We've had a good exchange of thoughts in Bill Enos' topic "Getting More Damaged Prints," including that managers should try and train operators as best they can and not turn them loose "solo" too soon, and yet it was implied that if all you can get is high school teenagers, because wages are so low, well.... ? Results aren't going to be very good and certainly not reliable nor consistent.

I haven't been here at film-tech too long, and yet in a short time I've seen we have a diverse mix of people ranging from young "just-starting," to folks who have "risen" to the rank of manager/projectionist but might not be paid much 'cause they're young [?,] to those who are career general managers of larger multiplexes, and still others who are primarily management exclusively and owners.

Then there is this old-fogey rotter called Schmidt here who occasionally recites various heresies, daring to suggest that maybe... just maybe, the industry might have better results, presentation and far less film damage if it would be willing to recognize projection as a craft again... that a projectionist is a key person in a multiplex equal in importance to the manager... and that if the industry wants to RETAIN anybody who is any good, be it manager or projectionist, it needs to pay better salaries.

I wonder if the status of prints themselves has not denigrated to being only an unavoidable expense of a consumable: something that isn't going to last very long anyway, 98% of which will go to salvage/recycling in 4-6 months and nobody cares?

I think the STUDIOS who make the movies have to get interested in the first place -- sufficiently so that all prints from carmike and other circuits with a bad rep will go straight back from 1st run to a film exchange and be checked, with full replacement costs to be assessed if there is damage or scratches. For example, many years ago Disney was very particular about the condition of its release prints. It DISCARDED whole reels otherwise perfect just for having 3 or 4 splices in them.

I have read here the opinion that if you have a multiplex run on platters WITH a competent projectionist, + a film-cleaning system with the FilmGuard product, prints will run hundreds of times without problems and leave in perfect or near-new condition just as they arrived. Unfortunately, this usually isn't the case... mostly what there is are platter systems run by kids @ minimum wage who don't care [why should they?] and all these reports of prints heavily scratched and nearly wrecked in only 3-7 days. The kids are more interested in making out in the dark behind a sound rack.

The IATSE unions were replete with problems, including corruption, but at least there were projectionists getting good pay, which led to consistency and a certain level of reliability as to the picture on the screen.

It also happens that the union is the natural enemy of the corporate structure; which if it has its way won't pay more than minimum wage to anyone if it can avoid doing so. Well, today the corporate structure has its wish. Everything is running at minimum wage, look at the mess, poor presentation all over, and all the film damage. IS THIS GOOD?

So now poor ole Schmidt is gonna get roasted again for saying that things will be better if the booth were restored to being regarded as a skilled craft and a prestige occupation with some status, carrying with it good pay and some fringe benefits.

If this is not so... then how would YOU solve the problem? Suggestions please.

Is projection and presentation important? You bet it is. Probably 10 times more important than the floor operations, which in themselves are also extremely important. But I don't think projectionists should get paid 10 times what everyone else makes. I think they should start out at a low wage, just like everyone else. Once they have proven their worth, competance, and reliability, then they should be given a substantial pay increase to make sure they don't go anywhere. A living wage. $11 an hour is pathetic nowadays.

There is not one simple solution. I think the theater industry is very content with the way it treats projectionists. They are run by corporations. They are concerned not with presentation, only increasing revenue. Since the managers are the ones dealing with the $$$, they get paid the $$$ so they handle the $$$ properly. There is nothing you could say to a movie chain to change its mind about this. Ain't gonna happen. The golden age of movies is over. Sorry.

A booth that does run platters, has competant projectionists and uses FilmGuard always achieves excellent results. If they are not getting excellent results then they have a bad projectionist. Prints leave in better than new condition. They run smoother, quieter and steadier. Brad did not pay me to say that, but I should charge him

 |  IP: Logged

Demetris Thoupis

 |  IP: Logged

My day job is not cinema related but my real passion is spending my "off-duty" time working with independant exhibitors. Anyhow, recently I was at my day job and overheard a co-worker ask another if he'd seen a certain just released film. The recipient of the question responded, "No, I think I'll wait to see it on DVD. It will look just as good on my home theatre system as in the theatre and I won't have to worry about people around me talking." Unfortunately, this is certainly not the first time I've heard this or a similar response from someone.

I've long believed that the industry is getting further and further away from the days when a motion picture theatre was your respite from the stresses of the world, a place to escape and live in a fantasy world, at least for a few hours. I'm not suggesting that we return to the time when plush ornate single screen palaces were the rule, I realize that's not practical or cost effective, but I would like to see a return to a time where ushers keep order, professional presentation can be expected and is not a rare find, and theatre management emphasizes showmanship. These are the kind of things that distinguish the cinema experience from watching a movie at home. Without them I believe that going to the movie theatre is less magical and fun and moviegoers will be more apt to substitute others forms of entertainment in place of going out to a movie.

In summary, if people find it more enjoyable to see a movie at home, that's what they'll do. Even if you build a multi-million dollar building, that by itself is not enough if the quality of presentation and other problems detract from the experience.

If the industry returns to providing patrons with a total entertainment package that includes good product, good presentation, good food, and a great place to see a movie that can't be rivaled by the home environment, then you've given people a reason to go to the movie theatre. I'm sure many of you on this forum do all the things that make going to the cinema a magical experience. I know some of you personally and know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is still being done in the year 2001. However, I also know that some of the theatres I've attended have left even ME wanting to leave and wait for the film to be released on DVD. That's bad, considering how tolerant I usually am with theatre operators since I understand what they are up against when running their theatres and how much I love watching film as a communal experience.

CONSISTENCY is a real issue. I recently attended two different screenings of the same movie at the same theatre. On one screen, two reels had severe emulsion scratches lasting minutes, and the film was presented on a dim screen with terrible illumination uniformity and lamp flicker (the xenon lamp was probably at the end of life). The other screening on the same sized screen was PERFECT --- no dirt, no scratches, bright and uniform image, excellent sound.

I told the manager about the problem screen, and he thanked me, noting that no one else had complained about the scratches or dim screen. He promised to get the problems fixed. IMHO, although no one else had complained, many seeing that substandard presentation would hesitate in coming back again.

"Film Done Right" is easy to do, and just good common sense. But "doing film right" consistently, day-in and day-out, does require knowledgeable, skilled and caring people in the booth, and not just on Thursdays .

------------------
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

The problem with most theatres nowadays is the management and booth staff are incompetent and don't care about presentation defects unless too many people complain (which they usually don't unless the movie borders on being unwatchable). The companies as a whole do not care about their quality of operations as much as they care about saving every dime.

In my area, there are Carmike and Regal theatres. Each company has an excellent, well-maintained theatre and a horrible, poorly maintained theatre. You'd think Regal would care enough to try to make their Huntsville theatres as well-run as their Decatur location. You'd think Carmike would try to make their Decatur location as well-run as their Huntsville location. It amazes me.

It's no wonder that many people I know have given up on theatres. Many have not given up on movie theatres in general, but on specific theatres. Carmike 8 in Decatur and Regal Madison Square 12 in Huntsville are two that have very bad reputations. On the "Shrek" thead, I mentioned that one of my friends said that he'd rather see "Shrek" misframed at Regal Hollywood 18 than see it at Madison Square 12. For a person to say that, they've got to have pretty strong feelings against Madison Square 12. Even I would not make that statement, since I've seen good presentations there. The Carmike 8 in Decatur has the sloppiest presentations of anyone. If the Huntsville Regal theatres had adjustable masking in all their auditoriums, Carmike 8 would be the worst theatre. On the average, there will be at least two or three defects of some sort in every presentation.

With home theatre equipment becoming cheaper, better, and more affordable every month, we have the choice of seeing a movie in a theatre knowing 23 percent of the image may be missing at the Huntsvile Regals, that the presentation is likely to be sloppy at Carmike 8 or Madison Square 12. When the ads show that the movie we want to see is not playing at Carmike 10 or Regal River Oaks Cinema 8, we're less likely to want to see it and will be more likely to wait for the DVD. In fact, the only reason I see many movies in those theates are to keep my ratings up to date. If I were a typical customer, Carmike 10 and Regal River Oaks 8 would be the only theatres I'd visit.

If theatre companies in my area want to keep customers in the long run with competition from DVD and home theatre, they need to do the following:

Carmike 8: Get competent management and staff, make needed adjustments and repairs to projection equipment, and upgrade the sound systems that are in terrible condition. Teach staff to recognize presentation defects. Do something about the poor cosmetic condition of the facility.

Regal Madison Square 12: Get competent management and staff. Install adjustable screen masking in auditoriums 3-6 and 9-12. Finish the promised digital sound system upgrades in all the auditoriums. Fix the DTS readers you already have so the sound does not drop out all the time.

Regal Hollywood 18: Install adjustable screen masking in auditorums 3-8 and 11-16. Presentation consistency is pretty good, but check them a little more carefully and thoroughly and fix problems that are noticed.

If these suggestions are not followed, these three theatres (especially the top 2) are probably going to be the ones that will lose their customer base the quickest.

The above (mentioning specific theatres and imrpovements needed) could be done for any city of any size. I suspect that similar conditions could be found all over the country.

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

1. Training. If a person is not properly trained, expecting them to do a good job is like expecting a reader of science fiction to design and launch an earth orbiting rocket. It can happen, but the chances of there being problems are huge. Training is the area that was best served by the unions, although some of the training was undoubtedly very dated.

Not every projectionist will be a tech, nor should they be, but a core training program is imperative. A video tape or printed instructions can be nice, but ultimately this is a hands on activity, where immediate feedback is required to prevent bad habits from developing in the first place.

The skill of being able to train people is a skill in itself. Ideally, each area should have a person designated as a trainer, and that person should be validated by the techs as having the competence for the task.

2. Responsibility and recording. Theatre management needs to spot check at least the final shows of a day or shift for scratches and damage. If there is damge it needs to be recorded and the projectionist held accountable. This leads to the next part, pay.

3. A projectionist's pay should not be all flat rate. A portion of it should be subject to presentation quality, and a portion subject to print damage. The details could vary, but the idea is that every print damaged would result in a loss of pay, and every out of focus or out of frame presentation would result in a loss of pay. After a preset limit was met, the projectionist would be let go. Each incidence of damage would be forgiven only after six months or a year, to prevent older projectionists from racking up points as they improved and had fewer problems. Good projectionists would earn more, regardless of age or length of service.

4. A return to prints being placed at theatres in time for proper make-up and inspection. If it takes a major chain refusing to show prints until they have had inspection screenings, then so be it. The distribution system usually squeeks by with new prints from the lab, but since prints are not inspected after each run, the theatre receiving a bad print is stuck between a rock and a hard place. That theatre can refuse to show the print and piss-off the audience, or show the print and piss-off the audience. Either of these two scenarios will cause people to avoid returning to the theatre. Distributors sending out a damaged print should be fined.

5. Strict enforcement of fines for damaged prints at a rate of twice the cost of the damaged reel. Distribution is _stupid_ in this regard. If prints were inspected after each run, and a database of damage kept, the revenues from fines could easily outweigh the cost of the inspections. When exhibitors have to pay for the damage their incompetent employees and shitty equipment cause, the cost of paying competent personnel and keeping equipment maintained will seem a more reasonable alternative.

7. Death squads. Distributors could send tech representatives to theatres with the authority to stop a show and demand the print back. A damaged print or show run out of frame would result in that print being pulled without replacement. The loss of revenue would kill theatres that were habitual print damagers.

For example, if Universal went to Regal Hollywood 18 or Regal Madison Sqaure 12 here in Huntsville and found "The Mummy Returns" being shown at 1.85:1 in one of the small auditoriums, they should not allow these theatres to get any more Universal prints until adjustable masking is installed. If Dreamworks found a presentation of "Shrek" at Carmike 8 in Decatur noticeable out of focus on one side, they should be given a warning that future inspections showing such defects would result in loss of Dreamworks films until problems are corrected, and there should be a "probation" type of period afterwards to keep close checks on such facilities.

I don't believe theatres are going to get any better as far as film presentation goes unless they are punished for defective presentations. They'll probably get worse if the current trend continues. Presentations problems in my area are about the same as they were in 1997. Managers have told me about upgrades that were going to be made and have talked about attempting to improve presentations. I haven't seen it. The renovation of Carmike 8 never happened. The digital sound systems never got installed at Madison Square 12 like the staff thought would happen. The adjustable masking mentioned in October 1999 Huntsville Times for Regal Hollywood 18 that a booth person said would be installed "some time within the next year" didn't happen.

When customers do complain, they typically get the impression from talking to the staff that more care will be put into presentation and that upgrades will occur. I've found such talk to be meaningless, and I don't even bother printing it as news on my theatre information WWW site because I've found that information from theatre staff, and even management, are very unreliable.

This being the case, if theatres are staying the same or getting worse, and home theatre systems are constantly improving, I believe in a couple of years when larger screens are available and when most people will be using progressive scan players and Dolby Digital and DTS systems, theatres will have competition from their own customers!

In Gadsden, Regal operated the Rainbow Cinemas (8-plex). It was an old Fairlane-Litchfiled theatre. Recently, Hamilton Theatres took it over and upgraded the sound systems and increased the size of the back 4 auditoriums. Isn't it strange that smaller companies seem to be doing better as far as upgrades in comparison to the giants like Regal and Carmike?

I wonder if the Regal Hollywood 18 and Regal Madison Square 12 would be better run if they were operated by a smaller company? I'll bet that the adjustable masking and other upgrades would be more likely to happen.

Do you think that we're headed toward a return to theatres being operated by smaller, more localized companies, such as Hamilton Theatres? Each city, back in the 60s and 70s, seemed to have its own local theatre company that ran most of the theatres in town, like Rosenbaum Theatres, Crescent Theatres, and United Amusements. Would theatres be run better if there was a return to those types of companies?

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

I didn't see "Gladiator" until it came out on DVD --not really that I chose to wait; i just never really got around to seeing it while it was on the big screen. Well, the fact is the only Lawton theater playing it at the time was the Hollywood Theaters Cache 8 (better known as the "Crap 8"), and I wasn't giving that dump any of my money. A movie theater has to offer good projection quality and good sound quality to get me through the box office. That means the corporate people need to put money into making their commercial theaters BETTER and not just building more run of the mill screens. It also helps for the staff to like movies and care about how well they are shown. I still prefer to see movies in commercial theaters, but DVD offers a good alternative if your only choice for seeing a film is paying $7 to enter a dive.

DVD now offers better sound quality on its audio tracks than the audio tracks found on 35mm film prints. Dolby Digital theatrical at 320kb/s is not very good. The 384kb/s and 448kb/s versions on DVD make a big difference. DTS runs at 820kb/s in its theatrical version, but the DTS CAC codec in the home version is more advanced. The 754kb/s DTS mode is similar in data rate to the theatrical system, whereas the 1509kb/s version of DTS nearly doubles the data rate. Even the CDs, encoded at 1234kb/s, sound incredible. On top of that, DTS-ES 6.1 offers something commercial cinemas don't have: discrete three channel surround.

Near field speakers in home theater systems are generally more precise that array driven commercial speaker layouts. My home system features a nice Yamaha receiver and set of Paradigm speakers. It is not really "high end" but anyone that has been in my living room has been really blown away by the audio experience.

Commercial theaters can achieve a lot of the same capability. As good as my home theater sounds, I still feel that it doesn't outdo some of the best commercial installations I have visited. The deceased Northpark #1 THX theater was incredible, and quite arguably the best quality theater I have ever visited (and that includes comparisons with any movie theater in New York City). But you don't have to have a giant screen and enough sound system wattage to power a small city to have enthralling audio quality. The money guys in the corporate offices just have to be willing to invest in it and put on a good show.

My feeling is the commercial theater industry needs to consolidate and get rid on many outmoded auditoriums. Concentration has to be set on improving absolute image and sound quality on a screen by screen basis. Some of that also means getting better projection and sound formats going. I still believe 70mm projection is the answer for bright, sharp images --not DLP. 5.1 channel audio is not good enough for a commercial venue. 10.2 Surround would be much better --and the technology is already in place to do it. It is just the matter of a company like DTS or Dolby Labs just working with a film studio to debut it. Commercial theaters need to be able to distinguish themselves apart from home theater in terms of picture and sound. With DLP the opposite will happen and actually push more people into just waiting for the DVD.

However you must keep in mind that the average home theater sound system is nowhere near the average movie theater sound system in quality. In the theater, you can have much more control over the EQ and other various settings than in the home. Most home theater tuners don't even have an EQ adjustment, and many people don't even bother to set the levels on each channel with a quality DB meter. The same can be said for the movie theater, however... many are not set up properly and therefore sound bad.

Then there is the issue of the center channel speaker. What the hell is up with havin' two giant ass speakers for the left and right, but this little wimpy ass thing for the center channel, which is the most important speaker in the setup? Do you really think that wimpy speaker has the same output as the other two? No way. And if you send the bass that is supposed to go to the center channel over to the left and right speakers (bass management) that distorts the original mix even further unless you are sitting dead center.

My home theater sounds pretty damn good, I'll admit. I can vibrate the room with bass without turning on the subwoofer. I made sure I set up everything as close to a real theater as I possibly can, since I know how real theaters are set up and how they are supposed to sound. But when I drive up to a friend's house, he has waaaaaay too much subwoofer (it also sounds "hollow") and the levels are way off. People seem to think that the more subwoofer you have, the better it sounds. Not true.

"It's the SIZE of the sound that makes it better," he said.

 |  IP: Logged