|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Author
|
Topic: What is / is not a theater?
|
John Walsh
Film God
Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999
|
posted 11-16-2000 09:58 PM
I was reading with interest the discussion about Cobb theaters in another topic. It was interesting to me for two reasons; One, several of the people who ran Cobb now run our chain; Two, it reminds me of this story, which I've mentioned before. So at the risk of annoying y'all...:Many years ago, I worked with an architect, Drew Eberson, on some theaters our company did. If you look in the older SMPTE projection manual, you will see photos of some of his theaters. (His father, John Eberson, created the large "atmospheric theaters" popular in the 1920's; fancy, ornate places with stars on the ceiling, etc.) Anyway, Drew E. told me he was being called in as an expert witness for a lawsuit going on in New York city. A developer had put small "theaters" in the basement of a building, and wanted to start getting first-run product. Representatives from Fox, Paramount, Universal, etc. came and looked at the place, and said that it was so poorly made, "It is not a theater." They refused to send any prints there. (Drew E. said that in one auditorium, patrons had to duck under a sewer pipe to get to some seats. In another, anyone standing up in the first 6 rows would block the light to the screen.) The developer sued the distributors to get first-run product. So, the issue came down to what is a theater. Sadly, shortly after giving his testimony, Drew E. died. The case was setted out of court, so I never did learn, "What is a theater." So, I ask anyone interested: What would a make a place "A theater / not a theater?" Fixed 2:1 masking? A screen smaller then 10 feet wide? Remember, I'm thinking of a place that charges admission and runs first-run product.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry Chase
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1068
From: Margate, FL, USA
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 11-17-2000 07:18 AM
Actually, the definition of a theatre would be set by the municipal and fire codes. Personal opinions of what is/isn't a theatre are more accurately describing what is/isn't a good theatre, and are going to vary.Bottom line in most legal definitions is: a theatre is a place of public assembly. Movies are incidental. Re Cobb: Bear in mind that MD was a latecomer to Cobb, and was given a lot more leeway than previous directors of operation. Chris had been around for years in Florida, but the decisions came out of Birmingham for most of that time. Chris was always high thought of, and survived many purges. Most of the people who survived Cobb went on to bigger and better things. Brian Mercer is running a chain in the southwest, Ambrish built his own theatres, Larry Mullins rebuilt his own circuit, Bill Homer has taken over Kent Theatres, Freddie is well respected on the equipment and installation side of the business, and I've done OK as well. Cobb was an excellent training ground for a lot of people during the 80s. BTW, Thank you for your pointing out the possibility of the award for worst designed theatre going to some other circuit than Cobb.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Jerry Chase
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1068
From: Margate, FL, USA
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 11-17-2000 08:22 AM
You might consider finding a place on a public sidewalk in front of the threatre, and taking up a collection for new masking and lenses. You would probably get enough publicity in local papers that the issue would come to a head. Pounding at it here seems to be beating a dead horse. You aren't going to get anyone to say you are wrong, and nobody is going to go banging on Regal's door to force them to change anything. Suppliers know where their bread is buttered, and (sad to say) when was the last time you heard of a circuit executive taking a projectionist seriously?Distributors make unreasonable demands all the time. "We want this film to run in your largest auditorium only, for the entire length of the run." IIRC, that was the Lucas demand. Try complying when every distributor learns exhibitors will cave in to such demands and begin demanding the same treatment. Consolidated got around such "requests", and audience complaints of small auditoriums, by building their theatres with identical sized auditoriums, which sucked even worse, because you never got to see a new film on a really big screen, which, as we know, are economically unfeasable if not filled with customers regularly. Unreasonable demands result in unreasonable reactions. Everyone knows how unreasonable trailer placement is. Trailer placement demands have only become worse over the years. A few years back, NATO fought back, but that seems to have been forgotten, now that NATO seems more interested in trade shows than political activism. (Yeah, I live dangerously ) IMO, theatre owners should have absolute and complete control over their facilities and program, except when they want to comply with a certification program.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evans A Criswell
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1579
From: Huntsville, AL, USA
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 11-17-2000 09:13 AM
Jerry, speaking of Consolidated, I know that the University 6 (originally 4) was a Consolidated theatre at one point. Did Consolidated build that one or did they take it over at some time after it was built? That's one piece of information I was unable to find in the grand opening ads. That theatre was built using the "pod" design where auditoriums share little of their walls with adjacent auditoriums. See http://home.hiwaay.net/~criswell/theatre/images/nashville/ for pictures of several theatres, including University 6, built this way. There are also some pictures of the defunct Fountain Square 14 (not built with "pods"). Oh, and pounding the masking issue here is like beating a dead horse, but maybe more accurately it would be described at beating an old dead eaten ear of corn. (Sorry, I couldn't resist). (We need a special smiley for that, like a Kurt Cobain smiley or a Sammy Davis Jr. wink). About trailer placement: one thing I find humorous is at the end of Regal's "girl with the man voice badly in need of a brain wrap" policy trailer, the words, "Feature Presentation" appear on the screen, which is invariable followed by one last trailer before the "feature presentation". It would have been smart to leave off the "Feature Presentation" words at the end of that beast, which can be viewed at http://www.regalcinemas.com/ . I think Lucas's demands that Star Wars I be shown in the best auditoriums was a good one, but after the rush died down and attendance dropped, it would have been nice to be able to see other new movies in the larger auditoriums with digital sound. The requirement should probably have only covered the first 3-4 weeks of the run. Theatres affected the most by the demand were those with only one larger screen with digital sound. They couldn't show "Austin Powers 2" on their best screen with digital sound. Evans
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry Chase
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1068
From: Margate, FL, USA
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 11-17-2000 11:43 AM
Evans, I don't remember the details other than R.C. and Herman(?) Stone were having a war at the time of some of the construction.You can usually tell a Consolidated Theatre of that vintage by the hose bibb at the back of each auditorium and drain at the front. When the Consolidated theatres were regularly hosed down, no one stuck to the floor, but the wet smell was something like that found in a boy's locker room. He had a great idea, but the execution left a little to be desired. Feature presentation snipes are a pain. I still like the old way of closing curtains after the pre-show and then opening on the film company logo. One thing that has puzzled me is why MD didn't put in the masking during his tenure at Cobb. Oh well.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 11-17-2000 12:13 PM
If you've ever been to a planetarium. (More than just to see "Deathstars and Dinosaurs", etc. you might have heard about this planetarium being a LEVEL "X". The "level" meaning what kind of equipment it has.Level 0 means it has just the star projector. Level 1 means it has slide projectors And so on..... If a planetarium wants to "book" a show, you have to be a certain level to book that show. It might have automated control of the star field or it might use video projection. You obviously couldn't play shows like that on a level 1 or 2. Why couldn't we bring that idea into the projection booth? Level 1 would mean "mono" or something Level 2 would mean stereo and on down the line... Studios could more easily book films if they could say, "We want to put this in level "X" theatres for its first two weeks..... That lawsuit never would have happened if we did this.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 11-17-2000 01:32 PM
Nice idea, but the problem with grading theatres by format capabilities totally ignores actual presentation quality. Having all digital formats does no good if the horn diaphragm in the center channel loudspeaker is blown or if one of the stage channels is wired out of phase (yes, I've been to a commercial theatre that had this problem...it was painful!). Having 1.66 or Academy-format lenses is great, but not if the "projectionist" is a popcorn-popper who has no clue how to tell what the picture format of a given print is. Having Dolby SR capability is no good if you send the theatre a mono print and they still run it in SR (which is also painful). Meeting SMPTE specs for image brightness is great, but not if there are fingerprints on the port glass, etc., etc.
If anything, theatre "ratings standards" based solely upon installed equipment will encourage more of the current trend in exhibition, which seems to be to put in lots of fancy equipment and then not maintain it at all over time. This is definitely _not_ a good thing. It is also unfair to ignore some older theatre which have architectural constraints which might, for example, make side-masking for scope impractical; this might be acceptible in order to achieve a larger 1.85 image in an older house with a procenium which was originally built for 1.33 images, but which would be totally unacceptible in a newly constructed theatre.
Booking films based on such things also would totally ignore the competition as well. For example, one would be silly to build a new multiplex in a major city without digital sound capability; however, a small town theatre with Dolby A might well be the best-sounding theatre for hundreds of miles. There's just too much variation among different markets for something like this to work.
That said, I don't have a really good solution to this. I do think that the Kodak Screencheck concept is a good one. I don't have any direct experience with THX-TAP, but it certainly sounds like a really good concept, at least on paper. We can debate about the THX certifaction program implementation, but, again, I think that the idea of measurable standards and periodic re-certifications is a sound one, even if it doesn't always work well in practice and doesn't give much consideration to image quality.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
John Walsh
Film God
Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999
|
posted 11-17-2000 10:56 PM
I agree; it's hard to say whether a theater is, or is not, acceptable. While I feel fixed 2:1 masking is unacceptable, if everything else was OK, I'd grumble, but let it go. I guess I'd just have to see them for myself. And if people continue to go to a theater, then that place must be acceptable. People vote with their dollars, and if a place makes money, then by definition, it's good enough.I don't know if I'd be a good judge of a place, because I have only projected (never managed or had to worry about bugets and payroll, etc.) So, I think theaters should be designed from the booth out. In real life, I know this is not possible. THX, while not perfect, does make theaters do some things that are not easily removable, ie: rubber isolation mounts on AC equipment. While it true the speakers can blow out, amps die, etc., at least you know, at one time, the place was fairly well designed.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|