quote: Steve Guttag

---

For the record, platters have zero influence on the creation or expansion of the multiplex.

---

Wrong! Just because you or I or some other people might be able to handle a multiplex with changeovers doesn't mean that platters didn't have an influence on their creation. I'm not talking about a simple 2 or 3 screen, I'm talking 6+. I guarantee you that if changeovers were still in wide use and nobody had ever thought up the platter, we'd see a ton more theaters with fewer screens. Please note that I am not saying that is necessarily a bad thing.

But you do raise an interesting point. I want to see you run a 16-plex, one operator, 20 minute reels on each machine all day. No automation allowed other than lights down, lights up (or mid) and show end cues. And the operator must make less than $15 an hour to do all of this and be non-unionized.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-28-2010, 09:39 AM:
 
Joe,

There were 6+ screens running changeovers with single operators in many locations...heck AMC was even doing it!

As for running a multiplex all changeover...I'll do a 50-plex if you want with a single operator and never miss a changeover and always have it threaded in time...in fact always have it threaded. Just get the exhibitor to build the 50-plex!

Kinoton has been doing successful rewinding projectors for what? 30 years? Before the E projectors there was the Kinoton-Cross intermittents that did indeed function as a constant speed sprocket on reverse.

The projectors never need to be unthreaded between shows so there is no rethread and hence less operator intervention or problems. Build ups/tear downs would also go much faster than with platters and likely inflict less damage and MOST make up tables are pretty pathetic.

As for doing it on 20-minute reels and no automation...what a retarded statement...the means to use the longer than 20-minute reels and automation predate the platter by a long shot.

While platters were used to make mega-plexes...they were never a requirement and for a long time now increase employee time needed to tend to the booth over the changeover system. There is also no question, adding the second projector dramatically increases one's start up costs.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 01-28-2010, 10:35 AM:
 
I'm giving my vote to the Academy Awards. Started in 1929, it remains the most influential marketing scheme Hollywood has ever created. Without demand, nobody would have bothered to invent any of the previously mentioned technologies and the Academy Awards are the best at creating demand. It's not even limited to those who win or are nominated. There is no grander awards show for any other line of work in the world. Even the most exceptional technology can fail without proper marketing.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-28-2010, 10:48 AM:
 
Steve, you said that platters led to the manager/operator concept. Changeovers using 7Ks or whatnot and (reliable) automation and self-rewinding projectors would be even easier for manager/operators. All they'd have to do is rewind the film cleaners. No need for a projectionist at all. So you are saying that platters did as well as did not beget manager/operators. Also, by your own admission putting in a second projector drastically increases the start-up costs. Yet you also say that platters had absolutely nothing to do with the proliferation of multiplexes as we know them today. Sure, there were 6+ multiplexes before, but I imagine they were the exception rather than the rule.

Why are you trying to confuse my little brain, Steve?
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-28-2010, 11:38 AM:
 
Oh come on Joe...there is nothing little about you!

As for platters being used to increase the multiplex...absolutely...it just wasn't a necessary item...the means existed before platter proliferation.

As for manager/operator on an automated 2-projector...sure it is easier that way and running a large plex regardless of which method without someone whos primary responsibility is to the presentation, is a flawed concept....Certainly automated changeover could have brought us here too...but platters took that charge and ran with it.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Joshua Waaland (Member # 287) on 01-28-2010, 11:52 AM:
 

quote: Joe Redifer

---

But somehow theaters still can't afford to pay great wages despite dozens of screens and one guy to run them all.

---

...and why is that? Why are so many of these companies so cheap? They obviously have the money to build these new multiplexes with all the granduer of an old movie house and then some. Some of the ones around here seem to be just a huge waste of money. Why have four snack bars that are never open? The biggest local multiplex has something like four or five snack bars and I have never seen one of them used except for the main entrance, even when I have been there on opening night for some very big films.
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 01-28-2010, 12:00 PM:
 

• 1. Talkies. While sound movies were inevitable with the advance of technology, introducing it in 1927 put movies at the forefront of entertainment for decades.
  ¤
• 2. Xenon Bulbs. While we can argue forever about platters, big reels, automated changeovers, multiplexes, etc, but without xenon none of this would be possible. They transformed the entire exhibition industry.
  ¤
• 3. Home Video. I include in this DVD's, Internet Downloads, HD, etc. For the first time, the public could watch whatever movie they wanted whenever they wanted, both by owning and renting. As a result of the home video revolution, theatrical exhibition eventually ceased to be at the cutting edge of picture and sound presentation, but relegated to catch up. It also allowed anyone with a desire and a moderate amount of money to set up a home theater to rival the commercial operations.

quote: Steve Guttag

---

I can have every bit as large a multiplex with changeovers as anyone with platters with as few or fewer operators to run it. In fact, I can set it up with even fewer operators.

---

The use of self-rewiding Kinotons is not only cheating for this discussion (they didn't exist back when multiplexes were created), but they are prohibitively expensive. Even changeovers in general with run-of-the-mill equipment are overly expensive. Rather than buying one projector, lamphouse, rectifier...and then buying it all over, the second set is simply replaced with a relatively inexpensive platter.

Your way also doesn't make economical sense. I get that during the latter half of the movie the first half could be re-threaded so no staff would be needed in the booth when the movie started...but that is the ONLY benefit. Every other aspect of the operation wins with the platter.

Mmmmmmmmmmmm, platters. You know you love them.
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 01-28-2010, 12:37 PM:
 
> The use of self-rewiding Kinotons is not only cheating for this discussion (they didn't exist back when multiplexes were created)

But self rewinding EPRAD SWORD/SABRE systems using Simplex heads did exist. How well they worked is debatable, but they were available at the time.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-28-2010, 12:56 PM:
 
Platter or not, I do wish that every multiplex would have two projectors for the largest screen and, ideally, changever capability on a mid-size and small screen as well. It would provide redundancy (assuming that the platter could feed either machine) and would save significant labor costs for screenings and rentals. With two changeover screens, it would even be possible to do a manual version of Brad's delayed interlock if needed.

I'm really surprised that the two-machines-with-platter combination is not more popular, since is by far the most flexible arrangement.

Back to the original topic:

I'm amazed that no one else voted for television. This is what marked the shift from out-of-home entertainment (for which there would normally be an admission charge) to in-home entertainment (which is free, after the initial purchase of a set). It spawned 70mm, Cinerama, Cinemascope, VistaVision, multichannel sound, and a general improvement in theatrical exhibition quality. It also provided the basis for movies on videotape and DVD.

On a more positive note, I would also include the continual improvement in sound quality for theatrical presentations. The "average" cinema in 2010 will provide demonstrably better sound quality than the "average" cinema in 1985, which would be demonstrably better than the "average" cinema in 1970. Sure, we don't have large releases in 6-track mag in 2010, and I am fairly sure that the very best systems in the past would surpass what is typically installed now, but incremental improvements in sound quality have helped cinemas to distinguish themselves from the average home viewing environment, with tinny TV speakers or, at most, bookshelf stereo speakers.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-28-2010, 01:35 PM:
 
Brad...rewinding Kinotons go back long before the E projectors...they were around during the platter boom. Look up "Kinoton Cross" .

Two projectors is cheaper than DCinema and with self rewinding projectors (that do go back to when platters went haywire)...labor costs are inherently less...at some point, they pay for themselves. You can't just hand wave and dismiss rock-n-roll projectors...and, btw, even now they are not too expensive. The rewind function on a standard E Kinoton is not that pricey and you don't have to have a studio projector for that feature.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 01-28-2010, 02:22 PM:
 

quote:

---

2. Xenon Bulbs. While we can argue forever about platters, big reels, automated changeovers, multiplexes, etc, but without xenon none of this would be possible. They transformed the entire exhibition industry.
¤

---

quote: Mitchell Dvoskin

---

But self rewinding EPRAD SWORD/SABRE systems using Simplex heads did exist.

---

quote: Joshua Waaland

---

Why are so many of these companies so cheap? They obviously have the money to build these new multiplexes with all the granduer of an old movie house and then some.

---

Josh: You answered your own question right there.
 

---

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 01-30-2010, 07:41 AM:
 
Sam makes a great point there.

Ultimately, if the exhib can't make a profit then no amount of technical whizzbangery will save them...and that's where the popcorn comes in.

Low outgoings + high profit margin = Happy Exhibitor.

Good call Sam.
 

---

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 01-30-2010, 08:29 AM:
 
Maybe add "worldwide distribution" to the list? It probably doesn't belong at #1, but I think it's had a big impact on dumbing down and genericizing the product.
 

---

Posted by Tony Gallimore (Member # 5358) on 02-10-2010, 07:51 PM:
 
One point not mentioned was the negative impact of daylight savings time on outdoor theatre venues. The drive in concept was extremely popular when families could jump in the car, enjoy the movie and still get home before 10pm. But when the showtime was forced to 8:45pm or 9:00pm that didn't work well for families with young kids.
 

---

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 02-11-2010, 07:26 AM:
 
I believe the introduction of sound was the overall largest contributor to the continued success of the movie business.

All of the other arguments; platters vs. changeovers, carbon vs. xenon, etc., etc. are marginal to the overall business and as such minimally impact the bottom line.

Sorry guys, but the question was relegated to the greatest impact on the business, of which exhibition is only a part.

BTW: I agree that the introduction of the xenon lamp had the largest impact on exhibition.
 

---

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 02-11-2010, 08:22 AM:
 
Popcorn! Or at least popcorn at 600% inflated price
 

---

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 12-18-2011, 01:42 AM:
 

It has been 674 days since the last post.

 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 12-18-2011, 01:42 AM:
 
A general timeline of motion picture exhibition and historical events affecting popular culture in the US. It's a very rough list that I didn't put too much time into. Some dates are approximate.

1905: Nickelodeons become popular
1909: Large, purpose-built movie theaters ("movie palaces")

1911: Feature-length films
1914-1918: World War I
1917: First air-conditioned theater

1920-1933: Prohibition
1925-1927: Development of sound and then talkies
1929-1939: The Great Depression
1929-1948: Vertical integration and the studio system
1929: First Academy Awards ceremony

1930s: Concession stands
1933: Drive-In theater
1934-1968: Hays code
1935: Full-color processing
1939-1945: World War II

1940s: Popcorn popularity rises due to sugar rationing during WWII
1946-1991: Cold War (escalating from 1953 to the Cuban missile crisis in 1962)
1947-1952: House Un-American Activities Committee
1948: The Paramount Decree
1948: Triacetate "safety" film
1948: Cable television, rising to the formation of HBO in 1972

1950-1953: Korean War
1951: Network television
1951: Xenon short-arc lamp
1953: Cinemascope and other widescreen processes
1953: Multi-channel sound
1955-1968: Civil rights movement
1959-1975: Vietnam War

1961: In-flight movies
1962: Color television
1963: Purpose-built multi-screen theaters become popular
1968: CARA replaces Hays code
1969: Apollo moon landing
1969: Home video, rising to the release of Beta/VHS in 1975-76 and video stores in 1977

1972: Automated projection systems develop
1973: Movies start to open on Fridays instead of mid-week
1975: Jaws creates the summer blockbuster
1975: Automated film transport systems develop into single-reel platters
1975: Multi-channel optical sound

1980s: The multiplex becomes popular

1990s: The megaplex becomes popular and puts the entire exhibition industry into bankruptcy
1990-1991: Gulf War
1990-1992: Digital sound develops
1993: Polyester film base develops for release prints
1994: AMPAS begins using home video screeners
1995: Popularity of stadium seating increases
1999: TiVo releases first DVR
1999: First-generation digital cinema develops

2001: Terrorist attacks on US soil
2002: DCI formed to create digital cinema specification, the first version of which they finally get around to releasing in 2005
2005: 2K digital cinema develops
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 12-18-2011, 05:01 AM:
 
I'd add:

2009: 3D movies gain popularity, push digital cinema adoption forward.

AJG
 

---

Posted by Simon Wyss (Member # 6218) on 12-18-2011, 05:03 AM:
 
It was electrification.

Without electrical energy spreading in a world-wide net the movie people would have remained carneys who came and went with their limelights and gas cylinders. Would film shows have become longer than a reel when one had to crank all the time?
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-18-2011, 01:20 PM:
 
Great time line, Adam. I think this is much better at tracking the ebbs and flows of the movie industry rather than trying to over-simplify the entire situation down to just one biggest positive or negative factor. Time changes and so does the industry.

I agree with Aaron digital 3D made a big impact on the industry in the late 2000's, both in positive and negative terms.

A couple things I would add to the list:

2002 - Apollo 13 released in IMAX DMR process.
This started the whole IMAX DMR blow-up trend ultimately leading to some good but mostly bad things happening to giant screen viewing. The good: 30 minutes of the latest Mission: Impossible installment and significant portions of the The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises were filmed in the true 15/70 IMAX process. The bad: IMAX has been removing film projection systems as fast as it can, replacing them with 2K resolution projectors. This has paved the way for other theater chains to launch their own over-priced and equally fake giant screen viewing venues. Customers are now expected to pay a premium for movies projected kind of big and featuring big sound. 20 years ago customers could see just that sort of thing for a standard price by merely picking the right big city movie theater to visit.

1990s-2000s - Profileration of digital mobile phones.
In the mid 1990s "2G" technology helped radically increase the popularity of mobile phones and increase the amount of selfish, rude audience behavior in commercial movie theaters. Pagers were on their way out by the end of 1990s and smart phones were arriving onto the scene. Paris Hilton had many teen girls wanting Blackberry phones in the early 2000s. The iPhone hit the scene in 2007 and raised movie theater audience rudeness to new uncharted levels. A year later Android arrived, providing a credible alternative to Apple-branded phones.

The increase in audience rudeness with regard to mobile phone use has contributed to the growth of two movie theater trends in the 2000s. High priced "luxury" movie theaters are coming (and going) in various cities, giving people who are willing to pay a higher price the illusion of getting a break from the loud, disruptive riff raff. Unfortunately, Doctor Dick is every bit as likely to play with his phone as Tiffany, the 15 year old mall snot. Other chains, such as Warren Theaters and Alamo Drafthouse, are taking a more direct stand. They're ejecting cell phone users from the theater without a refund. In Alamo's case, they're even parodying the policy:
Don't Talk - Angry Voicemail (Uncensored)

Nevertheless, audience disruption has been a big factor with me losing some of my movie-going mojo. "Generation X" has reached the age where most of us don't have the patience for that anymore. The "Millennials," also known as "Generation Y" are making up more and more of theater audiences now.

While audience attendance levels may seem just as good as they've always been, the prevlance of so many entertainment choices and improvements in technology are bound to make each new generation ever more fickle. Younger generations don't care nearly as much about the history and tradition of film projection as those who grew up on film projection. So any big changes that happen, like bad cost cutting changes such as IMAX digital, are not questioned so much and even seen as "progress" by some people. Not many people under age 30 experienced seeing a movie at a drive-in theater or 70mm in a flagship class theater. Why miss film or even large format film? Taking it even farther, why would they miss movie theaters if or when they go out of business? It's all "digital" no matter where you see the show, be it in a movie theater, at home on the HDTV, on the computer screen or on a iPad or iPhone.
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-29-2011, 10:34 PM:
 

quote:

---

-something else not listed

---