|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Box Office Mojo Now Rates Theatres
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Martin Brooks
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 900
From: Forest Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 10-03-2006 10:01 PM
If you don't have separate categories for sound, picture, physical facility, ambience, food, etc., it's almost worthless.
Even if you had those, if a reviewer can't tell the difference between a bad presentation and a bad print, it's also almost worthless.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 10-10-2006 04:27 PM
I've been chewing on how do such a feature on The BigScreen Cinema Guide for quite some time, and I haven't come upon a package of features that covers the challenges I see from the start.
- How to get good reviews? (print vs. projection issues, etc.)
- How to prevent abuse? (cranks with an axe to grind)
- What ratings scale to use? (1-x stars, thumbs up/down, ?)
- Allow comments or not? (see "crank" issue)
And those are just the most obvious challenges.
Personally, I'd like to see things very detailed, but I don't think most of the public would be willing to supply detailed information.
I would like to cover every aspect of the experience from getting the showtimes (phone, internet, newspaper, etc.) to concessions to staff friendliness to bathroom condition.
The trick, I think, is to provide a way to allow us picky detail-oriented people to contribute details, and for the masses to provide only what they want to provide. That approach doesn't allow for any ability to total and average results without jumping through a lot of statistical hoops, but it's the most flexible I can think of.
My other thought was to keep it brain-dead simple and provide a message board for open-ended commentary. The biggest problem with that is the aforementioned "crank" issue.
The question that always comes up when I mull this issue over and stops me from implementing something is how to provide a valuable service to theaters and to our readers without it all degenerating into the rest of the noise that is so very prevalent on the internet already?
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack Ondracek
Film God
Posts: 2348
From: Port Orchard, WA, USA
Registered: Oct 2002
|
posted 10-10-2006 04:53 PM
A site that keeps track of drive-ins... sort of the "cinematour of outdoor theatres" had a comment function. It's presently disabled, though they say it'll be back.
It pretty much allowed anyone to say anything about any drive-in that's listed in there... and do it under any name the poster chose to use. As a result, the section would frequently start out with a positive comment or two, then degenerate into an uncontrolled flame-fest.
Even in a moderated environment, I'm not sure a review section could be balanced and fair (or the other way around). Someone who just wants to watch a decent show, have a bit of popcorn and a Coke might not understand (or care) about vertical jitter, masking settings (or lack of masking), small focus errors in a xenon lamp or the fact that the theatre might still be running SR instead of digital. However, those items might be big deals to some of the tech-types here, which could result in a classic "you suck"-type review of the theatre as a whole.
If the drive-in site is an example, any reasonable review section would need to be tightly monitored by a "take no prisoners", "shoot first and ask questions later... or maybe not) kind of moderator.
Give it to Brad... or Joe!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin Brooks
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 900
From: Forest Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 10-15-2006 12:18 PM
quote: Anslem Rayburn
The minor ones that don't get picked up by the millions of people that attend every year should not be described and pointed out. We should still strive to get rid of them, but there is no reason to point out flaws that go un-noticed by a paying customer. Unless you're trying to usher the era of digital and bring up every single flaw that film has, there is no point.
I disagree. Even if a customer doesn't understand the technology and doesn't know on a conscious level what the flaws are, they certainly know on a subconscious level. If the theatre presentation business is to survive with more than a few theaters per city, presentation needs to be flawless and there's absolutely nothing wrong with a system that points out the specific flaws of a theater. SMPTE attempted to do that some years ago, but the effort failed. I don't know whether this was a failure at the participation level or an unwillingness by theaters to be rated.
As a consumer, I certainly want to know whether someone is criticizing a theater because they didn't like the popcorn or because the audience was rude or because the sound sucked. Those difference are important.
Besides, in the age of the internet, where people rate everything, it's inevitable that this is going to happen anyway. The issue is how to get it done in a manner that's meaningful.
quote: Scott Jentsch
The question that always comes up when I mull this issue over and stops me from implementing something is how to provide a valuable service to theaters and to our readers without it all degenerating into the rest of the noise that is so very prevalent on the internet already?
I think that most theaters could care less. But even if I'm wrong, the only way you can even attempt to have valid reviews is to certify the people who are doing the reviewing. And even then you could have problems because people could denigrate competitive theaters. But one way around that is to not publish a review until at least 2-3 people have rated a particular theater.
There's no way to have a prefect reviewing system. Four out of five stars may mean something completely different to you and to me. Some people love junk food, others hate it. Some people love the sound to be played at the threshold of pain, others know that sucks. Some people have never been in anything but a cinderblock theater with bad projection and sound and wouldn't expect anything better. Some people are turned on by art-deco or movie palace design and others will see it as old junk and prefer a modern industrial look, painted flat black. You just have to hope that if enough people participate, that the reviews gain some meaning over time.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 10-16-2006 10:41 AM
I believe that an educated consumer is the best thing a reputable business (of any kind) can wish for. Educated consumers will appreciate what good theaters do to make a great moviegoing experience, whereas uneducated consumers might not notice a superb presentation when they have one.
From the outset of The BigScreen Cinema Guide, I've tried to make sure that the site supplies useful information that people can use to learn more about what makes a good presentation. Back then (1995), digital sound was still a new thing, so we tried our best to get theaters to indicate to us when they were showing something in DTS, Dolby Digital, and SDDS. Since Dolby Digital was pretty flakey in those days, we wanted to differentiate between the formats so that our readers could pick out the DTS shows. Now, we're lucky to get theaters to specify the fact that they have Digital Sound at all, much less what format.
Anyway, if a review system is to proceed, I believe it needs to be boiled down into easily understandable categories, and be brief enough to garner a good volume of responses. The balance between detail and brevity has always been a particular challenge for me (I tend to provide way too much detail for most people).
Let's try these categories:
- How did the movie look?
- How did the movie sound?
- Staff Friendliness/Knowledge/Helpfulness
- Condition of theater (seats, bathrooms, lobby, etc.)
- Overall experience
Each item would be multiple choice:
- Excellent
- Acceptable
- Needs Improvement
- Horrible
- Not Applicable/No Answer
I would like to provide a link into our Help section that would back up the items with what a good theater should be expected to deliver to the customer in each category. Excessive jump and weave should result in a "Needs Improvement" or "Horrible" rating, sound dropouts at the reel splices gets a "Needs Improvement", for example.
The next item would be a simple yes/no question:
Would you recommend this theater to others? Yes/No
The final item would be open-ended comments that are optional.
All reviews would be subject to removal if found to be abusive, slanderous, or false. I have done this with movie reviews since we started accepting movie reviews many years ago and that's worked pretty well. Nothing has degraded into the garbage that is so common in open forums, but I think it also limits the number of reviews that are received.
Volume is the key, I think. Anomalous comments are easy to pick out when they are overwhelmed by contradictory comments. One person launching a tirade will be drowned out by others saying that the theater does a good job, and a fanboy will be outnumbered by negative comments if a theater isn't up to par.
Does the above sound workable? Would you complete such a form?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
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.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic