Are the streamers runnign out of st(r)eam?

[Lyle Romer]

The first thing that must happen is commercial movie theaters need to be in a position where they have better profit margins, thus an ability to attract employees who are more detail oriented and care more about what they're doing. Anyone making near minimum wage can't really be expected to give a damn, much less stick around in that job for any steady amount of time. Good presentation standards rely largely on humans sweating the small stuff. The theater needs at least one person in the building who is concerned with show quality.

Too many theaters have their equipment running in set it and forget it mode. Managers are buried in paperwork, running around trying to account for how many drink cups were sold versus how many were used that day. From my layperson vantage point it looks like 95% of a theater manager's job is running the concessions side of the business. Then there's all sorts of other operations related to the building (custodial service, security, city/utility issues, etc). What's happening in the auditoriums is way down the list of priorities even though that is supposed to be the main freaking product being sold. The skeleton crew of minimal paid employees, kids mostly, are busy cleaning up after the mess the previous crowd of selfish pigs left in the auditoriums, bathrooms and lobby. Neither the employees or managers are inclined to check the condition of actual show quality on any kind of frequent basis. They're not going to know a stage channel speaker is blown or something else is wrong until a customer finally bothers to tell them about it. That is the main thing that needs to change. It should not be left up to customers to enforce quality control.

I don't expect the average cinema's sound system B-chain to be re-tuned for each movie engagement like they did long ago at the GCC Northpark 1-2 in Dallas. But the A-chain and B-chain needs to at least be inspected on a somewhat frequent basis to make sure everything is properly operational. How frequent? I don't know. Once every 3 months or 6 months? To me it appears most theaters are going years between any service checks. Sheesh, what I'm seeing now at our local AMC 13-plex is visible damage to seats and other fixtures going un-repaired. Never mind someone managing to notice a blown surround speaker.

How do cinemas get into a position where they can afford better staff and afford more attention to details? The movie studios must help by increasing the theatrical release window. There has to be some kind of time penalty to suffer when choosing to skip the cinema and watch a movie on TV at home. That penalty was painful in the 1980's and going well into the 1990's, a wait time which often measured more than a year. And when one was finally able to rent the video it was a VHS tape with shitty image and sound quality. Nearly half the image could be chopped off via pan and scan. Today the wait penalty is minimal and the image on the TV is very similar to that shown in theaters, right down to the letter-boxed image, both in theaters and at home.

Major studios aren't going to increase the theatrical release window or change the kinds of movies they're making until they're hit with a crisis.

The movie studios could help by having some consistent damn standards on things like audio levels for movie trailers versus the feature. Maybe that way the theaters won't see speakers blown so easy. But some of that also comes down to the theater operators for cutting corners by installing under-powered sound systems and cutting corners on projection and sound maintenance. We don't really have anything like THX anymore to establish some kind of performance bar to hit. It's all mystery meat digital.

A good argument could be made for building multiplex sites with fewer auditoriums. Concentrate the finite amount of resources onto fewer screens to make them better.

I think small auditoriums with fewer than 100 seats are a waste of money. There is no marquee value anymore with a multiplex having a ridiculous number of screens (18, 24 or even 30 screens). It ends up being a kind of false advertising if a bunch of those screens are small rooms with small screens and few seats. I can watch a movie on only one screen at a time. So, given the choice between a 12-plex with a bunch of mediocre rooms versus a 4-plex with better rooms I'll choose the 4-plex site. It's common for theaters with 10 or more screens to have one or more movies playing on multiple screens. The only thing playing a movie on 2 or more screens does is encourage procrastinators. There is a serious cost outlay involved for each auditorium, even the tiny ones with less than 100 seats. More screens was supposed to mean more variety. Instead of one movie playing in 2 or 3 modest sizes rooms why not just have one show of it playing in a much bigger room with a more impressive screen?

I wouldn't think it would be too expensive to have automated systems that can monitor the audio and video and report issues like channels not functioning or blown speaker drivers. An automated test pattern image and test tone sequence after each show concludes could be checked by a system and then issues can be reported to the management or responsible technician. I'm sure it gets expensive to have automated calibration like IMAX but just monitoring and reporting should be doable for a reasonably low cost.

[Harold Hallikainen]

I wouldn't think it would be too expensive to have automated systems that can monitor the audio and video and report issues like channels not functioning or blown speaker drivers. An automated test pattern image and test tone sequence after each show concludes could be checked by a system and then issues can be reported to the management or responsible technician. I'm sure it gets expensive to have automated calibration like IMAX but just monitoring and reporting should be doable for a reasonably low cost.

That's the idea behind the LSS-200.

[Geoff Jones]

When we see post after post about problems that are reported but go unfixed, it makes me wonder what's the point of spending money to detect additional problems...

[Bobby Henderson]

I have a strong feeling that problems are getting noticed in many theaters run by the big chains (AMC, Regal, etc), but are not being fixed anyway. Deferred maintenance to stretch a buck. "Do the customers really need all those speakers to work? Or can we get by with just enough speakers? If a customer finds a hacked up, vandalized seat can't he just move to another one? We don't need all the seats do be in perfect shape do we?"

[Randy Stankey]

I think it's just butt-headed budget keeping.

There's a place that I know of where management spent a bunch of money to build a guest lounge with a fridge, a coffee bar then outfitted it with all, brand new, custom furniture. Then, when people ask for tools to do their jobs they are told that they can't afford it.

If you ask about why they spent so much money, the answer is that they want to have a place where potential customers who visit the plant can be comfortable.

Umm... What visitors? Visiting has been curtailed due to COVID!

Several of the employees at that place have been joking around and saying that they should all chip in and buy a pound of Kopi Luwak coffee for the managers to drink.

I'm willing to bet that the same kind of thing is going on at AMC.

Customers watch shit movies while bosses sit and drink coffee.

Shouldn't it be the other way around? Customers watch good movies while bosses drink shit-coffee?... Made from real shit!

[Geoff Jones]

I've given some thought to Bobby's assertion that if cinemas made more money, presentations would improve.

I can't think of (and haven't seen) any evidence supporting this idea. Even Bobby seems to agree that the profits would probably just go to owners, shareholders, and corporate management.

But it isn't difficult to find evidence to the contrary.

I reported the green light shining across the screen in auditorium 9 at Regal's Continental at the end of 2015.

The following year, 2016 saw the second highest U.S. box-office ever. 2018 was number one, at almost twelve billion dollars.

In the six years following my complaint, Regal has been unable to set aside $25 to buy the plywood, black felt, and screws that could be used to rectify the problem without diminishing the effectiveness of the exit sign.



I still maintain that ending the release window would be the best thing for the moviegoing experience. Yes, large number of screens would vanish, but a large number of screens aren't currently providing an acceptable experience. The theaters doing a good job would hopefully thrive and people who cared about presentation would be more likely go to the cinema. People who didn't would stay home. Currently, the opposite is increasingly true.

Maybe the exhibition industry would be unable to survive, as Bobby asserts. I'm hopeful. The moviegoing experience can be magical and there are plenty of services and activities with smaller customer bases that still find a way to be profitable.


If there are other ideas about how to improve the moviegoing experience, I'd be curious to hear them.

[Bobby Henderson]

I've given some thought to Bobby's assertion that if cinemas made more money, presentations would improve. I can't think of (and haven't seen) any evidence supporting this idea. Even Bobby seems to agree that the profits would probably just go to owners, shareholders, and corporate management.

Improvements in cinema show quality are NOT going to happen for free. What ever the reasons may be the current business model for most theaters includes operating those theaters with as few employees as possible for as little as the theater chain can get away with paying them. For most theater employees, even the GM in a lot of cases, working in a cinema is a shit-quality job.

I reported the green light shining across the screen in auditorium 9 at Regal's Continental at the end of 2015.

Chances are good that whoever received the complaint probably didn't work for Regal very long after hearing it. If employee morale is low they're going to work on auto-pilot and not care much about any repair needs or show quality issues in the theater. And even if someone working in the theater actually cares there is still the very real barrier of upper management at regional and corporate offices refusing to approve any repair/maintenance jobs.

I still maintain that ending the release window would be the best thing for the moviegoing experience. Yes, large number of screens would vanish, but a large number of screens aren't currently providing an acceptable experience.

You're still ignoring my earlier point about the ecosystem of cinema products and how they need at least so many cinemas to exist for the product ecosystem to be viable.

Texas Instruments won't continue to make DLP chips for d-cinema projectors if the number of theaters in the US dwindles down to just a few hundred screens or less. The same goes for the rest of that projector hardware and other specialized, industry-specific equipment. All of those product lines will disappear. No one will start making film projectors again as a back-up plan either. The only remnants that would survive are speaker and amp components that can work in other kinds of concert/event sound systems.

A 100% day and date release plan will put more than 90% of cinemas out of business in a matter of months. I'm pretty sure if 9 out of 10 cinemas closed the entire release platform would be abandoned.

The following year, 2016 saw the second highest U.S. box-office ever. 2018 was number one, at almost twelve billion dollars.

How much of that actually went to the movie theaters? Further, of the cinemas' share of box office take how much of that went back into the theaters (building upkeep, staff, etc)?

[Geoff Jones]

I wasn't ignoring your point. I attempted to acknowledge it it with the comment "there are plenty of services and activities with smaller customer bases that still find a way to be profitable."

You may be right that theaters wouldn't survive if the release window came to an end, but you aren't suggesting any other ideas about improving the industry.

If the moviegoing experience continues to be the shit-show that you and I and so many others keep describing, what difference does it make if the industry continues or not?

[Mike Blakesley]

If the moviegoing experience continues to be the shit-show that you and I and so many others keep describing, what difference does it make if the industry continues or not?

The moviegoing experience is only a shit-show in some places, not ALL places. Almost every time my wife and I go on a trip, we wind up going to at least one movie, and I can't remember the last time we had a sub-par experience.

I would bet that if you polled random moviegoers (not Film-Techers, who are notoriously picky and rightly so), you'd probably find the level of complaints is no higher than it might be for any other service industry, restaurants or concerts for example. It is impossible to please 100% of the people all of the time, it just can't be done. So you do the best you can with the resources you have. It's not like our industry is the only one where there are issues now and then.

So quit being so high-and-mighty about how you think an entire industry deserves to be flushed, just because it doesn't always meet your lofty standards. I'm not making excuses for the chains and their cheapo policies, and I can't speak for the other theater owners in the country, but I'm doing the best I can, and I expect many others are as well.

[Geoff Jones]

• Bright green light shining across the screen
• One half of the screen is noticeably darker than the other
• Missing audio channels
• Audio channels coming from the wrong direction
• Audio channels coming from the wrong goddamn movie

I've always thought highly of the operation you run based on your posts here, but if being dismayed by these sorts of things is "lofty standards," then maybe I was mistaken.

If you polled random moviegoers about the moviegoing experience, I doubt you'd find many complaints, because most of those who care about presentation have given up on commercial cinemas.

In this discussion I've actually been trying to find ways to help improve an industry I love. My thought was that if all the crappy theaters shut down, the ones run be people who cared about presentation would actually make more money. I'm rooting for those sorts of operations. But whatever. You be you.

[Bobby Henderson]

I wasn't ignoring your point. I attempted to acknowledge it it with the comment "there are plenty of services and activities with smaller customer bases that still find a way to be profitable."

A small coalition of live stage play theaters could operate at a profit. Commercial cinemas, whose very operations depend on the mass production of some very expensive yet industry-specific equipment, cannot do the same. D-cinema projectors, the various computer chips and IC boards inside of them and even the lamps all must be manufactured at a certain scale. They cannot be produced at one or a few units at a time. Otherwise the costs per unit would spike to astonishing levels.

You may be right that theaters wouldn't survive if the release window came to an end, but you aren't suggesting any other ideas about improving the industry.

I did suggest ideas to improve the industry earlier in this thread. None of those ideas are easy or free of cost to implement. The two most basic things are: 1.: movie distributors must be willing to support the theatrical release window and even lengthen the window significantly and 2.: commercial cinemas must attract better/more-skilled people to their work force. I'm not asking for union projectionists, but I think cinemas need at least one or more staff members present on site at all times who can monitor show quality and be able to do at least some basic trouble-shooting when problems occur. The higher ups in theater chain management must be willing to invest in maintaining high standards of show quality, not to mention fixing shit that gets broken or vandalized in the theaters.

Theaters with crappy presentation quality are not a new thing at all. There were lots of film-based theaters that were absolutely terrible. The difficult thing for commercial cinemas today is audio/video standards for home viewing have improved enormously. HD is now standard definition in the home. That has raised the floor of what is passable for minimum quality standards in commercial theaters.

The movie distributors have cannibalized various parts of the home movie sales market via this broad shift to streaming apps. To me it looks like the theatrical release platform is the only area where there is money left on the table to be made. There are no legal barriers to prevent movie distributors from taking a more hands-on approach with cinemas. I think the distributors should sink a good bit of money into theater projection and sound as well as better new venues. They should do that as a way a better showcasing their product. Leaving up to the theater chains to foot all of the bill isn't working.

[Geoff Jones]

Sorry. I guess I still wasn't being clear. Obviously, if cinema chains made more money and then devoted some of that money to improving their presentations, presentations would improve. The ideas I was looking for are related to: what possible incentive could lead to that happening? What could make the higher ups in theater chain management be willing to invest in maintaining high (or even adequate) standards of show quality? To me, that's the crux of the problem.

There are no legal barriers to prevent movie distributors from taking a more hands-on approach with cinemas. I think the distributors should sink a good bit of money into theater projection and sound as well as better new venues. They should do that as a way a better showcasing their product. Leaving up to the theater chains to foot all of the bill isn't working.

Now that is an intriguing possibility. I would love to distributors or even the filmmakers get involved. I wonder what it would take to see it happen?

[Mike Blakesley]

• Bright green light shining across the screen
• One half of the screen is noticeably darker than the other
• Missing audio channels
• Audio channels coming from the wrong direction
• Audio channels coming from the wrong goddamn movie

Well your posts imply that this kind of stuff is happening in every location everywhere all the time.

Of course those kind of problems should be addressed. I never said they shouldn't.

What could make the higher ups in theater chain management be willing to invest in maintaining high (or even adequate) standards of show quality?

I think the answer is "people." As in, people who care about presentation. As is is now, a chain theater probably has its showtimes and all the projector settings done remotely, so the movies run with no local involvement. To the guy in an office somewhere looking at his computer, the show in Theater X might be going off nicely; but he can't tell that there's a speaker blown, or the screen has a rip in it, or the bass is too boomy, or the words are unintelligible. That takes a human being standing in the room looking and listening. But the chains are either too cheap or can't afford to pay for that.

I think a general manager should get in the habit of visiting each and every auditorium at least once per show just to look and listen, and report every problem every single day. The next step would be to enable someone on site to fix problems, rather than putting them on some "to-do list" in some office somewhere, which is a place where tasks go to die.

[Bobby Henderson]

Obviously, if cinema chains made more money and then devoted some of that money to improving their presentations, presentations would improve. The ideas I was looking for are related to: what possible incentive could lead to that happening?

The incentive is the movie distributors (as well as the theaters) could end up making significantly more money on each movie if they invested properly to make the movie-going experience as good as it can be (at least in realistic terms) at every cinema location. That means investing in both people and equipment.

For decades the distributors have been marginalizing the theatrical platform in order to chase after money that just isn't there on the home viewing side. There is no way they can be making nearly as much money on a per title basis with streaming as they were with retail DVDs 20 years ago. Today a new movie can go from the cinema screen to streaming app to completely forgotten inside one calendar year. I don't see any legit reason at all to speed up that process faster.

The bean counters at movie studios and parent media companies have sped up the total life cycle of a movie as a means of playing some kind of cash flow game, one that doesn't make any sense to me. The movies aren't even the point anymore. It seems to be more about positioning a company to buy other companies or be sold to another company.

[Mike Blakesley]

I will say that the studios really did seem to come to the realization that a movie really does need a theatrical release with a window to bust out of the crowd and be noticed. That was strongly evidenced at CinemaCon this year, and noted in a couple dozen articles about it that I have read since. So maybe we can quit being the Rodney Dangerfields of the movie industry.