As someone who finds just as much interest in sound quality as the lyrics, as critical of the picture as the storyline, I whole-heartedly agree. Most movie theaters are simply horrible. The sound is atrocious (overly loud and muddy is the most common problem) and the pictures have become dimmer and dimmer. Having to travel further to find a good screen just makes movie theaters that much worse. Give me a Blu-ray and my home setup for quality over most movie theaters.<p>I used to get most movies off of Netflix and then see action movies in the theaters. I thought that I was better off seeing the spectacle on a large screen. But the technical inferiority of the typical movie theater has led me to flip my viewing habits. Now I really only see comedies in the theaters and watch everything else at home.<p>You still can't replicate a crowded movie theater at a comedy, it makes it far funnier to laugh with other people.
New iteration of an old problem.
Not sure if I was the "Kodak spokesman" he referred to.<p>---<p>Movie Answer Man<p>Roger Ebert / February 7, 1999<p>Q. In your recent review of "Virus", you commented: "It didn't help that the print I saw was so underlit that often I could see hardly anything on the screen. Was that because the movie was filmed that way, or because the projector bulb was dimmed to extend its life span?"
A dirty secret is that movies are under-lit in most theaters. Films are produced with the intent that they be projected at the brightness of 16 foot-lamberts. Field research by Kodak found that they are often shown at 8-10 foot-lamberts, well under the SMPTE standard for brightness. To get theaters up to this and other standards, Kodak is introducing the Screencheck Experience program. The under-lighting of screens may be acceptable for a few movies--lest you see the entirety of their badness--but in general it unnecessarily degrades the theater experience. (Carl Donath, Rochester NY)<p>A. I've seen thousands of movies and I believe the Screencheck Experience program would only confirm that "Virus" was severely deprived of foot-lamberts when I saw it in a Chicago theater not a million miles from the Water Tower. Martin Scorsese, who travels with a light meter, once told me movies are projected at the correct brilliance in New York and Los Angeles, because that's where the filmmakers live, and they squawk. In a lot of other places, he said, the theaters turn down the juice to save on the replacement costs of expensive bulbs.
> <i>At my recent Ebertfest, one seasoned director called the projection in the 90-year old Virginia Theater in Urbana-Champaign "the best I've ever seen." That's because we use two of the best projectionists in the nation, James Bond, who consults on high-level projection facilities...</i><p>James Bond? Okay, not every theater can afford to have James Bond in the projection booth... ;-)<p>- - -<p>A serious and interesting information is that for Pirates 4, people apparently chose to see the film in 2D (60% of first week gross) rather than 3D: <i>"Not only is this a clear rejection of 3D on a major movie, but given how distribution is currently designed, it makes you wonder whether Disney cost themselves a lot of gross by putting their film on too high a percentage of 3D screens."</i> (quoted from Gitesh Pandya of BoxOfficeGuru.com)
I'm fortunate enough to live in Austin, TX and we have several Alamo Drafthouse locations here (<a href="http://originalalamo.com" rel="nofollow">http://originalalamo.com</a>). They treat movies like events: most locations during peak times show current fare, but they also have "Weird Wednesdays" and "Terror Tuesdays" with old movies, and similar specialty nights; they do MST3K-style riffing on old classics every once in a while; they serve food and beer; and they have a very draconian policy on talking during movies: do it twice and you're out. They also publish a program much like the local stage theaters each "season."<p>They're very professional and enjoyable, and are the only theaters I visit these days. Otherwise, hell, I'll put up with my 480p projector and a hacked Wii over sticky ringtone-festivals across town at $7 a pop.<p>Oh, and the sound and picture quality are un-paralleled, which was my point: theaters which care care about all aspects of the experience, not just technical excellence.
Sony's name is really being dragged through the mud lately. Not that they don't deserve it, of course. It's just interesting to see how many different areas of business a company can be attacked in at once.
I have never seen a 3d movie yet. I went to my best local theater, that was built within the last ten years (There actually are only two local movie theaters.) to see How to Train Your Dragon in 3d. The opening credits/intro pieces looked incredible. I was so excited! When the movie started I realized there were only two tiny speakers at the front of the theater by the screen outputting audio. I started complaining to the point that i was getting shushed by some patrons. Mostly asking around who else noticed the audio was broken.<p>After a few minutes I went to speak with the manager. Basically I was told I was the first person to complain and that was the way it was supposed to be. I couldn't fathom that to be correct so I continued to question the manager. Eventually she somewhat admitted that the audio, for some technical reason she couldn't explain was not properly able to be played on their 3d projection/audio system.<p>So I left. I got the ticket price refunded but not the cost of my concessions. I couldn't help but feel mass amounts of consumers were being ripped off. I felt the team that produced that fine film would have been heartbroken to have seen the movie there. I know i was not willing to watch a movie, my first 3d movie! with audio the quality of a poorly pirated movie.<p>I considered finding someone to complain too. I imagined the theater was breaking rules by showing the film with such a key component horribly crippled. But I did not.<p>I have not been back to see a 3d movie. I would like to see one someday. I will go again, perhaps to a theater in another town, someday. I hope they get their "stuff" together. Articles like this do not inspire confidence.
OT: None of my coworkers recognized the "dying of the light" reference. [Insert rant about how nobody reads anymore.] It's Dylan Thomas:<p>Do not go gentle into that good night,<p>Old age should burn and rave at close of day;<p>Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Somewhat OT, did they do that thing yet where they were going to synthesize his voice from past reviews?<p>I'm very curious to hear that.<p>Haven't been to the movies in years but last few times I was there what really drove me crazy was the messed up sound - way too loud and the quality sucked. If the picture is also poor now, well I guess I am staying home and waiting for the bluray release. Everything is out on disc for rental in less than six months now, not a big wait.
The entrepreneur in me wants to point out that any cinema owner worth his or her salt would get great PR from making it clear that they make sure that their projection (and sound) is as intended by the director, now that all the discussion is blowing up.<p>At least owners who live in a place with nearby competing cinemas.
It is an interesting variation on what I think of as 'crapitalism.' The increase in profitability at the expense of quality.<p>As Ebert points out, crapitalism works because consumers let it work. If there are enough people willing to pay to have the lower quality product, then the motivation to supply the higher quality product is removed.<p>What is missing is a good feedback mechanism for 'fixing' the problem.<p>Let's accept that Ebert is correct in that the cost of the projectionist and their training is the dominant factor in the quality of the projection. Now take what it would cost to hire a projectionist that did quality projections, and raise ticket prices to cover that cost.<p>As the theatre which charges a higher ticket price than any other theatre in the area, you will find you get fewer patrons, that will reduce the number of tickets sold so you will need an even higher price to cover the lower volume. But the higher price will reduce the size of your market. Once you cross the price where the per-person ticket cost exceeds the expected BluRay release cost, your attendance will drop to nearly zero.<p>It is mentioned in the article that people already feel that the 'home' experience with bluray is better than their theatre experience (for some number fraction of people).<p>The message here is that movie theatres are essentially already dead, but like some species of shark they haven't realized it yet. It's only a question of 'when' they will cease to exist.<p>Interestingly this will be blamed on "piracy."<p>But the actual issue will be that the industry has moved into a place where the cost of presenting the information (the 'movie') is exceeding the marginal value of that information to the consumer. That has occurred because not only do people have more choices on how to consume the information, the relative costs of those choices are shifting. A 55" 1080p LCD television is now under $1000. That is a 'durable good' (3 - 5yr lifetime) so represents less than $30/month at 3 yrs or $20/month at 5 yrs of cash flow. It costs $20 for two people to go to the movies, it costs < $10 to rent a movie/stream it. So the value equation on 'cost to consume' is increasingly leaning toward the living room and the marginal value of seeing something in the theatre has to compete with that.<p>I was thinking that digital projection would actually help theatres by reducing their labor costs but having seen a digital projection setup and the complexity and cost that are layered into the system to prevent copies from being made, the cost equation made things actually worse (you need more skill projectionists).
So, this is another case of Sony's locking stuff down impacting its practical quality/adoption?<p>As a counter to one of the points in the article, I don't think people splitting 40/60 on 3D/2D is a "clear rejection" of 3D. 3D still gives a lot of people headaches or other discomforts, and it does cost more and look worse from bad angles (and you'll get the bad angles because there's less 3D theatres and they're packed). Maybe compared to a 3D event movie like Avatar, but that's not a fair comparison.<p>EDIT: Also, I finally some ammunition to use against people who insist that I should turn the brightness/contrast on my TV down to be "theatre" correct. It's supposed to look brightier, even in the theatre! :)
Given the fact I have no depth perception and all 3D does is reduce the sharpness of the image and force me to wear stupid glasses, the day 3D wins is the day after I leave the theaters for good.
Does anyone now of a good resource for theater reviews? Some quick Googling didn't pull anything up for me. It would be interesting to see a listing of which theaters use which projectors as well as sound system quality.
He said you can tell if a movie is digitally projected because it has a 'D' after it in the listing. Is that only in newspapers? I don't see that info on MovieFone, does anyone know where it can be found?
Does anyone know of a resource that lists theaters based on projection and sound quality? I'd like to find out which theaters in Manhattan are worth going to.
Another quality article by the Ebert.. quoth the Ebert:<p>"I began by asking if you notice, really notice, what a movie looks like. I have a feeling many people don't. They buy their ticket, they get their popcorn and they obediently watch what is shown to them. But at some level there is a difference. They feel it in their guts. The film should have a brightness, a crispness and sparkle that makes an impact. It should look like a movie! -- not a mediocre big-screen television."<p>Note how the Ebert cites his 'gut' evidence right at the bottom of the article. This is not by accident - but a master stroke. For why would you admit that you have no pragmatic basis for your outrage at the beginning of the article? This would simply alienate you from those readers who might, oh, you know... be after some kind of empirical data.<p>I know I probably deserve to be down voted - in order to cure me of my irk. (After all - why should I care if people like the Ebert?)<p>But it's IRKSOME this guy is so well read.