my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Was theatre exhibition really that much better 'back in the day'? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Was theatre exhibition really that much better 'back in the day'? Carey Barber Expert Film Handler Posts: 143 From: Newport News, VA, USA Registered: Jan 2003 posted 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?  |  IP: Logged Tim Reed Better Projection Pays Posts: 5246 From: Northampton, PA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Adam Martin I'm not even gonna point out the irony. Posts: 3686 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Nov 2000 posted 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. I'm serious.  |  IP: Logged Richard May Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1057 From: Floral Park, NY USA Registered: Aug 2004 posted 08-24-2009 07:23 PM                      |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Mike Babb Master Film Handler Posts: 250 From: Norwich UK Registered: Jul 2002 posted 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...  |  IP: Logged Robert E. Allen Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1078 From: Checotah, Oklahoma Registered: Jul 2002 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Claude S. Ayakawa Film God Posts: 2738 From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 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  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Althaus Master Film Handler Posts: 435 From: Bedford, TX Registered: Dec 2008 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 08-24-2009 10:57 PM                        Maybe this topic needs to be separated into two categories: actual film presentation quality and "the moviegoing experience."  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.