With regard to the sound proofing, I have to give my boss some major props for how our other location was built. Each auditorium was a separate pour and the walls have 3 layers of overlapping plywood. There is zero sound bleed between auditoriums - not even from heavy base. The auditoriums are so still and quite that you can actually hear it when you walk in.
 
Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 01-01-2009, 06:37 PM:
 
Yes Justin, regulators completely stuffed our cinema, without proper understanding of the regulations.
Despite a consultant’s recommendations for a good layout, the authorities insisted on a more expensive inferior set-up which reduced our seating capacity by 20%, mostly from the centre and the back. We did fight to retain the original disability facilities because our customers with disabilities still prefer that access over the politically correct one. Also, they get two means of escape there, as opposed to the single cattle-run of the new improved access.
Petitions, letters, meetings were useless against the obstnancy of local government.
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-01-2009, 07:26 PM:
 
quote: Justin Hamaker
Unfortunately a lot of the blame for the design of stadium seating is the result of ADA lawsuits. Theatres have been sued for not having accessible seating near the center of the auditorium or for positioning the accessible seating where people will be walking in front of them.
Not quite...mostly the reverse is true. That is, poorly designed stadium seating theatres that have generated ADA suits. If you design a theatre that forces everyone to walk to the front, then turn around to climb back...you get an ADA type suit...why? Because the wheelchair bound folks get to sit in the front....only. Stadiums should be much closer to "center-loader as possible. Somewhere between 1/3 and 2/3rds up...it puts your ADA people in a fighting chance of "prime seats" and it has the remaining folks not too far from where ever they want to sit (never more than 1/2 an auditorium away and often within a row or two).

I still like a properly designed slop-floor best...no sight-line problems, no tripping in the dark, can easily accommodate all.

Steve
 
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-01-2009, 07:33 PM:
 
quote: Steve Guttag
Stadiums should be much closer to "center-loader as possible.
I've noticed that in new stadium designs around here that have been built - the house almost split in half with a large walkway inbetween the conventional sloped floor and the stadium part with the ADA seating along the back part of the walkway. Plus a walkway down the middle, or off-center of the sloped (good ol' "shotgun style" seating), with the option for the handicapped people to be down in the conventional part of the auditorium.

Having this seating concept of a split house also lowers the ceiling down quite a bit, thus saving on sq footage for construction costs.

In some large venues that have full stadium houses, for ADA seating was the placement of a large carpeted landing in back of the house behind the last row of seats for the handicapped, that ran the full width of the house. Also, the complex would have elevator service for the handicapped patrons to access to get to the back of these houses in which there was a complete second floor to the complex - which includes access to the multiple booths that were installed.

EDIT:

quote: Steve Guttag
...that EVERY theatre is an ambassador to the industry...a failure at any theatre, even if it isn't in your chain, sends a negative impression about the entire industry...not just about that one bad theatre.
..and it's just too bad how some of the cinema businesses have forgotten this one small trait - by not following this, it's putting a smear on their 'resume' to the public.

-Monte

[ 01-01-2009, 08:48 PM: Message edited by: Monte L Fullmer ]
 
Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 01-02-2009, 02:18 PM:
 
Chad, you are right that for me it is more of the movie jadedness than the theater jadedness. But then again, I was able to appreciate this summer's slate of movies (Ironman, TDK) compared to the last few summers. So I do think quality has gone down in general in recent years. So if we get more summers like this year's, I probably would regain a part of that mojo though like you said, age will have its own effect in not being as excited about some regular fun movies as you did as a kid. I can live with that.

Still I was excited to stand in line for the IMAX presentation of TDK with the same excitement I had for Lethal Weapon/Die Hard back in my teen years. Also I knew that if I waited for homevideo to watch TDK, the IMAX scenes would look less than imposing with the aspect ratio not playing as majestic on your 16x9 tv. Kill Bill was pretty much a ripoff of many older movies, yet I couldn't wait to watch that movie as soon as it came out because it was made well. And that came out during the period my jadedness set in.

But one important factor for me is the lack of differentiation in quality between Pay Cable entertainment(cable series, direct to video sleepers, shortened video release windows) and movie theater releases. Add that to the home theater quality I have touched upon, there is nothing special anymore to go to a routine release in a movie theater.It may not be a big deal for the studio as they have their hands in the competing revenue too. But for someone nostalgic about moviegoing in the theater experience, it is kind of a letdown.

It is not enough for a multiplex to be just average. You could get away with that in the 80s when competing forms of entertainment were less, VHS was lame, video windows were long.
So the multiplexes should have continued the progress multiplexes showed in the 90s with digital sound becoming common and stadium seating drawing in people. It is not enough to be just the same anymore especially. If Nolan is thinking of filming even more stuff in IMAX, would it have been tough to push regular 70MM which is cheaper and easier to make and exhibit than IMAX? And if that wasnt enough, I think audiences really liked it when they would go to a main auditorium in a megaplex and the screen widened for a 2.35:1 movie and this was for a 35MM production. TDK has proven that people will respond to big format done right.
 
Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 01-08-2009, 04:22 PM:
 
It's probably also due to the fact that most film production today is aimed at teenagers / twenty-somethings and has been for a long time. Once north of 35 it's sayonara unless you're into arthouse / world cinema, and classics, as mentioned.

quote: Jesse Skeen
The problem is that the big companies seem to have completely lost the concept of the "experience" part of going to the movies. A lot of recently-built complexes have common-width screens, which really shouldn't be done.
That's exactly it. The rot set in when Cinema was subsumed into the "leisure" and "retail" industry. In a newspaper here about 2 years ago there was a report of a new multiplex that had opened in a regional town. But they didn't call it a cinema...no, it was an "outlet" of the cinema chain, and the story was carried in the "business" section of the paper.

Cinema needs to be decoupled from "retail" and to stand on its own feet again. Less screens, better design, longer runs, stand alone locations back in the heart of communities...maybe going back to go forward [Wink]
 
Posted by Don Furr (Member # 1469) on 01-08-2009, 04:45 PM:
 
The last theatre I attended was the Mann's Chinese out in Hollywood....Nov.1 of last year. But that's only because I always go to the Chinese when I'm in the LA area. It use to be a great experience (a year ago it was Digital) but this time it was 35mm and the print was scratched on the 2 showing and the film was jumping in the gate for the first 15 minutes.
Back here in Atlanta it's been 5 or 6 months since I've been to a show. The biggest turn off.....morons talking at full volume for most of the movie. I can get through the weak plots, bad acting, a scratch here and there but I can't get past the constant chattering. And no matter where we decide to sit, the idiots sit within 6 feet of us. For me it's a no win. I'm just about done going to the movies. Screw it.
 
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 01-08-2009, 11:52 PM:
 
For the longest time, I used to think "mojo" was a euphemism for penis.

"I Got My Mojo Workin'," "Take Your Hands Off My Mojo," "Mr. Mojo Rising," et.al.
 
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-09-2009, 12:41 AM:
 
quote: Tim Reed
Mr. Mojo Rising
(..ah, Mr. Jim Morrison of "the DOOR'S" from the song "L.A. Woman"..)

terminology could be used either way, yet it was the African-Americans who coined that term for their belief in magic charms - something "close" to them.

Thus, Mr. Ratnam lost his 'mojo' due to the lack of the 'magic in the cinemas.'

-Monte
 
Posted by Edwin Schwing (Member # 1270) on 01-10-2009, 12:57 AM:
 
I do not often agree with Jesse, but here is a quote from him that I agree with whole heartedly!

"An ideal theater is one that people will want to go to REGARDLESS of what movie is playing there- even if there's nothing but crap out, at least they'll know it's being presented the best it can be, and the theater itself should be reason enough to go out. At the end of the movie, customers should be thinking "I can't WAIT to see another movie here!" instead of the usual "let's get the hell out". I don't know what it will take for the powers that be to realize this. They seem to think they're doing everything right as long as not too many people complain about anything, and whenever shows play to an audience of zero they blame it on the movie- it couldn't possibly be that their screens are too small, prices too high or their general presentation is sub-par."

Jesse, I work at a small chain that at least "tries" to do these things for our customers. I will bring this up at our meeting this coming week, in fact I will print what you wrote out for them! I will hand it to them personally! We do not have small screens nor do we charge the high prices (we are a whole 25 cents less than them!) ha ha

BUT, the new theatre has taken away our "percentage" of gross, and that is what the "powers that be" are looking at. While we still maintain the highest percap in the company!

Great Points Jesse! Thanks for that, I couldn't have said it better myself!

Edwin
 
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-10-2009, 04:33 AM:
 
quote: Jesse Skeen
If I may be so bold, I think small auditoriums (with under 200 seats) simply should not be included in new complexes either. The effect of many of these is like being shoved into a broom closet, and it says that you're a loser for choosing the movie playing there- the people seeing the "cool" movie got the bigger auditorium, but at least you got to pay the same price they did. If there isn't enough business to warrant playing it with a larger seating capacity, don't bother playing it at all- I'll just wait til I can watch it at home
Course, you know why megaplexes do this is to balance out the multiscreen releases of one print - big house, medium house, and small house.

If one movie was played in all three big houses, that spells disaster to keep the movie there longer and turns zero profit for the cinema since most of the weekend grosses went to the studios.

Also, sometimes, if the movie has been previewed by the bookers and give it a thumbs down, they'll book it anywhos, but in a small house, just to keep the studios happy to have the cinema show to the studios that this complex will play anything that is thrown at them .. and secure the major releases down the road.

Studios may call the first shot and have the control, but it's up to the cinemas to play ball and join them if they want to keep the business.

That is a good statement by Jesse - I fully agree with it as well.

-Monte
 
Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 01-10-2009, 10:22 AM:
 
Over the holidays, I managed to use the AMC giftcards I received from my uncle last Christmas (this shows how many movies I see at the theater during the year) and found out I actually liked seeing movies on the big screen again. However, it was a full house, and I ended up having to sit next to some really old couple, and the husband kept rifling through the popcorn bag at least till 3/4th of the way into movie. And he was doing it really loudly and only taking a few kernels at a time. Fortunately, his wife finally got irritated and shushed him and he stopped. Sigh...
 
Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 01-10-2009, 11:00 AM:
 
Last summer I went to see IJ4 in a stadium theater that probably seats several hundred. I sat in the center of the very last row which put my sight line about center screen. Two people came in after the trailers and sat within two seats of me and proceeded to have a not to quiet conversation. When I politely asked them to be quiet they moved away but stared at me as if I was the one who was out of place. There were only about 20 people in the theater and those bozos had to sit near me. That is why I rarely go out to a movie.
 
Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 01-10-2009, 12:42 PM:
 
There was a time when Honolulu had some elegant theatres but they are all gone now. One of them was the old Waikiki later to become Waikiki #3 after Pacific Theatres opened the just as elegant Waikiki #1 and #2. The original Waikiki was a huge house with a seating capacity of a thousand. Boxoffice magazine had a two page article about this theatre when it was refurbished with with 70mm and a awesome new sound system as well as new wall drapes and new seats. It was a pity to lose the wonderful rainbow arch over the screen as well as the artificial tropical plant and trees on both sides of the auditorium. During the thirties and up to the fifties, the Waikiki had a ceiling that had thousands of little lights that looked like stars. Watching a movie in that house was like being outside enjoying the latest films from Hollywood during a starlit evening in a tropical environment. All of the theatre ushers wore white satin top and bottoms with a blue sash and looked very classy. This was actually the dress uniform at all of the locally owned Consolidated Amusement company theatres before it was taken over by Los Angeles based Pacific Theatres. Beside the original Waikiki and it's twin the #1 & the #2, there was the Kuhio, Hawaii, Cinerama, Princess, Royal and my beloved Waipahu that had made going to movies very exciting and something to look forward to. Nobody talked during a show and concession food was very affordable. Today, a soda is over $3.00 and popcorn is about $5.50 not to mention hot dogs that sell for about $3.00 or more. Instead of exciting 70mm in large beautiful houses, we get digital projection and 3-D in multiplexes that does not excite me too much. Blabbermouths, crying babies, idiots using or playing with their cel phones have also made me change my movie going habit to waiting a very short period of time and watch the same movie at home. The only thing things that make me see a film in theatres now is when I get a free movie ticket from a DVD promotion or cannot wait until the film is released on DVD because of an anxiety to see it now.

-Claude
 
Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 01-10-2009, 01:01 PM:
 
The Cineplexes killed the moviegoing experience. Single and dual or max tripple screens were enough to keep grand openings and a lot of public. Before people actually cared about which films were opening. Today almost nobody cares, the just go at a Cineplex and choose which movie they will see.
Demetris
 
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-10-2009, 01:40 PM:
 
When we attend movies, I always wait til it has pretty well played itself out. This way, we almost have the whole auditorium to ourselves.

I have to share an interesting story that goes back to 1985 - "Back to the Future" my future wife and I attended...

Big ol' twin: one side with 600 seats with 35/70mm (Century "JJ" machine) capability and the other side with 450 seats.

We were in the 600 seat side attending a weekday matinee and the film was on it's last legs figuring that it'd be a quiet afternoon.

RIGHT! we and a few other couples were scattered around in this house. We were dead center in the house. 5 minutes before the movie began, a family with 5 noisy children JUST had to sit next to us. Whole auditorium they could have had, but just had to sit right next to us. I couldn't get over that one ...

We immediately got up and moved back three rows. The parents looked at us like "why are you moving?" I gave a stern look back like "you figure it out!"

..some people...yet,they 'shushed' the kids down when the feature began and it was pretty good after that...to enjoy the movie.

-Monte
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-10-2009, 03:52 PM:
 
quote: Demetris Thoupis
The Cineplexes killed the moviegoing experience.
The multiplex theaters share some of the blame. A big part of the blame goes to selfishly disruptive people in the audience. These ADD/OCD idiots need an education in manners. The crap they pull just contaminates the whole movie-going experience, even if you're in a really good movie theater. The movie theater industry really needs to crack down on that nonsense and do so very seriously. I think it's the top reason people have for not going to a movie theater to see a movie. I certainly hear more complaints about rude audience members than I do about high prices for tickets and snack counter items.

Typical multiplex theaters with tiny auditoriums don't help the situation either. If a couple is going to spend upwards of $30 or more to see a movie (cost for a pair of tickets and some junk food from the snack counter) the experience ought to be better than McDonald's style. Not very many theaters deliver that.

The old movie palaces and certain modern "flagship" class movie theaters had the advantage of getting a "whoa, now this is a movie theater" kind of reaction when the customers would enter the auditorium. When I lived in New York City some movie theaters were located not far from where I lived in Staten Island (or later in Brooklyn) -but I did all my movie going in Manhattan because more theaters there provided that "whoa, now this is a big theater" kind of experience. The Northpark 1-2 in Dallas delivered the same kind of thing -not to mention the presentation quality was even better than what I typically saw in Manhattan. Some ordinary shoe-box multiplex house just isn't equipped to deliver that kind of thrill.

Certain new movie theaters are trying to strike a balance between the two extremes. Some Harkins theater sites have at least one screen in a multiplex with a high capacity room and giant sized screen -although they don't have seat counts above 1000 or any 70mm projection capability (and the sound systems need to be looked after more frequently). Warren Theaters is doing the same thing, but installing even more ornate decor, working harder on the presentation quality and throwing in perks like adult balcony seating and full bar service.

As Blu-ray and HDTV in general becomes much more prevalent in the home I think movie theater operators will have to do more innovative things to make movie-going a quality out of the home experience. Installing 3D alone isn't going to cut it.
 
Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 01-10-2009, 04:51 PM:
 
quote: Don Furr
The last theatre I attended was the Mann's Chinese out in Hollywood....Nov.1 of last year. But that's only because I always go to the Chinese when I'm in the LA area. It use to be a great experience (a year ago it was Digital) but this time it was 35mm and the print was scratched on the 2 showing and the film was jumping in the gate for the first 15 minutes.
My last experience at the Chinese was way back in the 80's during the 70mm run of "the Right Stuff", and it was a nightmare experience. To start off, the boob in the booth (hereafter known as BITB) was threading the machine with the mag hot and no non-sync. So we got to hear the track from whatever scrap film was being used as the leader. I'm already starting to fume and my sister and best friend are waiting for me to explode.

Showtime comes and goes, the film starts almost ten minutes late. We are greeted with the SMPTE leader and track on the closed drape, which opened barely in time for the start of the show. The focus was soft (corrected after ten minutes) and the sound was missing the left channel (throughout).

Now most theatres I'd been to ran the intermission at the end of reel six, where Deke Slayton dives into the mermaid bar's tank and swims with the girls. Great spot to take the break as there is some nice "deedle-deedle" lounge music , and the next reel opens with reporters climbing a fence to get to the astronaut's wives. Well, at the Chinese some jackass decided to simply cut the film when the platter was full, because the break at the Chinese came at the end of the scene where the astronauts, in full suits, walk up a corridor to the camera (right before Shepard's flight.) This not only destroyed the dramatic impact of that transition, but we were now greeted with the abrupt cutoff of the music, the tail of the reel running out, complete with tones and "Right Stuff, reel Eight AB, Print #... " from the sound system, then white screen.

Now I'm royally pissed as is most of the 300 plus audience. I announced in a loud voice that just one more fuck-up and I'm getting my money back. That was met with a lot of agreement by the rest of the suffering audience. [Smile]

Well, they didn't let us down. [Smile] First we AGAIN got to hear the leader being dragged thru the mag, and run up and stopped. The lights dim the picture comes on.. and it an UPSIDE-DOWN image of a trucking shot of some house or pagoda-looking building!! We then hear the last few notes of the music from the preceding scene before we now get the correct image.

As the credit roll started I stormed into the lobby, tailed by about 50 other people, which soon grew to over 200. I read that manager the riot act, and got refunds for the ENTIRE group!!

What a total cock-up. I swore to never go to that over-hyped dump again. And based on Don's post as quoted above, looks like nothing's changed.

If one of the most renowned theatres IN THE WORLD can't do a show right, it's no wonder this industry is so fucked.

I fully blame management for tolerating a BITB, and not doing anything about it. I blame the projection union local for allowing incompetents to remain on the job in such a high-profile location (and I'm NOT anti-union). I just call 'em as I see 'em.

Now, anyone remember SRO? They had a wonderful 5-plex in La Mirada, Calif. (Gateway 5) When SRO had it, talk about film done right!!! Sharp, bright, nicely-sized images, sloped floors, great sound (Dolby SR and DTS) and..hold on to your units.. WATERFALL DRAPES!! IN EVERY HOUSE!! All five auditoria were average sized, about 200-250 seats. (Sorry Jesse, this location disproved your 200 rule) IIRC all five were 70mm capable. Screen floodlights, used tastefully. The Drape was raised and lowered between trailers and feature, and timed perfectly. The only negative I could say about it was the projection port was one of those single-pane, big swing-open windows, so you could hear the projectors.

Front of house, an actual doorman in tux and tie, (elderly gent) with white gloves. Greeted each guest or group as they entered. Whole staff in nice uniforms, despite being teens they were ALL very polite and smiled. Manager was virtually ALWAYS in the lobby, not hiding in his office and he also greeted patrons.

Saw "Amadeus" there in 70mm. Beautiful presentation first time around. Second time (about mid-run) had one minor glitch. a splice at the worst possible moment which drew unintentional laughs. (As Salieri is waxing poetic about hearing Mozart's first piece, there was a drop in sound right after the line "...a single note, hanging there unwavering... ") I let the manager know and was told by my friend that the NEXT DAY the reel had been replaced.

Fast forward, some years later. SRO goes under, Pacific takes over.. went to see "Twister" (OK, shitty movie, but.. ) Great staff all gone, uniforms the hideous Pacific robots, attitudes suck, into auditorium for show, no screen lights, drape is up, show starts late, out of frame and out of focus, sound was absolute SHIT in both DTS and SR, worse in SR..and we knew this because it kept reverting rapidly the whole show. Absolute second-worst presentation I'd been to.

After show, fifteen minutes to get to talk to manager, asked about why drapes not in use.. "because kids kept grabbing and riding them up.." [Roll Eyes] told him about shit sound, said tech was just there "last week", etc. After a lot of arguing I did get a refund.

And people wonder why the last film I went to see in the theater was "Star Wars Ep. 1, Phantom Mess"..

Like a lot of folks, I just wait for the video and enjoy a clean presentation on my HD TV and Blu-Ray.
 
Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 01-10-2009, 06:43 PM:
 
“Your attitude is extremely rude an I have never been so insulted” is a typical response from those we tell to stop talking. We know they are talking because we can hear them from the other side of the theatre. They usually add “I am never coming here again!” to which I respond “Please keep your promise.” Now that is rude and insulting and if they want to further chastise me I let them know company policy is to maintain civilised behaviour.

Sometimes the incident is followed by a letter that describes their actions as a brief whisper to their companion and unworthy of the rude and bullying behaviour of the staff member in question, who should be flogged. Of course, all of their friends will be told.

The culprits are unaware of how selfish their behaviour is. They need to speak. They need to use their phone. They need to relax while their children run riot.

One thing I can’t understand is the U.S. practice of selling hot greasy foods. The only hot stuff we sell is popcorn. We don’t allow hot meals into the theatre. Sitting next to someone eating a hamburger or hot chips (fries) in a theatre is no fun. Naturally, when we ask patrons to finish their meal outside, we are abused for spoiling their lunch/dinner/breakfast.

I can see why some theatres are reluctant to deal with inconsiderate actions. You are attacked and it is unpleasant.

However, our little cinema, despite its shortcomings, punches above its weight at the box office, particularly with the over 30s.
 
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-10-2009, 11:26 PM:
 
quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
enjoy a clean presentation on my HD TV and Blu-Ray.
..what I tell booth clowns about their presentations: "When you watch a movie on your HD TV units, you expect an excellent presentation ... why can't you do it here when you work?"

Like - "What's the difference?"

-Monte
 
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 01-11-2009, 12:32 AM:
 
I was as a 5 screen art house about 2 weeks ago and found that even their audience isn't immune for discourteous behavior. While it's nowhere near as bad as you get in a typical multiplex, there were still people who talk during the movie. On the whole, this was a more mature and relatively educated crowd - at 35 I was probably in the bottom 20% of patrons.

One thing this theatre did which I really liked was place announcements within their intermission music. While their messages were mainly to direct people to the emergency exits, I thought this would be a fantastic way to insert announcements like "For everyone's enjoyment, we ask you to turn off your cell phones and refrain from talking during the feature".
 
Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 01-11-2009, 09:03 AM:
 
I'm 57 and I'm seeing about 1-2 movies per week, especially this time of year when there are some of the more interesting films on the screens. In fact, I'm not sure I'll even get to see all of the films I want to see in the next 3 weeks.

Our secret to movie-going is the Weekend Early Shows at AMC. On Friday, Saturday & Sunday, AMC opens almost all of their films with a $5 admission. Not only is this the cheapest time of the week, those who like to talk loudly through films are usually not up that early! We also like it as we can see a film and then still have a full day to get errands and house jobs done.

It is also nice that we are fortunate enough to have an AMC 24-plex about 3 miles from us! And a 30-plex across town in an area with some EXCELLENT restaurants!!
 
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 01-11-2009, 06:14 PM:
 
quote: Justin Hamaker
I was as a 5 screen art house about 2 weeks ago and found that even their audience isn't immune for discourteous behavior.
I went to see REVOLUTIONARY ROAD at an art house last week, and it was one of the worst audiences I've seen a movie with in a long time. In addition to all of the usual people talking, you've got all of the hoity-toity people shushing the talkers. They're just as annoying as the talkers, and usually louder. So then you've got all these other people who start laughing, because the whole thing is ridiculous, and then the shushers shush them, and it's just a whole vicious cycle. In addition to all of this going on at the start of the show, we also had a guy snoring in the back (which is understandable, given the movie).

I've found that seeing art house films in a mainstream theater is a preferable experience, because the audience is usually well behaved, and you don't get that icky pretentious feeling all over.
 
Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 01-11-2009, 11:21 PM:
 
I have been to a theatre once in the last 18 months. Not so much because of noisy audiences, excessively loud sound and poor screen performances (although that seems to be the norm in most multiplexes I've attended) but because the industry is turning out very little I find appealing. The garbage that hits the screen these days almost makes me ashamed to be a part of the exhibition field.
 
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-12-2009, 02:04 AM:
 
..like "Disaster Movie" and this coming up "Dance Movie" ... yeech!
 
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 01-12-2009, 02:18 AM:
 
Robert, if you want to restore your faith in movies, check out THE DARK KNIGHT when it's re-released in a couple of weeks. It's extraordinarily close to perfection.

Personally, I think movies are better now than they have ever been, and will continue to get better as time goes on.

I think that people tend to think that older movies are better because they generally remember the good ones, and it takes time to recognize classics as such.

Whatever the case may be, there's plenty of quality options available. Sure, there's a lot of garbage out there. There always is. But then when I see something like THE DARK KNIGHT, how could I possibly complain?
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-12-2009, 09:58 AM:
 
quote: Mike Schindler
Sure, there's a lot of garbage out there. There always is.
That's for sure....anytime somebody says today's movies are all garbage, I tell them to go look at our website and find the old movie calendars, and be amazed at how much crap there was in just about any month of any year.
 
Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 01-12-2009, 11:11 AM:
 
I read these posts in this thread and I wish I could open my own theatre.

Like many things in our modern society, the 'magic' is gone. I don't want to sound like an old man, but things don't get done like they used to.

I always dream about the day that I can open my own theatre and show the world the way it supposed to be done (ushers in suits, waterfall curtains, clean presentation). My hope is that people (young and old) will walk out of there and feel the way I did when I was a kid. 100% professional from the front sidewalk to the back exit.

I haven't seen a theatre in years that puts the 'show' in show business anymore. That's the reason I chose this profession, the reason I wanted to be in it. This July it will be 20 years for me. I sometimes feel I wasted my time getting involved in a business that seems to care less about the customers that walk through the door (in general).

I long for the day I can be proud of what I do again.........
 
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-12-2009, 12:59 PM:
 
Check out this opening webpage. The owner is planning to do such .. to bring back "The Magic of the Cinema", and the lost art of "Showmanship".

-Monte
 
Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 01-12-2009, 01:41 PM:
 
quote: Dennis Benjamin
<snip> ....show the world the way it supposed to be done (ushers in suits, waterfall curtains, clean presentation).
Dennis, check out my post on page 2 about how SRO Theatres used to run the La Mirada Gateway 5. Exactly what you seek to do, and it was a huge success. That theatre was ALWAYS packed, even on weekday matinees.

I think the reason SRO went under was it expanded too rapidly for their own good...
 
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 01-12-2009, 01:46 PM:
 
I'm just catching up on this thread, and I whole-heartedly agree with Pravin's position. I don't know if it's an age thing, because even though I am now 40, I've felt very disenchanted with going out to the movies for quite some time.

I am a huge movie fan. There are very few things I would rather do with my free time than watch a movie. I like classic movies as well as contemporary movies, romances as much as action flicks, and there is very little I will refuse to watch if given the opportunity.

In 2008, I probably watched four dozen movies, if not more. However, I saw probably four or five of them in a movie theater. Some of that has to do with the fact that one of my jobs is to review DVDs and Blu-ray releases, but I would watch movies no matter what. What's at issue is where I choose to watch them, and it correlates to the point of not going to the movie theater as much as we used to.

It probably corresponds to getting hooked on home theater, and that goes back to 1993. As my equipment improved, the theatrical experience has gradually diminished as the best way to experience a movie. This is probably furthered by a deterioration of the theatrical experience as much as it has by the improvements I've made in my home situation. As it stands right now, the single element that continues to draw me to a theater to watch a movie is the exclusivity of product.

The bottom line is that most theaters do not deserve the business. That's evidenced by the comments here as well as the feedback I get from our readers on The BigScreen Cinema Guide. I just received a message from someone complaining about broken seats and dirty bathrooms at a local theater. How apt is that person to return to that theater the next time they want to watch a movie? Not likely. And when theaters are spread out (the next closest one was 10-15 miles away), staying home and watching something is much easier and more enjoyable.

A lot of people that I talk to that are out of the pre-25 demographic rarely watch movies in theaters any more. Once you have kids, spare time tends to go out the window, and going to a movie theater takes a lot of time out of your schedule (and costs money).

Going to a movie theater is not an event. The comparison to McDonalds isn't even appropriate because McDonalds is all about atmosphere and the experience. It's certainly not because of the food! Going to McDonalds is fun for kids and it's something they look forward to. No one I know looks forward to going to a movie theater because the experience is going to be enjoyable, no matter if the movie is any good. No one brags about great experiences at a theater, because there aren't great experiences to be had. If the picture and sound aren't screwed up and the popcorn isn't stale and the bathrooms are decently clean, then it's not a negative experience.

That's the best that most theaters are capable of: "not a negative experience" If the exclusivity of movie availability were removed, people would cease to attend theaters. The industry knows it, and yet it is unwilling to do compete with it; choosing instead to block the repeated attempts of studios to head in that direction. It will happen, and it's just a matter of time.

I have to say that Steve's treatise is spot-on!

Studios need to find and promote original and fresh stories. As much as I will look forward to the next Batman sequel, I want to see something new and unexpected as well. There are probably such movies out there in the mix, but it is often difficult to find those in wide release if you know about them at all.

But the point has been made by previous comments; even if the movie isn't very good, it's the theater's responsibility to provide an excellent experience.

Give customers an excellent presentation combined with professionalism in exhibition. Whether that involves bringing curtains back, adding ushers to silence disruptions, and/or hiring/training employees on customer service, do it! Show the paying customers that they matter and they will return. Dismiss them as stupid and a bother, and they'll be very happy to sign up for Netflix so that you aren't bothered any more.

I would disagree on the 200-seat comment. I think that theaters should become smaller, not larger. After all, would you rather have auditoriums that were full or empty if you were a theater owner? I'd think that you'd want them full, because you can always run a movie in multiple screens if you need to, and when you have low attendance, it's not so painfully obvious to the five people that show up.

Most home theaters are decorated 10x better than most theater auditoriums. Take a look at any of the designs by Theo Kalimirakis, and you'll see what can be done to create unique experiences! Instead of eight 300-seat auditoriums, why not mix it up and have 2-3 large screens if you need to, and then add more 100-seaters, with a total of 12-15 screens in the same square footage?

Give customers a great experience and they'll be happy even if the movie sucked. That's the best outcome a theater can hope for, and the responsibility is squarely on the theater's shoulders. No whining about bad product spoiling business and blaming others for their troubles. Theaters need to take responsibility for their own futures and compete for their customers' attention and money.

Boy, every once in a while, I get started, and I just can't stop! I had to delete several paragraphs of ranting and examples just to end up with a way-too-long commentary anyway!
 
Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 01-12-2009, 02:12 PM:
 
Regarding size, big theatres are important to me as a moviegoer. Most people have a seating preference. Some like the back; the front, the middle, etc. If there are only 100 seats in the whole auditorium, then there are a lot fewer seats in each "zone" to pick from, and you are more likely to be stuck somewhere you don't want to be.

And screen size is a huge deal. That dinosaur screaming at me should be life-size. The starship flying overhead should blow me away.

At home, I sit 12' away from a 9' wide screen. If I'm paying $10 and hiring a sitter, you'd better do significantly better than that.
 
Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 01-12-2009, 03:03 PM:
 
I'm 40 years old and my visits to movie theatres started dwindling back around 2004-2005. I went to see a movie myself recently (Four Christmases) for the first time in 2 and a half years. The main reasons I rarely go the movies anymore are:

1. Drastically increased advertisements in the pre-show material starting a few years ago. I was always OK with 4 movie previews and then the feature, rather than a bunch of advertisements, then the previews, then the movie. I've literally felt tired at times in a theatre before the movie even started. Previews let me know what I want to come back to see. Advertisements make me want to leave and not come back.

2. The replacement of slides with an obnoxious "entertainment and advertising" show that makes it difficult to chat with friends before the movie. It makes going to a theatre even less of a social experience than it already wasn't, plus, it greatly increases the perceived "wait time" before getting to watch the actual movie.

3. The continual general decline of film presentation and audio quality. It doesn't matter if a theatre has a digital sound system in every auditorium and advertises it. What is the probability that it will actually be operational and the movie not playing in analog with a neglected, uncalibrated optical reader?

4. The ability to watch practically any movie I want on my widescreen HDTV with DVD and have a good image and better sound than many theatres have. I can calibrate and control the image, sound, and environment way I want. If I need to use the bathroom, I can pause the movie and not worry about missing anything.

5. The increased number of distractions from other moviegoers, most of whom now have a cell phone screen that is really bright in the dark auditorium, and the cell phones are open a lot, not so much from talking, but from texting during the show. Seat kickers and crying babies will always be a problem.

6. The decline in quality of the movies themselves over time.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-12-2009, 06:44 PM:
 
quote: Scott Jentsch
Going to a movie theater is not an event. The comparison to McDonalds isn't even appropriate because McDonalds is all about atmosphere and the experience.
I think the comparison of the McDonalds is quite appropriate to use regarding typical multiplex movie theaters.

There is very little, if anything remarkable at all about the McDonalds dining experience. People are getting junk food served to them in paper cartons, paper wrappers and paper cups set on a plastic tray. Servers aren't visiting customer tables to fill half empty drink glasses. It's low cost, get in and get out dining. While the surroundings in most McDonalds locations may be warmly colorful the tables and seats have all the personality of what you would find on a city bus.

Children only look forward to McDonalds based on the company's highly effective marketing campaign, which is often directed at children (not to mention minorities). The kids are thinking about the toys, the playland area and Ronald McDonald. Kids love junk food too, so that's just an added bonus.

Most multiplex theaters fall into the "fast food" area of the out of home entertainment experience, despite the high total costs of visiting the theater. They're not reaching the "fine dining" level of the analogy.

Some movie theaters are delivering a very good movie-going experience. But those theaters are sadly too few and far between. Most theaters merely have the "who cares" fast food packaging ethic when it comes to presenting movies to customers. And that even applies in certain respects to the very derivative movies that are being produced by Hollywood studios. The industry is infected by a bunch of corporate suits who have no real love for that industry. They don't understand the magic behind the movie-going experience or merely don't have any desire to deliver such a product. They're just trying to find ways to make more money, often at the expense of degrading the quality of the product they're selling.

quote: Scott Jentsch
I would disagree on the 200-seat comment. I think that theaters should become smaller, not larger. After all, would you rather have auditoriums that were full or empty if you were a theater owner?
Unless I'm watching a movie in a really high quality private screening room I am totally uninterested in small auditoriums. When the auditorium hardly seems any bigger than my living room I'm left wondering why I even paid the premium to see a movie in such a place. Tiny auditoriums may be good for a theater owner's bottom line, but it sucks in regard to the movie watching experience.

There is something about the sheer scale of watching a movie in a theater equipped with a big screen and seating capacity of over 1000. Look at the auditorium photo of Northpark #1 in Dallas (in the pictures section). I'll pick an auditorium like that over some tiny one every time. It doesn't matter to me if I am the only one in the house. Considering how inconsiderate so many audience members have become, I prefer very light crowds in movie theaters anyway. I rarely ever watch a movie during a peak time.

quote:
Most home theaters are decorated 10x better than most theater auditoriums. Take a look at any of the designs by Theo Kalimirakis, and you'll see what can be done to create unique experiences!
Most "home theaters" are not home theaters at all. That goes for the vast majority, probably 99% or more, of all "home theater" setups. Very few people have a separate movie theater room in their house. I personally know a few millionaires and none of them have dedicated movie theater rooms even though they have very nice homes.

The typical "home theater" is a TV mounted on top of a stereo system cabinet and flanked by some speakers. That's it. Everything is just average living room decor, usually stuff that doesn't have anything to do with a movie going theme. My "home theater" setup falls into that category. I have some nice equipment. But what I really have is just a big HDTV and some other good quality equipment set on a stand in my living room.

Even with that "home theater" fact properly clarified, I will agree a LOT of movie theaters really could be doing much better when it comes to providing a classy atmosphere. Most theaters just have a sort of generic kind of visual feel to them. Sadly, theater executives have some justification in cutting corners in terms of decor. I'm often disgusted by the constant vandalism to seats, arm rests, curtains, screens and other features of the theater. If you spend a fortune putting in great quality seats, you're going to be spending even more money for the steady replacement of those seats.
 
Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 01-12-2009, 11:48 PM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
Sadly, theater executives have some justification in cutting corners in terms of decor. I'm often disgusted by the constant vandalism to seats, arm rests, curtains, screens and other features of the theater. If you spend a fortune putting in great quality seats, you're going to be spending even more money for the steady replacement of those seats.

Bobby, that's one of those "chicken before the egg" type of problems. Theatre execs are reluctant to do fancy decor because of the vandalism problems, but on the other hand a fancy theatre (at least back in the days of the SRO Gateway 5, see my first post) didn't have ANY vandalism issues. Why? Because of the missing elements of today's theatres: a properly trained staff that cared, ushers that actually did their jobs instead of doing each other between shows, and a manager that got off his ass and out of the office and was a visible presence while the theater was open.

And the presence of the luxurious decor seemed to in and of itself discourage vandalism. Except for the worst dregs of society, if it isn't already trashed it seems that no one wanted to trash it.

But if you walk into a theatre (or restroom) that's already in bad shape, would you take extra care not to trash it further or care if you saw someone trashing it? Human nature would tend to be apathetic to someone further destroying something that's already destroyed. But if it was something nice or clean, hopefully at least some people would feel obligated to say something.

I hope the point came across as I'd intended, it's been a long day and I'm really tired. [Smile]
 
Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 01-13-2009, 01:42 AM:
 
You're absolutely right Tony. It has been my experience in theatres I've owned and managed that graffiti breeds more graffiti, dirty sinks breed more dirty sinks and counters and trash on the floor breeds more trash on the floor. IMO most of the corporate big boys want to slap together as many auditoriums as they can for the least amount with no thought given to either the "theatre experience" or "showmanship".
 
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 01-13-2009, 06:09 PM:
 
I guess my "small rooms" comment should have been qualified, and it might have been in my first draft...

The qualifier would be that substantial effort should be placed into designing the auditorium. Fabulous sound and picture, and attention paid to making that auditorium look like someone cared about it when they created it, goes a long way to improving the moviegoing experience, in my opinion.

One of the most impressive operating theaters that I have had the pleasure of attending was McClurg Court #1 in Chicago. The screen was big, the auditorium was big, and even the bathrooms were dramatic (but not in a Disney-esque sort of way). It was not opulent or grandly decorated by any means, but it was a huge step up from the standard stuff.

I've heard plenty of stories about the Northpark in Dallas, but never got there. I toured the now-closed Grand here in Milwaukee several years ago, and my heart ached for what it must have been like to attend a movie there in its heyday.

I'd love to see a grand auditorium, and I think every theater should have at least one. That would be where the big movies open. But it wouldn't bother me in the least to go to a smaller, say 80-100 person theater, if the quality of the presentation was high and the decor wasn't the bland crap that so many theaters consider to be status quo.

If a person of wealth can pay a designer to build a 100,000 home theater space, why can't a commercial movie theater stick an equivalent amount of effort into something that will actually make them money?

It's all about the experience, and theaters (in general) squander the opportunity they are given to provide an impressive movie-going experience.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-13-2009, 09:12 PM:
 
I think Warren Theatres is one of the few theater companies going in a positive direction. Unfortunately, it's a small, independent chain with a few theaters in Wichita, KS and a big new one in Moore, OK.

The Moore theater's two largest houses have massive screens, premium seating balconies (for adults only) and the decor throughout the site is very lavish. They have THX and Dolby Digital Cinema in all 14 houses. My only complaint is they don't have film projectors, particularly 70mm capable projectors, in the booths of the largest auditoriums (although they probably could add 70mm without much problem). Of course, that's another chicken versus egg situation. Why install 70mm projectors when Hollywood isn't making 5/70 prints? It seems like the IMAX DMR approach has taken over the niche of 70mm blowup presentation -and that's very threatened by a 2K resolution digital version.

Theaters like Bill Warren is building and the Studio Movie Grill concept represent the future of movie going. The standard stadium seated multiplex concept of the 1990s is now arguably obsolete.

The Moore Warren 14 is attracting great crowds. Plans were on the drawing board to expand the Moore Warren to 20 screens and to also build another Warren location on the north side of Oklahoma City just off the Kilpatrick Turnpike. However, those plans have apparently been put on hold indefinitely. Perhaps if the economy can get out of the toilet we might see Warren do more expansion in a couple or so years.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-13-2009, 09:43 PM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
premium seating balconies (for adults only)
We have that feature! It's too far from the screen for my tastes, but they are among our most popular seats. Although I never can understand why adults want to sit up there...we have much more leg-room in the main auditorium. But, lots of people who have tried both prefer the upstairs.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-14-2009, 10:09 AM:
 
The balcony seating at Warren Theaters features larger, more roomy seats than what is available down in the standard seating area. There's a lot more leg room since the seating rows aren't spaced closely. Waiters are available to provide food and drink service throughout the show. Full bar service is available up there. At the Moore Warren balcony customers have access to Oscar's Lounge.

On another aspect of providing good show quality, here's the specifics of the zero tolerance policy on cell phone use Warren Theaters put into effect last September:

quote: Warren Theaters web site
In response to customer complaints and demands, Warren Theatres is now enforcing a ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY on CELL PHONE usage during the on screen presentation. If theatre staff or security witnesses a customer using a cell phone during any part of the on screen presentation, that customer will be asked to leave WITHOUT a REFUND. Please turn off cell phones, or put them on vibrate before entering the auditorium, and take all calls and text messages outside of the auditorium.

 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-14-2009, 11:38 AM:
 
Our balcony seats are more cushy than the downstairs ones, but we couldn't space them any farther apart due to the construction of the floor up there - the subfloor is angled and the main floor features risers....where downstairs we have a flat raked floor so that wasn't an issue.

It's amazing but our theatre, when new, had five hundred seats, with 75 in the balcony. Now we have 196...with 44 in the balcony. The original rows were spaced only 30 inches apart! (Currently we are at 54 inches or thereabouts.)
 
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-15-2009, 03:48 AM:
 
quote: Mike Blakesley
lots of people who have tried both prefer the upstairs.
It probably comes with the atmosphere of having the unblocked view in seeing the film and not having to 'crain' the head slightly upwards to see the center of the screen.

Basically why stadium seating is the real way to go - so we can be in a more relaxed seated position to see a movie for the entire duration. It's more comfortable to look down than looking up at something when sitting down.

Do you read a book with the book high, or down? Same difference.

-Monte
 
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 01-15-2009, 03:14 PM:
 
There's a theater in my area that has a premium section, where tickets cost an extra $16 or something like that. I'd never imagine wanting to sit there because, like with Mike's theater, they're all the way in the back and at the top of the auditorium.

But my favorite part about it is that there's this huge wall that separates that section from the commonfolk. Every time I'm in there, I feel the urge to scale the wall and claim the premium seats in the name of the people!

But then I remember that that's actually a crappy place to sit, and I'd rather be closer to the screen anyway.
 
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-15-2009, 03:48 PM:
 
quote: Mike Schindler
I'd rather be closer to the screen anyway
I got a friend who's an film idiot and his all-time favorite position to watch a movie, especially if it's in 'scope, is dead center about a quarter from the front row to where he can see the entire screen as if he's looking out a large, wide picture window in the great room of a large house..

..and why he can't tolerate the "shotgun" seating designed auditoriums - no center section to sit in.

-Monte
 
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 01-15-2009, 04:02 PM:
 
I can definitely understand that. Back when McClurg Court still existed, I would always sit in the front row in the first seat to the right of the center aisle. Over the years, I moved back a little bit. As a general rule, I will sit in the row that's even with the first set of surround speakers, or if there's stadium seating, I'll sit in the first row of the stadium seating portion of the auditorium.
 
Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 01-15-2009, 04:46 PM:
 
Mike:

Even though you can see above their heads doesn't the parade of patrons going to and fro directly in front of you detract from the experience? I sometimes like the last row on the floor for that reason. Also it's impossible there to have some nitwit chatting in your ear from directly behind you.
 
Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 01-15-2009, 07:16 PM:
 
I got a little mojo back last night. [Smile]

I saw Raiders of the Lost Ark in 35mm on the 78' wide screen at the Continental in Denver with 250 respectful moviegoers. It was a beautiful print. Not perfect, but still beautiful.

There was one big mojo-killing moment, though. At the reel change after the flying wing fight ("Truck, what truck?"), the top quarter of the picture was suddenly at the bottom of the screen.

I called the box-office with my cell phone and said "I'm in Raiders right now. Please tell the projectionist to fix the film."

By the time Indy was riding down the hill on his white horse, it was fixed. (But it happened again at the end credits.)

Afterwards, I asked a manager what happened. He explained that it was a splicing error, and the film arrived so late that they didn't have time to preview it. I didn't ask for it, but he gave me a free pass.

Is this an easy mistake to make? It was pretty disappointing. This sort of thing never happens when you watch DVDs at home. [Frown]

Bottom line is, if they didn't have time to preview it, they should send someone into the booth every 20 minutes to check the reel change and fix it immediately if there are problems.

Nevertheless, seeing Raiders on a giant screen was awesome. I hope to go back next week for Star Trek II.
 
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 01-17-2009, 03:35 PM:
 
quote: Joe Tommassello
Even though you can see above their heads doesn't the parade of patrons going to and fro directly in front of you detract from the experience? I sometimes like the last row on the floor for that reason. Also it's impossible there to have some nitwit chatting in your ear from directly behind you.
I'm not opposed to the last row on the floor, and I'd usually rather sit there than going higher up into the stadium seating. But people walking past during the movie usually doesn't bother me too much, and I like that I can get up and leave more easily if I have to, too.
 
Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 01-17-2009, 05:37 PM:
 
My strong belief - backed by my own experiences and research - is that all the problems we're talking about are in some way connected to the profoundly uneconomic nature of exhibition today, where it appears that the margins available to the exhibitor are tiny.

What about that perspective? It just looks like, yes, theatres should have fully trained staff, correct design, excellent presentation (without disruptions), constantly maintained fixtures and fittings, and so on...but - how to make that possible?

quote: Monte L Fullmer
Check out this opening webpage. The owner is planning to do such .. to bring back "The Magic of the Cinema", and the lost art of "Showmanship".
Well if they can accomplish that, hats off to them and it would be fascinating to know how they do it...it would break new ground. [Cool]
 
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 01-26-2009, 02:36 PM:
 
Well, we just finished our second weekend in a row of being busier than we were over Christmas - and Christmas was pretty good. It appears as if the mojo still exists for a lot of people.
 
Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 01-26-2009, 02:59 PM:
 
I lost the movie going mojo about 20 years ago when, for professional reasons, I had to watch just about every movie that opened every week for 2 years. That did it. It was also when Jean Claude Van Damme and Steven Segal were coming out with like 3 films a year. That nailed it [Wink] (I liked JCVD the movie, btw).

Movie mojo indeed benefits from theater's personnel and "luxury touches" that are long gone from most of the industry. It survives in some small or independent theaters, but employees in large chains have little incentive to go out of the way to make sure the theater experience is as good as air travel used to be a long time ago.

I remember getting to an airport and knowing I'll be taken care of in case of any problems. Now I go to an airport KNOWING I'm gonna have lots of problems (cancelled flights, delays, missed connections, lost luggage, security problems and overweight charges ... even a bottle of water is a problem) and none of them are going to be taken care *at all*.

When I was young, going to the movie theater was a similar experience. You knew you could get your ticket quick, will have nice air-conditioning/heater on a confortable chair, and a nice bright image.

Now I go (when I go) to a theater KNOWING I'm gonna have some problem. It'll be either a long line at the BO, or people talking to cellphones, or a flickery bulb or a scratched print or a blown speaker or a piece of gum in the screen/seat. I don't know which, but something.

I'm fortunate to have some great theaters available nearby. Even though I can get in for free, I only go a couple times a year, usually because someone else's wants to go. Most of my movie watching is either in festivals or at home. Last movie I remember watching in the big (12.5m) screen was Dark Knight on a Prevost P70 SRD. I enjoyed it.
 
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 01-26-2009, 03:19 PM:
 
Losing luggage isn't a new thing. I remember having my grandfather visit us and they had lost his luggage... and that was over 20 years ago.

And movies seeming like they're amazing when you're a kid isn't that shocking. Heck, I saw a drawing I had made from when I was in 1st or 2nd grade that was supposed to be of our family. My creation had my dad looked like he was 10 feet tall in comparison to my mom and I. Quite a long time ago, I realized that he is (like myself) quite a lot shorter than average.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-26-2009, 03:38 PM:
 
I think for a lot of people, they don't lose their moviegoing mojo, they just like to stay home once they get home. In the "good old days," there was nothing else to do but go to the movies. Now there are tons of other possibilities.

I have a friend in L.A. who says he still loves going to the movies, but (his words) "Once I get home safe at night, I'd just as soon not go out again."

I think age is a huge reason alot of people stop going out for things. Meanwhile the movie industry is currently in a 5-week streak of beating last years' attendance figures for the same period.
 
Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 01-26-2009, 03:56 PM:
 
Don't get me wrong. Losing luggage is the staple of the norm in the aviation industry. But 20 years ago, when your luggage was lost, you received an apology, $100 for inmediate expenses and a phone number you could check the status. It was then delivered to your house in 24-48 hours usually. If it indeed was lost, 20-30 days later you got your $700 insurrance no-questions-asked (almost).

Now you would be amazed at the piles-and-piles-and-piles of lost luggage left around everywhere at the airports, in the actual floor of the parkways near airplanes after falling from trucks carrying it ... even full warehouses of stuff nobody will put any more efford into recovering.

And insurrance claims for unrecovered luggage that DON'T GET HONORED claiming automatically that they don't insure the items in your luggage even though it also incuded clothing, shoes, etc. They also no longer make it easy (or at all in some places) for you to repair luggage they've damaged by obvious mishandling. Had the handle in a brand-new really though $150 Samsonite smashed. What was the answer at the airline: we no longer take care of broken luggage. Next. Do they care if you travel with them again? No. And I don't, but I'm running out of airlines from my black list.

I don't really blame them. With cutthroat competition and low salaries, luggage handlers are not going to give a damm about whether the birthday present for your daughter in your luggage makes it on-time (or at all).

And it's not like you have much of a choice. Nowadays, with reduced allowance for carry-on plus higher security screenings you are FORCED to check-in a lot of stuff you could usually just take with you.

I once had the bad idea of (trying) to carry with me a power transformer from a high-end piece of audio equipment. It was (of course) heavy as hell and about your average size for a step-down 750W transformer (relatively small). Well, the security person wouln't allow me to board with it claiming it couldn't see the inside ... hell, he could see it was a transformer (didn't have a cover) and not big enough to hide a gun or even a significant knife inside ...

I wasn't going to abandon a >$1000 (I know ... high-end prices ...) piece of equipment behind, so I had to miss my flight and arrange for it to be transported by insurred courier.

Just one of many, many, many, many, many, many bad experiences with air transportations which gets worse, and worse, and worse year after year. Specially in the USA.
 
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-26-2009, 05:00 PM:
 
quote: Mike Blakesley
Once I get home safe at night, I'd just as soon not go out again."
This is an issue that a lot of theatre owners are not in tuned with: the safety of their patrons within and surrounding their premises.

Is the parking lot well illuminated, or is poorly lit?

I know of one 20yr old 6plex that does decent guns of business for their 7p shows, but for the 9's, attendence drops close to 80% of what the 7p shows received.

Why? Mainly due to the theatre's location which is behind some other businesses, including two seedy "biker" bars, poorly lit parking lots, no form of plaza security around and access to this plex in general.

Also, it all depends on how the mgmt and staff presents themselves to the public - can the patrons feel safe being in that theatre if the staff show any concern of safety and security attributes...?

..-Monte
 
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 01-26-2009, 05:08 PM:
 
quote: Monte L Fullmer
I know of one 20yr old 6plex that does decent guns of business for their 7p shows
Does this mean that during the 7 o-clock hour, the staff holds people at gun-point? [Eek!]
 
Posted by Todd Shelskt (Member # 4684) on 01-26-2009, 09:32 PM:
 
I reread "Making Movies" by Sidney Lumet. Sydney says that movies are being made more and more "by committee." Work prints are screened before they go wide. Studios need to make sure their films have a happy and/or thrilling ending or profits will be lost.

The ending of "Fatal Attraction" was changed from something thought-provoking to a "Friday the 13th" bloodbath because audiences needed it dumbed down.

We're becoming a country of cookie-cutter drones. Very apparent.

(I suggest we change the ending of "The Godfather." Al Pacino needs to have a stupid car chase with Shia LeDoofus before someone kisses his ring.)
 
Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 01-27-2009, 04:32 AM:
 
quote: Scott Jentsch
I think that theaters should become smaller, not larger. After all, would you rather have auditoriums that were full or empty if you were a theater owner?
[YODA]That, is why you fail.[/YODA]
 
Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 12-16-2011, 05:53 AM:
 

It has been 1053 days since the last post.


 
Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 12-16-2011, 05:53 AM:
 
3 years later, wow, I am going less and less. I find myself watching more TV than ever, though it's a lot of multitasking. Movies like Hatchet 1 and 2, fun to watch on TV, though I dont think I could sit through them in a theater.

The last movie I saw was Rise of the Planets. I used to watch one or two movies a week. Now it's one or two movies in a quarter. I was going to watch Tower Heist, but after I had things to do for a couple of weeks, I didn't even bother as I knew it would go to a smaller screen. It doesn't help that chains like AMC have destroyed their frequent moviegoing program. And even Regal has limited perks. That curtails my weekday moviegoing too and inertia curbs my weekend moviegoing too as I learn to live with home viewing.

While I have finally accepted digital presentation, I see many cases of it being done wrong, especially the age old brightness problem. Whether it is older bulbs or the infamous SONY 3d/2D issue, the thing is I cant be guaranteed a nice bright presentation. I can tolerate a slight misframing, but cannot tolerate dim presentations. So at this age, I want to be guaranteed a good presentation.

Funny thing is I watch more movies than ever on cable. Though I confess to multitasking even more. I am watching some terrible movie Camille as I type this.

I was going to upgrade my TV to a 65 inch Panasonic plasma, but now want to see if they come up with a 70 inch version next year. Sharp has their 80 inch, but not as one of their top of the line models. Once I do that, there is no hope of me watching anything but must sees even in the summer season.

I do want to check out the IMAX version of Mission impossible 4.
 
Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 12-17-2011, 07:14 PM:
 
quote: Pravin Ratnam
I was going to watch Tower Heist, but after I had things to do for a couple of weeks, I didn't even bother as I knew it would go to a smaller screen.
Again, why theaters shouldn't even HAVE small screens. They should at least charge less for those, though with the current mentality they're more likely to just raise the prices some more for the larger ones!

I saw a 70-inch LCD at Wal-Mart last week for about $2600, was pretty surprised to see one at a store like that.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-18-2011, 01:49 PM:
 
It's crazy how big and affordable these big screen HDTV sets have become. 3 years ago a good 50"+ HDTV set could cost over $4000. Now it's easy to find 120Hz models or even ones capable of doing 3D for well under $2000. Sharp has a new 80" LCD model available for around $5000. I think these TV sets are just going to keep getting larger and more affordable as the cost is adjusted for scale of production. One limiting factor: making sure the TV is small enough to carry through doorways!

Like Pravin, I have been visiting the theater less and less as well. I just don't have quite as much enthusiasm for the newest movies as I did for some big hits 10-20 years ago and earlier.

I would like to see the new Mission: Impossible installment, but would prefer to see it in a film-based IMAX theater. That would involve a 350 mile drive from Lawton to Austin to see it in the Bob Bullock IMAX Theater, in the Bob Bullock Texas State History Museum north of downtown Austin. If Cinemark had kept its 15/70 gear intact in their Tulsa and Dallas locations I probably would have already made the drive this weekend. Oh well. Good luck with that "digital" thing.

Disruptive audience behavior continues to be a big problem in movie theaters, with compulsive cell phone use being the leading factor. Not enough theater chains have adopted bans on cell phone use.

I'm surprised cellular phone manufacturers have not noticed the need to do something about this problem. I wouldn't sweat it if someone texting on a phone was doing so on a screen that wasn't so bright. Why not develop some sort of "visual stealth" mode where the screen is only bright enough for the phone user to see it? This could be accomplished through a combination of low contrast, dark color "theme" changes and a type of lenticular screen "privacy filter" attachment that radically reduces the viewing angle and light spread coming from the phone. I guess we'll see it only if Apple decides to tackle the problem. Then it will spread to other hand sets.
[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-18-2011, 03:21 PM:
 
I am finding myself increasing less interested in watching movies in theatres. It used to be that I would watch virtually every movie my theatre played and would travel to see a handful of movies my theatre would never get - I would average about 125-150 movies a year.

Fast forward to today and it's common that I have only watched 1 or 2 movies playing at my theatre - and often I have not watched anything. This can partly be blamed on how late KDM's unlock the movies, but it's also the result of generally poor quality movies. I find it difficult to justify spending 2 hours to preview a movie that will be a waste of those 2 hours.

I also blame the number of hours I spend at work. As much as I enjoy watching movies, I not interested in spending another couple hours at work.

The one thing that helps rejuvenate my interest in watching movies at the theatre is when I watch a very good movie at home and wish I had watched it on the big screen. The most recent example was the Swedish version of "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo". Even on my 50" plasma with BluRay, I found myself wanting to watch this in a movie theatre. While I understand the argument that some movies are meant to be seen on the theatre screen more than others, I believe a good movie should always be watched in the immersive environment of a movie theatre with a big screen and surround sound.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-18-2011, 04:34 PM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
I'm surprised cellular phone manufacturers have not noticed the need to do something about this problem. I wouldn't sweat it if someone texting on a phone was doing so on a screen that wasn't so bright. Why not develop some sort of "visual stealth" mode where the screen is only bright enough for the phone user to see it? This could be accomplished through a combination of low contrast, dark color "theme" changes and a type of lenticular screen "privacy filter" attachment that radically reduces the viewing angle and light spread coming from the phone. I guess we'll see it only if Apple decides to tackle the problem. Then it will spread to other hand sets.
I agree. "Theatre mode" would be a good cell phone "app." Quiet ring + grey-on-black text and so on.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-18-2011, 04:41 PM:
 
Optimal projection quality and clear, rich, dynamic surround sound are basics just about any commercial movie theater should be delivering. I'm willing to give drive in theaters, second run sites and some art/revival houses a little slack on that. Mainstream, big chain theaters don't have much excuse, other than cost cutting, for not bringing their A-game when it comes to picture and sound quality. That's one of the basics.

It does add another dimension to movie-watching when you experience it with an audience. But that communal experience isn't what it used to be anymore. Too many viewers have their attention taken away from the screen by cell phone use and other distractions. To top it off, some people deliberately disrupt the show to bring attention to themselves -like the three teen girls I remember screaming loudly at any opportunity during a showing of The Ring at an Oklahoma City theater.

It's more difficult to manage audience behavior. It's not so difficult to make sure the sound and projection quality is optimal. Digital is supposed to be making the projection aspect easier. So that should leave more room for the various techs to get the sound side of things up to snuff. But they're not doing it at so many places. Instead, I think digital is just being used to cut staff and make a single technician cover more theaters.
 
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 12-18-2011, 09:13 PM:
 
I take folks using cell phones while my movie is playing pretty seriously. Two young fellows (age 20 or so) just discovered that for themselves less than an hour ago.

I asked one to turn his phone off because it lights up the room. He said "no". *blink* Allow me to show you the way to the exit.

Sheesh.

There seems to be something about peoples memory lasting only six months. About twice every year I have to throw someone out with a cell phone, and about twice a year I have to throw someone out with beer. The rest of the time, everything stays under control.
 
Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 12-19-2011, 07:40 AM:
 
quote: Frank Cox
I have to throw someone out with beer
What a buzzkill [Roll Eyes] , when I was in high school that was part of the experience [beer] . We were never loud or talkitive because it.

One night a small group of us went to see the late show of Dirty Harry. 500 seat room, only 2 other people watching the film. We parked next to the hallway exit door and would bring in beer there. We all worked there and the owners son was with us. When it was my turn to go get beer out of the car, i got up and accidentally knocked over some empty bottles and you could hear them roll all the way down the auditorium. When I returned , the paper bag full of beer had gotten wet and broke as soon as I entered the room. The next thing I know, I'm being drug into the lobby by a man who was sitting in the back row (off duty cop watching Dirt Harry by himself). He ends up patting me down at the concession stand. About this time one of my friends comes out, he gets the same treatment. The cop sees the usher and tells him to call the cops. Kid freaks out because he knows who we are, but plays it cool and calls the manager out instead. Then the owners son comes out of the movie and gets into the conversation. The only thing I remember was him asking the cop "did you pay to watch the movie?", (cops got in free). The manager just said "your name and badge number are in the log you signed to get in, we'll take care of it"

Ahhhh....the good old days, me and my friends could have made a John Hughes film.

Done reminiscing,
Rick
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-19-2011, 08:41 AM:
 
Considering how selfish and rude so many movie-goers are these days just when they're sober, adding alcohol to the situation is asking for a whole lot more trouble. Alcohol amplifies emotional impulse and some people really go to the dark side when they're drunk. Customers shouldn't be smuggling any outside drinks into the show anyway, regardless if the drinks contain alcohol or not.

IMHO, any movie theater serving beer or mixed drinks should be doing so in a controlled, age 21 and over only section. The Warren 14 in Moore, OK has premium balcony areas in its largest two auditoriums. You can order beer and mixed drinks up there. Customers must be 21 or older to sit there. On top of that, the drink prices are pretty high. You'll spend a lot of money if you want to get hammered during the show.

BTW, when did smoking get banned from most movie theaters? From my childhood on up I can't remember any indoor theater allowing smoking. It might have been one of the reasons why my parents preferred going to the drive-in. They both smoked until my mother's father died of lung cancer (both quit cold turkey after witnessing that). Considering how common smoking was 30-40 years ago I imagine a lot of theaters used to allow it.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-19-2011, 10:56 AM:
 
Ours used to allow smoking in the balcony. They had installed a vent fan in the balcony to suck-out the smoke. We eliminated smoking when we took over in 1979. Part of it was the smoke itself but the vent fan was too noisy also. We did lose a few customers over it but probably gained others to make up.
 
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 12-19-2011, 01:54 PM:
 
Smoking was banned in any public place in Saskatchewan in 2005, and in any private workplace in 2009.
 
Posted by Jake Spell (Member # 5294) on 12-19-2011, 09:27 PM:
 
Having worked at a theater serving beer and wine most people dont get too crazy. There are the occasional few that need to be taken out but the one time that I had to remove someone he was apologizing to me because he felt bad for ruining the movie for the other customers. I ended up talking to him while he and his friend finished his beer in the upstairs lobby. Pretty cool when I get thanked by the guy I kicked out. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-29-2011, 10:24 PM:
 
quote: Pravin Ratnam
I turned 40 recently. I realized one sad fact. I do not feel the same thrill I did earlier in my life at going to the movies. In the 90s, there was a time when I would watch nearly 2 movies a week on the average in theaters(average boosted by the nearly 3 movies a week I would watch in the summer). I would watch all kinds of movies back then - indie movies, foreign ones, action, silly comedies, even the genial bland ones. Sometimes, I would even stay past my movie and walk into the next auditorium and sample a part of a bad movie out of plain morbid curiosity(example: Batman and Robin). Earlier this decade, that number fell to one a week. But over the last couple of years, I am having a hard time watching movies in the theater on a twice a month basis. This was a decent summer, so I watched 12 movies during the summer. Though at other times, it is down to once a month and sometimes I go just because a life's worth of moviegoing habit built in a sense of obligation for me to go watch.

I have become content watching movies on my 60 inch HD screen despite the pan and scan atrocities(2.35 movies modified to fit 16x9) of HBO and Starz. Showtime at least shows OAR. Now I got a PS3. So I will start renting discs again. In a couple of years, 70 inch LCDs should become affordable and I will upgrade my TV at that point.

There are many reasons for my decreased moviegoing habit
1) Just natural aging. We have seen it all. Variations of the same theme over the ages. I actually have a hard time sitting still in a movie theater over an average movie that i would find perfectly fine on TV. In the 90s, I would sit and enjoy such movies in the theater. Now I get very restless if the movie is just OK. That was something I would feel in the past only for bad movies.

2) Worse projection standards in theaters. Better home theater quality. HD has really made me prefer to watch genial movie comedies and small dramas at home. Also borderline movies with stars , i can safely watch at home while multitasking. This multitasking thing is a big key for me.
3) The decline of indie theaters in my area. I think Madstone was the last hurrah in that regard. Landmark has a couple of theaters but they are too far away for me to attend unless the movie is great.
4) My peer group has been totally domesticated. They are more into what is good for their kids.
5) There are still talented filmmakers out there, but not all of it is in the movies. I think pay cable has picked up the slack for TV series that are movie like. (Example: I love Dexter).

6) Shortening video window:
Anyway, I might go watch Slumdog Millionaire or Benjamin Button today. haven't decided yet. As badly as I want to see them, the shortening video window makes me not have to wait too long if I don't see it. Plus, if you do not catch a movie in the first week, frequently they get shunted to the small auditoriums in most theaters
Priorities change, you were a lot younger back then. I should add, I believe back in the 90s, there was more movie going "magic" in that you didn't know how they made movies, what was behind the special effects etc etc. Today, the magic is gone with all the behind the scenes stuff going on.
 
Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 01-09-2012, 10:54 AM:
 
I just looked through this thread again and saw my post from much earlier (Jan. 2009) and the comments I made then still apply. I saw one movie in theatres in 2011 and that was "Contagion" and only because a group of friends who came to my house wanted to go see it at the dollar theatre (the back 4 auditoriums of what was the Cobb/Regal Madison Square 12 behind the declining Madison Square Mall, which are partitioned off from the front 8 which are still first-run). I saw one movie in theatres in 2011, and that was Tron Legacy 3D at Regal Hollywood 18 because a friend wanted to see it. Before that, the last movie I'd seen in a theatre was "Bruno" which I went to on my own at Carmike 8 in Decatur, AL out of curiosity. I'm averaging one a year now, and I used to average more than one a week. I have seen 3 movies in theatres since that post but I've seen many on my home system by streaming through Netflix or by DVD.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-09-2012, 01:26 PM:
 
Welcome back, Evans. Maybe being back here among the F-T'ers will motivate you to go to the movies more often. [Smile]
 
Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 10-30-2018, 06:58 PM:
 

It has been 2486 days since the last post.


 
Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 10-30-2018, 06:58 PM:
 
Nearly 10 years later. And I gotta say, over the last year, I pretty much have lost interest in going to the theater. Since my last post, there were a couple of years where I regained some of the enthusiasm I had. But it was shortlived. Avengers Infinity left me cold. Even Jurassic World 2(I liked the first one which was a throwback type movie to the earlier ones) didnt have me spellbound.

I was going to watch the latest Mission IMpossible, but it left the IMAX screens just a week or two later and I had no wish to trudge through to watch it on a tiny screen.

I also blame netflix. The industry has put way too much content out there that I have lost interest in not only watching movies in the theater, but watching movies or TV shows at home no longer have the same appeal either inspite of a lot of solid new content.

I still have the same enthusiasm for watching the NFL though. So sports is still the same appeal to me.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-30-2018, 07:52 PM:
 
Your tastes change as you get older, as does your enthusiasm for going out of the house.

There are people here who have been going to movies every couple of weeks for decades, and there are others who used to come all the time and now hardly ever show up at all (or they never do). Some go to a lot of movies while they're "dating" but as soon as they get married we never see them again...until they have kids. Then we see them with the kids, until the kids are old enough to go by themselves, and then we never see the parents again...until they have grandkids.

In short.....everybody is different.
 
Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 10-30-2018, 08:37 PM:
 
My wife and I go to a theater at least once a week with a meetup group called the Denver Cinema Club. We typically have 20 or 30 people who show up for the movie, then get together for dinner afterwards to discuss the movie and anything else. We've seen some good stuff, normally at one of the Landmark theaters or the Denver Film Society.

Harold
age 67 in two days...
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2