Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Was theatre exhibition really that much better 'back in the day'?

This is topic Was theatre exhibition really that much better 'back in the day'? 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=005900

Posted by Carey Barber (Member # 1586) on 08-24-2009, 06:43 PM:

Often on this site I read posts that bemoan the abysmal state of cinema exhibition today. As a corollary to this, some posts also indicate that the situation used to be much better.

My question is...Was it really that much better?

My experience is that, in almost anything, people will often say or assume that it was better 'back in the day'. Sometimes this is true, but I certainly don't think that is always the case.

I have about a 10 year perspective on the cinema industry. Many of you have a perspective that is several decades long.

When posts state that presentation standards and projectionist know-how was superior in years past, how true is this? What about the general 'showmanship' standards we often discuss here?

Is some of this merely nostalgia, or has the quality and standards of the cinema industry really declined?

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 08-24-2009, 07:13 PM:

The decline began when the industry moved to de-professionalize the job of projectionist. It had been a bonafide craft until that point, and very difficult to gain entry into, requiring years of apprenticeship. In the 30s and 40s, it held nearly as much prestige as being a doctor or lawyer.

It was so different, in fact, that technicians only took care of sound systems (hence, the title "sound men" back in those days). Any work on the projectors was the exclusive domain of the competent projectionists.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 08-24-2009, 07:15 PM:

The first person to suggest that (a) unions, (b) carbon arcs, or (c) curtains made things better is gonna get banned. [evil]

I'm serious.

Posted by Richard May (Member # 2627) on 08-24-2009, 07:23 PM:

[Big Grin]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-24-2009, 07:23 PM:

With projection jobs being given to managers who must also maintain everything on the floor simultaneously, of course showmanship, presentation and booth maintenance are going to take a back seat. Most theater owners find this perfectly acceptable, though. They justify it by the cost savings. But that leads me to wonder how theaters back in the day were able to even exist if they had to pay a full-time projection wage (usually union wages) as well as a full staff. Many of these theaters only had one or two screens. Many theater chains today cry about how expensive projectionists are and that it is a waste of money to keep someone in the booth. They make it seem as if they will go out of business if they did that. If today is anything to judge by, those old theaters should have went out of business the first day. If the old days were anything to judge by, then today's theaters should be able to afford a shit ton of projectionists. Someone please explain this to me.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-24-2009, 07:38 PM:

I don't think that it is as simple as saying that exhibition in (insert year here) was better/worse than it is now. It's more complicated than that.

I'm only 32, but, from what I can tell, the very best downtown theatres in, say, the mid-1960s put on a better show than the very best theatres today. They had big screens, 70mm, dye-transfer Technicolor, quality B&W, and sufficient business to support a professional staff (ushers, operators, managers, etc.). All of this surpasses what we have today.

On the other hand, I would submit that the "average" cinema presentation in 2009 is better than it has been at any point in history. Lenses and screens are the best that they have ever been, and quality multichannel sound systems are now commonplace. The maintenance issues associated with carbon arc lamps and tube sound systems are no longer an issue for most cinemas.

I have seen the remains some truly dumpy small-town theatres that have been closed for years. I have a hard time believing that some of these places were ever able to put on a quality show. On the other hand, I'm rather envious of those who were able to attend or work in some of the finest houses in the 1950s and 1960s.

Posted by Mike Babb (Member # 1379) on 08-24-2009, 07:41 PM:

I once had someone ask me an interesting question regarding this, they asked me if when I was a kid seeing movies if I had ever had a noticeable technical problem or film break or other type of show interruption, I had to answer that I didn't remember it ever...

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 08-24-2009, 08:11 PM:

I don't know about unions Adam but I will go with the carbon arcs and curtains.

As to the OP's question I believe it was. I started in this business as a teen in 1946 and have been through every incarnation since. Multiplexes today are not theatres. They are the McDonald's of exhibition with impersonal service, poorly trained and impersonal staff where (generalizing here) the presentation suffers in their naked auditiorums and most lack marquees (outside reader boards trimmed with beautiful neon for those who don't know what a marquee is). But the two things I find the most reprehensible is most are not "local" (out of state owners), and most of all "showmanship" is missing. Hollywood doesn't help with the tons of garbage they produce each year and send to multiplexes managed by corporations who have a "we don't make 'em and everyone has a right to see what they want" philosophy ignoring any responsibility to the community they are serving while they continue to create an appetite in viewers for that garbage.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 08-24-2009, 08:13 PM:

Movie going when I was growing was an event at the Waipahu Theatre where my family and I saw all our movies. When I grew older, my parents permitted me to go to Honolulu with friends to see special movies like 3-D (Waipahu never played any movies in 3-D) , Cinerama and local premiere showing of THE ROBE in CinemaScope, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS and 70mm showings of SOUTH PACIFIC and several others all at the Kuhio. During my high school years, I used to go to the Queen Theatre in Honolulu a lot to see foreign films including film versions of operas such as Sophia Loren in Aida with one scene showing her with exposed breasts .

The presentation at the Waipahu used to be a class act with a reserved lodge section, ushers and usherettes all wearing white saturn uniforms with a blue sash around the waist and the show itself was special. It first started with a current newsweel followed by two short subjects and then two or three trailers. After the trailers, graphic slides of poster art of the coming week pictures were shown before the feature starts. When the slides are over, the curtain closes and remain closed until the studio logo of the main feature flashes on the curtain as it opens slowly. Back in those days, a show is scheduled to run exactly two hours or slightly more. The Waipahu used to have at least five different shows a week. Monday night used to be Japanese film night with exclusive films from Toei, Tuesday night was a night when grade B and C films were shown. Wednesday night was for Filipino pictures and Thursday was once again the night for standard American films. All important pictures played between Friday and Sunday and these were pictures from the Kuhio and the Waikiki (3) where they played the week before.

Going to the movies especially in the forties used to be a dress affair when we wore our best clothes especially during the weekend. Gosh, how I miss those good old days!

-Claude

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 08-24-2009, 08:37 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
With projection jobs being given to managers who must also maintain everything on the floor simultaneously, of course showmanship, presentation and booth maintenance are going to take a back seat.

I'm the booth manager of a 15 screener and all I do is booth. I never work on the floor. I'm on duty for more than half of our operating hours and the few projectionists I have are almost booth-only. Not a coincidence that our booth has fewer problems than most of the other newer theatres in the area. So yeah, with the lack of booth-only employees, projection does take a back seat.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-24-2009, 09:30 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
Many theater chains today cry about how expensive projectionists are and that it is a waste of money to keep someone in the booth. They make it seem as if they will go out of business if they did that. If today is anything to judge by, those old theaters should have went out of business the first day. If the old days were anything to judge by, then today's theaters should be able to afford a shit ton of projectionists. Someone please explain this to me.

It's not enough for a movie theater or its parent chain company to be profitable. The level of profitability must be increased from one quarter to the next to keep share holders happy and attract more investors.

Heh heh. Obviously, movie theater chains usually don't end up improving profits or the stock price, but this is often the motive in shoving as many job tasks as possible onto the shoulders of the theater manager.

There's no easier way to create more profit than carving it out of payroll. Replace well paid employees with ones making crap. Get rid of as many employees as possible. If a multiplex can be operated remotely by a staff based in India I feel certain at least a few theater chains are looking into it.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-24-2009, 10:00 PM:

I don't really understand complaints that today's auditoriums are "naked." I've been in cinemas in Denver, Salt Lake, L.A., Orlando, Spokane, Seattle and all of the large towns in Montana. While it's true they don't have the elegance of tapestries on the walls, twinkling lights on the ceilings, draperies with fringes, etc. most of the newer ones I've seen are still pretty nice. Really bad auditoriums proliferated in the '80s when owners were chopping up singles into two or four plexes, or making four-plexes into seven-plexes.

Most of today's new cinemas are large, elegant-looking buildings that have today's designs about them. That's because they're designed by today's designers, not people who want to live in the past. People tend to gripe about how the moviegoing experience is not elegant enough these days, but then in the same breath they gripe that the owners spent too much money on the giant fountain in the lobby. You can't win with these people.

The Jordan Commons 17 in Salt Lake City is a great example of a theatre complex with outstanding atmosphere, yet I'm sure people in SLC regularly gripe that its prices are too high. You can't have a good atmosphere without charging for it.

Since I've been married, I've gone to more movies in other places than I had previously. I would say that, occasional projection problems aside, almost every negative experience we've had going to the movies in the last 10 years has been because of people -- either the teens running the place or far more often, rude or inconsiderate audience members.

I have a feeling that the notion that the "today's moviegoing experience sucks" attitude has the same origins as the "Flying is dangerous" attitude - because the mishaps get all the press. There are about 40,000 movie screens in the United States. Every single day in this country, I would bet at least 125,000 movie presentations go off without a hitch and the audiences come out satisfied. A few shows here and there have problems, and suddenly it sucks to go to the movies.

Aside from the above-mentioned improvements in sound and picture, at our theatre, the film presentation is definitely a lot better than in the "good old days" due to film quality being better now... back then we used to play movies long off the break, and the well-used prints we got were often quite beat-up. Tons of dirt at reel-changes was the norm.

Theatre seats nowadays are also WAY better than they were back in the day, at least at the cinemas I saw.

I used to go to the movies in the big theatres in Billings quite a bit when I was in high school, including the Fox Theatre, a 1500-seat house where I saw "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" among others. Outside of the largeness of the places, I don't remember any major wonderfulness about presentation or anything else in those days. I was there for the movie, after all.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-24-2009, 10:23 PM:

Proof is in the pudding....I don't know what that means, exactly, so let me try to explain. When I was a kid, I never EVER heard anyone, including adults, say that they hated going to the movies. In fact, even people who weren't film enthusiasts (I know first hand of such adults because my parents weren't particularly fond of movie-going), even they enjoyed the movie-going experience. That has to tell you something about the current perception that the general population seems to have about theatres, even when they are excited to go because of a particular title, they still don't have very nice things to say about the theatres and when they go, they seem to go reluctantly. We can argue about why that is, but the fact is, whatever the reason, many people simply hate going to the multiplex.

Scott is right, the overall presentation today might technically surpassed what the technology was capable of when I started in my first booth in the late 60s, but back then you simply would never see the kind of things I see today in terms of overall theatre operation -- I am talking about personnel demeanor of the staff, cleanliness of the facility, the concessions, the presence of actual ushers in the theatre, visible throughout the show. The nature of the multiplex precludes many of those things that could be found in the single screen theatres and which people LIKED. The multiplex concept is, at its very core, a way of operating more screens with less personnel -- it's much more of an assembly-line, utilitarian operation that the great movie palaces of the 30s thru the 50s and even for some that remained past the birth of automation and the multiplex.

Why did exhibition flock to automation? Because it eliminated that many more salaries and higher paying ones at that. Why do they salivate today over digital? Because they see it as eliminating even MORE salaries. Their idea of Nirvana is not to have to hire ANYONE to be in the projection booth.

No doubt, back in 1960, you might be listening to mono sound for most features, and the old Snaplite and Kolomorgan lenses might not be as high resolution today's ISCOs or Schneider's, but as already mentioned, I never EVER saw a movie misframed when I was growing up, and believe me, I saw more movies in real movie theatres in my teen years than most young people will see in their lifetimes. And being such a film geek, I remembered every flub ever made, and I only saw a handful, mostly missed changeovers, and only one really big flub I saw was where the projectionist ran a previous reel so we got to see the same scene twice. I told everyone I knew about that mistake for a week. Other than those few gaffs, for all practical purposes, movies ran flawlessly.

One last thing about those lower resolution lenses back then....for all the improvements made in today's computer designed lenses, those gains have literally been eaten up by sloppy high-speed printing and pushed exposures and bad lighting. So I am not so sure you are seeing that much of an overall better picture today. It may all result in a wash.

Today you can see scratches on a print in the same theatre were it opened and only a few days after the opening at that (I documented that very experience just two weeks ago in the JULIA & JULIA thread, Film Review section). I am positive that would have been unheard of in the first run, flagship single screen theatres of 40 years ago. Maybe in the sub-run, underbelly grind houses where prints were at the end of their rotational runs, having played a half dozen or more theatres, yes you would find scratches and dirt, but if you chose to see a film in a first run house, say within the first two or three months, you would see pristine presentations. That just aint happening in today's distribution model -- the film opens everywhere at the same time, so the first run house can be a class operation or just as easily it can be a grind house -- they all get the film at the same time -- it's all the same and your chances of being assured a professional presentation are not guaranteed. Even if you go to one of the big chain theatre, even if you go as early as the first week of the opening, you can still find print damage and lousy presentaion that can speak to the horrific booth incompetence that must be going on to damage a pristine print from beginning to end within four days of it's opening. So there's no such thing anymore as what we could get in the single screen, first run theatres of my youth.

The other big difference in days of yore -- every screen had a projectionist. Imagine, in EVERY screen there was a real, living guy/gal up there attentive to the operation. At the very least that insured someone was looking at the screen every 18 - 20 minutes. If they were even marginally competent and took just the slightest pride in their work, there were there ready to fix problems and to have a hand-on relationship with the show. But again, I am not convinced that what is so different today is necessarily worse technical presentation than what was available in the days of the big single screens. When people say they hate going to the movies, it mostly because of a cumulative effect of all the other things that annoy them -- rarely is it the occasional scratch or an soft focus image -- it's much more the cell phones, the dirty bathrooms, the high priced, stale concessions, the ADs!, the inconsiderate patrons coupled with no usher ever to be found within a hundred miles of the particular screen that needs management attention.

It truly is a stack of things that negatively impact the cinema experience today which exhibition doesn't seem to be able to get out from under, nor do they seem to want to even try. So to answer the question -- was it really better back then? In terms of the overall movie-going experience, I would have to say yes, it was better back then, overall. Individually I think you can say the sound for example is better today, but that doesn't make up for all the other negatives that make people say quite unabashedly are the reasons that they'd rather watch a movie in their living room than go out to the cinema.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-24-2009, 10:57 PM:

Maybe this topic needs to be separated into two categories: actual film presentation quality and "the moviegoing experience."

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-24-2009, 11:25 PM:

I certainly appreciate a movie theater putting forth the effort to slather on movie going "atmosphere." Lush decor in the lobby, attractive auditoriums and lots of neon in the signs is all a plus.

However, some of the best presentation quality I've seen in a movie theater was witnessed at the gone and mourned General Cinemas Northpark 1-2 in Dallas. This theater had a dated 1970's appearance that was visually conservative to the point of being plain. Nevertheless, the projection and sound quality was typically excellent every time I visited throughout the 1990s. And the sheer scale of both auditoriums (even the #2 house was pretty big) gave the Northpark 1-2 a true "premiere class" movie theater feel.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-25-2009, 01:16 AM:

quote: Frank Angel
We can argue about why that is, but the fact is, whatever the reason, many people simply hate going to the multiplex.

But what do they hate? How many of the things they hate are things beyond the control of the theatre? (Parking, hiring the babysitter, fighting traffic, standing in line, etc.) A cinema could be the most elegant place in the world and have all the trappings of the past and you would STILL have all of those problems -- problems which have gotten worse in areas where the population has grown.

I still think the majority of people are satisfied with the movie experience itself. The biggest complaint I ever hear about the "big city theatres" is the concession prices.

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 08-25-2009, 01:28 AM:

I think the 60s here was the greatest era.
Service at all cinemas was first class and most tried really hard to provide good presentation.
The Hoyts circuit and some of the independents had installed new miracle mirror screens for CinemaScope and 4 track mag, which sounded magnificent. 1.37 films looked superb on those screens.
Other circuits had taken the economy route and were cropping Academy Format prints for "widescreen" presentation before it became the norm to shoot films that way. They stuck with mono sound but I will ignore them now just as I did then.
Occasionally there was a film break at one of the suburban cinemas or it could have been that the next reels had not arrived on the bus from the theatre they were sharing the print with. Perhaps, like me, the projectionists were lousy at cement splices.
I can't remember seeing many bad prints then but I certainly saw many when I started our own cinema. The worst was a mag print of Doctor Zhizago that had been run on standard sprockets so the edges were separating from the print.
The city had several cinemas showing 65/70 films in Roadshow presentations. They were events you took your date to.
Only one cinema did not have curtains. Drive-ins were excused.
These days, a good experience should be the norm. Projectionists have automation to get the timing right every show, platters instead of changeovers and stereo sound on every print.
One difference back then was that audiences accepted theatre management policy. A rowdy was ejected without argument. If you didn't collect your reservation an hour before the show you didn't get in. if you had a ticket for front stalls, that's where you stayed, even in an empty theatre.
The milk bar across the road provided healthy competition for the cinema kiosk. If the cinema's ice creams were outrageously priced you tried the alternative.
However, we did endure some rubbish supporting features and shorts but it wasn't polite to leave or to walk in late.
No cinemas had parking - most arrived by public transport or on foot.

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 08-25-2009, 04:12 AM:

Right on Frank! The "Theatre going experience" is missing from most multiplexes. I don't care if the multiplex has stadium seating with high-back seats, surround sound or even a digital presentation as long as the negative aspects you and I mentioned exist todays theatres can't compare to the great single screeners of yesterday.

And Mike, the "majority of people" are not attending multiplexes today because their owners are targeting the 14 to 34 year old demographic. That leaves a large segment of the population un-served.

Posted by Don Sneed (Member # 955) on 08-25-2009, 04:58 AM:

Heck yea the theaters was theaters up to the 1980 when the changes starting to be made, the booth got so much simpler with automation, xenon lamp, platters, consoles, you didn't need the union projectionist anymore to trim the carbon, changeover ect, the candy girl could now run the booth, the art is gone & started to go bye, bye in the mid to late 80's when muli-screens started coming up....as for showmanship, up to the mid 80's, the theaters went out of their way to promote a movie, just stop & look at today's movie posters...Read It, Does It Say Anything About The Content Of The Movie or What The Movie Is About....NOOOO....look at a movie poster prior 1977, it not only told you the actors names but a brief description of the what the movie is going to be about, I'd seen many movie based on the poster description, Read A Poster Today, What Does It Say, The actors Names Only....Hell Yes I was part of that era, proud to be a union projectionist when a projectionist was a projectionist, not a film jockey like today who doesn't know sprocket from a pad roller!!! The theater exhibition went away at the start of the 1980's & has never return....you youngsters that never operated or been to a theater prior the 1980's, will never know what we experience not only as the projectionist but as a theater movie goer, the movie theater was great in exhibition the movie product from the time the first theater started to the 1980's, multi-screens theaters killed the exhibition !!! So to answer the question: "was theatre exhibition really that much better "back in the day'? All I can say HELL YEA, You don't know what you missed !!!

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 08-25-2009, 08:47 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
But what do they hate?

Here's my list:

talking patrons that aren't thrown out by theatre staff
small screens
marks on the screen
constant width screens
noise from other auditoriums
"clipping" speakers producing distorted sound
pre-show commercials
dim images
out of frame images
out of focus images
scratched images
lousy movies
low-res digital projection

I agree with Scott. I think the experience at the best theatres has generally gotten worse, but also that most of the bad theatres have gotten better. (Digital projection has the exact same effect.)

Incidentally, I am able to avoid all of the items from my list except the last one at my home... (though I'd prefer to go to the cinema). [Frown]

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 08-25-2009, 08:58 AM:

I'll overgeneralize and speak in averages here a little, but:

Sound - better today
Average screen size - better today
Seats - better today (by a looong shot)
Sight lines - better today (and some thought stadium was a fad)
Choice of movies/movies per year - better today
Concession food choices - better today
Likelihood your show will be sold out - better today (as in less likely)
Film stock - better today

Price - better back then
Individual ownership in projection quality - better back then
Showmanship - better back then
Customer behavior - better back then
Pre-show advertising - better back then
Projectionists' blood alcohol content - higher back then

That's a quick list combining my opinions with some facts. It depends on what you look for in your exhibition.

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 08-25-2009, 10:45 AM:

quote: Chad Souder
Showmanship - better back then

and

quote: Chad Souder
Projectionists' blood alcohol content - higher back then

Conclusion: today's projectionists need to drink more . . . . [beer]

quote: Chad Souder
Likelihood your show will be sold out - better today (as in less likely)

Yep, if you look at NATO's numbers yearly attendance since 1970 has risen by 52% (.92 billion to 1.4 billion) but in the same period screen count has risen 270% (10,000 screens to 37,000 in 2005).

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-25-2009, 12:29 PM:

WRT stadium seating: I don't consider it to be an improvement over sloped floors. It has fewer truly bad seats than a good sloped-floor house, but there are fewer great seats. I'm also not a big fan of high-back chairs, but that's a personal preference.

I do agree that seats in general are more comfortable now than they have been in the past, and most theatres now have a reasonable amount of legroom.

Interesting point about increased screen counts. In downtown Boston, there have always been about thirty (commercial, first-run) screens. Now, though, those thirty (actually 32) screens are found in only two actual theatres.

As for the comment about theatres being targeted toward the younger demographic: is that a function of the theatre operation or of the films that are being shown? I don't know.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 08-25-2009, 12:31 PM:

In the late '50's & '60's, going to the movies was usually trouble free. Ushers or the manager walked the room regularly. Since there was usually only one theater, everyone could pay better attention to the screen, the concessions and the patrons. Big screen films were an event, and people usually dressed up and ate dinner near the theatre (which was usually downtown...going downtown was a VERY big deal).

When the "shoebox" theatres started popping up in the suburbs, things got worse. Projection quality was often poor, screen brighness was poor and seats were very uncomfortable. They wanted you to get in and get out as fast as possible, as the lobbies were usually very small and didn't handle crowds very well. In the late 70's and most of the 80's, unless you went to a prestige theatre running 70mm or one of the rare THX rooms, the quality was often very poor. One theatre in particular, with projectors open in the lobby and many other problems, usually had very dirty prints by the second and third run.

I just visited a late 80's era AMC without stadium seating. The seats were uncomfortable and, even though this was the biggest room in the facility, the screen was barely 32' wide.

Once digital sound hit, things started to get better. Theatres paid more attention to their systems. Stadium seating started to become the norm improving sightlines and often bringing bigger screens. I can see most current films on large screens with very comfortable seating (and LOTS of legroom...thanks, RAVE).

So, like many things, going to the movies was good, then not so good, and now, good again.

Now, if they can just get that brightness up on 3-D movies, I would be REALLY happy.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 08-25-2009, 02:09 PM:

Getting back to projection:

Back "in the day", running projectors was an extremely labor-intensive job. However, so was engineering a television or radio plant. So was operating a telephone switchboard. So was running a ferry boat. Computers, when they did show up, filled gymnasium-sized rooms.

The only thing that approached "automation" back then was us. We ran the lights... sometimes manually, hit the curtain button, changed the masking and watched out for anything that might go wrong. Add to this the need to change between projectors several times per showing, and the monitoring and balancing of at least two arc lamps. We were VERY involved in the process, which led to the training and skills required, which led to the creation of a profession around our work... and of course, union representation in many areas.

To say that projection is better or worse today probably injects too much personality and opinion into the question. Today's automation and film handling equipment can put out an excellent product. Many theatres still use projection equipment that WAS in use "back in the day". In the hands of a competent operator, that product can be consistently excellent over the long term.

You could say exactly the same thing about running a set of E7s and magnarcs in 1968.

On the other hand, a 12 year-old could run a show with today's equipment, and probably get the fact past the audience. The same could be said in 1966. I know... I did it. However, if anything had gone wrong in the slightest back then, I would have been royally screwed. The same could probably be said today, if anyone's stupid enough to leave a kid in alone in a modern booth. Oh, wait... we do do that, don't we?

We didn't have automation, stable xenon lamps, solid state or digital anything back then. We had vacuum tubes, generators, carbon ash, temperature-sensitive lenses, acetate film, glue splices, exciter lamps, mercury vapor rectifiers and Edsels. Some of us were lucky enough to endure our owners' evaluation of Marble Carbons. Curiously, people look back on that time with a sentimentality that's hard to explain. For that matter though, I remember most of the local top-40 DJs of that era. Today, I couldn't care less who's behind the mic.

Put today's booth, appropriately equipped, in the hands of someone who knows what he/she's doing and I'd put the presentation up against anything we could have done back then. Everything else can be debated as "moviegoing experience" and nostalgia.

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 08-25-2009, 02:27 PM:

I find that image quality is often better today than in the good old days. This because the lamps have stable brightness, the film stock is better and lenses are vastly improved. Also, the sound is much better than the optical sound we most often had. (Hell, I remember showing roadshow of "Nicolas & Alexandra" in 35mm optical! No [bs]

at the Apex Theater in DC)

However, out of frame starts, soft focus, blaring sound and out of frame splices all detract from the quality of the experience today.

I like stadium seating because no one can block my view of the complete screen. I like the fact that most films are in some stereophonic format. I like that at my local theater the screen illumination is uniform end to end and top to bottom.

I remember in the good old carbon arc days the screen sometimes had a halo effect from the focus of the carbon trim. I also remember when lamp feed motors would vary their speed throughout the day because of consumer demand on the electrical grid. This would cause lamp trim to vary and subsequently the image intensity until the operator could get it adjusted properly. Lamps running on generators were immune but rectifer supplies were particularly prone to this problem.

So was it better in the good old days? Presentation showmanship definitely was, but if one could eliminate my pet peeves of today, today's presentation quality would win by a long shot.

To my old IA buddies; Sorry if I committed heresy but I gotta call it like I see it.

One last comment -- I won't even get into customer behavior today which IMHO causes lots of lost potential revenue.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-25-2009, 02:45 PM:

quote: Scott Norwood
As for the comment about theatres being targeted toward the younger demographic: is that a function of the theatre operation or of the films that are being shown?

My opinion is, it's neither. It's a function of the films being MADE.

We can show movies geared to the 'underserved' older crowd, but with rare exceptions they gross far less than a movie catering to the people who go to movies.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 08-25-2009, 03:43 PM:

As much as I bitch about theaters, the moviegoing experience still tops the 80s era of horrible multiplexes. I think the 90s was the best in the last 25 years in terms of theater ownership trying to be improve their product(at least with the digital sound, initial attempts at trying to be THX certified on a larger scale, bigger auditoriums). Sure 70MM declined in the 90s, but the average multiplex in the suburb seemed to improve in terms of screen size.

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 08-25-2009, 03:47 PM:

I would say Mike that it is a combination of things. The corporate big boys' bookers buy only the films that appeal to that demo which are the ones being promoted by Hollywood. There are other films being made all around the world (our neighbors in Canada make some of the best with England close behind) but the corporate bookers are just not very creative. No theatre will succeed playing films only for the older crowd. But we need to throw them a crumb once in a while. It amazes me that corporations haven't figured out they can be just as successful serving the entire community rather than depending on a limited demographic to keep up their bottom line.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 08-25-2009, 04:15 PM:

quote: From the Inglourious Basterds review thread
Regal believes "starting in frame is not important, thats what the framing knob is for." Quote from one of their regional trainers. No kidding.

Well, although I cannot say for certain, I'm pretty sure that this sort of lame training never existed. If it's shit in the training period, it'll be 99% guaranteed to be shit when they're on their own. [thumbsdown]

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 08-25-2009, 06:14 PM:

Reading that quote makes me want to go burn down the regal across the street. Well that quote and other things. My biggest pet peeve is starting out of frame. I've kicked many projectionists out of booth for that exact reason.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-25-2009, 07:41 PM:

Agreed, there is just no excuse for starting out of frame when it's absurdly simple to start IN frame.

One of my most embarrasing projection moments was in 1990 when we ran "The Ten Commandments." We had a print complete with the intro music and the DeMille introduction, and we ran it without trailers. Of course the intro music had black film, so we had lowered the lights to half and left the screen-lights on during the music, and I was standing in the booth waiting to douse the lights when DeMille's curtains appeared. Well, the curtains appeared...out of frame! Luckily I was next to the machine and it was only about 1/2 of a second before I fixed it but I still wanted to fall thru the floor.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 08-25-2009, 08:50 PM:

Mike,

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS is one of my favorite films. I remember seeing it at least four or five times in a theatre when it was first released. In those days in the mid fifties, the prints were in gorgeous dye transfer Technicolor but the sound was mono. Although the laserdisc had stereo sound as well as the DVds, I am not sure if the movie played at all in some theatres in stereo. Some friends and I had several discussions about the DeMille introduction. I have always felt it was unnecessary because he just about repeated everything he said in the super long trailer that I had seen a lot before the movie was released. Did you run a IB Tec print and what kind of condition was it?

-Claude

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-25-2009, 10:14 PM:

Regarding digital sound, the arrival of it did make things better for a few years. Since then much the ethic of maintaining sound systems has gone into the toilet. Sorry, but that's what I am seeing in a number of theaters I visit in Oklahoma, Colorado and Texas.

In the early 1990s, 5.1 digital surround sound had a real novelty to it. Finally an ordinary neighborhood theater could have the potential of delivering flagship theater audio typically associated with exclusive 70mm presentations without the trouble of booking a $15,000 70mm mag-striped film print.

When Dolby Digital, DTS and SDDS were brand new items more movie theater companies were paying a LOT more attention to sound. They were doing more to EQ the auditoriums and get that startling, loud dynamic sound going -even if it leaked into other auditoriums. The THX certification effort peaked during that time. The theater circuits kept it up until stadium seating became popular and DVD arrived. Several years ago things really started to slip.

Today, I think it's a pretty rare occurrence for someone to visit a movie theater and find the audio part of the chain to be running in tip top shape. Not enough people at the top give enough of a fart to pay the extra money to maintain good quality audio in commercial movie theaters. Much of it is pretty abysmal.

I think the current situation is a sad contradiction. We have "Digital Cinema" rolling out in thousands of theater booths. D-cinema boasts UNCOMPRESSED linear PCM audio in 20-bit or 24-bit depth. Yet this unprecedented leap in quality of audio delivery is largely being wasted on theaters with way out of tune EQ, blown speaker drivers and plain overall wimpy assed audio quality.

One of the things I enjoyed about the 1100+ seat GCC Northpark #1 screen in Dallas was the audio system had more than enough "thump" in it to make the air in my chest move and not sound distorted. The thing that really pisses me off is that kind of audio quality is NOT exclusive to a gigantic 1100 seat premiere class theater. Just about any theater with good quality equipment can deliver much of the same effect simply by properly maintaining the equipment. The "suits" don't give a single shit about that, much less two shits.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 08-25-2009, 10:38 PM:

I agree Bobby. I remember when I was a kid/teen, in the 90s, digital sound was all the rage at the cinema. Seeing those trailers play before the film meant you were getting amazing sound. It was this sort of marketing and execution that got me into the technical side of cinema in the first place. I remember being more excited for a DTS trailer than the movie itself!

And yes, those systems sounded AWESOME! When I began working at the same theatre I frequented as a teen, the systems were still well maintained and sounded fantastic. After about 3 years, they went to shit for the most part, and there wasn't much I could do. Techs not able to visit the building, sound components being installed without an EQ. Hell, speaker drivers in surrounds were blown for almost 2 years before they finally "noticed", even though I had mentioned it on every report I ever did for a tech for 2 years.

Alas, the place is still rocking in a few houses, but not like the 90s. I also think my perception is different because some of the mixes from the 90s were just better than some of today. Where are you Gary Rydstrom?

AJG

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-25-2009, 11:05 PM:

quote:

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS .... Did you run a IB Tec print and what kind of condition was it?

Claude - I don't know if it was an IB print (we played it before I knew what that was!) but it was in spectacular shape. Not a scratch or speck of dirt on it. I was just amazed at how good it looked. Since then it just hasn't been the same for me to see it on a TV screen, even our big 52-incher at home.

I always liked the DeMille intro; many people nowadays have never seen that long trailer (I have it on a DVD set); but I liked the way it condensed the pertinent information down into a couple of minutes, and reassured the audience that although it was a 3:37 movie, there would be an intermission.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-26-2009, 03:42 PM:

quote: Jonathan Althaus
My biggest pet peeve is starting out of frame. I've kicked many projectionists out of booth for that exact reason.

Well, Johathan, you would have been looking around for a hand granade to take this theatre out if you were with me in a first run Regal (then UA) theatre a year or so ago. The first FIVE trailers were run with a frameline in the middle of the screen. Forget about starting misframed, this thing was playing for almost a half an hour out-of-frame. [Mad]

SURELY, someone would fix this before the feature, thinks I. No such luck -- the feature starts misframed and the audience begins stomping on the floor. I take out my cell and call the theatre, listen to the schedule of ALL 15 of their screens until finally they give the manager's number which I call and speak to someone who didn't know what a misframe was, and quite frankly didn't seem at all to care -- his main curiousity seemed to be trying to figure out how I was calling his office and from where. I dropped the "misframe" reference and just told him the film was "broken" in theatre 7. That he seemed to understand. When someone finally did attend to it 4 or 5 minutes into the feature, they just racked it down so you could no longer see the frame line, but it was painfully obvious that it was still at the very bottom of the full frame image (it was supposed to be 1.85); the composition was ruined. Actors were decapitated. The thought of calling him back and trying to explain about properly framing a full frame 1.85 film, but it seemed much too much beyond the scope of my ability to speak without screaming and pulling out my hair, which I cannot afford to do. Mind you, this was a first run, big chain theatre, not some subrun house.

Here's a good lesson which I learned from this -- before you go to any theatre, make sure you have the manager's office number already programmed into your cellphone; should something as simple as a misframe not be fixed in a reasonable amount of time and with a reasonable amount of competence, call the office and tell the manager about your hand grenade.

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 08-26-2009, 06:57 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
Here's a good lesson which I learned from this -- before you go to any theatre, make sure you have the manager's office number already programmed into your cellphone; should something as simple as a misframe not be fixed in a reasonable amount of time and with a reasonable amount of competence, call the office and tell the manager about your hand grenade.

Yup. I saw Raiders of the Lost Ark at the Continenental earlier this year and there was a bad splice from one reel to the next about 3/4 into the film. The bottom half of the picture was at the top of the screen.

I quickly called the b.o. and reported the problem, and it was fixed a hell of a lot faster than if I went out looking for someone.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-27-2009, 09:58 AM:

David said "Yep, if you look at NATO's numbers yearly attendance since 1970 has risen by 52% (.92 billion to 1.4 billion) but in the same period screen count has risen 270% (10,000 screens to 37,000 in 2005). "
But one does not take into account the decline in the previous years
Also the average number of times a individual attends a movie theatre has been static
so the growth is probably closer to just the increase in population
Overall I think exhibition has lost a lot of its magic that drew in repeat customers and overall the quality of presentation has dropped even with better sound systems and lens and techno toys
Since the 70's the odds of going to a show that will have a glitch or a scratch or a breakdown has risen at a higher rate than ever before

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 08-27-2009, 11:01 AM:

The exhibition industry faces a very different world from the one that existed years ago. It's easy to say that showmanship has decreased, but back then the theatre owners/managers were partners in promoting a film. A manager could order a "press book" with add slicks, you could order radio spots, and eventually even TV spots so that you could do you own advertising. The studios would have contests with rewards for managers to come up with innovative promotions. This would pay off because you hold on to the film long enough for this to pay off. This is no longer the case. Now a film must have a huge opening weekend, or it's gone in a week or two.

Of course, we are ignoring the 800 pound gorilla in the room, home video. With a 90 day or less window to the home video release, the public no longer has to go out to see a movie. Those who want state of the art will set up elaborate home theatre system, those that don't care will watch on the TV. Yes, people still like to get out, and movies are still one of the best entertainment values for the price, but unlike in the past, there are many choices for viewing a given film besides the theatre.

Another issue is that back in the 1970's, the motion picture business largely abandoned the family audience. It is difficult to say whether entire family movie going decreased do to the fact that the majority of films were geared to adults, or whether the studios geared to adults because family's stopped attending on a regular basis. Whichever it was, decades of tradition where an entire family would attend the movies weekly was broken. We live with the repercussions of that today, where the majority of movies are targeted at teens thru 20 somethings, the generation with no tradition of going out for a movie.

As too projection, I entered the business at the tail end of the carbon arc/reel to reel days. Overall, I think it is a wash as to which era was better. I feel a loss that today's booth ushers know nothing more than how to thread and press start, but I think projection is better today in most locations, and in the short term D-Cinema will make it even better.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-27-2009, 11:57 AM:

I've seen theatres that ordered "trailers" receive TV spots and clips on 3/4" and, later, Beta tapes (and probably 1" before that). This is within the last few years, so I assume that it is still possible for theatres to get this stuff to promote whatever they are showing, at least for films from smaller distributors (unless the distributors are just confused enough that they are sending 35mm trailers to TV stations while sending TV materials to theatres). Unfortunately, they don't, for the most part. Everything depends on national ad campaigns now, and it's been a while since I have seen or heard of an interesting local promotion for any film.

(Side question: how did/do radio spots come? On 45s, CDs, magnetic tape, carts, etc.?)

One other related point that is worth making is that, now, films have less time to find an audience through word-of-mouth. Everything needs to have a huge opening weekend, or else it is doomed to a short theatrical life and limited advertising after the first week. This is sad, especially since many films that were duds in their theatrical releases have become hits (or, at least, "cult classics") in the video market. At least in this area, the "midnight show" has gone from being rather popular to nearly dead in the last few years (I don't know why), which does not help in this regard.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-27-2009, 12:41 PM:

quote:
With a 90 day or less window to the home video release,

This is a myth. The average video window has been growing in the past couple of years because the studios have recognized that a too-fast video release hurts the picture. The average window these days is actually somewhat over 120 days for most studios. The only movies that hit video in 90 days or less these days are major flops.

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 08-27-2009, 12:44 PM:

I don't know how TV gets their spots now, but the last radio spot I received for a promo the then local Clear Channel stations were running was an MP3 attached to an e-mail message from a studio rep. I forwarded it on to the radio rep.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-27-2009, 10:27 PM:

As some are discovering...it all depends on what you consider "back in the day" is.

Take this enlightened response:

quote: Chad Souder
Sound - better today
Average screen size - better today
Seats - better today (by a looong shot)
Sight lines - better today (and some thought stadium was a fad)
Choice of movies/movies per year - better today
Concession food choices - better today
Likelihood your show will be sold out - better today (as in less likely)
Film stock - better today

Price - better back then
Individual ownership in projection quality - better back then
Showmanship - better back then
Customer behavior - better back then
Pre-show advertising - better back then
Projectionists' blood alcohol content - higher back then

If one were to compare a '70s to mid '80s theatre...much of this would be accurate. If one were to compare much of this to a '60s and before...well some things would definitely change.

Sound - better today as compared to the '70s...worse as compared to the '60s and before. That is, the mixes are generally worse and just "cookie cutter" Today...must is in Left/Right, dialog is in the center...god knows what in the surrounds. I'd say generally the surrounds are better than yesteryear...the rest...far worse today. In the '70s, you normally had blah mono and uninspired at that...with some notable exceptions, for sure...Star Wars, Close Encounters and the list would go on...but by and large..blah.

The people that mixed in the 60's and prior..when they did stereo or 6-track mixes...did a phenomenal job, considering their equipment availability (and that will be a theme with my response...who is doing what given the technology available). Listen to a mix like The Sound of Music...it is truly great and I can't think of anything mixed today that really is as good as that. Today's folks are afraid of panning dialog, for the most part...they also bury the dialog behind music and effects...they have no sense of balance...one could listen to the mixes of yesteryear without blasting it too. Just like with modern CDs...in order to appreciate the LOUDS, you need the quiets and in-between too. All loud all the time sucks...turning the volume down just makes the dialog go unnaturally soft.

I'll take good mono over mediocre stereo every time. We've had mag sound since the 1950s...it is discrete and can play all of the frequencies you are going to feel/hear...digital merely brought it to the masses...which is a good thing but it isn't better than good mag and I'd argue that good mag beats good digital.

Average screen size - better today if compared to the '70s/mid '80s crackerboxes, twin-ems or triple-ems...etc. Far worse than the '60s and earlier palaces. Today you get a screen that is often too big for the room. It is like sitting in the front 1/4 of a movie palace...you pick up all of the flaws but few if any of the benefits. Normally, the theatres of the '60s and prior had their screens fit the space quite nicely and it wasn't required nor desired to go wall-to-wall or ceiling-to-floor. One often had a much more comfortable experience.

The crackerboxes of the '70s/'80s are embarassing...how many had aisles right down the middle too so the "best" seats were the aisle? And the sound leakage was just great too! At least they didn't charge you for two films even if you heard two!

Seats - better today in many theatres. There have been good and crappy seats in any era, that is for sure. In fact, seatback-to-seatback spacing has been anywhere from great to painful and no decade has a lock on that one. Often the real old theatres were designed for shorter legged people, it seems. I do not think that high-backs are inherently better but they are not inherently worse. I have had real comfortable shows in both low backs and high backs...I've had painful shows in both too! When the Uptown in Washington DC got their high-back seats in the '90s...we had continual daily complaints! They just were not shaped well unless you HAD Scoliosis! I do know that many of the Haywood-Wakefield seats of the '60s turned into squeaky son of a guns!

Sight lines - better today than many '70s/'80 theatres but no better than most '60s and before. Stadium seating was the answer to the incompetent architects that didn't do proper sightlines. Slope-floor theatres can be designed to offer all of the benefits of stadium but are inherently more ADA friendly, more elderly friendly and are less likely to trip up folks. Furthermore...stadium theatres tend to have the people enter/exit in a much more obvious manner than the old traditional 3-section theatre (my personal favorite).

Choice of movies/movies per year no better today and MUCH WORSE the further you go back. In any year you can find your good films and your turkeys. Anyone know how many titles where in 2.55:1 CinemaScope? It is on the order of 400-500 titles...that is from a 2-3 year period! Most folks of today don't realize how prolific movies were once upon a time. It is one reason so many have been lost...there were so many of them, very few were valued beyond its initial release. It would be like buying a new pair of shoes every day (and you had the funds for that)...and then worrying about keeping more than the ones you particularly liked (felt good).

Most folks today don't have a conception of just how big STAR WARS was...the fact it played over a year in many cities...it is particularly hard given the latest offerings...the closest you could find to that sort of big success today is Titanic...now over 10-years old and it wasn't 1/10 the phenomenon of Star Wars. Go back a decade...and you have many films playing over a year...2001, The Sound of Music, Hello Dolly....etc. It isn't like there were not other offerings...in fact there were MANY. It isn't like there are not good films today...there are (Thank God) but the occurrence of that level of buzz and excitement isn't there as much. Certainly home video has cut way in on that too. I'm sure Harry Potter fans would watch their film more and longer in theatres if they knew it wouldn't be available in the home for years.

Concession food choices - better today in most respects. I do miss the better popcorn cooked in such oils as Coconut and REAL Butter...the lack of it cuts way back on my popcorn consumption. However, the '70s concession food items were some of the worst selection and often stale.

Likelihood your show will be sold out - less likely

Film stock - better today BUT...print quality was better before. Once upon a time prints were struck from the camera or early generation negative. They were FAR steadier then and real technicolor was often used until the mid '70s. Like your income...it isn't what you make, it is what you keep. The feeling today is that it is better to protect the original elements for future generations than to risk damaging those elements pleasing the generation they were made for! I can see it both ways. Certainly protection copies should be made but one should do a better job of putting their best foot forward. Today's prints are embarrassing and incompetently made. There is also no excuse for having not utilized 65/70mm better by now..even for a digital release, it is better source medium. One thing yesteryear definitely slams today on is making the most of ALL that is/was available. People did more with less back then. Today, people do less with more.

Price - better today...actually. Compare movie prices as the index of inflation rises...movie prices do not keep up. Compare movie prices with the national minimum wage...movie prices do not keep up. I remember paying $5.00 to see The Empire Strikes Back in Washington DC. That was 29 years ago...minimum wage was bopping around the $3.10 mark (I don't recall the exact figure)...today what is the minimum wage $7.25/hour? It is more than double what it was in 1980...ticket prices in a Washington DC theatre are only double in 29 years.

Individual ownership in projection quality - better back then primarily because there were more independent owners and MOST (though certainly not all) were showmen back then...they set high standards....however, in ANY group you are going to find some that stand out for being better or worse than the norm.

Showmanship - better back then, for the most part.

Customer behavior - better back then and the theatre had "ushers" that actually ensured a pleasant experience

Pre-show advertising - less to non-existent back then though sponsorship is nothing new to theatres...theatre clocks with the local drug store other ads were certainly used as far back as one could imagine. One thing is for sure though...back then, one didn't have to wade though a lot of crap before their show but they did have cartoons, newsreels...and such. Also credits were very short and at the beginning, not at the end (other than possibly "The Players.")

So again, depending on the era one is comparing as "back then" today either is better, equivalent or worse. It also depends on one's perspective. I do find that most theatres today uninspired. I find that the reuse of relatively recent titles of movies that were just fine in their previous release to show what a drought of ideas Hollywood has.

On balance though...the bang for the buck back then was better, in my opinion.

Steve

Posted by Jarret Chessell (Member # 5077) on 08-27-2009, 11:52 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Today, I think it's a pretty rare occurrence for someone to visit a movie theater and find the audio part of the chain to be running in tip top shape. Not enough people at the top give enough of a fart to pay the extra money to maintain good quality audio in commercial movie theaters. Much of it is pretty abysmal.

This gets me... I've picked up films from lots of theaters and heard lots of threaders (we'll call them that in this case) where they couldn't find the DTS discs because they weren't with the movie, or better yet, they don't bother with them because "no one can tell the difference anyways" It's a peeve of mine. I can understand systems going down from time to time, but.. ughh... Even my delivery guy didn't understand why I'm always jumping hoops to get the discs.