# Movie Theaters vs. Home Theaters



## Wayde

I don't understand the vow not to go to theaters?

I know, it's a given we all love home theater. I certainly do. But I love movies, the whole experience of home movies and movie theaters goes along with it for me. I could never make such a vow, in fact I go to the movies about twice a month - that includes the cineplex and the odd small theater for an indie movie. But I watch way more at home on my HT system.

Is it time for another Movie Theaters vs Home Theater thread? Are we sick of that one yet?


----------



## wbassett

*Re: John Rambo*

It's not a vow for me Wayde, there just aren't that many movies that spark my interest to pay that much to go out. 

The last movie my wife and I went to see was Rocky Balboa and tickets, one soda and bucket of popcorn (we always share  ) came out to over $40. 

Now... there is a local drive in theater we decided to start going to :bigsmile: The only thing I don't like about going there is they make me park my truck way off to the side.


----------



## SteveCallas

*Re: John Rambo*

I can buy a dvd I want to watch used on Amazon for less than the cost of a movie ticket - in doing so, I get better picture quality, better sound quality, more comfortable seating, the ability to pause, rewind, or fast forward, I can eat whatever I want while watching, I don't have people talking all around me, no cell phone lights or calls, etc. If I'm not sure if I will like the movie, I can rent it from Family Video for $0.50 for 5 nights :R 

The only reason I would have in choosing to actually go to the movie theater to watch something nowadays would be that I absolutely must see it right away and can't wait for the dvd. It would take a Rocky or Rambo film to achieve that status, everything else can wait.


----------



## Wayde

*Re: John Rambo*

Too bad. I love my DVDs, don't get me wrong. But sometimes there's nothing like the big screen. I like to take my son and girlfriend and for me it's a social thing. I admit there are sometimes problems with idiots with cell phones. But in my experience it's rather rare. Usually I spend more money than I should - that's for sure - but I almost always have a good experience. 

Believe it or not, prices are coming down. I'm interested to see how theaters evolve from here. It seems movie theaters and home TV (home theater) have had this cat and mouse game for decades. Generally it's been aspect ratios, theaters want to offer something different. Today it's iMAX and other efforts including digital projection and high end sound. Some theaters are doing eateries and alcohol inside the cinema. I applaud all the efforts and the competition.


----------



## wbassett

*Re: John Rambo*

I agree Wayde, and don't get me wrong... I love seeing certain movies at the movie theater. It just takes a certain movie to get me out, usually something epic, or one I just don't want to wait for it to come out on DVD.

When I was stationed in Florida in the early 80's, they had a theater that was like a night club/restaurant. You could order food, beer, and even smoke. It was always packed and I was there just about every weekend.

I think it would make Sly smile to hear that his movies get some people to go to the theater that normally don't.


----------



## Richard W. Haines

*Re: John Rambo*

The trouble with attending megaplexes is that they are not showing optimum quality prints like they
do in Hollywood. For industry screenings, they play "Showprints". For general audiences they 
show "High Speed IN Prints". What's the difference? Showprints are copies struck directly from
the camera negative which is the best you can get and made at slow printing speeds with
contrast adjustments (making night scenes darker and day time scenes brighter). They're also known as 'first generation prints'.


High speed prints are made from internegatives three generations removed from the camera negative
at speeds in excess of 2000 feet per minute. They're barely getting an exposure at that rate and
no contrast adjustments are possible. The prints are made on a 'one lite' setting. The method
is to first make a fine grain positive from the camera negative ("IP"), then make an internegative
from that ("IN") then crank out thousands of release copies quickly with little, if any, quality control
and ship them to theaters. DVDs are mastered from first generation materials (the "IP") and sometimes
from the camera negative itself which is why they look sharper, have better color and are finer grain.
Of course the resolution is not as good as film but the overall image quality is because DVD distributors
really care about what they look like and theatrical distributors don't. The poor quality of the release
prints isn't the theater owners fault. They can only project what they are supplied with.
It's interesting to note that no DVD distributor would ever master a film from the copies shown in 
megaplexes. The quality isn't good enough and they would be rejected.


So if you want to see a top quality print projected in a theater, you'll have to go to Hollywood or a film festival or some trade screening for critics. 



It wasn't always like this. Before 1968, they used to show exclusively camera negative prints in theaters. However, this wore out the negative so they developed CRI duplicate negative stock
that year and later IP/IN stock. The trade off was a loss of resolution and quality in the final release print. This only applies to Eastmancolor and the labs that processed it like De Luxe, Metrocolor,
Pathe, Warnercolor etc. Technicolor was another process entirely and used for many big budget
films until 1975 when that lab shut down the process and switched to Eastmancolor like the other
facilities. For Technicolor films, the negative was only used to make a set of matrices which were
three printing plates on film (in black and white in relief like a rubber stamp impression). Each
matrix represented one color. Then the three matrices were coated with dye and each color was 
wiped onto the blank film layer by layer. It was expensive and time consuming but the final release print
had much better color and contrast than an Eastmancolor print and never faded. People called it
"Glorious Technicolor" and it really was. It was the only
process that offered mass produced first generation copies that didn't damage the negative. 


Technicolor was briefly revived from 1997-2001 then they shut down the machines again due to lack
of industry interest. Part of the problem was that the people in Hollywood always see first generation
prints and are either unaware (or don't care) what the rest of the country sees. 



In 1989 there was still a Technicolor lab in China that offered dye transfer printing. I traveled there to make 'Glorious Technicolor' prints of my third feature film, "Space Avenger" in
the process which was the only American movie to utilize it from 1975 through 1997. 




Backing up a bit, while the 35mm prints were sub-standard after the demise of Technicolor in 1975, there was one other format that offered excellent quality which was 70mm. Whether the film was
photographed in 65mm or shot in 35mm and blown up to 70mm, they were usually camera negative prints.
The camera negative 70mm blow ups of "Star Wars" and "Superman" looked great and were much better
than the 35mm high speed copies made at the same time. Theaters that
showed 70mm films made more money than the 35mm cinemas showing the same picture. Although they
didn't know the technical details, most audiences noticed the quality difference. In the mid-nineties,
exhibitors started building megaplexes and none of them installed the 70mm projectors so the format
was eliminated with the exception of IMAX films and an occasional revival like "Lawrence of Arabia". The last new feature to be released in 70mm was "Titanic" in 1997.


So, I rarely go to megaplexes any more because I can see better quality projecting a DVD on my DLP.
I attend film festivals or trade screenings if possible so I can watch 'Showprints'.


----------



## SteveCallas

Richard said:


> So, I rarely go to megaplexes any more because I can see better quality projecting a DVD on my DLP.


Absolutely. Many people make the comment about wanting to see something on "the big screen", but to my eyes, "the big screen" looks pretty poor. I haven't watched Rocky Balboa on dvd (I'm actually pretending the movie doesn't exist - mature, isn't it? :heehee so I don't know if it was just filmed dark, but even the coming attractions while I was at the theater last are just dim. Colors don't pop, contrast is poor, and pure whites look like shades of grey. It's basically quality vs quantity.


----------



## Richard W. Haines

Steve,

The 'dim' image is a probably a burned out Xenon. Attendance is so low today, exhibitors are cutting corners in performance. The Xenon bulbs that illuminate the image are very expensive. There's
a dial on of the lamphouse that indicates how many hours are left on it. If you go beyond
that the bulb is burning out and there won't be enough light on screen. The other possibility is that the theater isn't using a professional projectionist, just a kid they trained to turn on the machine. It's a bit more complicated than that to operate a projector properly. A pro has to know how to focus the lamphouse depending on the format. 1.85 and anamorphic 2.35 ratios require adjustments because the full frame is being projected, not just the cropped part of the frame. They also have to know how to tighten the gate if the image steadiness is poor and run Dolby and Digital sound reels to check for the audio as well as frame the image correctly so it's not off center. Of course they need to change the Xenon bulb if it's no longer operating at full luminance which is 16 foot lamberts on screen. Even this is a bit tricky. Xenons can explode if they're not handled correctly and the operator has to wear face gear and gloves to prevent an accident.


Aside from the poor weekly attendence, theater owners also have to deal with distributors who
take an enormous percentage of the boxoffice take for the blockbusters. Decades ago, it was
a 60/40 split but these days distributors take 90 % of the ticket sales for the first week
of the big movies. The percentage gets pro-rated upwards for additional weeks but if the movie
doesn't perform well or has an extended run, the theater operates at a loss. That's why the
ticket prices are so high and concessions very expensive. Otherwise they would fold. These are
very tough times for exhibitors and moviegoers.


In my judgment, to increase attendence they need to offer something you cannot get at home. I advocate reviving Technicolor (dye transfer prints) and 70mm. Both formats offer spectacular image quality on large
screens that cannot be replicated on DVD. They were major selling points in the past. 
"Glorious Technicolor" was featured in the posters and 70mm was listed in the newspaper
ads. In the case of 70mm, theaters that played movies in that format made more money
than those that played 35mm copies of the same title. I also used to see movies
on deeply curved screens at Cinerama and Rivoli on Broadway in the seventies.
It's called Showmanship and it's integral to the moviegoing experience.


It's curious to note industry reaction to competetion over the
decades. In the fifties, attendace was reduced from 90 million a week to 41 million a
week because of the usurping television medium. The studios response was to
invent new processes to 'wow' viewers back into cinemas. Cinerama, 3-D,
CinemaScope and Todd-AO (70mm) did the trick. Now with the home entertainment
competition, the industry seems to be cutting corners and trying to save money
on exhibition which is having the opposite effect. Weekly attendence is a fraction
of what it was in the seventies. But remember in the seventies they played "Star Wars", "Close Encounters", "Grease" and "Superman" in 70mm which
really packed them in and gave viewers their money's worth.


----------



## Bob_99

Like many industries that face changes in technology, commercial theaters will either adapt by coming out with new ways to view that are not avaible in the home (one is testing the release of odors as you watch) or they will decline in numbers and dissapear as many other industries have. The problem they face is not necessarily 'home theaters' which are still too complicated for a majority of the population but by the availability of the DVD which most people simply watch on a player bought at WalMart and the CRT screen they have in the house. For now there are still a enough people going to theaters to make it profitable but what happens in the future will be interesting to watch. You'll have to excuse me for now, I have to go put the horse and buggy in the barn.

Bob


----------



## jvc

In the past 15-16 yrs., we have been to the theater maybe 5 times. Each time we go, I remember why we quit going. The ticket prices! The drink and snack prices! People talking! Cell phones ringing! Kids kicking the back of my seat! Sound so loud it distorts! Commercials before the movie! It definitely is not worth it.........

The only movie I can think of, that would get us back into the theater, would be "The Hobbit", when and if it's ever made. The only reason we went to the last two, was because my wife's sisters asked us to go with them, and they bought our tickets. Still cost me $10 for two sodas, and a box of pop corn.
Theater? No thanks! :thumbsdown:


----------



## Mitch G

Richard, you are a incredible source of information. I appreciate you taking the time to explain this stuff.

Until you mentioned it, I had forgotten about 70mm. I used to always go to 70mm showings instead of 35mm. And, it's interesting to read that Imax is basically the 70mm replacement these days. 

I recently saw Transformers at the theater - mostly for a family outing type of thing. And the theater was pretty good, but throughout the movie I was thinking I would enjoy it more at home. 

However, we also went to see Harry Potter on Imax and really enjoyed the large format and didn't wonder about watching it at home. And, the last 20 minutes were in 3-D which was fun.
I've seen a couple of other features at the Imax as well (Return of the King, and Harry Potter and Goblet of Fire) and the only complaint I have is it seems that every movie at some point has a piece of lint in a very noticeable place for several minutes. 


Mitch


----------



## SteveCallas

jvc said:


> Commercials before the movie!


Oh yeah, I forgot to mention this one. I know theaters have to make money, but this one gripes me too. Though it may only be a couple minutes, I didn't come to the theater to have to watch a Swiffer sweep mop and "extreme" Mountain Dew commercial :rant: :bigsmile:


----------



## brandonnash

Didn't read through the replies yet, but the thing that jumps out at me number 1 is...

$10 ticket x 2 people = $20
Popcorn x 2 people = $5
Drinks x 2 people = $8
cost of annoying other people at movies = millions of my nerves

Dvd new at most expensive retailer =$20
Expensive Microwave popcorn x 2 people =$~1
Drinks of my choice (adult beverages??) =$~1
cost of annoying people at movies... none at home. 


I'm staying home. 

Dozens more reasons, but that's the main one.


----------



## Richard W. Haines

Mitch G,

Many thanks for your comment. I forgot to mention one of the other attributes of IMAX which is all prints are made directly from the 70mm negative. That's one of the reasons it's so sharp aside from the size of the image being projected. One of the dirty little secrets about Eastmancolor is that the prints don't look good
unless are derived directly from the master element. They get murky if you strike them from duplicate negatives as they do for the megaplexes.



While IMAX is superior to the high speed 35mm prints shown in other theaters, I'm not a big fan of the format which is really 70mm VistaVision. The 70mm film is 
15 sprockets in a 4:3 ratio, the same as old television, and projected horizontally. An earlier variation was 35mm VistaVision in the fifties which was an 8 sprocket image in 35mm and projected the same way. Standard 35mm is four sprockets per image and projected vertically. 
My objection is the IMAX ratio. I always thought that widescreen was the most natural way to watch a movie. Among the processes that offered it were Cinerama (2.76 x 1), 70mm (2.21 x 1), CinemaScope (2.55 x 1) and Panavision (2.35 x 1). They replicated the procenium arch in theaters and filled your peripheral vision. When the filmmaker composed specifically for widescreen (i.e. David Lean, Sergio Leone), it was quite effective and gave you the sense of 'being there' on location. IMAX is a huge square image with excellent resolution but it isn't widescreen and it's a bit awkward to compose for that size. I prefer the 
70mm ratio of 2.21 x 1 used for "Lawrence of Arabia" rather than the square IMAX ratio.



Bob 99,

I agree they need to come up with something different or spectacular and
hype it to get audiences back. I'm not sure about odors in theaters.
They tried it in the past and it was a disaster. Mike Todd's son made a picture
called "Scent of Mystery" in 1959 with smells pumped through vents and they
had all kinds of problems removing one odor before the next was was emitted.
Audiences got sick from the smells and complained. The film was pulled from
release, re-edited to remove the scents gimmick and re-issued as "Holiday in Spain".



The digital sound is very good today in cinemas (providing it was set up
properly). The problem is the image quality which is poor because of the generation
loss of the copies made on the high speed printers. Both Technicolor dye transfer prints and 70mm offer first generation imagery that would be vastly superior to
what's shown now and the technology still exists to revive them. The dye transfer equipment is in storage at Technicolor and that lab still makes 70mm prints
along with De Luxe.



Some filmmakers are advocating a change to digital projection. There are
a lot of problems with it. While a DLP looks great in home set ups, the pixels
might be noticeable on large cinema screens. They've also had a lot of problems
with electronic projection in the field. Heat builds up when the machine is in constant operation and the units default. Heat and electronics is a bad combination. There were trade screenings of digital projection where the system shut down and they had to switch to standard 35mm projection.
The other issue is the cost. A new 35mm projector is about $5000.
You can purchase used ones for under $1000. (I bought mine for $500). 
Even a new 70mm projector is under $10,000 and they have 70/35 machines that can play both formats. On the other hand a professional digital projector is $100,000. For a megaplex with twenty screens, that would be an enormous investment. That's why I suggested reviving Technicolor or 70mm. For 35mm dye transfer prints, they could use the equipment they already have. For 70mm prints, they could buy a used surplus projector that are inexpensive now since the format 
hasn't been used since 1997. Sometimes "Old" is better than "New". There's no question movies looked better in theaters decades ago than they do now.


----------



## Bob_99

> The only movie I can think of, that would get us back into the theater, would be "The Hobbit", when and if it's ever made.


Yes, that would get me back into the theater also. Unfortunately, unless some minor miracle happens, it probably wouldn't be directed by Peter Jackson, in which case I would have to think twice about seeing it.

Bob


----------



## Rodny Alvarez

You guys forgot something else.......... multiply that by how many kids you have!!! if you have any!! :spend::spend::spend::spend::spend:

For me about $80:raped::raped:, I can buy like 10 used movies for that price:bigsmile:


----------



## SteveCallas

Richard said:


> The digital sound is very good today in cinemas (providing it was set up
> properly). The problem is the image quality which is poor because of the generation
> loss of the copies made on the high speed printers


Uhhhhh, ermm - yeah, I'd agree the sound quality is probably better than the picture quality, but very good? Nah, a good HT sound system will blow away any movie theater I've been in.


----------



## Richard W. Haines

SteveCallas,

I guess it depends on the theater itself. The advantage at home is that you can customise your
sound field and tweak it so it operates at optimum capacity. There are always compromises in
cinemas. If you turn up the surrounds, it will be too loud for people in the back and so forth.
I will say that while movie sound continues to improve, release print quality (image wise) continues
to deteriorate. They need to devise a better system to mass produce release prints or revive
the dye transfer method. Or, possibly find a reliable digital projection system for cinemas that
is not too expensive to install and won't default after extended periods of time it will be in operation.


----------



## Mitch G

Richard: I don't understand your comment about Imax being 4:3. Harry Potter was clearly in a widescreen format. It didn't fill the screen vertically, just horizontally. 
Were you referring to made-for-Imax movies?


Mitch


----------



## Richard W. Haines

Yes, made for IMAX movies, not ones adapted to it.


----------



## jvc

Bob_99 said:


> Yes, that would get me back into the theater also. Unfortunately, unless some minor miracle happens, it probably wouldn't be directed by Peter Jackson, in which case I would have to think twice about seeing it.
> 
> Bob


If Peter Jackson doesn't do it, I don't think I'd be interested either. With someone else directing, it would have a totally different "feel" to it. It needs to be the same, or don't do it at all. They could easily make two movies, out of that story. They'd all make so much money, I don't see why they have a problem.......:dunno:


----------



## mechman

I go several times a year. I have Mondays and Tuesdays off and my wife's a stay at home mom. So we go to the early shows on these days. Rarely anyone else in the theater, tickets are half price and there's always a deal at the snack bar. We can get by easily on $20. Normally one of the grandparents watches our youngest so no babysitting fees. 

mech


----------



## Wayde

I like to take my son to the theater. I sometimes go by myself. It gets me out of the house. I like the movies.

In Kitchener (town next to Waterloo) they make DLP projectors for movie theaters, they're by Christie. There is a theater in Waterloo that shows movies on a DLP projector by Christie. I generally go to that one to see movies that were shot digitally like Sin City, 300, Star Wars.


----------



## eddthompson

I still like going to the theatre, the local one in winter haven is fine, and i still like to see a movie when its just come out, if they released it on dvd at the same time, id buy the dvd (well, hd dvd/blurry)

Sound and picture in a cinema will always be better than 99.9999% of the generals populations home equipment, but those 99.9999% probably dont care, for us that bother to hook up rew, will a theatre ever realy match the sence of pride and satisfaction of playing a movie on your own setup? probably not.

as an aside, i estimated over 5 years, i spent close to £7000 on home theatre equipment in the uk, at close to £6.50 a ticket to the cinema, so £13.00 for my wife and i, thats 538 trips to the movies (twice a week for 5 years), not including the cost of my 400 plus dvds :R (obviosly these are uk prices, probably somewhat different here in the us)

edd


----------



## Darren

I despise public theaters. For me it is the horrible service, the sticky seats, and the 25 people talking on their phones or holding crying babies in a rated R film. I guess it is the people that ruin it for me. Nothing beats my HT...


----------



## MrPorterhouse

I finally went to the theaters recently after not having gone for over 1 year. I took my wife and 2yr old daughter to see Ratatouille. It was lots of fun and a great experience for my little girl(her first movie at the theaters). It was refreshing to see how excited she was from the "Whole Experience" of it all. Sometimes we forget about the little things in life, and just "big" things can be. A home theater can't match the experience of being in public with the crowd. Of course, that is something that can annoy people if all they focus on is the movie. But, what will keep the theaters in business is that its something that gets you "Out and about", mixing with people and socializing.

That said, I still much prefer to spend most of my movie cash at home, but I will mix it up a bit more with going back to the theaters more often than I have.


----------



## Mitch G

This last post reminded of something that does make movie theaters special to me - its those "first" experiences. I remember the first movie I went to at a theater: 101 Dalmations. And I remember the first movie I saw alone (this is not a bad thing since it's a memory related to growing as an independent person): Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.
(I just realized both of these movies have been remade.)


Mitch


----------



## Richard W. Haines

Mitch,

Actually this is a rather interesting sidebar to the thread. Now I'm much older than
most people here (49) so my firsts will be quirky...


I have close to a photographic memory (pun intended) for movies and where I saw them. I even
saved the newspaper ads in some cases. 


Way back in the early sixties, it was cheaper for families to see films in a drive-in than an indoor
theater. Variety referred to them as 'ozoners' and 'hard tops'. Children under 12 were free so
my parents put my sister and I in the back of our station wagon practically every week in the
summer. The first double bill I recall was "Bon Voyage" and "Mr. Hobbs Takes a Vacation" both
in 1962. I was six years old but still recall MacMurray getting lost in a sewer in Paris and wiggling
his finger in a manhole for help and James Stewart trying to get a rusty pump to work in a run
down cottage. Silly movies but funny for a child.

The first indoor movie I recall seeing is "The Sword and the Stone" in 1963. It was mildly entertaining
but I didn't admire Disney until I saw the later re-issues of his previous classics like "Snow White and
the Seven Dwarfs", "Pinnochio", "Peter Pan" and "Cinderella".

Jumping ahead, I remember the first "G" rated movie and the first "M" rated movies.
When I was eleven, the industry abandoned the Production Code and replaced it with the classification
system. No one knew what this was supposed to mean since most families were used to 
'going to the movies' which were suitable for all ages even if some had content that was a bit risque
and went over the heads of small children. In 1968 we saw "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" which was
advertised as rated "G". I thought that meant "Good". What did I know. Other than the neat
car and catchy theme song it was a bore. The "M" rating confused my parents. 'Suggested 
for Mature Audiences' made it sound worse than R or X. I had read the book "Secret of Santa 
Vittoria" in 1969 and enjoyed it, persuading by parents to let us see it. Very tame by today's 
standards. A few swear words and that's all. Because of the confusion, they later changed 
"M" to "GP" and later "PG". 

My first "R" rated movie I saw with my father which was the re-issue of "MASH". I guess it was the
raunchiest movie I had seen up to that date. Two nuns sat in front of us which made it more surreal.


Now here's a quirky 'first'. I recall vividly my first 'red band' trailer. From 1968-1969 they didn't rate
coming attraction trailers. Movies that were rated R and X had very explicit trailers. When they
were shipped to theaters they had either 'green bands' (cardboard coverings) indicating they could
be shown with G or M films and 'red bands' for R and X movies. Needless to say, once the cardboard
covers were removed the projectionists got confused. When our family went to see a G rated movie
in 1968 (I think it was a re-issue of "Stop the World, I Want to Get Off"), they accidently played a red band trailer of the X rated "Killing of Sister George" that had topless nudity in it. My parents and many others complained to the management. I also saw red band trailer for "The Wild Bunch". This became such a problem that the MPAA later requested that trailers be 'G' rated so they could play before any movie. The green and red bands were abandoned.


Here's another 'first' regarding classification. "Night of the Living Dead" was released in that interim
period before the elimination of the Production Code and Classification. It was never rated and just
booked without classification. Although it was released in 1968 by Continental (Walter Reade Theater
subsidy), it gradually gained in notoriety and continued to play in double bills through the seventies. After reading about it in "Castle of Frankenstein"
magazine, I talked my folks into dropping me off at the cinema to watch it alone.
I saw it in the strangest venue. In the Las Vegas Cinerama Theater as the second feature on a double
bill with "Ben" the lame and tame sequel to "Willard" in 1972. "Ben" was rated GP. Therefore whole
families were in the enormous theater. Then came "Night of the Living Dead" which really shocked
the unsuspecting viewers. After the cannibalism scenes, parents were dragging their children out
in mass. Fortunately, I got to see the whole feature.
It gave me re-occuring nightmares for years. It had a real impact on me at age 15. The only other
film that had people walking out was "Salo" in 1975.



The first "X" rated film I saw was "Deep Throat". A group of high school friends and I traveled to New Jersey to see it in a strip club. It had been banned as obsene in New York State. We were all underage but they let us in anyway. After all the hoopla, we had to admit the movie sucked...pun intended. Just a bore not withstanding Linda's sword swollowing capabilities.


My first good X rated film and first 3-D film was "Andy Warhol's Frankenstein" the next year. Once
again, despite the rating they let underage teenagers in. It was the most outrageous movie I'd ever
seen. It's still one of my favorites. Unfortunately, the 3-D was a mess. The wide shots were great
but the close ups a real eyestrain due to convergence problems with the StereoVision system.
Convergence is the separation of the superimposed stereo pairs. They're supposed to be slightly
overlapped, not on opposite sides of the screen. In any event it was an inspiration for my own
3-D film in 1995 entitled "Run for Cover". I was very careful not to have extreme convergence or
eyestrain like the Morrissey film.


The first movie I saw in single strip Cinerama was "2001: A Space Odyssey" in 1976 and again in 1978
in 70mm at The Rivoli Theater in New York City. An awesome experience. The deeply curved screen made you feel as if you were actually in space. I got a second hand high from all the patrons toting
up during the last scene. The theater reeked of pot afterwards but no one was evicted.



In 1997 the New Neon cinema in Ohio installed a curved screen and three projectors for the earlier
three panel Cinerama experience with "This is Cinerama" and "How the West Was Won" in a double bill.
A spectacular show although you definately saw the panel joins on screen. The most expensive film
I ever saw since I had to travel to the state by plane and pay for a hotel room just to screen it.
I still thought it was worth it since the opportunities for seeing three panel Cinerama were non-existent
from 1964 through 1996.


----------



## Bob_99

Does anyone consider the lenght of a movie as a reason for not going to the theater? I noticed that the Simpson movie which is only 87 minutes, had a pretty good opening. For me, I like a movie that's at least two hours long which in some way eases the pain of the high ticket price, not to mention that hopefully, it gives a better chance for a decent plot development. That being said, I still have not been to a theater since Peter Jackson's King Kong.

Bob


----------



## eddthompson

Overly long (imo) films actually put me off, some films just seem to drag for me, things like spiderman 3 that ran for 140 mins make me want to wait for dvd, where i can sit for over 2 hours in comfort and press the pause button on the almost ineveitable toilet break.

There is a very rare occasion where length will not put me off, LOTR: ROTK was one example, but i made the effort and went to a cinema with electric recliners and a bar :bigsmile:

edd


----------



## Richard W. Haines

The key is pacing. A long movie will not seem long if it's edited for maxium impact.
Movies like "Patton" and "Gone with the Wind" are very long but maintain interest and keep the
story moving rapidly. Conversely, a bad movie will seem like it takes forever to get to the climax
regardless of length. I've always found it fascinating how movies alter your perception of time.



In terms of bathroom breaks, you're out of luck for new films in megaplexes. There's no projectionist
and they play the movies on 'platters'. A platter is a large plate that the entire feature is spliced
onto and twisted into the gate of the projector (causing it to become scratched). Film is meant for
vertical projection, not horizontal. Once the machine is turned on, there's no one there to turn it off for an intermission. That's why movies that needed intermissions don't have it in most cases. I still recall seeing "Titanic" 10 years ago. I enjoyed the film but needed to go to the bathroom halfway through (as does anyone who drinks a coke) and rushed to it just before the ship hit the iceburg. There were other guys in there rushing in and out around the same time which was funny. If the movie was shown in the pre-1975 reel to reel method, the projectionist would've shut down projector #1 at the 'Intermission' sign to give the audience a break. Then there would be an 'entre'acte' on projector #2 to indicate it was time to return to your seat and then the second half of the movie would be shown. They still have these on DVDs but not in most theaters today. Automated showmanship doesn't work.


----------



## JCD

Man, I missed a good thread. And a :clap: to Mr. Haines -- very interesting read/information. A lot of stuff an outsider wouldn't know. I also need to see some of your movies in a theater -- those are the kinds of movies that are best seen in a theater because it becomes a group experience.

Which will bring me to my anecdote:

Picture a small car with 5 teenage boys -- and definitely of the nerdy/dorky variety. It's the summer. It's about 9pm. We're driving around without a CLUE of what to do. We decide to go to the movies.

We go to the closest theater -- a small theater that I think had 6 screens. We look and I don't recognize ANY of the shows. One of the guys in our group says "Evil Dead II.. I think I heard that was supposed to be good". Good enough for us. We go to our designated theater not expecting much -- one of the smaller ones in a smallish group -- and note the crowd is pretty decent, I'd say about 75% full. 

So then the movie starts up and the magic begins. The whole crowd is screaming at the screen, making jokes, etc. Certainly a classic film (I really mean that by the way) but this was probably the BEST movie experience of my life. There are several other movies that I like better (Godfather, Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Arc, etc), but nothing has beat that experience and could never be replicated at a home theater.

That being said, 95% of the movies, I'd much rather see at home for the reasons already mentioned. The prices are high, but really what is for me is that there are so many rude people that go to a theater. Talking during the movie (when not appropriate), kicking the seats, etc. I like the group atmosphere when people are courteous, but (maybe I'm just getting old) it just seems like they never are anymore.

JCD


----------



## Richard W. Haines

JDC,

Thank you for your kind words.


I think the decor, atmosphere and general showmanship in a cinema tend to dictate behavior. If the
place looks like a real 'theatre' with curtains that open when the movie begins and the architecture is plush or at least doesn't look like a basement, audiences will behave accordingly. If you leave the lights
on during the commercials and the sound is too loud, why should viewers behave as if
they are in a legit theater. My experience is that in IMAX theaters or the surviving large screen movie
houses (i.e. Lafayette in Suffern, Ziegfeld in NYC), the audiences behave much better than in your
standard generic megaplex. Then again in an IMAX cinema they are selling you the 'experience'
which is not the case in a multiplex where they are selling you junk food and local commercials as opposed to the movie itself. On DVD they are selling you a top quality transfer of the movie along with all kinds of suppliments (in the best case scenario). It all comes down to what each venue is offering and/or selling the consumer.


----------



## wbassett

Richard W. Haines said:


> _...snip_
> On DVD they are selling you a top quality transfer of the movie along with all kinds of suppliments (in the best case scenario). It all comes down to what each venue is offering and/or selling the consumer.


As I'm sure you know, not all are the greatest transfer quality. I picked up Robin Hood Prince of Thieves at Sams Club. It was the two disc special edition, and I must say it was the worse transfer I have seen since the first DVD release of Mad Max The Road Warrior! (Thank God they got the BD version right!)

I do agree though, some movies are definitely group events, but the megaplexes have degraded the quality in my opinion. 

Another reason we tend to forget about is dates. Movies can be the worse thing for a date in the respect there is no interaction for ninety minutes to two hours (and no I'm not a prude and don't remember the make out days  ). But a great movie and then a bite to eat afterword's is a conversation experience.

Other than that though, I just can't get pulled out unless it's something epic or something I am a huge fan of. It could be that I'm older now too, but the last movie I went too I sat through Mountain Dew commercials and some commercial for a vacuum cleaner... we dropped cable over two years ago because of commercials, I really don't want to go see them in a theater! Now the slide show for the early folks doesn't bother me.

Richard, you may know this theater, but for the life of me I can't remember the name... actually there were two- one in Chicago, and one in Milwaukee that were old time movie houses with the marble and red carpet... and yes, people did behave very differently because these were very classy places.

BTW, I got your DVD of the trailers and they were a blast to watch!


----------



## Richard W. Haines

wblassett,

Glad you liked the trailers. Remind me to send you the latest one, "What Really Frightens You" when it's finished a few months from now. Very soon I won't be logging on as often because I'll be doing round the clock editing sessions to get my movie ready but it's been lots of fun and I appreciate that there doesn't seem to be hecklers on this site. You wouldn't believe the nasty characters I've run into on other sites. 

In terms of dates, my wife won't let me date but I do recall the large screen theaters in the past with the balconies and of course the passion pit drive ins of the seventies. It certainly was a lot more fun going to pictures with dates back then because you had some privacy that you don't have in the megaplexes.

One of the movie palaces in Chicago that you might be thinking of is the Music Box. I booked my film, "Space Avenger" (the three strip Technicolor sci/fi comedy) there in the early nineties. It's a great cinema giving the classic 'moviegoing experience'.


----------



## Bob_99

> The key is pacing. A long movie will not seem long if it's edited for maxium impact.
> Movies like "Patton" and "Gone with the Wind" are very long but maintain interest and keep the
> story moving rapidly. Conversely, a bad movie will seem like it takes forever to get to the climax
> regardless of length. I've always found it fascinating how movies alter your perception of time.
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of bathroom breaks, you're out of luck for new films in megaplexes. There's no projectionist
> and they play the movies on 'platters'. A platter is a large plate that the entire feature is spliced
> onto and twisted into the gate of the projector (causing it to become scratched). Film is meant for
> vertical projection, not horizontal. Once the machine is turned on, there's no one there to turn it off for an intermission. That's why movies that needed intermissions don't have it in most cases. I still recall seeing "Titanic" 10 years ago. I enjoyed the film but needed to go to the bathroom halfway through (as does anyone who drinks a coke) and rushed to it just before the ship hit the iceburg. There were other guys in there rushing in and out around the same time which was funny. If the movie was shown in the pre-1975 reel to reel method, the projectionist would've shut down projector #1 at the 'Intermission' sign to give the audience a break. Then there would be an 'entre'acte' on projector #2 to indicate it was time to return to your seat and then the second half of the movie would be shown. They still have these on DVDs but not in most theaters today. Automated showmanship doesn't work.


Richard,

Excellent points. When I saw LOTR, almost no men took a break and when the movie was over, there was a rush to the men's room. It was the first time I ever experienced a waiting line in a men's room but I thought it was a good indication of how much people were into the movie. Now I know how the ladies feel waiting in a rest room :rolleyesno:

Bob


----------



## Richard W. Haines

Bob 99,

On the other end of the spectrum, there are some movies that work quite nicely with a 
leisurely pace. "Lawrence of Arabia" is one of my favorite movies but also one of the longest
and slowest. A major advantage is the cinematography by the great Freddie Young.
It's so spectacular you feel as if you're in the desert on location, especially if you see it in
70mm. Less so on DVD unless you watch it projected on a DLP. Another slow movie with 
spectacular visuals is "2001: A Space Odyssey" which must be seen on a large
screen to work.


----------



## JCD

Richard W. Haines said:


> Bob 99,
> 
> On the other end of the spectrum, there are some movies that work quite nicely with a
> leisurely pace. "Lawrence of Arabia" is one of my favorite movies but also one of the longest
> and slowest.


I can testify to that one. 

I had to pleasure of watching this movie in an old restored theater (Stanford Theatre) in Palo Alto, CA. They play only the oldies such as Citizen Kane (8/25) Casablanca (8/11), Creature from the Black Lagoon (8/22). Anyway, it has a big screen and in a classic old style movie house (they even have an organ up front). Anyway, I watched the entire movie and never had that squirmy "itchy pants" feeling of "when is the movie EVER gonna end". Watching this movie at home on my big screen (65" widescreen) would have been awful in comparison. But in that movie house, with that big screen, it was just luxurious.

JCD


----------



## Fincave

Wow, great thread, also some great info from Richard W. Haines, thanks for that. My vote would have to go to Home Theatre. I have never been a great movie goer, probably only going a few times a year, I would normally wait for something to come out on DVD and then watch at home using a regular tv. I purchased a projector about two years ago and in that time have been to the cinema once to see 'Walk the Line'. I loved the movie and it was a good experience though a bit pricey. Picture was ok and the sound was so so. I have better sound at home by far!! My biggest complaint about going to the cinema would be subtitles. I live in Finland, English is my first language but I am fluent in Finnish. Going to the cinema any non Finnish movie is obviously subtitled, unfortunately a lot are done badly though not as badly as American or British tv programmes are. I find myself automatically reading the subtitles, I just cannot ignore them and end up getting very irritated at some of the horrible translations where the entire meaning is lost or distorted, also conversions are done very badly, 100mph can become 250 kmh. A lot of dialogue is also left out, I understand that not everyting can be included, people do not read at the same speed as they listen, but it still bugs me. At home I do not have a problem, movies on dvd do have subtitles but almost always there is an option to disable them, a few have forced subtitles however, thankfully they are few and far between and so I rarely feel the need to shout 'you idiot' or 'that is not what she said' at my screen.


----------



## Richard W. Haines

I believe that age plays a part in this discussion. I'm 49 so I was able to see movies in 70mm and Cinerama at The Rivoli, Cinerama I in NYC in the seventies. I recall "2001" and "The Thing" at the former and "Road Warrior" at the latter. 
I also saw "Star Wars" in 70mm at Loews Astor Plaza. In 1981 they
had a 3-D festival at the 8th Street Playhouse and showed a brand new print of "Dial M for Murder" and an original Technicolor print of "Kiss Me Kate" in the dual projector format. At the Museum of Modern Art they projected nitrate prints of David O. Selznick and Michael Powell classics. As an adolescent, I saw "The Sand Pebbles" and "Ben Hur" at drive ins with their enormous screen towers. 
I saw "Napoleon" and "A Star is Born" restorations at Radio City Music Hall.
As previously mentioned I traveled to Ohio in 1997 to see "This is Cinerama"
and "How the West Was Won" in Technicolor in the three panel process. 
These were all spectacular moviegoing experiences and that is my reference for quality exhibition rather than a contemporary megaplex. No home theater can compare these places. 


If all you've seen are multiplex presentations then you're going to prefer home theaters which have better picture and sound. I have a nice home theater
myself but still miss those palaces and drive ins, most of which have been
demolished.


----------



## jvc

I grew up going to the older theaters, that had just the one room and one screen, and just one movie playing. You could go in, anytime of the day, and stay long enough to watch the movie two or three times, if you wanted to. Now they won't let you in, if you're five minutes late, and they run everyone out between movies.

The sound at the theaters has always been terrible, and still is. The volume is always way louder than it needs to be. Actors whispering to each other, could be heard two blocks away, if you used the same volumes at home. 

If I could afford a good projector and big screen, in my home, I'd never go to another theater. 

Drive-ins were fun, during their day. You had volume control in your car. You also had some privacy in your car. The worst thing about drive-ins, was the mosquitoes(sp?) Yeah, you could use those PIC insect thingies (looked like a burner on an electric stove), but the smell of those were terrible.


----------



## Bob_99

> I grew up going to the older theaters, that had just the one room and one screen, and just one movie playing. You could go in, anytime of the day, and stay long enough to watch the movie two or three times, if you wanted to. Now they won't let you in, if you're five minutes late, and they run everyone out between movies.


 It sounds like you're very close to my generation. Don't forget the balcony seats and it was strange to walk into a movie half way through and then stay to watch the beginning.

Bob


----------



## jvc

Bob_99 said:


> It sounds like you're very close to my generation. Don't forget the balcony seats and it was strange to walk into a movie half way through and then stay to watch the beginning.
> 
> Bob


Oh yeah, I remember the balconies. I'm 58 yrs. old, BTW. 
I remember, when I was a kid, I could go to one of our theaters on Saturday morning, and see three Tarzan movies, or three Lash LaRue movies, for $.15. If I had a dollar, I could pay for a ticket, and have two or three bags of pop corn and drinks. Those days are gone forever! Some Saturdays, they had cartoon marathons (at another theater). Admission was a can of peas or beans, or other canned food, for the needy. These don't happen anymore either, but they should.


----------



## Bob_99

> I'm 58 yrs. old, BTW.


 I guess that would qualify. I'm 59.



> If I had a dollar, I could pay for a ticket, and have two or three bags of pop corn and drinks.


 I can say the same thing but I have a hard time doing it with a straight face because I remember my father telling me the same thing but it was with a quarter or something like that and I would always think to myself, "C'mon man, that's ancient history".



> Those days are gone forever!


 Indeed they are.

Bob


----------



## Owen Bartley

I still love to go out to the movies. I know there are bound to be people talking, maybe a laser pointer, maybe a cell phone, and yes, it is expensive. But for a night's entertainment, and to get the 'real' experience, it's all worth it to me. It probably helps that I have 2 pretty great theatres near my home and office, so it makes it easy wherever I decide to go from, but I don't think I'll ever get tired of it. I love watching movies at home too, obviously, but there's still something about going "out" to a movie that does it for me.


----------



## MatrixDweller

jvc said:


> I remember, when I was a kid, I could go to one of our theaters on Saturday morning, and see three Tarzan movies, or three Lash LaRue movies, for $.15. If I had a dollar, I could pay for a ticket, and have two or three bags of pop corn and drinks.


Spielberg and his $200M movies put an end to cheap ticket prices. I still don't get why they rate how well a movie does on the box office gross.


----------



## Richard W. Haines

MatrixDweller,

Theatrical exhibition is no longer for the 'moviegoing experience' but used as paid advertising 
for what the industry calls 'ancillary markets' (home video, cable, foreign) although that term
doesn't really apply anymore since the ancillary markets are now the primary markets and 
exhibition secondary. In any event, box office gross has historically meant that a movie is popular. In the past that meant popular with general audiences but today that
means popular with whatever 'target' audience the distributor intended. It helps to sell DVD
units to video stores and the consumer.
One of the most deceptive things about boxoffice gross is that many people assume the
filmmaker and other creative factions are profiting from it. The producer and director (and
others in that end like some writers and actors with a percentage of the production) are the
last to see revenue. In general, most of the box office goes to the distributor due to the
tough terms they book movies in today. For blockbusters, 90 % of the ticket sales go to
the distributor for the first week or so and then the percentage is pro-rated upwards for
the theater owner. That's why ticket prices are so high and concessions expensive. It's
the only way for the exhibitor to stay in business. Once the film has completed it's run
(which is very short today compared to decades ago when a movie could be in release in
various venues for up to a year), then the distributor calculates his share after deducting
'off the top' expenses (which are usually quite padded and excessive) which include prints
and advertising costs. After that, the creative factions (producer, director etc.) get their
share if there's anything left which there often isn't unless the movie is a megahit. And that's
why producer, director and actor fees are so astronomical to compensate for the low returns
from the distributor. In summary, box office means very little to those who actually made the movie other than for negotiating leverage for thier fees on subsequent movies.

If a movie cost $100,000,000 to make and grossed $100,000,000 it actually lost money at the box office when you factor in the cost of prints, advertising and exhibitor percentages. In some cases it makes it's money back and in the long run
from the other markets.


----------



## Bob_99

Richard,

You brought up a point that slipped my mind but there is absolutely nothing worst than paying for a movie and then having to sit through commercials. While it bothers me, it seems to really strike a nerve with my wife and listening to her complaining about it, is often much worst than than the offending advertising. One more point for HT.

Also, your point about the distribution of the wealth is a big issue in the business. Not only does it apply to the film but also to the related products that are associated with the film. There seems to be plenty of greed to go around. 

Bob


----------



## santora

There are two sides to this discussion and both are very valid. 

1. Going to the movies is expensive and can be annoying.

2. Watching stuff at home can be a better experience.

#1. While I love sitting at home and catching up with movies I've missed or great television series, I also love going to the theater. Granted my wife and I seem to head for the matinees or off times to go, but there are times you need the crowd. Example - Snakes on a Plane. 

A lot of people were put off by this film (mostly because of the awful advertising campaign that sold it as a thriller instead of a comedy). But really, five minutes into this movie the crowd started laughing and yelling back at the screen (MST3k style) because of the amazingly stupid people in there (and they played it like they were in on the joke). And you know what, that's part of the experience of this kind of movie. Granted, I don't want yellers when I watch Syriana, but the experience of seeing a movie in a crowd of like-minded individuals can really accent the experience. Laughing alone at Superbad is fun, Laughing with a crowd of people is great.

As for #2, I've been spoiled. I live in LA and there is access to many great theaters locally. From the AMC around the corner to the Arclight - if you care about quality of picture/sound/environment, LA really is the place to beat. And like everywhere else, yes there are plenty of ****** screens - but they've been relegated to 2nd run theaters because people won't pay the big money to see a film on a ripped/faded screen without surround sound.

Not to mention, there is something to be said for seeing something on a 80 foot screen as opposed to a 50 inch plasma or projection. No matter how good it is, it's never the same. 

And that's why I go to the theaters and see them at home.


----------



## MatrixDweller

Sure there are the commercials at the beginning of the movie but don't forget about the ones in the movie. That's where the producer makes a bit of cash to help out with production. Just remember any time you hear or see a brand name in a movie or TV show, it has been paid for. Movies like Cast Away just made it too obvious.


----------



## Richard W. Haines

Santora,

You are spoiled in more ways than you think living in the Hollywood area. Some of the movie palaces
survive there to showcase industry product on large screens with plush decor. Also, Hollywood insiders
like to show the best quality obtainable of their movies which means the distributors strike special
'Show Prints' for exhibition (prints struck directly off the original camera negative or 'first generation
prints'). For the rest of the country they crank out high speed junk prints three generations removed
from the original from internegatives which lack the sharpness, fine grain resolution and 'snap' of a 
camera negative print. The only other venue to see show prints are film festivals or press screenings.
It's a consumer rip off in that the critics are screening the best quality prints for review but the
public is paying to see sub-standard release copies. DVDs are always mastered from first generation
materials (i.e interpositive) or from the camera negative directly which is why the quality control is
superior in that format...given the limitations and differences between pixels and film emulsion.

At least through 1997, there was one other venue to see camera negative prints which were the
35mm to 70mm blow up copies created for the blockbusters. Now we don't even have that option.
Also, there was a brief revival of dye transfer printing (1997-2001) which was formerly known as
"Glorious Technicolor". Dye transfer prints were derived from matrices that were created directly
from the camera negative too. The only top quality mass produced first generation process invented
for color movies. That was eliminated too. It's difficult to impossible to see the best quality prints
outside of LA or festivals and considering the price of admission, I have to consider this before going
to a megaplex to see which I know will be a substandard presentation. I still go once in a while but
I know what I watch will be inferior to the DVD release. When you see a camera negative print and
compare it to a high speed print, it's almost like lifting a veil from the projector lens. It's so much 
sharper and richer than the high speed copies.


For those into historical trivia, it was the Technicolor company that introduced high speed Eastmancolor printing back in 1976 and actually received a special Academy Award for this
retrograde technology. This replaced their famous dye transfer process which was shut down
in 1974 ("The Godfather II" was the last true Technicolor release) The other Eastmancolor labs adopted
high speed printing and now it's the only way general release copies are struck. In the fifties and sixties, Eastmancolor prints were struck at a very slow speed (50 feet per minute) to enable the stock to get a good exposure and allow from contrast adjustments. High speed prints are struck at the
rate of 2000 feet per minute (a full 20 minute reel) and you can barely get an exposure at
that rate much less allow for any color or contrast adjustments. It's ironic how Technicolor
was responsible for both the best color process (first generation dye transfer release printing)
and the worst (high speed third generation Eastmancolor printing). 70mm prints were usually
struck directly from the camera negative (whether it was a 65mm original or 35mm blow up)
and at a slow printing speed which is why they looked so good. I don't believe you can make
a quality release print on the high speed machine but I'm not sure the distributors care any more.
The megaplex prints are rushed through processing and then junked immediately after the
film finishes it's brief theatrical run. I guess they're considered 'disposable' copies rather
than "Show Prints" which are saved for later industry screenings.


----------



## JCD

I don't think I've ever read a post by Mr. Haynes that I haven't come away learning something new.

Thanks again for the interesting info.

JCD


----------



## Bob_99

I will second that. :T

Bob


----------



## tonyvdb

I agree that going out to a movie has its charm but the statement that "you like the BIG screen" doesn't hold any marret as at least in my home theater I sit close enough to the 96" screen and have the comfort that NO theater can offer that it simply cant compete. I can pause rewind eat and drink anything I want and have the volume as loud or as soft as I so choose.
The home theater is the way to go and pays for its self in no time given the cost of admition, popcorn and other goodies.


----------



## Richard W. Haines

Thanks JDC and Bob 99.


----------



## thxgoon

Bob_99 said:


> Richard,
> 
> You brought up a point that slipped my mind but there is absolutely nothing worst than paying for a movie and then having to sit through commercials.


Not to mention that the slides they used to show before the movie have started to be replaced by an LCD projector showing commercials! Argh! Now you can't even have a conversation before the movie starts. :gah:

Luckily, where I live, there is a great cineplex with a THX sound system that actually sounds great and Christie DLP projectors. The image is just awesome imo. It is also one of the older theaters so it doesn't attract the crowd that the newer one does. It's funny that people assume performance with age and actually pay more to see a movie in a lower quality venue simply because it is 'newer'. Good for me I guess!


----------



## Richard W. Haines

I guess these posts from different categories are starting to merge.

The reason that exhibitors show commercials on slides and video projectors prior to the film (I'm excluding trailers which were always part of moviegoing) is due to the tough booking terms imposed
on them by distributors. For blockbuster films distributors take 90 % of the ticket sales for the first
week or so. Theater owners have no choice but to try to make money any way they can because
it isn't from the actual movie they are showing initially, thus the high priced concessions, ticket
prices and commercials.


----------



## Bob_99

> For blockbuster films distributors take 90 % of the ticket sales for the first
> week or so


These people must have excellent contract lawyers. I know actors fought long and hard to get royalties but it would be interesting to see whose getting the most money from a movie.

Bob


----------



## thxgoon

Richard W. Haines said:


> For blockbuster films distributors take 90 % of the ticket sales for the first
> week or so. Theater owners have no choice but to try to make money any way they can because
> it isn't from the actual movie they are showing initially, thus the high priced concessions, ticket
> prices and commercials.


Thanks for all of your great insight. I always knew that theaters relied on concessions and what not to make their money, but why has it just been in the last 7 or 8 years that the commercials have begun to show up? And mostly, how do these distributors harness this power? At some point you'd think the studios and filmmakers and theater chains would say enough is enough and find a way to cut this middleman.


----------



## tonyvdb

I had a friend who was a manager of a fairly large theater here until thy closed it down due to low attendance and a bad location for parking as it was downtown. 
He told me that even though they make some money from ticket sales the revenue from concession stand sales accounted for a huge portion of his profit. The money he pulled in after selling screen time to advertising using slides before the movie was also huge as a semi full theater holding 600 people was a great means for advertisers to get there message across to a semi captive audience. If I was an owner I would do the same even if it ticked off some of the customers waiting for a movie to start.
I work in a high rise building and they have a company installing 20" lcd displays in the elevator lobby and inside the elevator and running adds (think about it, how many times do you take an elevator if you work in a office tower) A great captive audience for at least 30 seconds.


----------



## Richard W. Haines

thxgoon,

There used to be a theater alliance known as NATO (not the UN organization but the National
Association of Theater Owners). They had some clout in the post 1948 era when the Supreme
Court degreed that distributors had to sell off their theater chains because it represented a monopoly.
It did although one has to admit it was a monopoly of high quality. The studios that owned theaters
really put on a great show in those days although it made independent filmmaking difficult to impossible
which was the trade offs (absolutely nothing in business or industry is clear cut/everything involves
trade offs).
Anyway, through 1966 NATO did have some influence over distribution policies since MPAA president,
Eric Johnson, was a fair minded executive willing to listen to and mediated the industry factions. However, he died in 66' and was replaced by the late Jack Valenti who was originally part of the discredited Lyndon Johnson administration. Valenti made no bones about it from day one. He was not going to represent or mediate all industry factions. He would be a lobbyist for distributors...period! Indie filmmakers, directors with controversial subjects (i.e. Pekinpah and De Palma had run ins with him), theater owners and others would be on their own since Valenti took the studio/distributor's side in virtually every dispute.
However, as long there existed 20,000 or so independent screens (prior to the late seventies),
NATO had enough support among it's members to ban 'blind bidding' on a state by state basis since
Valenti refused to ban it via distributors (blind bidding forced theaters to book movies at high rental
rates and percentages without actually screening the movie) and 'block booking' (forcing exhibitors to show a studio's entire output for the year rather than picking and choosing the titles). This gave indies
(like me) some leverage to book independent cinemas and drive ins with their product.
However, the demise of the Production Code in 1968 and replacement with the classification system
(ratings) changed the demographics of the moviegoing public from mainstream to targeted viewer which
had long term ramifications for theater owners. The large screen indoor theaters and drive ins (along
with the smaller art cinemas, repertory theaters and grind houses) began folding like dominoes in the
late seventies and eighties. They were replaced by multi and megaplexes, often controlled/owned
outright by distributors (the 1948 consent degree effectively defunct) and block booked by the major distributors cutting out indie productions, foreign and art films in general. Rather than being 20,000 or so independent cinemas organized cinemas under NATO, they became about seven or eight theater chains that controlled the distribution of studio product and were in ruthless competition to
put each other out of business. Naturally, the studio/distributors saw thier opportunity to change the
distribution terms to the 90/10 split. Prior to these years distribution terms were 60/40 
with accomodations made for co-op advertising (i.e. if the theater helped pay for the ads, their percentage went up) Multi and megaplexes had no choice but to submit to these tough terms or not get any studio product. Of course, they could've turned to indie, foreign or art house product with better booking deals instead but that would further incur the wrath of studios who might now allow them to exhibit any further product. 
There is the option for indie filmmakers to market directly to DVD, bypassing the studios and exhibitors although they won't get the same level of exposure. Still, there's money to be made there on direct video sales. Some like Steven Segal market directly to DVD. I'm still hanging in there and making movies but most indies I know have gotten out of the business. Very Darwinian now.


----------



## eddthompson

Im also going to add my thanks to Richard, this thread is a wealth of superb information about the archane workings of the the movie trade. I must find one of you movies to watch :bigsmile:

edd


----------



## eddthompson

thxgoon said:


> Thanks for all of your great insight. I always knew that theaters relied on concessions and what not to make their money, but why has it just been in the last 7 or 8 years that the commercials have begun to show up? And mostly, how do these distributors harness this power? At some point you'd think the studios and filmmakers and theater chains would say enough is enough and find a way to cut this middleman.



In the uk, im sure we have had adverts, including tv style, for a long time. The generic one is the add for the local Indian just round the corner. I used to have a dvd with 10 or so classic cinema adverts, including a 60/70s ad for clarks shoes, with twiggy no less.

edd


----------



## vseprosto90211

I don't have a home theatre and have never had one and it's one of the reasons I like to go to movie theaters, but, unfortunately, I do it quite rare. To my mind, some movies are made to be watched on a big screen, with a good surround sound. What I also like about visiting cinemas is the fact, that it is a great way to meet people who share a common interest. I was really excited when the Bohemian Rhapsody movie came out. I watched it in the cinema and was very pleased with the fact, that the people, who gathered there all liked or were interested in this music band (Queen) and it gives you a feeling that you're not alone.


----------



## AlanParker1989

vseprosto90211 said:


> I don't have a home theatre and have never had one and it's one of the reasons I like to go to movie theaters, but, unfortunately, I do it quite rare. To my mind, some movies are made to be watched on a big screen, with a good surround sound. What I also like about visiting cinemas is the fact, that it is a great way to meet people who share a common interest. I was really excited when the Bohemian Rhapsody movie came out. I watched it in the cinema and was very pleased with the fact, that the people, who gathered there all liked or were interested in this music band (Queen) and it gives you a feeling that you're not alone.


I totally agree with you! For me, going to the cinema is like a tradition. In addition, not everyone has the money for a good home cinema and watching movies on a computer is not a good alternative. It's a pity the truth that now cinemas are at a loss for this pandemic


----------

