"I cannot understand why most theaters pay no attention to the projection of their films. I see at least three shows a week. At (movie title) in Westwood, the screen blacked out for two minutes at a crucial point while the sound continued. At (movie title) at the (theatre) the picture started without sound and continued for two minutes that way. throughout the rest of the film, one projector was consistently out of focus and the operator never bothered to check. At (theatre), the (theatre) and the (theatre), large portions of the films were out of focus, and in Westwood one could not even read the subtitles of (movie title). Managers and ushers walk through fiddling around with thermostats and preparing sales of concessions, and when queried inevitably blame the print condition and not the projectionist. The latter watches TV and laughs in one's face when one tries to object. New theaters spring up with the ultimate in exterior comforts and conveniences yet nobody bothers with the most important item - that which brings the audience in the first place - the proper presentation of the picture."

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

"I cannot understand why most theaters pay no attention to the projection of their films. I see at least three shows a week. At "The Godfather" in Westwood, the screen blacked out for two minutes at a crucial point while the sound continued. At "The Hospital" at the El Rey the picture started without sound and continued for two minutes that way. Throughout the rest of the film, one projector was consistently out of focus and the operator never bothered to check. At Gruman's Chinese, the Egyptian and the Hollywood Pacific, large portions of the films were out of focus, and in Westwood one could not even read the subtitles of "Without Apparent Motive." Managers and ushers walk through fiddling around with thermostats and preparing sales of concessions, and when queried inevitably blame the print condition and not the projectionist. The latter watches TV and laughs in one's face when one tries to object. New theaters spring up with the ultimate in exterior comforts and conveniences yet nobody bothers with the most important item - that which brings the audience in the first place - the proper presentation of the picture."

This letter appeared in April, 1972. The point? Much is said about sloppy operators today as opposed to the good old days, but this demonstrates that these problems have always existed (and in top first-run screens by (presumably) union operators using (presumably) changeover projection systems in single screens.

Curious, but why were the "blanks" not filled in the first post? If it was a published letter, there is no reason to hide it. Also, there is no reason to protect the guilty (that's the point of the "You suck" thread in FHF).

(Unless we care enough to make them change).

Josh

My absolute favorite one is how "we ran that print for over a year on 2000' reels and there was not one speck of dirt or mark anywhere on the print at the end of it's run". Bullshit. Sorry guys, but that's a lie. That's your mind playing tricks on you.

The biggest improvement I've seen in the modern filming style is in the special effects department...the old effects are hokey. Also the surround channel I find much more suited in modern films and well implemented.

Steve

quote:

---

Why cant a modern film have panned dialoge?

---

Steve

When I saw "Seven Wonders of the World" presented by John Harvey in original 3-strip Cinerama at the New Neon Theatre in Dayton, I was amazed at the sound "presence", despite the almost 50-year old recording and playback technology. During the "Indian Wedding Parade" sequence, you could close your eyes and still feel you were in the middle of that crowded Indian street as the parade passed by on both sides of you. Amazing.

Recently I watched the DVD (in full 2.55 aspect ratio) of "How to marry a millionaire" with Marylin Monroe. I had never seen this film before and was amazed... First, the Fox logo followed by a prologue showing the Fox fanfare conducted by Alfred Newman playing the main musical theme to the film, then the opening credits, then the story itself. Look at how it was beautifully photographed. The photo composition is polished up. And that's CinemaScope! Let's watch it in pan&scan and see if we still understand the film. There are many shots where the camera is static or slightly panning, showing 2 or 3 of the main characters talking to each other. I made a test and put my left and right speakers far away from the center speaker and I could clearly hear dialogs coming from "between" speakers in my living room. I can imagine the precise stereo effects obtained in a theatre, showing all the benefits of true discrete stereo mixing. Not to mention the talent of the actors and actresses who were used to act in longer shots, with more elements or people dealing with each other within the camera capture angle.

BTW, do you remember the opening sequence of The Player by Robert Altman? Just brilliant direction...

Today, dialog is kept in the center mainly because the damn' matrixed Dolby Stereo doesn't allow you to pan sounds across channels. And you wonder if the way films are shot and cut is serving poor acting where it's easier to remake a shot when 2 characters talking to each other are filmed with 2 cameras, 1 pointing at each actor's face... Have them play on stage before an audience, for 2 hours without the possibility to make mistakes and start again, and then I'll accept to call them actors. As for the filmmakers, why do they use this method of choosing one aspect ratio in the making, that will allow them to crop either the sides or bottom/top of the picture depending on if the release print is intended for theatre or TV/video (examples: Dick Tracy, Terminator 2). Why can't they choose one ratio, stick to it and compose the picture by artistically exploiting the specs of the chosen format...

But I also agree with Brad about some things. Why refuse technological progress when it allows you to improve the making or the projection. The question is: does progress always improve things?

quote:

---

Come on...do you think Super-35 would have had a chance back then?

---