A new low, even for AMC

[Randy Stankey]

Also, as has been noted, talking on a cell phone IS talking via radio...

...in full-duplex.

[Marcel Birgelen]

They are my closest "normal" theater, so they get the nod when I don't have a good reason to go elsewhere, and frankly they keep up their IMAX and Dolby screens, they just ignore the rest of the complex.

That's probably because AMC is not paying for the upkeep here but Dolby and IMAX will simply point at their mutual revenue sharing contract that obliges them to keep the place reasonably in-check or else they'll pull the huge IMAX letters from the marquee. I'm not pretending Dolby Cinema and IMAX are the hallmarks of quality control, but it's rather like with your better-ran fast food chain...

Still, before I last moved, the "chain theater" was a 5 minute drive, but I'd rather take the 30 to 45 minute drive to promote a local business than the big chain, unless it was THAT specific movie I really wanted to see in a format the local business would not be able to support. Even then, no big chain around here is even daring to touch 70mm film.

ALEX

(Laughs) Why would we pay money for someone to screw up
the movie for us? We can wait a year.

I recently was listening to some kind of podcast, it auto-queued on Spotify so I have no clue what it was. I was driving and didn't mind switching to something else... It was an interaction between two millenial dudes discussing recent news in a "funny" way... One discussion went like this:

Dude A: Yeah, it's only on DVD...
Dude B: What? DVD?! That's like 480p... that's STANDARD DEFINITION, how can you watch something like this.
Dude A: Yeah, I know, it's like in the theater, but still better...

Sure, it's just one or two random dude's opinion, but it may be an indication of what the general impression of the picture quality in your average theater is, nowadays...

[Harold Hallikainen]

Nope, that's talking by teleprinter.

I have a T shirt that says "I'd rather text on a Teletype."

Harold
https://w6iwi.org/rtty/

[William Kucharski]

That's probably because AMC is not paying for the upkeep here but Dolby and IMAX will simply point at their mutual revenue sharing contract that obliges them to keep the place reasonably in-check or else they'll pull the huge IMAX letters from the marquee. I'm not pretending Dolby Cinema and IMAX are the hallmarks of quality control, but it's rather like with your better-ran fast food chain...

Still, before I last moved, the "chain theater" was a 5 minute drive, but I'd rather take the 30 to 45 minute drive to promote a local business than the big chain, unless it was THAT specific movie I really wanted to see in a format the local business would not be able to support. Even then, no big chain around here is even daring to touch 70mm film.

Only big chains - AMC and Regal - have 70mm capability here, with Regal being the one that cares at all about presentation, at least for 5/70 (I mentioned AMC managed to destroy their 70mm print of Oppenheimer in under a month.)

Of independents, only one Alamo Drafthouse theater and Denver Film Society can show film, and then only 35mm.

Supposedly one of the reasons Regal removed their 15/70 projector from Colorado Center was they managed to destroy their copy of 15/70 Interstellar later in the run and were charged for it.

Regal Colorado Center IMAX was also the theater that was attempting to show Top Gun: Maverick on release day with no working subwoofers, so there was no bass at all in the house below 80 Hz or so.

Obligatory humor note: Going along with the DVD comment above, I saw a poster on Facebook ask why older films were even released on Blu-ray let alone 4K because if it wasn't shot with a high definition digital camera, it couldn't be in high definition…

[Mike Blakesley]

I've been wanting to come up with a "movies are better in a theater" meme, so I put this together. The dimensions are correct for our 30' screen. I think a theater with a bigger screen could have even more fun with this idea. I'm open to suggestions for more hilarious wording.

ROXY-CUTE-TV.jpg

[Lyle Romer]

I've been wanting to come up with a "movies are better in a theater" meme, so I put this together. The dimensions are correct for our 30' screen. I think a theater with a bigger screen could have even more fun with this idea. I'm open to suggestions for more hilarious wording.

ROXY-CUTE-TV.jpg

Back when I was in the business, I used to think that a great snipe before the show would be to have a "huge" TV screen projected at the correct dimensions and then have the image expand to fill the screen. with similar wording.

[Geoff Jones]

Mike, I absolutely love what you are going for with that image.

I don't think it shoud be a meme. I think something like that should be part of the theater's marketing, both online and onsite. You also should also mention other techncial specs that some people might not have at home yet, like 4k resolution and the number of sound channels your auditorium delivers.

Theaters need to do more to promote the experience they offer. Theaters should let people know how they are superior to their competitors, both across town and in the home.

I love it!


That said, I don't think the proportions are correct. I think the TV is too small.

If the screen is 30 feet wide, that's 360 inches.

A 70-inch TV screen is 61 inches wide (not counting the bezel.)

That means six 70-inch TVs would be 366 inches wide, and would extend beyond the width of a 30-foot screen, but six of the TVs in this image don't even fill it.

If I'm missing something or misunderstanding, I apologize.


image.png

[Mike Blakesley]

Well I have to admit I never tested it out the way you did there -- I went pretty old-school. I measured the theater picture with my ruler and it was 6.5 inches. Knowing the real TV is 61 inches, I multiplied 61 x 6.5 / 360 and came up with 1.1 inches for the TV, so that's how I sized it. (I thought about hauling an actual 70" TV in there and getting a picture with the real thing, but my biggest one at home is 55" and I don't think I know anyone with a 70-incher that wants to haul it around that much.) Maybe I was including the bezel in the measurement? I'll fiddle with it.

Either way, thanks -- I haven't used this anywhere except here, yet, so I knew if there was anything wonky about it somebody here would find it.

I agree about the 4K thing too, I need to publicize that more as well. What I would REALLY like is to have a picture of all of our sound system elements in a big stack and have a TV soundbar next to that. I do have pics of the baffle wall with the speakers in place, so maybe I could do something with that.

Something else I thought of is, a 70" TV is measured diagonally. Our screen is 30' wide, so measured diagonally it's really it's in the neighborhood of 391 inch screen. Could have some fun with that too.

We just recently installed some removable masking along the bottom to make the picture a true scope shape. Before, we were leaving blank white space at the bottom and before that (in film days), we were cropping the sides. So now we have a true scope picture. I can't believe how much better it looks. Takes about 5 minutes to put it up or take it down. Even my wife, who normally doesn't notice such things, said it was a big improvement.

[Martin Brooks]

It's not about the quality of watching a movie in a theater versus watching it somewhere else.

It's because there has been a cultural shift. People don't want to watch movies in theaters anymore. Going to theaters is something that old people do.

People don't use CB radios anymore. Talking by radio is something that people used to do in the 70s. Now, people talk to each other on cell phones. It's not simply that there has been a change in technology. People just don't value talking to each other via radio.

You will, no sooner, get people to go back to watching movies in theaters than you would get them to start buying 8-track tapes again.

AMC doesn't have crappy presentation simply because they don't care. They are simply staying in a market until they have sucked out every last cent's worth of profit that they can. When they do, they'll shut their theaters down, leaving behind giant, concrete bunkers to molder in the weather. They aren't going to spend money improving things.

By that time, they will have moved on to some other business and they'll hold on to that until they have sucked it dry... Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

PROFIT???!!!! There's no profit. AMC has lost $5.168 billion since 2015. Now there is huge cash flow, but the only years that AMC made a profit were 2015 (+$104m), 2016 (+$112m) and 2018 (+$115m). In the first three quarters of this year, they've lost $214m, but Q2 and Q3 were mildly profitable (Q2: $8.6m, Q3: $12.3m).

I don't agree that there's been a cultural change in terms of "going to the movies is only something that old people do". IMO, people don't go to the movies primarily because the exclusive window is so short and movies show up on the streaming services way too fast and because there are so many entertainment options today. I think there is a cultural change in that young people tend to "hookup" rather than date, but there have been films that have done well and anecdotally, I'd say the top four movies of the year, "Barbie" ($636m), "Super Mario Bros." ($575m), "Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse" ($381m) and "Guardians of the Galaxy vol. 3" ($359m) mainly attracted a young audience. Only the fifth highest grossing film of the year so far, "Oppenheimer" ($326m), probably had a majority adult audience, The 6th film: "The Little Mermaid" also obviously had a young audience as did a fair number of other top grossing films. And the Taylor Swift movie has already grossed $179m. That's certainly a young audience as well.

But there is another factor as to why people don't go to the movies and that's with many theaters closing, there has begun to be theatrical deserts. The theaters are simply too far away for many people to bother.

If there is a cultural change it's that moviegoing is no longer a habit. People are seeing very few films a year. For the industry to be successful and profitable, per capita movie attendance needs to be around four films a year. It's currently 2.31.

When I was young, I probably saw at least 30 movies theatrically a year because we really had only four different things to do when we went out: go to the movies, go to a concert or club, go out to eat or go to someone's party. So far this year, I've seen 14 movies, but that's probably way above average for most people.

[William Kucharski]

I've got to wonder about that "deserts" thing; perhaps it's different in other areas but within 30 miles I have my choice of sixty screens across five different complexes (two AMC, one Regal, one Cinemark/Century, one Alamo Drafthouse.)

[Mike Blakesley]

East of here, there's a 3-screen 45 miles away, and then beyond that it's another 80 miles to a two-screen, and then it's at least 75 miles to the next theater, which is in North Dakota.

South of here, it's 120 miles to the nearest theater (a five-plex), and Billings, with a total of 27 screens, is 100 miles away to the west.

You can't really drive straight north of here, you're either going to the northeast or the northwest, but on either of those routes it's probably at least 150 miles to the nearest theater, maybe more.

We regularly get people who drive 40 to 80 miles to see a movie.

[Bobby Henderson]

Here in Lawton (small city with a metro pop of 120,000) we're down to one multiplex (AMC Patriot 13) and an old single screen cinema called the Vaska that operates on a part time basis. With as much red ink as AMC has been bleeding I would not be surprised if they closed the Patriot Cinema, even if it has one of the biggest IMAX 2K houses in the state.

There is a lot of rural areas that have no cinemas at all. Add that to all the other factors that are causing small towns and rural areas to bleed away their population to bigger cities.

The thing I find especially worrisome is the cinema industry's need of "scale" in terms of screen count. The digital projectors and other technology used in cinema booths cannot be manufactured in onesie-twosie fashion. Imager chips in projectors have to be produced by the thousands. If enough cinema locations close it will put equipment suppliers out of business, or at least make them abandon the cinema market. The movie distributors had better pay attention on that front. If their plan is to let chains like AMC, Regal, etc die off and then come in and re-build some theaters using the bones of those chains the ploy is not going to work. The equipment suppliers can be killed off with those big chains. Then the entire cinema platform is dead. Once it is dead nothing will bring it back. The best they could do is install a few LED jumbotron screens and try playing movies on that -like Sphere in Las Vegas. That's not the same thing as having a cinema platform.

Commercial cinemas are caught between a rock and hard place in more ways than one.

Chains like AMC want to spend as little as possible on theater maintenance. The same is true for staff. I remember the headaches my late friend Jack went thru trying to keep staffing costs low enough to make the Carmike bosses happy (or at least not chew his ass so badly). From what I've been seeing AMC appears to be worse. But those practices also seem to be biting them in the ass now.

Most service industry jobs pay shitty, not-live-able wages. With the labor supply being tight employees have gotten better at quitting one job and taking another one with better pay. Our local 13-plex is pretty much operating with a skeleton crew at all times. One of my best friends is a restaurant GM and he deals with staffing issues constantly. So it wouldn't surprise me if our local AMC has some (or a lot) of job openings that are going un-filled.

The movie distributors are playing their various games to screw the hell out of the cinemas. The rental terms are bad enough. But the short and shrinking theatrical window is a pretty devastating thing.

I get the whole thing about the cinema screen being a lot bigger than a home TV screen. But too many people don't care about the scale difference. The most frequent movie-goers are still young adults and teens. Too many of them are happy watching movies, videos or whatever on a TV screen, tablet or a phone. Middle aged and older people seem more focused on saving money. With the theatrical window being so minimal the act of skipping the theatrical release seems like too good a deal to pass up.

I wonder how many people will be traveling through a minor snow storm here to arrive at the theater for the showing with their advance purchase tickets only to be told there is no such showing…

Shit like that happens. You can look up my archived post from 2-16-2015 for the movie review thread about "Kingsmen: The Secret Service." Me and my girlfriend drove from Lawton to Oklahoma City to see that movie on a good Atmos-equipped Harkins Cine Capri screen. When we got there the fuckers moved that movie onto a smaller screen so 50 Shades of Grey could play in the big house. I was furious.

When I was young, I probably saw at least 30 movies theatrically a year because we really had only four different things to do when we went out: go to the movies, go to a concert or club, go out to eat or go to someone's party. So far this year, I've seen 14 movies, but that's probably way above average for most people.

The practice of just getting out of the house is costing too damned much money. The price of eating a steak at a decent sit-down restaurant costs way too much. The cost of a concert ticket to see a currently relevant band is fucking insane. Even ticket costs to see an old dinosaur band with maybe one or two original members is ridiculous. Lawton is a military town (Fort Sill next door) and it had a LOT of bars and night clubs. I think more than half of them have closed. My theory is quite a few young adults have just "retreated to the bunker" and are living through their computers, phones, video game consoles, etc. They're not leaving the house to socialize as much as they did in the past. One reason is the much higher cost. I suspect laziness could be another factor. There are so many options at home for entertainment and they all cost less than the options outside the home. And you don't have to dress up when you're at home. I'll go to the grocery store and I'm surprised at how many people are shopping there in what looks like their pajamas. For shoes, they're either wearing flip-flops or crocs. I'll be lifting weights at the YMCA and see a few people in the weight room wearing crocs or flip flops. They're not supposed to be doing that! It's not safe for one thing. I guess they can't or won't buy proper foot wear.

[Mike Blakesley]

They're not leaving the house to socialize as much as they did in the past. One reason is the much higher cost. I suspect laziness could be another factor. There are so many options at home for entertainment and they all cost less than the options outside the home. And you don't have to dress up when you're at home.

For some, the cost is a factor for sure. For most people though, I don't buy it. People tend to find a way to afford what they want to afford. Everybody is walking around with the very latest iPhones. We're in a pretty low income area overall (although railroad jobs pay well), yet everyone including 5th grade kids has got a smartphone, and every house has several TVs, multiple streamer subscriptions, high speed internet and of course the latest must-have, a smart watch. The local car dealership can't keep new inventory in stock, ridiculous car prices be damned. My neighbor across the street, who works for the county, just ordered a new F250 ($78,800). But he and his wife haven't been to a movie since Top Gun Maverick.

I expect the short window and the sheer number of other available options are the biggest factors, combined with the fact that a lot of movies these days aren't that great. People don't feel the need to see the movie in the best possible way, so they don't bother to, because they have plenty of other (sometimes better) crap to watch.

The other dumbass thing is, the studios start promoting the video release before the movie even hits theaters! And they STOP promoting the theatrical showing on Day 2 of the run.

[Lyle Romer]

The practice of just getting out of the house is costing too damned much money. The price of eating a steak at a decent sit-down restaurant costs way too much. The cost of a concert ticket to see a currently relevant band is fucking insane. Even ticket costs to see an old dinosaur band with maybe one or two original members is ridiculous. Lawton is a military town (Fort Sill next door) and it had a LOT of bars and night clubs. I think more than half of them have closed. My theory is quite a few young adults have just "retreated to the bunker" and are living through their computers, phones, video game consoles, etc. They're not leaving the house to socialize as much as they did in the past. One reason is the much higher cost. I suspect laziness could be another factor. There are so many options at home for entertainment and they all cost less than the options outside the home. And you don't have to dress up when you're at home. I'll go to the grocery store and I'm surprised at how many people are shopping there in what looks like their pajamas. For shoes, they're either wearing flip-flops or crocs. I'll be lifting weights at the YMCA and see a few people in the weight room wearing crocs or flip flops. They're not supposed to be doing that! It's not safe for one thing. I guess they can't or won't buy proper foot wear.

Another factor in addition is that the COVID lockdowns trained people to stay at home and get food delivered even though the cost of getting food with Doordash or Uber eats is even higher. But, eating delivered food at home avoids having to buy overpriced drinks. Somehow the younger generation doesn't get cabin fever. I can only play around with my phone for so long before I am bored and stir crazy. When the lockdowns were happening I couldn't stand being cooped up at home and would go out to "essential businesses" as frequently as possible just to get out of the damn house.

[Martin McCaffery]

I'd like to congratulate Bobby as this year's recipient of the coveted Damn Kids Get Off of My Yard prize.