Movie theaters, Are they dying?

[tonyvdb]

After reading this thread and some of the other threads going here it has really come to light that it seems that theaters as we know them are going to have to come up with some really cleaver initiatives if they are going to stay in business.
We have 5 really large megaplexes here and two IMAX theaters and they are slowly putting the smaller theaters out of business. West Edmonton Mall alone (the worlds largest shopping center) has 3 separate theaters including a huge 18 screen megaplex and an IMAX all competing for business. Ticket prices are way to high in my opinion at $13 for evenings and weekends.
The 18 screen Silver city theater has a gigantic fire breathing dragon in the lobby that goes through an animated sequence to music and sound effects every 20min with the climax of breatheing a 20ft long flame out of its mouth 3 times at the end and is quite something to see and feel as its quite warm if your near it.

What are some of the theaters doing in your area to attract customers?

[WmAx]

In my area(Lynchburg, VA is the closest semi-major area around me) theaters do not try anything other than the standard small movie showing ads in the local paper to attract customers.

In my area, all of the theaters offer sub-standard sound quality, stick floors, annoying patrons (talking, babies crying, etc.) and uncomfortable seats of questionable hygiene. Don't forget the low quality food at extraordinary prices.

Why would I go?

In retrospect, a Blue-Ray disc on a good 720P HDTV actually has at least equal, and usually superior resolving ability(yes, you read that correctly: just 720P) in practical terms as compared to the standard end-to-end 35mm film projection process in the best case scenarios, according to credible perceptual studies[1] into this area. The sound is trivial to exceed in quality at home. The convenience of being at home, in the most comfortable(to you) conditions make the theater an absolutely worthless experience for me. Even if only the standard DVD is available - the lesser image quality will not be enough on it's own to make a theater showing a desirable thing to me.

-Chris

Footnotes
[1] Image Resolution of 35mm Film In Theatrical Presentation
Baroncini, Vittorio; Mahler, Hank; Sintas, Mattheiu; Delpit, Thierry
http://www.cst.fr

[tonyvdb]

WmAx wrote:

In my area, all of the theaters offer sub-standard sound quality, stick floors, annoying patrons (talking, babies crying, etc.) and uncomfortable seats of questionable hygiene. Don't forget the low quality food at extraordinary prices.

Why would I go?

I think you summed it up right there. For me its the sound quality that bugs me the most. Theaters just dont pay much attention to the levels that a movie is playing at. A THX certified theater means little these days as it seems that most dont calibrate them to proper levels for each movie and the surrounds never seem to be loud enough.
At home I can make it as loud as I want and really amerce myself in the movie.
The larger ones here all have PizzaHut and other franchises right inside as well as specialty coffee and even Slurpee machines.

[yourgrandma]

Theres one near me that has a full bar on each floor and is actually a pretty nice place. Best sound I've heard at a cinema, but I've only veiwed their IMAX system. They also have local bands play live in the lobby on weekends.

Even with all that, if it were more than 10 minutes away, I'd never go. Not worth it. I Am Legend on BD at home was better than on IMAX, if I recall. Then again, I had a bad seat, but still.

[superchad]

With the Studio's starting to release DVD on same day as Theater release aswell as offering them for Download at same time the are going to be more endangered than ever. As others mentioned prices, cleanliness, sound and video quality, gas prices and rude audience members talking and cell phones ringing I feel no need or desire to ever attend one again. There is a drive-in not too far away that I may actually like to attend for the memories of youth but thats about it.

[alan monro]

Gooday I am spoilt . Since the completion of my HT noway known would i go to a theatre . All i have to do is wait a few months to see the latest releases , I can pick when i want to see the picture , I can watch it in my PJ's if i wish , I can have a break whenever i like ,The sound quality is much, much better than a theatre , And ,it costs bugger all to do all this .Kind regards . Alan .

[SQCherokee]

My wife and I have been discussing building a hometheater when we buy a house. Were in omaha so ticket prices are less than the coasts still...but it costs us almost 20bucks just to get in...then if we don't want childrens size consessions it costs us about another 20 bucks. Theres a grocery store near the theater we always go to so we buy our consessions from there.
We like being able to go out, but say we go to a movie about 3 times a month...thats 60 bucks a month just to get in...take that times 12 thats 720 bucks a year!!! Spread that out over 5 years...and thats 3600 bucks!!! Add in the concession prices and thats $7200!!!!
Its cheaper to smoke than it is to go out on a date with my wife!
I would rather take that potential $7200 bucks and put that as an upfront investment in building a dedicated room for our home.

We keep seeing the cost of everything going up so this is just calculating the cost of this at current admission and concession prices!!!

[alan monro]

Now you know why i built a HT . Alan

[Richard W. Haines]

Here's the score. I've covered this is other posts but I'll repeat it here.

You aren't getting optimum quality in movie theaters any more. We haven't had consistent quality
since 1968. Prior to that, all theaters showed camera negative prints. That meant that every print
shown in a cinema was struck directly off the original negative that was photographed during
the shoot. That was as good as you could get in an analogue medium like motion pictures.
Now there were differences in quality depending on the format. Films printed in the dye transfer
process ('Glorious Technicolor') had a better color rendition than those printed in Eastmancolor.
However, Eastmancolor print still looked quite good off the camera negative. Prints shot and
printed in large formats like 70mm, VistaVision and Cinerama looked ultra-sharp on the large
screened, some of which were deeply curved. Theaters were custom designed for optimum
projection in the "Roadshow" theaters. Those were the movie palaces adapted for 70mm like
The Rivoli and Ziegfeld in New York City. Cinerama theaters were built from scratch to encompass
the enormous 80 foot wide curved screens. The Dome in LA is a prime example.

In 1968, all of this changed. Cinemas were folding everywhere because the demographics of
the audience had been changed with the demise of the Production Code an implementation of
the Ratings System. By 1970, there were more R rated movies than GP/PG or G. Since the
number of viewers was limited due to the restricted content, they began to twin the movie palaces
or bulid new small screen multiplexes and later megaplexes. These theaters were not built for
optimum presentation but for their cost effectiveness. One projectionist would handle all the machines in some plexes since that aspect of presentation had been automated.

Combined with the small screens and other corner cutting of the seventies, they began to strike
release prints from duplicate negatives rather than the original negatives. That increased grain
and decreased sharpness and resolution. Since they had lost the mainstream audience and the
screens were not the enormous ones used for Cinerama or 70mm, no one seemed to care.
They they elimiated Technicolor dye transfer printing and phased out 70mm (with the exception
of Imax) which further degraded the quality. Add to that high speed printing cranking out the
copies from duplicate negatives at the rate of 2000 feet per minute. They're barely getting an
exposure at that rate. In contrast the camera negatives prints of the pre-1968 era were struck
at 50 feet per minute regardless of format. Dye transfer prints (also derived from the camera
negative) could be made quicker since it was a photo-mechanical rather photo-chemical system,
similar to lithographic printing.

High definition and standard definition DVDs are mastered from fine grain camera negative prints
(Interpositives) or from the negative itself. They never use the crummy high speed copies shown
in the megaplexes for home video formats. The quality isn't up to spec. They would look too
murky. So there you have it.

Of course any 35mm print can be shown on a larger screen than a HD DVD because of pixelation problem in video formats, for a smaller home theater screen they will look better than the release print. They will not look better than a camera negative print which is what they screen for Hollywood insiders, pres showings and film festivals but since consumers don't have access to them, it's a moot point.
If you were able to see a restored 70mm print of "Lawrence of Arabia" or Technicolor print of "The Wizard of Oz" you'd see a major quality difference too but for new
features, you aren't getting optimum quality in cinemas any more. Unless you
enjoy the collective experience of watching a movie with an audience, you might
as well screen them in your home theater. They'll look and sound better.

[SQCherokee]

agreed

[Blaser]

Theaters are generally quite large, and although they are treated to enhance SQ, the seats will not sound the same everywhere.
In HTs, it is even more problematic, nevertheless we can chose to optimize one seat or propably a row of seats with very good results.
Now how many rows do we have at home?

[Richard W. Haines]

blaser,

You're referring to 'sweet spot' seats which are extremelly limited in any theater, espcially
with contemporary stadium seating. As always, there were trade offs. While the screens
are bigger in the megaplex era rather than the multiplex era, the prints have poor resolution
becuse of the generation loss. The larger the screen, the less sharp they will look unless
the copies are made directly off the camera negative which is no longer the case.
Sweet spot seats were a problem in the fifties with curved screen presentations and
3-D. When you watched films in the side aisles or balcony, it would look distorted. That's
why they had reserved seats in the Roadshow cinemas back then. The sweet spot seats
were more expensive. Aside from visual distortion, the sound field will be altered depending
on where you sit. If you're too far back, the surrounds will be too loud and so on.
A person really had to decide what they want out of the moviegoing experience. Do
they want optimum presentation? They'll have to go to Hollywood for that in terms of exhibition. Do they want the enjoyment of screening a movie a crowd for shared reactions? They can still go to a megaplex for that and it can make a difference with specific types of films like comedies,
adventure movies and horror flicks.
Unless you work within the industry, you're not going to get optimum presentation in
a megaplex but you can get it at home. You can customize your screening room to make sure
the few people in attendence all have 'sweet spot' seats. You can also customize your sound
field according to dimensions of the room. Of course with a DLP you can also customize the
projected image deciding how bright it should be and how much color saturation. None of this
can be done in cinemas any more.
In the 'golden age' of exhibition which was 1952-1968, they did try to customize theater design, 70mm projection, superior print quality, stereo sound and screen dimensions so that the bulk of the people in the bottom section of the cinema had 'sweet spot' seats which they paid for with higher ticket prices but you got your money's worth. They had skilled projectionists who use a light meter
to ensure the proper illumination was on screen. In a megaplex, you're lucky
if the minimum wage operator knows how to turn on the machine. Roadshow were far more spectacular than any home set up but unless you patronized theaters like "The Rivoli" in New York City, you won't know what your missing an a good home set up with generate a very good moviegoing experience. The only thing missing will be the collective experience of watching a movie with an audience but I can live without that. I have a very nice home cinema that's set up for 35mm as well
as digital projection. But I still miss the Roadshow cinemas which were demolished
over the years.

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

In 1968, all of this changed. Cinemas were folding everywhere because the demographics of
the audience had been changed with the demise of the Production Code an implementation of
the Ratings System. By 1970, there were more R rated movies than GP/PG or G. Since the
number of viewers was limited due to the restricted content, they began to twin the movie palaces
or bulid new small screen multiplexes and later megaplexes.

Hmm... I know this is what happened, but it certainly seems counter-intuitive! Build more screens for fewer viewers?

Regards,
Wayne

[drf]

Here in Aus they are trying to turn theatres into one-stop family entertainment venues with everything from pokies through to video parlours, restaurants and bars. The problem is not so much the quality of the sound/video, but the fact that people have less time to go out. Some of the more recent theatres around where I live have very good color managment and sound technologies. However even with the scores of free tickets I get from work, I still can't find the time to go.

If they are dying it is a social trend that is killing them.

Hmm... I know this is what happened, but it certainly seems counter-intuitive! Build more screens for fewer viewers?

If you look closely enough you'll find that human nature is counter-intuitive or seemingly so on many levels.

e.g:

-My taxes are too high so I need a pay rise ????
-I didn't know how it worked so I just kept pushing buttons until something happened???
-The buisness failed becasue they had too many customers???

[Richard W. Haines]

Wayne,

Who says the film business has to make any sense? If you examine film history, much of it
is bewildering in terms of distributors and exhibitors making bad decisions that defied common
sense. That's show biz...

For example, throughout cinema history, the number of screens tended to be within the range
of 20.000 from the silent days through the late sixties. And this was went more than half of the
public went to them at least once a week.
Now there are 37,000 screens and it's a fraction of the original audience demographics. Of
course this has caught up with industry over the years. About five years ago most of the major
megaplex chains were insevere financial trouble due to the dismal quality of the product and
poor summer returns. Most of the independent theater chains and large screen single theaters
have folded along with the art houses and repertory cinemas.



Another self destructive business practice in the past was to clear out vaults of negatives and
prints in the days prior to television. It was expensive to store and insure movies and many
distributors just junked them to clear out space for new product. They stopped doing this
after the advent of television which gave extended life to movies for broadcast. It's a miracle
so much survived from the Pre-TV era although silent films were the worst victims since they
were rarely aired and the distributors thought they were worthless inventory.
As late as the seventies distributors were still destroying materials. Jack Warner ordered
the destruction of the stereo mixes of Warner brother features since he figured future broadcasts
would be mono. Fortunately, some survived via film collectors who had magnetic stereo prints
of their classics. When Spain wanted to make a 70mm print of "My Fair Lady" for re-issue, WB
shipped them the original camera negative to save money on the copy since lab costs were cheaper there. When it was shipped back they forget to send the title sequence which was lost. They
had to re-create it from scratch for the restoration. The horror stories are endless and we are
very lucky archivists have been able to piece so many movies back together.
MGM had transferred the three strip Technicolor negatives to Eastmancolor
for re-issue at their Metrocolor lab. Aside fromt he loss of quality in the two
formats, Eastmancolor faded whereas the Technicolor negatives were in black
and white. They were going to junk them but the Eastmanhouse Archive stepped
in and agreed to preserve them. This turned out to be a wise decision since they
went back to the original three strip negatives for the restorations of "The Wizard
of Oz" and "Gone with the Wind". Even though both were filmed on the volitile
nitrate stock, they remain intact in good storage. Much of nitrate deterioration
was caused by storing the negatives at room temperature in Los Angeles rather
than cold storage to save money. That's why the nitrate negative of "Lost Horizon" had decomposed after only 30 years and it had to be restored from surviving 35mm
and 16mm release prints.

Today distributors are much more diligent in preserving materials which is somewhat ironic.
In the past exhibition and presentation were superior but films weren't properly preserved. Today
films are preserved but exhibition and presentation is poor in cinemas. Go figure.


I'm among the few filmmakers involved with the preservation of their movies.
I have my own cold storage vault and I preserve my negatives. I don't trust distributors to do it for me. Others involved with preservation of their work past
and present include Charlie Chaplin, Harold Lloyd and Martin Scorsese. Unfortunately,
most directors are 'work for hires' and have no say in what happens to their negatives after the shoot. They don't own them. Only those who produce and
direct have any say in their long term survival. While things have improved in this
area, I still wouldn't trust distributors and it's wise to have at least some pre-print
(Interpositives, black and white separations) of a movie you made if you're unable
to retain the camera negative.

[SteveCallas]

alan monro wrote:

Since the completion of my HT noway known would i go to a theatre . All i have to do is wait a few months to see the latest releases , I can pick when i want to see the picture , I can watch it in my PJ's if i wish , I can have a break whenever i like ,The sound quality is much, much better than a theatre

Bingo. If we disregard Rocky Balboa (which I had to go see being such a big Rocky fan.....though I ultimately left pretty dissatisfied with the film and my decision to go back to a movie theater), the last movie I went to go see at a theater was White Noise back in January 2005. On top of the already mentioned reasons of degraded PQ and SQ, noisy people, cell phones, etc., I buy most of my dvds used, which means for less than the cost of seeing the movie once at the theater, I can own it forever.

[drf]

There's more to going to the movies than just PQ and SQ. Atmosphere is something that just can't be recreated at home. Not to mention the fact that the kids aren't asleep in the next room (or whatever room). I guess the same can be said for concerts. You just can't get the same sound quality live that you can get on a dvd or cd, but you cannot recreate the experience of a live show on any form of media. Having said all that I can't help but wonder what level of courtesy people extend in movie theaters of there in the US. Here in Australia, for the most part, only emergency service workers leave their phones on and no-one talks over the movie unless it is becasue there is a fire.

[tonyvdb]

Hi Dr.F, nice to see you again. I do agree that the movie going atmosphere is a good reason to go. I remember going back when the original Star Trek movies were released. People would dress up and there would be cheers and funny comments blurted out during the movie that just added to the excitement.
Allot of the Arnold Schwarzenegger movies were the same way.

On another note I have been hearing reports on the radio that in Australia they are now charging $35 per person to go and see a movie in some theaters What is up with that? Is it like a dinner theater but with a movie? interesting concept if thats the case.

[drf]

tonyvdb wrote:

Hi Dr.F, nice to see you again. I do agree that the movie going atmosphere is a good reason to go. I remember going back when the original Star Trek movies were released. People would dress up and there would be cheers and funny comments blurted out during the movie that just added to the excitement.
Allot of the Arnold Schwarzenegger movies were the same way.

On another note I have been hearing reports on the radio that in Australia they are now charging $35 per person to go and see a movie in some theaters What is up with that? Is it like a dinner theater but with a movie? interesting concept if thats the case.

Thankyou,

It's called "gold class". Every seat is a spacious recliner arm chair, cold drinks are served on a table between the seats. There is plenty of room to move.

http://www.villagecinemas.com.au/Cinemas/Gold-Class.htm

[mddbb]

I think movie theaters are a great escape, my HT is near my kids rooms so I can't turn it up to much or it will wake them up. Anyway my wife and I like to get out of the house for a nice date every once and a while.