If you were Mr. Average and went to see a movie at your average movie theatre, you would be greeted by unknowledgable and apathetic staff, possibly a scratched and/or dirty print, poor sound, and bad splices. But Mr. Average goes out and buys a DVD player and he is amazed. He has Dolby Digital and DTS sound (both discrete 5.1 and both using LESS audio compression than their theatrical counterparts). He has a fairly clear picture. Too him, the disgusting MPEG2 artifacts are less disturbing than a continuous scratch or onscreen dirt. He can get HDTV which has HIGHER resolution than any digital video format proposed for theatrical exhibition. It seems that home theatre has us beat.

But why? It's because theatre owners are getting cheap. They are not concerned with the quality level of the presentation. They are not concerned with giving the audience something that simply cannot be obtained at home (unless you happen to be a collector). They seem more concerned with building as many new theatres as possible, oversaturating the market and putting themselves out of business (which is EXACTLY what is happening right now with United Artists). In order to accomplish the goal of oversaturating the market, they must cut costs, and it's usually in the booth. They pay less, require people of less intelligence and skill to operate, etc. They certainly won't reduce managers' wages.

I know that we can talk about it all day and night, but unfortunately theatre owners are certainly not going to listen. We need to provide something that make the customers want to come to the theatre. More than just the "newest movies". I know that everybody on this forum is doing their part to put on the best show they can, but they can't do it alone. They need support from the owners so they can obtain the tools they need, like FilmGuard, proper splicing equipment, and incentive to stay on and continue to do a good job if the operator is highly skilled and is an asset to the theatre.

I, for one, would love to see more 70mm releases. But only to theatres that have shown that they are capable of caring for the prints that they have. This would give audiences an even bigger and brighter picture (plus, don't we all like to see the big "In 70mm" ad in the paper?)

I think soon many people will find that they would rather rent a $2 DVD that they think looks and sounds better than pay for an $8 movie. The industry as a whole needs to improve and it is quite imperitive that they do it as soon as possible.

 |  IP: Logged

If movie viewing really is on the decline, it ought to be well known by the management. They then should be looking for ways to get people out from in front of their DVD setups and into film theaters. Cutting corners on projection will not accomplish this. That seems to be admitting defeat by VHS and DVD. "OK, since no one wants to see movies in theaters anymore, we need to cut corners in order to remain in business". It's a conflicting statement, but it's the way some businesses are run. No matter what gadgets and gizmos become available for home theater, you'll never be able to produce the same feeling as actually being in a theater.

Why is home theater such an attractive alternative?

1. You don't have to get in a car and drive there.

2. No long lines at the ticket counter.

3. You can pause the movie to take a leak or fix a sandwich

4. You can smoke in a home theater.

5. No spilled drinks or popcorn to walk through.

That having been said, some of these "benefits" of home theater simply cannot be implemented by actual theaters. What is actually keeping the theater circuit alive is the fact that first-run movies are not on video. That needs to continue. Maybe a new slogan for the digital age can be "Movies without pixels" as a way of illustrating a benefit over home theater. What about DLP? It doesn't even match HDTV in picture quality, let alone 35mm film. It shouldn't even be considered a system for presenting motion pictures. Why should we backpeddle as far as image quality, especially with the need to compete with home theater?

What can a real theater offer that a home theater can't?

1. Large, high quality images. You just can't get a 40 foot screen in a house.

2. Good sound quality. Most home theaters probably don't have equipment that comes close to even a mediocre theater.

3. Movie viewing can be part of a "night on the town". Who really wants to go on a date and then come home for the film?

The experience. At a good theater that cares,the popcorn is fresh and tasty,the drink isn't overloaded with ice,and doesn't cost a whole hell of alot, the auditorium is clean,the film starts in frame and is clean,clear and bright on a BIG screen. The sound is great and I leave happy. So do others.

At home,sit in your undies,see a clear but 45 inch picture,sound is dolby but....
Popcorn is outta a bag/mircowave
Drinks in a can.

Which sounds better?

The good theater does. Trouble is finding one at times. Some chains hire idiots at minimum who'd rather spit on you than serve you. Same idiots "play" projectionist trashing print after print with carelessness.
Outta frame starts,filthy floors,crap sound,etc. Thank godness there is more of us than the above example "them". Trouble is, they give us a bad name. People stay at home with the tv and dvd than go to a bad theater.

quote:

---

Why is home theater such an attractive alternative?

1. You don't have to get in a car and drive there.

2. No long lines at the ticket counter.

3. You can pause the movie to take a leak or fix a sandwich

4. You can smoke in a home theater.

5. No spilled drinks or popcorn to walk through

---

You left out
6. No loud, obnoxious people there specifically to ruin the movie

I think a big failing of local theater management has been not kicking out unruly audience members, & maintaining in the customer's mind the idea that going out to see a movie will be pleasant.

When I went to see "Three Kings", about 7 18-23 year old auditorium-hopping males partied in, flopped down about 4 rows from the front, & after some social conversation, turned on a boom box.

I went to the concession operator & complained, & spent about 5 minutes in answering "well, what are we supposed to do about it?"

Some folks here berate audience members who don't *GET UP* & go get someone to fix a problem, but they're missing the point of how people want to pay for a movie. They want to do the same thing as at home, make the preparations, then *sit down" & get that mental condition of being on the butt for the duration. They paid their money to sit on their butts, & if they have to get up, they're being gypped.

Encountering unruly audiences is what I find most folks mention as the reason for just renting videos & staying home. Most don't seem to notice film scratches & other presentation issues above some subliminal level. They do sort of like movies better at the houses with better technical presentation, but can't articulate the reason.

What the hell's a boom box doing in a theater? That shouldn't have made it past the doorman. How about cell phones? The last time I saw Bicentennial Man (in DLP, I might add), someone got a phone call and decided to stand in the aisle and yak. Fortunately, this time it was a minor distraction or I would have said something.

I hate to admit it, but I really didn't care too much about my job when I worked as a popcorn shoveler. I knew I wouldn't be there the rest of my life. But that's the kind of people you get for minimum wage. Now, I'd feel kind of funny working in a concession stand some eleven years later. I'd be the only one who gave a damn among all the high school kids who are working because Daddy told them they had to. Projection, however, is an actual profession and should have well-trained and well-paid people in it. This is becoming less and less the case and the on-screen results show this. Just imagine a DVD release with the telecine machine run by the same "projectionists". It wouldn't look so good.

If a 27" TV looks better than a film at the theater, God help us!

I could hear plain as day:
"Hello?"
"Just watchin' a movie."
"Really? Cool."
"Can I call you back when the movie is done?"
"OK good, Bye".

It was a steep ass stadium seating house, and my foot was very near to his head. My foot would have made subtle contact with his head had his conversation lasted much longer.

She showed me to where he was and I without even thinking about it took the phone from his hand and said into it "dickhead will call you right after I throw his ass out of my theater" and then hung it up, grabbed him by the arm and promptly tossed the ass out the exit door.

I am sorry but if theater owners will not take the initiative to throw these asses out then they have no right to own the damn place.

I have thrown more people out in the last six months then I threw out during the entire Lallapalooza tour (back in 92 I worked tour security, damn fun job).

As a result my business is increasing, slowly but word is spreading that I will kill anyone who talks during the movie. Just yesterday I was walking through End Of Days when I heard a Pop can open. Quicly confiscated the can from a very eldery gentlemen who quicly apologized and baught a drink at my concession counter to make up for it.

By the way, guilt works real well when selling concessions. Let them know that the new Googaplex down the street is putting you out of business and next thing you know they are buying enough popcorn to put your grandkids through college.

I think the best tool for keeping order in the theatre is the flashlight. It works especially well on teenage girls, who are so terrified of "being embarassed" or "looking stupid" that they cower in shame under the bright beam as if to say, "I'll be quiet, I promise, just TURN THAT OFF!"

We stopped running ads several years ago. One patron said to me, "why do you run commercials....that's what I come here to get away from!" And that did it for me. We weren't making that much money from them anyway. Course we only have one screen....I can see why a multiplex would learn to love that ad revenue.

1) Add up the cost of a home theatre system... A good 32" TV, a 4HD VCR, a DVD, a Pro Logic (or better) receiver, the cost of renting or buying tapes/DVDs... You're talking $2,000 to $3,000! Divide that by the cost of a theatre ticket in your town. You'd probably have to watch a movie every night for a YEAR to even come close to paying that off! How many movies do people watch in a year? A few DOZEN?

2) People just don't have ANY understanding about picture quality... WHATSOEVER!
I used to sell TVs for a living when I left college. I'd spend all day explaining about picture quality. I'd give side-by-side comparisons. I'd be pointing to things on the screen like 'aliases' and blurry spots and 'moire' effects, etc. People JUST DON'T SEE THEM! -- REALLY!

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged