comment #1

tophertilson says ...

Not to sound like a snob, but....

I live in NYC. Presentation quality in the main theatres here is pretty superb. Especially for the big ticket films in the big ticket auditoriums. Twice a year, I make the trek to the little midwest town from whence I came. My sister and my parents always drag me to a movie and it's simply incomprehensible to me how wretched the quality of the presentation is. They don't seem to notice it, but it's so distracting to me that I can't enjoy the movie. Is this the standard in America today? Is this what you get if you don't live in one of the big cities? If so, no wonder ticket sales are supposedly dwindling.

I'm not one of those nuts who obsesses over his HDTV quality. I don't even have HDTV. My home system is mediocre at best. Mono sound. Who cares? I rarely watch anything at home that suffers too much from it.

But when I go to the movies, I want an immersive experience.

I know that when I'm back with the folks this Christmas, I'm going to get dragged to see SWEENEY TODD again. I'm dying to see the film again, but I don't know if I can endure the dim picture and the muffled sound. Short of BEOWULF, this is the one picture this year that you want to see in tip-top form.

comment #2

Dave says ...

Jeff, you're being a tad too harsh in your criticism here, partly because unlike the rest of us, you DON'T experience these bad theaters all that often.

Me? I live with them every time I see a movie in Washington. Hell, I've even had problems at the friggin' AFI, if you can believe it. If even they can't get it right, what hope is there for the lowest-common denominator theater chains?

That said, the reason why I feel you're a tad too harsh is that every time there's a problem, *someone* always complains in the theater. It's just that if there's a noticeable problem, and I see one, two or more people getting up, I'm not going to jump up myself and add to the chorus. I'll give them the chance to fix the problem, for I trust they've spotted the exact same thing I have.

If others are going to complain, I'm not getting up, because I selfishly don't want to miss the movie. That reason alone may make it seem like there's not a crowd with pitchforks rising up, but that doesn't mean that 99.9% of the folks in the theater are *happy* with the situation.

I think the real measure, however, is how many people sat through a badly projected movie and complained to the manager AFTER the film. I include myself in that rare category.

Anyway. . . sorry the Boston experience was so lousy, but when even an "event" screening gets fouled up, can you imagine what it's like for the rest of us out there? Seriously, you bash us "rubes" every day for our lousy taste in everything, but have you TRIED putting up with this quality of service-- not as the exception, but as the rule? You say we're all stupid for never liking the movies you like. First, they rarely get played out here, so it's an effort to find something good. And when they do get played, they get played in shitty theaters which diminish the quality of the experience.

Jeff, there's a reason why Americans are switching to home theaters in droves, and you just discovered it in Boston.

It all makes me sad.

comment #3

Dave says ...

Oh, and to echo what you said, and what Tophertilson also wrote-- most moviegoers don't know what they're missing because they've never even *seen* a properly projected film.

I've seen enough movies done well-- lived in L.A. for two years, and see enough stuff in NYC-- that I can spot when it's subpar. But most people don't know they're being served gruel, because they've never been served steak.

A little less elitism, a little more empathy, Jeff.

comment #4

mmlobe says ...

He was said to be fond of internet recently. Some of his female fans found him on a millionaire&celebs dating club MeetRich.com. He has a personal account there with his handsome pictures, blog...In his friend circle, some other stars can be found there. Of course, many hot girls join in his circle. One of girls there said that they often joked, even flirt with each other.

comment #5

Sean says ...

I wrote about this when Sundance opened their first multiplex, here in Madison, where tickets, bundled with a "convenience fee," can cost as much as $11.75, compared to the $8.75 elsewhere in town:

"So what do you get for your convenience fee? Most obviously, you get to select your own seat, either online or at the theater. ... You also get an entirely unobnoxious pre-show -- no slides, no advertisements, just 10 minutes of Sundance Channel programming before the movie is supposed to start. ... And you get a premium exhibition experience.

Now, 'premium exhibition experience' here means, in my opinion, 'the bare minimum that we as paying moviegoers should demand from our multiplexes in terms of presentation,' but I think most moviegoers are so inured to dim projector bulbs, slightly blurred pictures and muddy sound that we've lowered the bar for theaters. Now they can charge us more simply to deliver on their end of the experience. (I will often choose to see a blockbuster in IMAX, which is about the same cost differential as Sundance's maximum convenience fee, and not because I necessarily crave a four-story screen -- rather, I know in IMAX that I'm going to get a rock-solid, appropriately lit picture and rich if overly loud sound.)"

http://www.dane101.com/arts/2007/05/12/opening_day_at_sundance_608_good_news_and_bad_news

comment #6

carla kolchak says ...

Well said, Dave.

comment #7

JChasse says ...

My all-time favorite bad movie experience was seeing a critically disparaged period comedy which shall go unnamed and hearing action/adventure music from the movie playing next door bleeding into the theater. When I went to complain about hearing the music, the manager was kind enough to explain to me that the music was supposed to be there and movies often have music playing over the action. "It's called a background score."

comment #8

Walter Sobchak says ...

Please.... like most people go to the cinema to watch a movie anymore. Have you BEEN to a movie lately, (outside of the movie-lover's domain)? People are texting their friends or dicking around on their Blackberries or shooting the shit with the person next to them. They occasionally look at the screen to watch someone die or whack their head on something or see a dog fart.

Why would these people give a shit about stuff like focus or framing?

comment #9

jesse says ...

Topher, while I agree with you in principle, I have to say, I've been going to the movies in NYC for five years, averaging a couple of movies per week, and I've had plenty of problems, even at the nicer houses on the better screens. It might happen less often, but it does happen, which is mind-boggling to me (basically, if we're not safe here

Obviously, a foul-up once in awhile will happen. But I don't think I've been to any theater in the city where there hasn't been at least some kind of problem in the past.

Even at the beloved FILM FORUM: I went to see Romance & Cigarettes, and during Christopher Walken's "Delilah" number, dialogue from a future scene started playing. People did go and complain (and I was dead center in a sold-out crowd, so I let the others take care of it), and it was fixed... at the tail-end of Walken's big number. Then, later in the movie, the projector broke for a few minutes.

Afterward, my ladyfriend and I went to complain and ask about maybe getting our money back (more because of the botched musical scene than the projection break -- but both together were pretty bad). We were directed to someone who told us that the Film Forum is a nonprofit, "isn't a Loews," and can't just give refunds, and that to receive a refund we would've had to leave during the projection problem (which of course no one mentioned while the were fixing it). He also suggested that if we were dissatisfied with the projection, maybe we should donate some money so they can buy new equipment.

Later, my gf wrote a level-headed complaint letter to a Film Forum higher-up. The response she received was apologetic about the rude staff member, but also claimed that according to their records/etc., the only problem with our screening was the brief projection interruption, which she apologies for, these things happen, etc. She further noted that the sound problem we described during the Walken scene was simply not possible on a film print, and that (essentially) we must've been misunderstanding something that was intentional, and they've had no other reported problems with that print, etc.

Now, I know little about projection myself (which I guess qualifies me to be a projectionist at a lot of theaters); the error did, indeed, seem unusual or even unlikely. But I'm quite positive it wasn't some kind of artsy intentional touch that during Walken's song and dance, most of the music is replaced with dialogue from a scene that happens twenty minutes later, only to return to the song mid-sentence. And this lady's response was "you are incorrect, there was no problem." If this is the Film Forum's response, what hope do we have at AMC-Loews-Regal where-ever?

comment #10

chicbn872 says ...

To be honest, I wouldn't know a great projection of a film if it bit my ass. I definitely notice when a film looks great on the screen but most of the time, it's just up there. Sadly, every movie looks better in HD DVD on my 47" LCD at home...how much does that suck?

Actually, I am sure there are certain theaters all over the country with a great projection track record...that would be a cool website wouldn't it? A place where you can go and see if a theater near you has a good reputation for sound, projection, etc.

comment #11

tophertilson says ...

You're quite right, Jesse. Film Forum is truly horrible. I won't go there anymore. I will honestly wait for the DVD rather than pay good money to see something there. Of course I feel badly because one wants to support independent houses. But not ones run so shoddily.

Lincoln Plaza isn't much better. Sadly, the same can be said of the freakin' Angelika. The Angelika! These places should be temples, but they are about one step above private booths in adult bookstores.

Thankfully the AMC 25 on 42nd St. plays a lot of the smaller, more interesting films.

comment #12

nycfilmguy28 says ...

Just want to add my voice to the chorus saying that NYC is no more exempt from this problem than Boston or Podunk, if my recent experience is anything to go by.

I caught "Lars and the Real Girl" at a Sunday afternoon showing at the Angelika recently, and YIKES. I know the Angelika isn't at the forefront of anything anymore, but still, as one of the city's premier arthouses, shouldn't these people care about film? The print was about a foot or more off the screen, fuzzy the whole time, bleeding at the edges, and one whole reel looked like a cat scratched it and then dragged it in the gutter. Still I didn't get up to complain because I was enjoying the movie itself (with effort to ignore the projection and sound), and at their prices, I didn't want to miss any of it!

Then I saw "Michael Clayton" at the Loews Lincoln Square, presumably one of the city's more significant multiplexes, if the exclusive premieres they get are anything to go by. Print wasn't very sharp, dimly lit, and they the bass up in a way that created a pulsating fuzzy noise throughout the film. I know a guy got up to complain twice and it improved a little each time, but still, not very good.

What gives? I love going to the movies but maybe it's time ot buy an HD-DVD player and call it a day.

comment #13

christian says ...

My favorite bad projection story is when I saw the 3-D re-release of DIAL M FOR MURDER in the 80's -- and the 3-D wasn't working! But the audience sat and watched the whole thing wearing the damn glasses. All of 15, I complained but was told "that's how it's supposed to look." I got my money back.

Audiences can be sheep. It's not a "rube" thing -- it's psychology.
I've seen LA audiences endure jack-asses because they collectively won't rise up to tell them to STFU. Of course I will, politely, or I get a manager. Thanks to our anomie and technological overload, we've become a fairly submisssive nation.

comment #14

TJ Smoov says ...

It is hard to blame folks who don't know any better, simply because, well...they don't know any better. I grew up in a small North Carolina town, and never realized that my local theatres sucked until I moved to Chicago and saw what a moviegoing experience could be. It doesn't mean people are being docile and sheeplike, it just means they don't know things can be better.

comment #15

Mr. Muckle says ...

This reminds me of turning on the radio this morning and hearing the sports talk jocks bitch and moan because there is no national playoff system in college football. And frankly, if they didn't care, who would? I don't give a damn and it's better that the kids can just play and "Who's number one?" doesn't really matter.

On another tack, do you listen to music? Use an iPod or your crummy Gateway laptop? How can you suffer through such crappy sound? But you might say, well, it's enough to get the gist and that's OK by me. But I have a tube amplifier and $4500 speakers, and you don't even know what you're missing, you sheep.

These arguments are rather silly. The people who care about (or can afford) high standards in any field are the minority. Good God, look at the electorate and the government we've got.

For what reason do you suppose most people got into any aspect of the movie business in the first place? Oh yeah, money. And what demographic does that business target? Oh yeah, kids. And what do kids want? Oh yeah, a dark place to make out.

It's futile to suppose these bottom-line realities can, or should, be changed for the majority. Art house theaters might be presumed to care about standards of picture and sound, but most of them probably cannot afford it. An iPod costs $100. My stereo cost $10,000.

And why does all this bitching have no effect? Oh yeah, because you have no influence. But it's fun to talk about sometimes anyway.

comment #16

Sean says ...

Muckle, where that falls apart is, how is a good movie theater like a $10,000 stereo system and how is a bad theater like a $100 iPod? Or rather, are there two orders of magnitude in the different in cost between a good and bad theater, including operating expense? I mean, they're already installing huge screens and 35mm projectors. The marginal cost of keeping those up, of having adequately bright bulbs in them, of making sure they're in focus, etc., is a real cost, but not an overwhelming one. Plus, iPods and MP3/AAC conversion technologies are designed for optimal results given their price and technology constraints. That's not true of a failing moviehouse.

comment #17

Chazelmore says ...

I had this exact same experience at a critics/advanced screening for No Country For Old Men, they had begun to project it in regular 1.85.1 so the image was squeezed and wonky looking. I complained to the screening rep, knowing the Coens' had shot it in widescreen. It took the first fifteen minutes of the film, up until the introduction of Moss before they got it right. UGHGH

even at one point killing the project all together, while still playing the film!!!! What's worse is the screening crowd that was in the theater started heckling and shouting "Who cares, play the damn movie!!!" you wanna know what's worse about that?

They were students of our local university's FILM PROGRAM!!!! How could these idiots not appreciate a film of this caliber being projected as it was originally intended! And be utterly clueless?!!!?!? The sad thing is, these kids probably have no concept or understanding of what aspect ratio and shooting ratios even mean these days. It's all 1's and 0's and pixels to them. Sad. Sad and Sadder.

Chaz

comment #18

Mr. Muckle says ...

Yeah, you're right, Sean. I'm sure that the cost difference between ordinary and state of the art equipment is vast, but there is no excuse for theaters not caring enough to get the best out of what they've got. That IS pathetic and hateful. Of course, they hire the cheapest help they can get, too.

comment #19

corey3rd says ...

Ray Regis would have stormed into the projection booth and fixed the problem - and we saw him do it.

The problem with this press screening going bad is how much money the studio paid for this screening. between shipping the print and renting the theater, what did they get for their cash? They would have saved a bundle by shipping you a DVD. But they didn't because they want you to experience the film in the ultimate surroundings. And you didn't get it. And it seems that nobody cares -cause otherwise the theater would be very upset that they screwed up and cost their valuable client. Instead they treated you worse than a McDonald's customer who thinks his soda isn't fizzy enough.

Ray would tell us about the projectors set up at Radio City - how they would have two projectors showing the same reel at once so that if there was the slightest problem, they'd swap projectors. No house lights went up in that venue till the movie was finished.
But what cineplex can handle that sort of standard?

comment #20

JD says ...

The first time I tried to see The Darjeeling Limited, it was projected 1.85:1 with the sides clearly cut off by the curtains in the theatre. I tried to complain, but they said there was nothing they could do. The strangest part? When my friends and I left, everyone else gave us dirty looks. It was a full house and nobody else left.

And I'm still wondering about Amerrican Gangster, which looked like hell when I saw it. I know the film had a very deliberate natural light aesthetic, but it was dark to the point of incoherence when I saw it, presumably because of an insufficiently powerful bulb in the projector.

comment #21

Mr. Muckle says ...

Oh, P.S.: My comment was not meant to totally dis the iPod thing. I mean, to get the gist is OK. The stuff at the margins, depth of sound, etc. is not important to everyone.

Same with film, you can get the gist of a film on an iPod, too.

I fool around with Photoshop and have a good monitor. Send the pics out sometimes. Then I saw what they looked like on less good monitors and all my tweaking was going for naught. At least a Picasso looks like a Picasso in person, but there are relatively few people who can see it that way, compared to mass media audiences.

Some ratio we might invent will say that 90% of the quality can be had for 10% of the cost, while the remaining 10% of the quality you could wring out of anything can only be had for the other 90% of the cost.

Still, it's magical when you get to experience that. No Country for Old Men was tip top in my opinion.

comment #22

rgmax99 says ...

I do not care what anyone says, but the past three films I've seen -- No Country for Old Men, Beowulf (in 3-D) and American Gangster -- have been digitally projected, and everything was crystal clear, bright, pristine, etc. And these were in two different theatres in Arkansas.

It's pathetic that in the major markets audiences have to put up with horrible presentations.

comment #23

colby says ...

I was watching Gone Baby Gone a few weeks ago and the image was a little soft. I went and told the girl at the concession stand that the picture was out of focus and she actually asked me what that meant.

comment #24

erniesouchak says ...

I agree with the previous poster who noted that people who don't live in major metropolitan areas just don't realize how bad their local theatrical presentation is. I grew up in a small town in New Jersey and haunted the local movie theater, a dump that barely had 2-track stereo sound. As soon as I was old enough to drive, I started going over to Philly & discovered the great Ritz 5, and I went there as often as I could afford the gas & time -- it was a 90-min. drive. Now I'm in LA and have been thoroughly spoiled by the excellence of so many private screening rooms. When I go back to NJ, it almost physically pains me to go to the local theaters. It can be depressing and educational in equal measure to see how so many others experience a movie.

comment #25

rocco says ...

It's easy to get up and voice a complaint when you've already seen a film...but as others have mentioned, I don't get up because I don't want to miss 5 minutes of the movie. Unfortunately there is no "pause" or "rewind," an inherent comfort of home viewing missing from the movie-going experience. In their place are lazy projectionists, sticky floors, and gum-marred seats.

I notice when a projector is dimmed, or projection is unfocused, off-frame, etc...there's just not a way to call this to the attention of the projectionist or manager without risking missing a key plot point or thematic element.

What to do?

comment #26

BurmaShave says ...

This could be a totally ignorant question, but is digital projection going to fix all of this? The best looking film I saw this year in a theater was RATATOUILLE projected digitally.

comment #27

Sean says ...

A more paranoid man would call it a conspiracy theory, BurmaShave, but yes, I think that's exactly what will happen. 35mm theaters will get worse and worse, digital delivery will get better and better, and my kids will never know what film grain was.

I have seen a digital movie since Attack of the Clones, and the image was hardly pristine ... but as we've noted, most 35mm venues are hardly pristine, or worse.

comment #28

le corbeau says ...

I've been carefully picking which theaters to go to or not to go to since I was growing up in Kansas, so I don't think it's absolutely regional. Often small local chains have a much higher standard for presentation quality than the big national chains-- a small chain can be the reflection of its founder's commitment to excellence in a way a big chain can't. If, as in Plains, Trains and Automobiles, you ever get stranded in Wichita, go to a movie at one of the Warren theaters-- you'll be amazed not only at first-rate presentation but at someone having built neo-Art Deco palaces like these out on the prairie.

In Chicago, I definitely have a repertoire of theaters I trust to do a good job--all the Kerasotes theaters (City North, Crown Village, etc.), the Century in Evanston and the (no relation) Landmark Century, River East, and the wonderful vintage Music Box, for instance. On the other hand, I will not go to Webster Place (chronically dim bulbs), for instance, and try not to patronize Loews generally as they seem to have problems dating back to Cineplex Odeon days. Fortunately, most of the other consistently substandard ones (Water Tower, for instance) have closed.

comment #29

le corbeau says ...

Oops, I see Webster Place is owned by Kerasotes now. Maybe they've finally improved it, but it'll still probably be a long time before I find out.

comment #30

TJ Smoov says ...

Mgmax - You're so right on. I haven't tried Webster Place in years. Landmark Century always knows what they're doing, and I love the Century in Evanston.

comment #31

Spicer says ...

I live in LA now, but I am from Kansas City originally. AMC is headquartered in KC and they are opening a new cinema in a redevelopment project downtown. It's only going to have 6 screens instead of 20 and it will not be located in a suburban residential area, so it will have to be very nice in order for people to go out of their way to go there. AMC is saying it will be state of the art and they hope to use it as their flagship theater. I hope that format works for them and they try it other places.

I love the Arclight in LA and it seems like the format has been good for the Pacific as they added the format to their Sherman Oaks location. Hopefully the big theater chains are beginning to realize their culpability in the decline in attendance. With the window of DVD release dates getting smaller after the theatrical run, the theaters have no choice but to give the public a better alternative to staying home.

comment #32

Wrecktum says ...

"This could be a totally ignorant question, but is digital projection going to fix all of this?"

What it will fix: dirt, scratches, splices, sound dropouts.

What it can't fix: focus, brightness, framing, sound levels. Theaters will still have to work hard to make these right.

comment #33

frankbooth says ...

"...movies often have music playing over the action. It's called a background score."

You mean y'all can hear it, too?

I think my head-doctor has been funnin' me.

comment #34

Luke Y. Thompson says ...

A few months back, Regal Theatres were supposedly testing a new system wherein members of their frequent moviegoer program could get a hand-held remote that had buttons you could push if there was a projection problem, rowdy audience, and I think maybe two other options.

Wonder how that worked out? Doesn't seem like they went ahead with it. My guess is people forgot to return the remotes.

comment #35

Luke Y. Thompson says ...

...also, I can imagine bratty teens abusing the remote just to make theater employees shlep in and out for no reason.

comment #36

erniesouchak says ...

Digital projection will solve few of these problems. Theater owners who project digitally will be just as lazy about upholding standards of theatrical presentation. Kodak used to have a program where they certified theaters that met certain projection standards. Nice idea.

comment #37

PastePotPete says ...

I think the quality of presentation in LA is being overrated by Wells et al. There are a few great theaters, yeah, but until the Arclight opened it was nothing special, except for the Egyptian. The studio lot theaters are of course going to be exceptional, but that doesn't mean anything. Leave Beverly Hills or Hollywood and it's more or less the same low standards(or was when I lived there).

There's also far more accountability in the richer parts of LA(where Wells and most of the LA people here probably watch their movies) than other cities, just because the people who made the actual damn movie tend to live there. I remember working in a movie theater in Santa Monica playing the Insider and Michael Mann came in one day and made them turn the sound up.

I currently live in one of those hellish, dreaded flyover states, and the theatrical presentation is generally weak to say the least. But only compared to the Arclight and Egyptian and some of the arthouses.

However, the Carmike theater here(a low budget chain) switched over entirely to digital projection and the difference is huge. They shot up from the theater with the worst projection to the one with the best. Still not great sound and the actual physical environment suck, but there is hope. Digital seems to take it out of the individual theater's hands a bit.

An aside: In one of the other threads someone said the non-union projectionists were making $20 an hour - that's laughable. A non-union projectionist is called an Assistant Manager and they make MAYBE $26,000 a year.

comment #38

Arizona Joe says ...

I had the same thought as Walter.

Yes, I have encountered projection and audio problems in theaters, and have complained. However, these are small compared to the behavior of audiences.

Yes, "American moviegoers are largely docile and vegetable," except when they are voicing their opinions obstreperously or talking to the glare of a cell phone.

We live in a country of atomistic individuals who live a life of implicit existentialism. They are so caught up in the hurly burly of their own making that they have no taste, forethought, or reflection. Modern denizens have a real disrespect for authority and do not recognize most authority, including standards for projection.

They are too busy chasing the next thing, or what they perceive to be important in an "endless parade of trivia and fashion."

I stole that last phrase from Robert Pirsig. However, with digital electronics, it is exponentially more appropriate today than it was 35 years ago.

comment #39

Rich S. says ...

In other words, Joe, the "Me Decade" never ended.

comment #40

T. S. Idiot says ...

I see half my movies in Manhattan and half in the NJ suburbs, and the difference is night and day. While I have experienced the problems mentioned above at Film Forum, Angelika, etc., Manhattan theaters project correctly 90% of the time, with the AMC 42nd St. and the Regal 14 being the best, while in NJ it's closer to 60&. Sound is usually more of a problem than picture. When even one speaker isn't working in a small theater, it throws everything off. The new Clearview in South Orange is amazingly good, but it will probably go downhill, too.

As for the heartlanders who never complain, aren't these the same folks who watch censored movies on basic cable with tons of commercials? Why would anyone subject himself to such?