This week, I don't want to talk about anything new. I don't want to discuss the good news about studios and European exhibitors finally agreeing on a virtual print fee. I don't want to comment on Nielsen's research showing the strong consumer appetite for 3-D films (I'll be talking enough about 3-D next week in anticipation of Journey to the Center of the Earth). I don't want to even get people's hopes up about Microsoft's supposed "manners device" that silences cell phones instead of blocking them (signal blocking was recently found to be illegal in the U.S.). I really don't want to comment on Mark Gill's "The Sky is Falling" speech from the L.A. Film Festival loosely concerning the state of art house cinema (the speech is more related to film making and financing, plus I already played Chicken Little last week).

As usual, I'm not going to pretend to understand the technologies behind modern home entertainment. And so, before I begin, I'd like to prematurely thank any commenters who choose to weigh in on things such as "selectable output control," "the analog hole" or any other terms I might misuse or incorrectly explain. The only thing I comprehend about those electronic doohickeys in my living room is that they each somehow connect to my antiquated analog television and through the magic of, well, I don't know, I'm able to watch the occasional classic movie and mindless cake design program.

Those familiar with this column should know that I'm not here to necessarily explain how threats to movie theaters work. I'm just here to yell, "the sky is falling!" from within the lobby of the local cinema and hope that you Henny Pennys and Goosey Looseys are listening to my rants and ramblings and at least try to go to the movies more often (and hopefully buy at least one thing at the concession stand). This time, however, I feel even less knowledgeable about the latest threat, and I feel even more fearful that this is the beginning of the end. The cinemapocalypse, if you will.

When was the last time you tried to see a movie, but couldn't, because it was sold out? I mean really sold out. Sure, you may have recently sat in a packed auditorium and watched a movie that was "sold out." And you may have recently been turned away from a specific showtime for some new movie because that one showing was "sold out." These things come with the season, when everyone's rushing to see the latest summer blockbuster as soon as it's released to theaters. But I bet it's been a long, long time since you were shut out completely from seeing a movie on opening weekend.

I experienced two sellouts this week (details forthcoming), and the frustration made me recall an experience from 21 years ago, when Beverly Hills Cop II came out. The reason I remember this specific movie's release is because I was keeping a summer journal at the time. I was only ten, so I didn't write much on each day, but through the opening weekend for BHC2, I repeated the same phrase three times: "Tried to see Beverly Hills Cop II, but it was sold out." Then, through the movie's second weekend, I again repeated the same phrase on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Finally, in its third weekend, I was able to write, "Saw Beverly Hills Cop II. It was good."

Before getting into this week's topic, I'd like to give a shout out to my British compatriots, Mark Oakley and Matt Edwards, over at Den of Geek. In case this column isn't relevant enough to the exhibition industry of the UK (I apologize for not being familiar with old ads for Kia-Ora and Indian restaurants), you may want to check out their ideas on how to improve cinemas. However, few people will agree that banning the general public is a smart idea (personally I want more people going to the movies, not less).

Oh, one more important thing, which just came to my attention: SmartMoney has a great guide to saving on movie tickets. Included are the usual: free movies, second-runs, matinees, buying in bulk and clubs (such as my fave, the Regal Crown Club). But I learned one shocking thing about Cinemark Theatres: they charge extra for Friday and Saturday night shows. Another reason I'm glad I don't go at those busy times.

OK, now to this week's subject: charity fundraising at the cinema. You know, those organizations that collect money at theaters by way of ushers walking up the auditorium aisles jiggling a can. It was something I was very familiar with during my employment at various movie theaters around the Northeast. But ever since quitting the theater business three years ago, I've nearly forgotten all about the practice. This, despite the fact that I have enough free Jimmy Fund t-shirts that I could wear them consecutively and possibly avoid the laundromat for weeks.

Do you like comedy but aren't interested in seeing either You Don't Mess with the Zohan or Kung Fu Panda this week? Fortunately, if you live in Massachussetts or Connecticut, you have another option at your local multiplex: live stand-up comedy. Since mid-May, National Amusements has been featuring "Boston's best comics" on Thursday nights as part of a new alternative entertainment offering called "Stand Up Showcase." Locations for the weekly events include three Showcase Cinemas in Mass. (Randolph, Woburn and Blackstone Valley) and one in Conn. (Buckland Hills). The shows cost $14, and you must be 21 to be admitted.

Obviously this news fits with my weekly column, The Exhibitionist, but I've already written recently on National Amusement's decision to branch out into live entertainment. Stand-up is just another addition to the live music, satellite-broadcast Red Sox games and other alternatives meant to counter decreased movie attendance. According to N.A. spokesperson Wanda Whitson (quoted on Boston.com): "This is part of [chief executive officer] Shari E. Redstone's goal of turning our 122 locations worldwide into community entertainment centers." Kinda sad for a company that has been a real force in movie exhibition for more than half a century (never mind the company's majority holdings in Viacom).

Officially, the season of summer doesn't begin for another two weeks, but for the movie business, summer 2008 started back on May 2, with the release of Iron Man. Though it seemed like an early enough start, some exhibitors would like it to begin even earlier, like in April. In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, John Fithian, who heads the National Association of Theatre Owners (the largest trade group for cinema operators), and Mike Campbell (no relation), who runs Regal Entertainment (the largest cinema chain in the U.S.), discuss the benefits of having tentpole (aka blockbuster) movies released all year long rather than in just the summer and winter holiday seasons and ask that Hollywood at least consider bumping up some major releases to April rather than the busy month of May.

The argument for limiting tentpoles to the summer has always been that it's a time when kids are out from school. But as Fithian points out, most kids are still in school through May, when the biggest blockbusters are released. And movies like Iron Man and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull still made a lot of money anyway. In fact, aside from whatever tentpole is scheduled for July 4th weekend, the movies released in May are often the biggest moneymakers of the year. At least for Hollywood. But according to Fithian, theater owners actually lost a lot of money in May because of how many tentpoles are released so closely together. Campbell adds that overall box office gross would be up significantly if major releases were more evenly spread out. Certainly moviegoers would appreciate having more blockbusters and/or better movies released in months like January and September, as well as other months often considered "dumping grounds" for movies that shouldn't have even been made.

Each week, The Exhibitionist comments on the latest news, trends and innovations related to the theater industry, or it discusses long-continuing problems with and complaints against cinemas in general, or it simply relates a specific moviegoing experience of yours truly. But rarely does this column get into the subject of actual movies. Well, seeing as there's not much new in the industry this week, and seeing as I'm fortunately not being dragged to see Sex and the City and therefore have no experience to relate about being a sole male in an auditorium packed with women, I figure this is a perfect time to bring up actual movies. Not just any movies, though: I'm presently only interested in discussing movies about, set in or prominently featuring movie theaters.

The earliest movie that I'm familiar with that significantly involves a theater is Buster Keaton's Sherlock Jr. The silent comedian plays a projectionist who falls asleep on the job then has a dream in which he literally climbs through the movie screen and into a detective film. A similar idea of breaking the boundary between auditorium and screen is used in Woody Allen's The Purple Rose of Cairo and in John McTiernan's The Last Action Hero, both of which involve a movie character who manages to leave his respective film within the film. But nothing tops Keaton's screen-entering stunt, which utilizes special effects that still astonish more than 80 years later.

There was a time in my life when I spent more of my weekends going to concerts than going to the movies. And many of those concerts were fittingly at a venue that had previously been a movie theater. Back then, though, I never thought about the significance of seeing The Mighty Mighty Bosstones in the same place I once watched A Nightmare on Elm Street 4. There was a fine distinction between live music and cinema.

Unlike now, when there's an ever growing feeling that for the exhibition industry cinema is dead, while live music is, umm, live. The signs have been visible for the past year: Garth Brooks selling out multiplexes; a Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus concert coming in at #1 at the box office. But nothing made the future seem as clear as last month's news that National Amusements is going into the live entertainment business.

The theater chain, which also technically owns most of Viacom, has apparently seen enough interest in live entertainment through "experiments" at its fancy Cinema De Lux locations that it will begin operating venues strictly for live entertainment, which will be called Showcase Live! (a name similar to the company's Showcase Cinemas brand of multiplexes). The first is set to open this August, and while it's the only one apparently planned out so far, the company expects to open three to five more within the next few years.

Remember serials? I don't, because I'm too young, and by the time I began going to the movies, it was already the practice for cinemas to stick to single, self-contained, feature-length fare. With the way screenings are arranged today, scheduled so that both theater owners and studios can get as much money from as many showings as possible, there's just no room for any accompanying shorts, especially the kind that don't end in a conclusive manner.

I'd probably be okay with being left out of that experience from the moviegoing past, but each time another Indiana Jones movie is released, I can't help but think I'm at least a little less appreciative of George Lucas' intent than some of the older folk in the audience. When Lucas thought up the original Raiders of the Lost Ark, he partly meant the film as homage to the serials he remembered from his childhood.

Yet Raiders didn't end with a cliffhanger, as most serials had on a weekly basis. And with the third sequel to that film, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, arriving in theaters this week, I still wonder why at least two installments couldn't have been connected with the serializing device. Lucas had already somewhat shown us, through the uncertain ending of The Empire Stikes Back and continuation/resolution beginning of Return of the Jedi, that it could be done.

Kids rule the multiplex. That's why they're the most targeted audience and the most targeted consumers as far as Hollywood and concession suppliers are respectively concerned. But where would the kids be without their parents? Perhaps they'd still be watching movies, but maybe not at the cinema. To see a movie at the multiplex, they need a ride from their mom, or they require the companionship of their blockbuster-loving dad. Sure, things may be a little different today, but my experience of being a moviegoing child entailed a lot of assistance and encouragement from my mom and dad.

It's hard to decide which parent had greater influence on my cinephilia, especially since I only recently recognized my mother's contributions. My father was the one who usually took my brothers and me to the movies every other weekend, and each time we stayed with him we seemed to rent more videos than could be watched in a 48-hour period. Meanwhile my mother let us watch cable, including as much R-rated fare as HBO would broadcast. At a very, very young age I was already familiar with a lot of horror, violence, swearing, nudity and other "restricted" content that the MPAA was only OK with me seeing if it was OK with my "accompanying parent or adult guardian."