Getting People Into Movie Theatres

[rocketeer]

I knew that comment would ruffle a few feathers.
I'm talking about the big multi screen emporiums of modern cinema, not the smallish little specialist places.
For example, we can buy a small fizzy drink in a supermarket for around 50p, maybe 75p-£1 at a local corner shop, and thats the higher price. The cinema, around £1.99. Based on a family of 4, our local multi screen wants around £10 for what can be obtained in the supermarket for less than half that amount, and they make a profit.
Every business has to make a profit but there is making a profit and overpricing. A night out will come to around £50-75 for a family of 4 with all the trimmings. Not cheap, maybe they are trying to attract the more well off, a better class of film goer.
I do think all cinema's should have mobile phone signal blockers though. Even on silent, they light up and disturb those around them.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Canadian chains are doing many of the things above, more food choices in the lobby, bigger seats (and fewer of them), reclining, even booked in advanced assigned seating. I don't book in advance, but I do like the more comfortable seats. If being crammed in and uncomfortable is the "vintage experience", that's one change I don't mind!

People in the Era weren't crammed in -- they were, in general, smaller than the "expanded" physiques popular today. When we renovated, we had to reduce capacity by almost 50 percent to compensate for this.

 

[Trenchfriend]

I made all cinemas bankrupt, here, always watching the movie the classic purist way, because I paid for it and I got no time for concentrating on additional eating, drinking or let the hands wandering to any female directions...

 

[Doctor Damage]

I always wanted one of those fancy sound systems to play some of the greats really loud and drown out those base tracks kids play in their cars.

One of my buddies in high school use to do that. When he borrowed his mom's Parisienne (which had a 25 Watt sound system) he'd put the windows down and boom classical music which got him some looks from the knuckleheads in their Camaro's!

 

[Doctor Damage]

I am always amazed at how little understanding some people have that a business has to make a profit to survive - I think we've made the word "profit" bad and it has distorted a basic understanding of how a business / how a capitalist economy (or even a non-profit - that still needs to cover all costs, pay salaries, etc.) works.

...

Yes, some businesses cheat, some charge egregious mark ups, etc., but facts are facts and most businesses fail (70% after 3 years / 90% for food businesses) and of those that survive, the majority survive on - as noted -single digit profits.

Indeed. If you know someone who owns a gas station ask them about their profits. 1% or 2% is typical and they hate people who pay with credit cards since the credit card companies take a huge chunk. They're also highly susceptible to shifts in gas prices and actually make more money when gas prices are lower. I know a guy who last year broke even for most of the year and didn't pay himself a salary just to keep the doors open. The family restaurant business is another frightening business to be in.

 

[MikeKardec]

As Wagner died before Hitler was born I don't see a real connection, he just hijacked the music because it was so atmospheric with all that Nordic myth stuff, and Wagner was of course German, though I do believe Wagner was a bit anti semitic(so I read somewhere).
I always wanted one of those fancy sound systems to play some of the greats really loud and drown out those base tracks kids play in their cars.

If I remember correctly you are right, Wagner was pretty typical of his time and culture; meaning an unthinking mild anti-semitism, though I believe he maintained Jewish friends. I have Jewish Eastern European family members and they were pretty thick skinned even post WWII and they liked their connections with culture and the arts. I think the Nazi relationship was promoted by Wagner's kids ... possibly to curry favor because the Nazis were into that whole Nordic fantasy thing. I always loved Tolkien turning The Ring Cycle against the Germans, very slick.

There is nothing like a big Wagnerian orchestra going at it. Overwhelming. It took a heck of a pair of pipes for a singer to keep up with all that. Defiantly DRAMA as opposed to the math that is a lot of lesser classical music.

 

[rocketeer]

As a big fan of some silent classics it's a shame only very few are available on DVD, maybe some Lon Chaney etc.
Classical music was used in many silents to dramatise the films at certain sequences such as Wagners Valkyries in Birth of a Nation as the Klan ride forth! The 'Saviours of the South' I believe was in the subtitles .
Some more of my favourite pieces are Franz von Suppe's Poet and Peasant Overture, Offenbach's Orpheus in the Underworld and the Night on the Bald (or bare) Mountain by Mussorgsky. All used in some silent days to convey atmosphere.

 

[emigran]

Seems to me this thread could go on for quite some time...
The move theatre has gone the way of the buggy whip, steam locomotive, cassette player and "_________" ( fill in the blank please...
I'm pushing 70 and have loved the "movies" as a cultural phenom my whole life.. pre-teen dating era on up. I regret to say I haven't "been to the movies" for the better part of a decade (for some of the very reasons many cited here).
I have a 42 inch TV that is better than TODD-A-O or TECHNICOLOR-CINEMASCOPE ever could be ...AND... doesn't cost me $50+ bucks for a night of escapist entertainment. Indie/Alternative and Classic cinema aside, there doesn't seem to be much more than special effects with sound tracks being shown in the theatres today. The far better writing, acting, production and entertainment variety is now on my 42 inch screen.. and ON DEMAND if I miss it.
I'm having a hard time keeping up with how things are going in current times on all levels...I'd prefer to believe I'm still hip to what's up...c'mon I have a smartphone that probably has more technology than the first space craft to orbit earth... but I notice I find myself regretting the loss of a lot that just doesn't exist and don't know where it's gone... but as Huey Lewis and the News sang... "sometimes it's hip to be square..."

 

[Edward]

I think, Noir-cinema is still most great on cinema-screen. The artistic impression comes directly to your senses. I cannot recreate the impression on my 51" tube-tv.

So, I would like to watch "Blade Runner" one time in classic cinema.

There's a lot to be said for it. Of course, having had a long-running relationship with the Rocky Horror Picture Show I am biased to a large extent to the view that the cinema is a whole different experience (sadly, here in the UK the DVD generation are only interested in sitting at home, their costumes relegated not to supporting or performing at fan screenings, but to "cosplay" at conventions. "Cosplay" being hipster speak for 'like fancy dress, but a lot more precious'. ). I've experienced a few films on the big screen after years of watching them on the small screen where the experience of watchinbg with an audience was transformative. Cry Baby was certainly one; Theatre of Blood even more so. Soem day I'd love to have the experience of trying a drive in.

Concessions are the only way theatres can make a profit. The split on tickets is so small given the percentage that goes to the distributor and the studio, that those "inflated" prices for popcorn and soda are the only thing keeping the place open.

You're damn right I enforce a policy of "no outside food and drink." We have seven people depending on the theatre for a living. When you smuggle in your own crap, you're stealing the food right off our tables.

Indeed. I becmae a lot more tolerant of the price hike when I discovered this through getting to know the staff at my local cinema where we did RHPS for years.

I knew that comment would ruffle a few feathers.
I'm talking about the big multi screen emporiums of modern cinema, not the smallish little specialist places.
For example, we can buy a small fizzy drink in a supermarket for around 50p, maybe 75p-£1 at a local corner shop, and thats the higher price. The cinema, around £1.99. Based on a family of 4, our local multi screen wants around £10 for what can be obtained in the supermarket for less than half that amount, and they make a profit.
Every business has to make a profit but there is making a profit and overpricing. A night out will come to around £50-75 for a family of 4 with all the trimmings. Not cheap, maybe they are trying to attract the more well off, a better class of film goer.

Each of those chain branches has to operate on the same principle, though. Still, nobody forces anyone to buy anything beyond the entry ticket. I've never understood the sort of people who willgo to the length of smuggling stuff in - like they're gonig to die if they sit without food for a whoel two hour stretch - then behave like it's a violation of their funamental human rights when somone tells them they can't take it in. The ultimate in selfish smuggling I've seen are peopel smuggling their own drinks, soft and alcohol, into my local cinema. Given that it is a licensed premises, they could actually lose their licence for people doing that.

I do think all cinema's should have mobile phone signal blockers though. Even on silent, they light up and disturb those around them.

I once had a screening interrupted by a woman's mobile phone ringing four times during a film (fortunately it was only The Blair Witch, not anything good, but still, I'd paid to see it!), and the twit didn't even think to switch the phone off. Not to mention the idiots who will actually answer a call, like the moron sat behind me during the rerelease of Clockwork Orange. Then there's the hypocrites who sneer at people "using their phones", but who can't leave it alone to check the time / text/ facebook during a film, despite the fact that the light from it is extremely disturbing to everyone around them....

The tehnology to block a signal does exist and can be bought very cheaply in the UK (I'm aware of this as a friend who runs a pub quiz looked into it as his quiz night was being turned into a googling competition by those who saw no harm in cheating). It is, however, illegal to actually use it to interfere with someone's receipt of mobile phones.

For me, the biggest problem nowadays is that there's never an usher in a screen anymore. I'm not sure when they stopped, but I do think some, though not all, of the poor behaviour could be stopped that way.

As a big fan of some silent classics it's a shame only very few are available on DVD, maybe some Lon Chaney etc.
Classical music was used in many silents to dramatise the films at certain sequences such as Wagners Valkyries in Birth of a Nation as the Klan ride forth! The 'Saviours of the South' I believe was in the subtitles .
Some more of my favourite pieces are Franz von Suppe's Poet and Peasant Overture, Offenbach's Orpheus in the Underworld and the Night on the Bald (or bare) Mountain by Mussorgsky. All used in some silent days to convey atmosphere.

There's the rub: copyright law tells us it's now public domain, but a capitalist economy means that if there's no profit in it, there's no interest in making it available. Very sad, but there you go. I've found some good stuff in download form by googling, which is something at least, though I agree not the same as being able to own a physical copy.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The ultimate in selfish smuggling I've seen are peopel smuggling their own drinks, soft and alcohol, into my local cinema. Given that it is a licensed premises, they could actually lose their licence for people doing that.

I've confiscated entire sixers of beer from people who've snuck it in in backpacks or under coats and thought they could get away with it. As you say, it's not just a matter of being mean -- unauthorized liquor is a criminal matter, and under the laws here, not just the theatre, but me, personally, as the person in charge of enforcing the provisions of the license, could be prosecuted for allowing it in. I'm not going risk going to jail, paying a fine, and losing my job just so Joe and Jane Jackass can enjoy an illicit drink in the balcony.

 

[Formeruser012523]

I once had a screening interrupted by a woman's mobile phone ringing four times during a film (fortunately it was only The Blair Witch, not anything good, but still, I'd paid to see it!), and the twit didn't even think to switch the phone off. Not to mention the idiots who will actually answer a call, like the moron sat behind me during the rerelease of Clockwork Orange. Then there's the hypocrites who sneer at people "using their phones", but who can't leave it alone to check the time / text/ facebook during a film, despite the fact that the light from it is extremely disturbing to everyone around them....

The tehnology to block a signal does exist and can be bought very cheaply in the UK (I'm aware of this as a friend who runs a pub quiz looked into it as his quiz night was being turned into a googling competition by those who saw no harm in cheating). It is, however, illegal to actually use it to interfere with someone's receipt of mobile phones.

For me, the biggest problem nowadays is that there's never an usher in a screen anymore. I'm not sure when they stopped, but I do think some, though not all, of the poor behaviour could be stopped that way.

Had this happen at my last movie going "experience." A fella came in -- late. I could smell the Axe body spray 15 feet before he reached the seat (of course) next to me. Then he would not stop checking his phone through the entire movie. Thankfully, I'd brought a jacket with me as it's always freezing in those places, & I ended up holding it next to my face to block out the bright light from the distracting phone screen. UGH! So rude! Almost said something but I didn't want the guy to think I was flirting. You're there to watch a movie, facebook's not that important

 

[Edward]

Had this happen at my last movie going "experience." A fella came in -- late. I could smell the Axe body spray 15 feet before he reached the seat (of course) next to me. Then he would not stop checking his phone through the entire movie. Thankfully, I'd brought a jacket with me as it's always freezing in those places, & I ended up holding it next to my face to block out the bright light from the distracting phone screen. UGH! So rude! Almost said something but I didn't want the guy to think I was flirting. You're there to watch a movie, facebook's not that important

Gah. I had to shush a young lady sitting beside me recently three times before she stopped talking during the film, and it was quite a way in before I snapped and did it the first time.

 

[Fading Fast]

Had this happen at my last movie going "experience." A fella came in -- late. I could smell the Axe body spray 15 feet before he reached the seat (of course) next to me. Then he would not stop checking his phone through the entire movie. Thankfully, I'd brought a jacket with me as it's always freezing in those places, & I ended up holding it next to my face to block out the bright light from the distracting phone screen. UGH! So rude! Almost said something but I didn't want the guy to think I was flirting. You're there to watch a movie, facebook's not that important

⇧ This is why we all but stopped going to the movie theater (don't think we've been since 2006) - combined with the high price of tickets and the improvement in and meaningful fall in the price of TVs - made staying home to see them a better a option.

N.B. I saw on TCM that "Breakfast at Tiffany's" is going to be in the theaters for one day in November - now that we'll go see and I will bet the crowd will be better behaved than at a modern release (at least I hope so).

 

[MikeKardec]

People can be pretty obnoxious in theaters ... of course we were all supposed to suck it up and keep our mouths shut back in the days when smoking was permitted.

Though I find it harder and harder to get myself to go out to the movies ... and that's saying something because there is a top notch multiplex just five blocks away. I'm really not a fan of big screen video displays. The best of the old CRTs (TVs) and plasmas were okay but as they diminish in availability their replacements (combined with High Def) tend to make the work of the greatest of cinematographers look pretty lousy. Even with a careful set up I find the LED LCD screens I've seen to be pretty bad ... however, for some reason my Apple monitor (and every Apple monitor I've seen) is actually at or near the plasma standard.

Films SHOT on video (the lion's share of movies these days), especially when presented on HD video displays are more fatiguing to watch because pixels are always in exactly the same place, every frame. With chemical film the grain would be in a slightly different spot in each frame presenting a vastly easier to watch picture and one more attuned to a human eye (which is always moving slightly). In Electronic Cinematography that pixel, as long as it's lit up, is always drilling right into your eye from exactly the same spot. I've a good friend who created a completely unappreciated program to mitigate this effect.

For the most part a lot of home video is better when it comes to flicker, judder or strobing ... when the motion of the camera and subject matter interacts poorly with the 24 frames per second of movie film. I'm very sensitive to that, especially in 3D movies. But the new HD 24p home systems are even worse than judder in a theater ... it's a complete joke and it's called progress.

Back when I was teaching I used to tell my students and other professors (Not to suggest I was ever a "professor") that the 24 fps function on their cameras was a joke. "But it's like real movies!" they'd say. No. Sorry. "Real" movies are shot on film. And when they are not any director of photography would vote for a higher frame rate if the rest of the work flow would permit it. You shoot 24p on video for one reason only; to convert to a chemical film print or otherwise to be in spec with your distribution chain. It's long been known that higher frame rates were a great advantage. Forty years ago Showscan's (an experimental chemical film format created by acclaimed effects artist Doug Trumbull) 60 fps 70mm tests were shown to actually increase the audience's MEMORY of the details of viewed images.

Electronic film making is a good thing but like every medium it's going through a lot of development cycles and some are, occasionally, a step backwards.

I've just cut loose with a few towering opinions which may or may not be utterly accurate. Please correct me if necessary!

 

[Bushman]

I had one lady checking her phone right up until the movie started. I asked her, politely, to turn off the device, and she and her husband got all huffy. They ended up falling asleep halfway through the movie, so suffice to say they obviously weren't as interested in seeing it in the first place as I had been.

Films SHOT on video (the lion's share of movies these days), especially when presented on HD video displays are more fatiguing to watch because pixels are always in exactly the same place, every frame. With chemical film the grain would be in a slightly different spot in each frame presenting a vastly easier to watch picture and one more attuned to a human eye (which is always moving slightly). In Electronic Cinematography that pixel, as long as it's lit up, is always drilling right into your eye from exactly the same spot. I've a good friend who created a completely unappreciated program to mitigate this effect.

For the most part a lot of home video is better when it comes to flicker, judder or strobing ... when the motion of the camera and subject matter interacts poorly with the 24 frames per second of movie film. I'm very sensitive to that, especially in 3D movies. But the new HD 24p home systems are even worse than judder in a theater ... it's a complete joke and it's called progress.

Back when I was teaching I used to tell my students and other professors (Not to suggest I was ever a "professor") that the 24 fps function on their cameras was a joke. "But it's like real movies!" they'd say. No. Sorry. "Real" movies are shot on film. And when they are not any director of photography would vote for a higher frame rate if the rest of the work flow would permit it. You shoot 24p on video for one reason only; to convert to a chemical film print or otherwise to be in spec with your distribution chain. It's long been known that higher frame rates were a great advantage. Forty years ago Showscan's (an experimental chemical film format created by acclaimed effects artist Doug Trumbull) 60 fps 70mm tests were shown to actually increase the audience's MEMORY of the details of viewed images.

Electronic film making is a good thing but like every medium it's going through a lot of development cycles and some are, occasionally, a step backwards.

I've just cut loose with a few towering opinions which may or may not be utterly accurate. Please correct me if necessary!

I often go toe to toe with an acquaintance of mine over films as art vs entertainment. I don't see why films cannot be both, while he believes they they are exclusively meant to be entertainment. He thinks that the clearer the picture the better, that less cinematography makes for a better experience, and that one should experience a film as if they were there in the scene. I disagree. I believe that films nowadays use film stock that is far too clean (if they use film stock at all), leaving behind that nitty gritty that used to make films feel more charming and warmer. I once attended a speech by Chicago Tribune film critic Michael Phillips, and he and I have become friends over the years since. He and I tend to agree that shinier isn't always better and that typically audiences have a tendency to subconsciously enjoy films that have a little more grain in them, that digital is perceived as sharp and thus unfriendly by the human mind.

 

[LizzieMaine]

When we switched from film to digital, I had quite a few patrons complain that the new images were hard on their eyes. The brightness on screen was exactly the same -- we calibrate our projection with a light meter to 14 foot-lamberts -- but the image itself does have a harsher, more "television" look to it than film.

As I've said in other threads, the transition from film to digital had nothing to do with art and even less to do with consumer preference. It was motivated by two and only two factors: reduced shipping costs for the distributors and greater security against pirates. Every single word they've said about "a clearer, better more realistic image" is Boys From Marketing codswallop designed to conceal the real purpose behind the switch.

 

[Trenchfriend]

I SWEAR, I will NEVER watch "Blade Runner" on my DVD-Player! That picture from my 16 year-old, home-recorded VHS-cassette is so damn great and matches perfect.

On DVD, the movie would look like a typical todays failed try of a modern dystopic film, oops.

 

[Fading Fast]

When we switched from film to digital, I had quite a few patrons complain that the new images were hard on their eyes. The brightness on screen was exactly the same -- we calibrate our projection with a light meter to 14 foot-lamberts -- but the image itself does have a harsher, more "television" look to it than film.

As I've said in other threads, the transition from film to digital had nothing to do with art and even less to do with consumer preference. It was motivated by two and only two factors: reduced shipping costs for the distributors and greater security against pirates. Every single word they've said about "a clearer, better more realistic image" is Boys From Marketing codswallop designed to conceal the real purpose behind the switch.

Here's the crazy thing about "The Boys From Marketing" and the codswallop* they sell - it has the opposite effect of what they are saying. I ran an investing and trading business for years and when someone from my team or I would speak to financial advisors about a new investment - we'd lead with "here are all the things that can go wrong, here are all the things that you want to look out for in the fine print, here are all the things to warn your investors about." Then, and only then, would we talk about how the investment could be good if it fit into a client's investment profile and if the market performed in such and such a way.

The feedback was incredible - the financial advisors (a very skeptical bunch) consistently said they wished everyone presented the way my team did, said they felt confident that they weren't being fooled and were, then, willing to show the investment to their clients that they felt it would be appropriate for. I grew several businesses this way and also was able to put my head down on my pillow at night knowing I did the right thing.

I get that in the short run lying can work and honesty can hurt sales, but over time, honesty is not only the best moral policy, it is the best business policy.

Surveys show how cynical Americans are - it's because we know we are constantly being lied to about the reason the movie industry switched to digital, about the reason the package is "improved" (it holds less content), about the reason they "upgraded their communication system" (to make it more automated so that you do the work formerly done by the company) and on and on.

Lying, deceit, spin is so woven into the fabric of marketing that it has completely corroded any trust or bond the industry has with the public. They might be really smart marketers tactically, but they have completely destroyed the integrity of their business model and, my guess, would be more successful if they implemented a true and enforceable standard of honesty and truthfulness. But that might not sell the next widget the fastest, so on with the BS.

* Great word

 

[2jakes]

Last time I went to the movies, they had ushers.
Yeah...it’s been that long.

They had flashlights to guide you to your seat in the dark.
Movie theaters were very dark back then.

But most important, they policed the theater for any behavior
from anyone that interrupted the enjoyment of the movie.

 

[FATS88]

[QUOTE When we renovated, we had to reduce capacity by almost 50 percent to compensate for this.[/QUOTE]

That's a very interesting fact