# 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 said:


> 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 :TI 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 :yay:.Kind regards . Alan .


----------



## BrianAbington

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.


----------



## BrianAbington

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? :innocent:


----------



## 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? :huh:

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 said:


> 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 said:


> 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


----------



## Guest

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.


----------



## Richard W. Haines

Not us. We prefer to watch movies in our home theater. Better quality presentations, better
images and sound. I don't miss seeing movies with audiences any more. The shabby quality 
of the megaplexes has made them rude. Can't say I blame them. If it doesn't have
the atmosphere of a 'cinema' or 'theater', then why should anyone behave like it does. People
react to the decor and presentation. No one talked or made a peep in a Roadshow cinema
or movie palace.


To coin a phrase, we have a 'generation gap' in megaplexes both the demographics of those
in attendence the the actual film print.


I've screened people first generation camera negative prints and compared them to the high speed
third generation garbage shown in the megaplexes. They've described is a 'removing a veil' from
the projector lens. That's how dramatic the quality difference is when you strike a print off the
original camera negative instead of a duplicate negative. If I show them a dye transfer Technicolor
print, they describe as '3-D' since it's sharpness and color rendition are so spectacular. Like seeing
a movie for the first time. Everyone agrees that an HD DVD presentation is better than a high 
speed print in my set up. So there you have it. You want more people to go to cinemas than you
have to offer something that you cannot get at home. Distributors and exhibitors should research
the fabulous fifties which was the zenith of motion picture showmanship. It was really worth
the expensive reserved ticket prices back then. No one who saw "This is Cinerama" or "Around the
World in 80 Days" in 70mm Todd-AO didn't think they were getting their money's worth. Must better
than watching "I Love Lucy" on their TV set at home. What we have at home today is better than
the quality of what you get in theaters so that's the challenge. If it's not adressed theaters may
all fold in the long run. I don't believe the switch to digital projection is the answer. I have to 
adjust every DVD I project on my DLP. Each requires different settings. What megaplex is going
to take the time to adjust the color, contrast and saturation on each of the 20 movies they'll
be showing? None of them which means the quality will be even worse than it is now with the
third generation high speed prints they're projecting.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Ouch. You sure paint a bleak picture, Richard! But I expect you are right. The widescreen presentation and Tehcnicolor was indeed aimed at reclaiming audiences in the 50s that were choosing to stay home and watch TV. Today they indeed have their work cut out for them to offer those of us staying home a better experience. On one hand I don’t expect theaters to all eventually fold, as they are mostly frequented by kids who are enjoying the social experience with their friends as much or more than the movie itself. Still, with so many home theaters proliferating, I expect that more and more of them will be socializing in their friend’s living rooms or home theaters!

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## FlashJim

This is the theater I go to exclusively ...

Studio Movie Grill


----------



## conchyjoe7

Guess I should add my 2 cents worth, but it's going to be somewhat repetative as to what has already been said. 
I will give the theater closest to us some credit...Last summer they put in DLP projection in all of their theaters (although most of them are unbearably small), and that did wonders for what previously was an extremely dull and ungratifying experience. Even with the digital projection, as I said most of the theaters are unbearably small and the quality of speakers used in the smaller ones are abyssmal. NONE of them; even the 2 extremely large amphitheatres comes even close to our HT either in display quality, seating comfort or sound...NONE! In addition, all the things that have already been mentioned: Rude people that will not shut up, constant cell phone ringng, prices for popcorn and soft drinks that I once paid for caviar and a good wine...not to mention the extortion they call an admission fee. Broken, stained and worn out seats, and of course the all time favorite: Your shoes sticking to the floor with some unknown substance that makes super glue seem as silly putty.
Take all of that, and now add fuel prices...unless you're within 5 miles of the theater...fuggedaboutit. I don't even have to leave the house most times to get my films as they're delivered to my home by Blockbuster* One caveat to Blockbuster: You really really need to start checking your films (and cleaning and replacing them as necessary) as the number that simply initially won't play without a thorough "sink cleaning" is now approaching 100%, and the number that still will not properly play even after said "sink cleaning" is approaching 60 - 70%...and I have 5 very good dvd and hd-dvd players.
For the wife and I; we both unanimously prefer our own HT for all the many reasons mentioned above as well as by all that have contributed to this thread. The only industry I can see doing even more to alienate their customers and core clients is the the RIAA, and you gotta get up early and work hard to come even close to their level of customer alienation!
Of course, YMMV...
Cheers,
Konky.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

FlashJim said:


> This is the theater I go to exclusively ...
> 
> Studio Movie Grill


Wow Jim, that's an impressive place! I certainly intend to check it out. Thanks for the tip!

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## skloong

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> Wow Jim, that's an impressive place! I certainly intend to check it out. Thanks for the tip!
> 
> Regards,
> Wayne



Movie theaters will certainly be at a loosing end once the home theater gain ground and momentum.
With HDTV and Blu ray disc format, movies at home have improved alot and even affordable, thus making movies theater entertainment not so attractive! The only reason to go to the theater will be for those big box office movies that is big budget, which when view at home without a big screen or surround sound will be not so entertaining!
Moreover, screening movies in theaters usually have certain scene censored for violence or sex!
With home theaters, censorship is not the usual case as compared to film in the theater.
With the censorship, the story line of most shows in the movie theater is badly affected thus making it not entertaining as compared to home theater system where censorship is minimum or non existence!
Moreover, movie theaters nowaday do not have rerun of shows screened earlier whearas home theater does not have this problem if you missed the earlier screening.
So, let us move forward and start installing a home theater for the home so that you can bring the family members closely together for home entertainment!
Your family will love you for it!

Regards,
SK Loong
:heehee:


----------



## drf

skloong said:


> With the censorship, the story line of most shows in the movie theater is badly affected thus making it not entertaining


Just wondering how you define "badly affected" as, not that I disagree, I haven't really encountered a movie that was ruined because a particular scene was deleted. I could understand if it was a censored version of KillBill to make it a PG film.

Cheers
Dr F


----------



## Richard W. Haines

Skloong,

I'm not sure the word 'censorship' is applicable regarding theatrical exhibition.
It's more along the lines of different versions for each market. The negatives of movies are no longer cut as they were during the Production Code era but there are 
multiple versions of the same feature depending on the venue. For home video they almost always release the 'director's cut' which is how the filmmaker designed the movie. 

For theaters they have the problem of exhibitors who don't want to restrict the age of viewers and prefer the PG-13 classification over the R rating. Since cinema attendence is so unpredictable compared to the past, restricting admission is no longer desirable so they make special PG-13 versions of some R rated movies for theatrical
release like they did in "Live Free or Die Hard". In this case the movie wasn't
really censored since they shot different takes of his famous "Yippe Ka yee" line.
There are often different versions for foreign and cable release too. I guess the
most important thing is the DVD version being the official director's cut. The 
other versions will be adapted to whatever requirements are necessary for that
particular market.


I guess a follow up question to consider is...

Is there such a thing as a 'final cut' any more? Look at home many versions
there are of "Close Encounters", "Star Wars", "Apocalype Now", "Blade Runner",
"Lawrence of Arabia", "Spartacus" and "Alien" to name a few. Add to that the
new 5.1 mixes on most older films which are different than the original six track,
four track or mono mixes when they were released.

Perhaps the best we can do now is evaulate a specific 'version' of a movie
released in a specific 'market' in terms of it's content, visual quality and sound
mix.


----------



## skloong

Hi Richard W Haines,

In Malaysia, all movies need to pass through the government Film Censorship Board before they endorse for approval to screen the movie publicly. This is different from the different version launched by the movies makers for different region. The content for rated and unrated may differ but the storyline is still intact. A case of point is the movie, Kingdom of Heaven, the director`s cut version have 194mins content wheras the standard version is 145mins. With some scene snip off for violence, the actual storyline is affected with its connectivity from one scene to another.
Thus, watching movies in theater is more or less taxing as the audience need to fiqure out what happen in between the scene that was cut. Watching the movie at home with the director`s cut version is more entertaining.
Hope you see my point. 

Thanks
SKLoong


----------



## Richard W. Haines

Yes, I do which applies to your country. In the US it's more along the lines
of the requirements of each market as I described. Decades
ago there were more R rated movies than PG. Now most of the product
is PG or PG-13 to allow general attendence. Thus, producers and directors
will shoot different versions for those markets as required. The concept of
'final cut' or 'director's cut' is also modified according to market since the
directors often film and/or shoot the covering scenes during principal
photography.


----------



## xbounce

with divx and all this things it is normal that quality decreases


----------



## tonyvdb

xbounce said:


> with divx and all this things it is normal that quality decreases


You should post this question in this thread not here.
But yes, any compression you do to save space the quality will decrease.


----------



## deacongreg

I think its still too hard to tell yet. I do know here in New York, whether your in downtown Manhattan, Bronx, Brooklyn, or Queens, or Westchester County like myself, the raise in movie ticket prices is slowly becoming a hindrance. I know my stepson and his friends have cut down quite a bit in going to the movies. At 14.00 a clip, its a lot of money, and you still have not bought any food or snacks yet.
Think about this, your a 17 year old male with your girlfriend, its $28.00 for the film. Add popcorn and drinks. That is about 15-20.00. Then, if she wants to go for McDonalds or ice cream after, you need $60.00 to do a movie date. I feel sorry for our youth. That is ridiculous.
So, I believe once consumers know for sure that Blu-Ray is king, and all those people last year who bought all those low priced Toshiba HD DVD players on Black Friday last year, stop smarting from the format war, the demise of going to see movies may begin.
However, with the economy they way it is for the immediate present, going to Stop and Shop to rent a dvd for a $1.00, may become the rave.


----------



## thewire

Last time I went to a movie I walked in and it was real nice looking. There were rope lights everywhere, isles large enough to drive a car through, and comfy seats. I noticed when I walked in that everyone was pilled in the back of the room on the tiny balcony almost within arms reach of the ceiling. Then the movie started. :yikes: The treable was so loud and distortion was so high it was like pressing my head against a speaker. I could hear subwoofers bottoming out and standing waves galore but nothing was loud except the treable. Maybe I just had a bad seat? I think that the cost of maintaining a good sound and excellent picture is quite costly, and research shows the many of commercial theaters don't even meet dolby specs. It isn't uncommon for the SPL to not even exceed 105dB in them. Going to the movies just doesn't mean what it did, and most females I have asked to go to one it seems you have to practically drag them to go there, but yet they have no problems with watching one at home.


----------



## thewire

Can I rant some more about commercial theaters? :hide: I was at a concession stand and when the guy took my order, the front of the register fell off.. plop. I was like, what's wrong with your register? andHhe says "I don't know". I felt so sorry for the guy. I also talked to someone that used to work there and they told me they save the popcorn for up to two days to save on cost of making fresh popcorn. That theater did have a pretty stellar system that was THX certified however. Don't think I would ever buy the popcorn again.


----------



## skloong

With prices increased, couple with technical problems like not maintaining checks on speakers system and poor quality food served will definitely bring about a drop in attendance at the cinema. The management must realised that going to the movie experience must improve as not only the place must be kept clean and comfortable, the services as a whole should improved! I once attended the theatre and went to the ticket counter to purchase a ticket.The seating arrangement I wanted was booked and the other seats were too near the screen. I was told to come back half an hour before the show start to get the seat I wanted should the other guy who booked the seat
did not show up! To me, that is the last time I will go to the cinema as the management don`t value their customers! A genuine customer take an interest in the show, drive to the theatre , find a place to park and then want to purchase a seat for the show but is turn away when the seat is booked by a person who may not turn up for the show!
What rubbish is this! that is how theatre are run in Malaysia!
Final decision, set up my own home theatre and enjoy movies at the comfort of the home!


----------



## deacongreg

I hear you guys. I don`t have those problems here. SService on the whole is good, and while the sound could be better, its not unbearable either. To me, it is very simple, dollars and cents. When it does not add up, people do something else........................


----------



## DougMac

Last time I saw a movie the theater was well maintained, the seats were very comfortable, and the show started right on time. The picture quality was as good as any non IMAX theater and the sound system was excellent. Better yet, the volume was just right, it didn't blast you out of the theater or was so soft you couldn't hear the dialog. The rest of the audience was very polite. Snacks were reasonably priced and wine was available.

Wait... Now I remember, that was in my home theater!

I recently watched a "Deserving Design" episode on HGTV. The couple were both Sheriff's Deputies with a blended family of six children. One trip to the movies was over $200! That's withoug eating out. Deserving Design gave them a modest HT so they could watch movies at home. Long gone are the days of families going to the movies every week. If a family went to the movies once a month or so, they could easily justify buying a nice HD TV and at least a HTIB. Wally world is well aware of this. Look at recent ads.

Most of the movie offerings coming out nowadays may be worth considering throwing in the Netflix cue, but very few would intice me to drive into town to see at the multiplex.

Doug


----------



## skloong

I have on one occassion purchase a ticket to watch a local produced show screening in my area. My ideas was to see how local independent film makers can bring out quality film to the big screen and at the same time lend them the support they much needed.Guess what? I was the sole audience for that screening and it came to my mind how can the cinema survive with a such a loss per show?
Show profit or losses is dependent on the minimum audience attendance per screening. Thus, the box office or quality movies would generate more audience. With the rampant video disc piracy,internet download, the volume of sales per show is reducing.
My guesses is as good as yours, it is a matter of time before we will find the movie theatre sales dropping and high overhead eating into their margin.
With the advert of Blu -ray disc becoming affordable, it is no wonder that people will be enjoying movies at home with their loves one bringing family member closer together.


----------



## tommyboy1587

I saw American Gangster in the theater, and the sound just didn't do it for me. I didn't go back again until last weekend, saw Bolt, and once again, the sound didn't do it for me. I'm not sure what it was specifically. Even our 4 year old son said it sounds better at home. "Daddy, how come the movie theater doesn't sound as good as at home?" So me and my girl have decided that it's not worth the money to go to the theaters. And now when the kids ask to go, I just remind them of how much better it sounds at home, and they forget all about the theater. Also, it's much more comfortable at home. We don't have to worry about the kids "losing control", and my girl really likes to lay down when we watch a movie......

About them dying, I think that with the modern day technology; Blu Ray, HDMI, etc, it's not hard to get your HT to sound better than the theater. Nowadays the only advantage to going to the theater is to see the movie before it comes out on blu ray........


----------



## lhymes

Movie ticket prices haven't hiked in South Florida in a while, but I think that might be cause they're still as busy as ever. The theaters down here have a steady flow of customers. Most are very well maintained, and there's even one, kinda mom-and-pop theater that used to be really nasty that's really been getting an upgrade. At least in South Florida, theaters will probably be around for a really, really long time.


----------



## WmAx

No such thing as a good theater in my area right now. But there is a new one being built that promises to be a radical improvement. Even so, I have no intention to go the the theater except for very special reasons. For example: my dad actually likes the Transformer movie and he would like to see the new one coming out next year. Well, the only way we can watch movies in any feasible manner is to go to a theater, so by that reason, I will be going again(and probably gain in 2 more years when number 3 comes out).

Personally, I have better image quality at home. I have better seating at home. I have better food at home. I don't know if my sound is as good really, as I don't have any kind of special sound system on my plasma, just a couple of old economic tower retail speakers from years ago. I have extremely high grade sound systems for music purposes, such as in my dedicated listening room and my special audio monitoring system for computer audio use, but I have put no effort at all into sound for movies or television, as I just don't care much about movie soundtracks. On top of these things, I happen to hate tolerating the people at the theaters. All it takes is one undisciplined kid(more and more common in modern days) or rude adult to destroy the experience.

-Chris


----------



## Sonnie

I would say it is hard to pass up the peace and quite of home, watching the movie at your own starting time, pausing the movie for a break, the image and sound quality available at home nowadays, and if you have a popcorn machine from someone like Ultimate Home Entertainment, well... it is as good and in most cases better than any movie theater popcorn I have ever eaten.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

WmAx said:


> I have better food at home.


And I'll bet cheaper, too! :laugh:

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## skloong

Are movies theatres, dying?
Only time will tell. As from the comments received, mostly are negative side of it.
Yet, we still see the theatre around! The numbers of theatres in the good old days were many, but currently only a hand full still survive.In my areas, the number have not grown and is stagnant.
The theatres depend on the quality movies such as box offices to draw in the crowd, but recently such quality movies are hard to come by. The recent 007 Quantum of Solace was a big disappointment! Couple with the gloom economy worldwide,it is a matter of time we will know the answer to the above whether the theatres are dying?


----------



## Richard W. Haines

Again, back to the quality available...

Movie theaters show third generation prints or prints derived from a digital
intermediate. The best quality in this analog format is copies made directly
from the camera negative which is what all cinemas exhibited until 1968.
The prints they make today are too far removed from the camera negative
and look it.


Most video transfer houses master the film directly off the camera negative.
So it's better than first generation, it's the actual stock that was exposed in the
camera which has the finest grain structure and resolution. While a blu ray 
derived from it cannot be blown up to a 40 foot theater screen size without
seeing pixels, the typical home theater screen is between 8 to 10 feet wide
and you won't see any pixelation so the image quality is superior than what 
is available in the megaplexes. And you can tweak the image in the menu
of your DLP to get the perfect brightness, color saturation and contrast for
your home theater. A movie is what it is and cannot be improved upon.


The sound quality is more difficult to guage since they use different formats
and mixes. A digital track is six channel and a Dolby track 4 channel on the
release prints. Both sound different. Blu rays and standard DVDs use the
5.1 format which is adapted from the six track mix. The advantage at home
is that you can customize your sound field to work ideally with your seating.
In a cinema it's always a compromise based on where you sit and the size
of the theater itself.


What would improve the quality of prints in cinemas? 70mm and 35mm dye
transfer (Technicolor) release copies both of which have a unique look that
cannot be duplicated digitally. Cinerama curved screen projection. But these 
formats have been abandoned and the high speed Eastmancolor copies shown 
in cinemas are inferior to what you can see at home. The only reason to go to 
a theater now is to experience watching a movie with a large audience, not for 
the quality of the projection.

Assuming anyone is actually in the theater this doesn't appeal to me either
because the few times I do attend, people are talking and taking cell phone
calls which is very distracting as are the 15 minutes of commercials before
the feature starts. The cost of two tickets is the same as buying a standard
DVD. If you add concessions, the cost is the same as buying a blu ray so 
financially it doesn't make sense to see a new film in a megaplex unless it's
one of those pictures that is so controversial or intriquing you don't want to
wait a few months to screen it. There aren't too many contemporary films
that fall into that category for me.


----------



## thewire

You touch on some very important points there about how it was. I would like to add to how it was. 

In the theater I used to go growing up, it was very different then it is nowadays. This theater went out of business in a mall where people mostly went to shop and not see movies. It was replaced with a Abercrombie & Fitch later. My town was very small then a poplulation of only around 70,000 and is now more over 150,000 or so. Back then we knew the staff at the theater. They would tell us when we got origanal prints, they had upgraded some kind of equipment or if they were trying something new. The staff would even let me in the theater before films were ready to be shown, show me how they were upgrading the acoustics in the theater when it was closed etc. They would check the focus and setup the projector while the audience would enter. No commercials. Then someone would walk up to the screen as the movie would start to check the picture and make final adjustments. The staff was so nice that they would show me where they would prefer to sit. They would even recommend a movie to see in all honesty at the ticket booth and they had seen them all. At the begining of the movie the manager would talk to us asking us to please be respectful etc with a full house always and everyone would be silent. At the end the audience would clap and exclaim their enthusiam often in tears. Sounds like something out of dream now I know, but that was the way it used to be.


----------



## Richard W. Haines

Yes, I recall those days of showmanship. At our local theater, Beach Cinema, which
was the only place in Westchester that had 70mm projectors, they offered free coffee
at nights on the weekend. I went to some of the large curved screen houses in New
York City including the Cinerama and Rivoli. The Roadshows were quite
spectacular with overtures and intermissions. It was like attending a Broadway play
and audiences reacted to the this type of presentation and were well behaved if
not in awe at their surroundings.

I suppose contemporary megaplexes are still places for teenagers to take dates to or for adults to gather and on a limited basis share the moviegoing experience but the
concept that theaters are an optimum presentation of a movie seems to be
gone. It's not 'the' way to see the director's vision, just one of many types of presentations and certainly not the best.


----------



## redduck21502

My main theater has been stuck in the dark ages with the picture quality. After watching many different movies in Blu-ray on the LCD, even at only 42", it is almost painful to go to the theater and watch the blury picture. I don't even think the sound quality is quite there either. We have a more recent theater within a 40minute to an hour drive, but who wants to do that. Luckily our prices have not gone up much in the last 30 years. mostly it is around $7.50/person. I usually go on the weekend mornings when it is $4. I look forward to seeing certain movies, like the upcoming Star Trek movie, but I figure it will be only so-so in my theater. I don't care how big it is in my theater when it doesn't look as clear as my 42" LCD in 1080p.

If most theaters are like mine (I used to work there), most money is made on concessions. Which leads me to my other problem with theaters: who wants to pay that much for food? I mean $3 for a large soda that would cost $1.10 at a convenience store. Or $3 for a box of Raisinettes that really isn't the same portion that it used to be. I luckily have a movie card that got me a free large popcorn and large drink when I went over the weekend. I only spent about $30 for tickets/concessions for 3 of us.
I could have waited and bought the blu-ray for $24 and watched it over and over again in much better quality.


----------



## deacongreg

I hear you.


----------

