Since I am rating the quality of presentations (grading them) and providing the reviews for the world to see on the WWW [click individual theatre names to see lists of showings rated], this creates an interesting problem, since I'm performing a role that is different than a typical customer. My main goal is to provide a fair, accurate, objective, impartial rating for each theatre that lets the general public know what kind of quality to expect, on the average, at each theatre.

This presents problems. Ideally, to perform this rating on a totally fair and objective basis, I would never interact with the system except for the necessary buying of the tickets and sitting in the auditorium watching the movie. This means that I should never get up and report a problem because I would be influencing the quality of the presentation that I'm grading. Most of the time, I do not report problems, but during the past couple of years, I report problems with somewhat greater frequency. The dilemma is if I report a problem, to give the benefit of the doubt, I should rate the presentation as if it were fixed without me reporting it since I don't know that someone might not have fixed it anyway. This means that I can choose to impact a rating by reporting a problem (interact with the system that I'm measuring).

I have been to every theatre in my area between 48 and 69 times, so I have a lot of past data to go on and already know what to expect from each place. Think about a teacher and a classroom full of students that you've been teaching for a while. Let's say I have a well-behaved student that consistently gets high grades, like 98s and 99s and 100s. Let's say I have another student that is a goof-off and consistently turns in sloppy work and gets 60s and 70s often. A day comes when both of these students turn in a paper and both have serious problems and get 65s, and I see this as the students are turning the papers in and there is time left. The 65 from the sloppy student is no surprise and is consistent with his normal work. However, the 65 is in no way typical of the straight-A student. I would have a tendency to give the straight-A student to straighten that grade out (like say, "Hey, work that problem again," or overlook it as a bad data point when figuring final grades, if it only happens "once in a blue moon".

This is the way I manage the reporting of problems in theatres. I do it based on previous performance and on how much faith I have in the management and staff at the particular location. For example, let's say I'm at the Regal River Oaks Cinema 8 in Decatur and the movie is started significantly misframed. This would be extremely rare for this location, where the projectionist usually always threads in frame and any type of major problem is practically nonexistent. Let's say that I know that the manager is in the lobby, and know that not only will he fix the problem, but he will crack down on it and prevent it from happening in the future. I'd go to the lobby and tell him and if it's fixed, I'll not even note it. I would not report it on a comment card or anything, since that manager would take care of it. End of problem.

Contrast, say, the Carmike Century Cinema 8 in Decatur or the Regal Madison Square 12 in Huntsville, where sloppiness is the usual. Let's take the same situation. I'd have a tendency not to report the problem and just grade it as it. I do not consider this to be unfair because my decision to report or not to report is based on many previous experiences. If the theatres suddenly improve drastically and it becomes obvious that the manaagement, staff, and company are putting an honest effort into providing great presentation quality, then there are ways that I can handle the change in quality to make the ratings show the improvements, like visit the theatre several times within a short time period after the improvements are made.

The Regal Hollywood 18 in Huntsville typically has had good presentation quality with the exception of not having adjustable screen masking in two thirds of their auditoriums, for which they get a hefty 7.5-point penalty. So does the Regal Madison Square 12. The frustrating lack of adjustable masking, however, makes it somewhat less likely that I will report a problem. If adjustable masking were installed in these theatres in the auditoriums that lack it, I would be more likely to be a bit more lenient as long as I didn't see much sloppiness in presentation.

This brings me to the numerical values themselves. The deductions are based on how distracting a problem is. In my reviews, the same problem description may have different deduction amounts for different movies because due to the composition of the movie itself, or various environmental elements, the problem may have been more distracting in one case than the other. A problem so bad that my attention is drawn to it often during a movie and I wish that I could correct it, I consider it a more major deduction and it is typically at least 5 points. Very minor flaws are typically 1 or 2 points, depending on the distraction level. I deduct from 100, meaning that 100 is for a flawless (or very near flawless) show. It is not accurate to say that 90 to 100 is the "A" range and 80 to 89 is the "B" range, and so on. The worst presentation I've ever rated received a score of 65. If I rated one below 60, that would mean that the movie was unwatchable. This has never happened.

It would be more accurate to consider 97.5 to 100 to be the "A" range, 95 to 97.5 to be the "B" range, 92.5 to 95.0 to be the "C" range, and 90.0 to 92.5 to be the "D" range, and anything below 90.0 to be an "F". Why? Because even the worst theatres show most of their movies without too many minor problems. It takes effort to do such a bad job that the average is below, say, 95. That means that no quality control or problem correcting is in place. Maybe I should eventually start deducting from a smaller number, like 40.0 or 10.0. Using 10.0 would make Fs be negative numbers, which would stand out well.

About the averages: I realize that quality can change significantly at a location over time, and it is the most recent time period that should carry the most weight in a rating. I have the roll-off set to 4 years, meaning that grades don't count after 4 years. Also, they gradually and gracefully have their weight reduced to 0 over the 4 years. I did this because if a theatre had a very problematic period, it would be practically impossible to ever have a really good rating again if a straight arithmetic average was used, weighting all showings equally in the ratings.

The weight (influence on the final rating) is computed by taking the number of days elapsed between that particular showing and the most recent visit to that particular theatre, and dividing it by 4 years (1440 days in my model), and subtracting from 1. Some examples: A showing 57 days old would have weight of 0.9604 . A showing 2 years old would have a wieght of 0.5, and a showing 4 or more years old would have a weight of 0.

So far, I have not run into any difficult decisions about the iffy situations about reporting problems or not. The theatres ratings are definitely divided into "categories" with wide separation between them. If I give one theatre a break, I give its "rating competitors" a break as well. Everyone will have different opinions and methods for dealing with different issues that come up, just as different teachers have different ways of grading their students.

Since I seem to be the only person doing this sort of thing, I welcome criticisms and/or suggestions.

The most awkward things in the ratings system are the facility deductions. They adjust the rating to average out the number of scope movies shown in "1.85:1-only" auditoriums. Why don't I just deduct 23 points each time I see a scope movie projected on a 1.85:1 screen? Simple. I tend to avoid those showings. Also, I could significantly raise or lower a theatre's rating based on how many such showings I chose to attend, so the only fair thing is to average them out. This does two things. First, if adjustable masking is installed in all auditoriums, the facility deduction disappears and my ratings instantly reflect the presentation quality at the theatre in that case, since aspect ratio problems are not deducted on a per-show basis. Second, the theatre's projection quality without the facility deduction can easily be determined by adding the facility deduction back to the ratings to give an idea of how well the staff are working with what they have.

------------------
Evans A Criswell
Huntsville-Decatur Movie Theatre Info Site

You could grade theaters on responsiveness to complaints. If a show starts out of frame and stays that way for a trailer or two (or until you get up and complain) then you obviously mark the grade down since they aren't paying as much attention as they should. You already know that it is not going to be fixed unless someone complains.

Now go complain. See if the problem gets resolved and how long it takes. If the problem gets fixed soon, then you can mention that in your review. You don't have to raise the grade since it was you who noticed the problem and had to go complain to get results. If the problem takes a long time to get fixed, gets fixed improperly or not at all, then you lower the grade even further.

I hope you print out these reviews and mail them to the district office of each theater, making sure well to mention that they are all on the web for the world to see.

If a show starts with a problem and doesn't get fixed immediately (frame/focus/sound-type issue) then deduct n points.

If the problem persists for 10-15 minutes (plenty of time for the projectionist and/or ushers to make the rounds at least once, or for "the average Joe" to go complain) then deduct another n and go complain.

If the problem gets fixed within 2 minutes, give them back .5n for being responsive to a "customer service issue" (your complaint).

If the problem gets fixed after 2 minutes but before 5 minutes, don't give that .5n back. Just leave it at a 2n deduction.

If the problem doesn't get fixed by 5 minutes, deduct another n for not being responsive to the customer service issue and complain again. That would be a total of -3n.

If the problem still doesn't get fixed in 5 minutes, deduct another n for no response whatsoever to the customer service issue (total of -4n). Then you can do one of two things: live with the problem or go out and ask the manager to pull his head out of his butt so you can stick your boot in.

To paraphrase a line from Roadhouse, this scheme would allow you to "be objective until it's time to not be objective".

Here are some details I failed to mention in my original post:

My standard way of doing things now is to typically not deduct more than 2 points for anything that happens during the previews, unless it is really major. The movie itself is the most important part. I usually do not deduct more than 2 points for anything that happens during the credits, either.

If I leave the auditorium to report a problem during the previews and the problem is fixed before the movie starts, I typically deduct 0, 1, or 2 points, as appropriate, most of the time.

If I leave the auditorium to report a problem during the movie itself, at least 2 points are deducted for whatever caused it.

In any case, if I report a problem and it is not fixed, I add 3 points to the deduction. See "Erin Brockovich", Regal Madison Square 12, 2000/04/13, where I was going to deduct 12 for a problem, but deducted 15 after seeing a very badly misframed film that was not corrected after I reported it.

As for deduction amounts: I typically make notes about the presentation when I get back to my car after leaving the theatre. I write down each flaw I noted, along with the auditorium number, showtime, auditorium width, screen width, and movie format. I often assign the grade at a later time to insure that I objectively compare the presentation to others I've seen so any strong subjective feelings in my head immediately after the showing do not affect my grading. I often review all of my ratings and sometimes "lighten" one if I felt I was too harsh when I initially rated it.

In general, I am more forgiving when I rate showings if it is obvious that great care is going into the presentation. When I know that the projectors are cleaned between every show and the image hits the screen with good brightness and excellent contrast and color quality, in frame, with sharp edges all around, time after time, I'm a bit more forgiving about some little problem that is very minor. However, if the image hits the screen and the projector is misaimed or the aperture plate is not set right and the image is misframed, with other general sloppiness, I'll tend to look more deeply for problems to deduct for and will tend to nickel and dime them more with deductions.

If things are bad enough, I don't try to do individual deductions for every flaw. Instead, I'll just list all the problems and make one large deduction. See "Dogma", Carmike Century Cinema 8, Decatur, 1999/11/12 for an excellent example of the ultimate in sloppiness, and goes down in history of the worst presentation I've ever seen in a theatre.

If I notice a nonmajor problem during the previews and the problem is fixed before the movie starts without reporting the problem, then I "give it to them". For example, at least twice at the Regal River Oaks Cinema 8 in Decatur, I noticed minor one or two point deduction aperture shadow. The projector was stopped cleanly between two of the previews and the problem was gone when the projector was restarted. It impresses me that they would go to that trouble to fix such a minor problem. They deserve 100s for those. This was before they knew about my WWW site, too. If the ushers come in early during a movie and notice a problem and cause it to be fixed, I deduct less (sometimes much less) for it than I normally would.

So, responsiveness is "in the equation", although indirectly. That explains the variance in deductions from show to show even though the comment may be the same.

I prefer to leave that "at my discretion" rather than fixing a mathematical policy to it since there are so many factors than can affect one's enjoyment of a presentation.

Always reporting problems and grading based on how the problems are fixed is not likely an option I will go with. Here is why: Most customers do not report problems, either because they don't want to go to the trouble, don't realize there is a problem, or know there is a problem but don't know how to describe the problem. Misframing of a flat film is a perfect example: "The screen is filled with image and looks great, but why is text in previews going off the bottom of the screen so I can't read it?" The idea of material on the film that is not intended to be projected is foreign to most people.

Look at it this way: It seems that none of the thousands of people who saw Shrek in auditorium 10 at Regal Hollywood 18 misframed significantly complained, because I'll bet every show run in that auditorium from Friday at lunch until Monday night at 7:30, when I complained, was misframed. In the showing of Shrek at Carmike 8 in Decatur, even though the right half of the image was very out of focus, nobody complained! If I complain as soon as I notice a problem, then I am not reporting what people typically will see in any given theatre since I would be drastically affecting the system I'm measuring. Being mostly passive is the way to do it to get accurate ratings.

Trust me. Much thought has gone into all of these issues, and plenty of others, during the past three years. Feel free to criticize or poke holes in any of my logic if you don't agree with it. Sometimes, I address problems in indirect ways.

Responsiveness, cleanliness of the facility, picture brightness, management and staff attitude, although usually not directly graded and deducted for, can cause deductions for other problems to be greater or smaller, so it all comes out in the wash.

------------------
Evans A Criswell
Huntsville-Decatur Movie Theatre Info Site

Does the theater get a better grade for entertaining the customers more than the movie did?

Hmmm ...

The scary thing is; I've been there, seen that!

For example, I've often helped theatres having problems with prints made on Fuji or Agfa stock. It hurts the film business to let any correctable problem continue. If you go to a movie at a competing theatre and see or hear a problem, don't suffer through it and later gloat about how bad their presentation was, help them correct it by telling them about it. If a print, reel, or shipping case has correctable damage when it comes from the film exchange, FIX IT, rather than doing nothing just to spite them.

Yet, don't be a martyr --- if the damage is significant, or requires lots of time or money to fix, demand compensation or a replacement print. Make sure the distributor knows about damage caused by incompetence, carelessness, or negligence, so blame can be properly placed and corrective measures taken. If a theatre consistently ignores your legitimate complaints, take your business elsewhere.

"Film Done Right" is very related to another "golden rule": "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

I do provide feedback to Regal theatres using their comment card mechanism. Those do get sent to the individual theatres via email. Sometimes, if I see a manager or booth person on the way out of the theatre, I'll mention a problem to them after the show (like the out-of-focus Shrek at Carmike 8 in Decatur).

One reason I resist reporting problems during a movie, other than the "affecting the system that I'm measuring" problem, is that moviegoing should not be an interactive experience where one goes into an auditorium, sees something wrong, goes out and complains, comes back, maybe has to do it again, etc. I think that theatres, being in the business to show movies, should have enough quality checking and control in place to weed out most of the problems that occur. It should not be the job of the customers who are paying to see a movie to find and tell them about all their problems that should be plainly obvious to any staff member there.

There seems to be only one theatre in my area that has a quality checking and control system going. The Regal River Oaks Cinema 8 in Decatur performs checking in the following manner: twice during a show, an usher comes in and checks the presentation. This has often resulted in minor problems, when present, being corrected. It also has the function of catching misalignment problems or other little problems before they are allowed to grow into more serious problems. Even if they aren't fixed during a show, they'll be fixed for the next show, or for the next day. In my opinion, this type of quality checking and control should be in place at all theatres. Many of the misalignment problems I've reported at other theatres would not have occurred had those theatres used a system like Regal River Oaks. If River Oaks can do it, others should be able to do it. Look at the data I have for River Oaks and compare it to all the other theatres that I've rated. It should be clear that their methods of quality control are superior to others.

In most other theatres, ushers come in a couple of times, but they just check the exit door and don't seem to do much in the way of checking for problems and reporting them to the booth. When the usher looks at a screen with the projector misaimed two feet to the left and nothing gets done, time after time, they just don't care.

About reporting problems during a show: another reason to not want to report problems during previews is you run the risk of losing your seat. I typically arrive early and sit where I want when the auditorium is still fairly empty. For some reason, a large percentage of the people in a theatre tend to arrive during previews.

------------------
Evans A Criswell
Huntsville-Decatur Movie Theatre Info Site