cinemas Tagged Articles at Cinematical

When I learned that the Fairfax 5 Theatres, in Fairfax, California, was to be installed with a solar photovoltaic system, I immediately thought of that old joke (unfortunately directed towards a certain nationality) about the idiotic invention of a solar-powered flashlight. Movie projectors running on solar-powered electricity? Absurd. Especially since most people go to the movies at night! But, of course, my initial thoughts were just as stupid as the flashlight idea, even if I was merely trying to think of a corresponding joke and all the time actually knew, obviously, that solar energy isn't only useful during the hours that the sun is out.

The second thing I thought of, though, all joking aside, was the possibility of a lowered electricity bill. One of the costliest parts of running a movie theater is all the electricity used for lighting, projection, air conditioning, etc. It's these costs that primarily keep concession prices up, as they're a major part of a cinema's constant overhead. Certainly Cinema West, the company that owns Fairfax 5 Theatres, is thinking about the environmental benefits of solar energy, and their new system is indeed reportedly expected to offset nearly 1,000 tons of greenhouse gases. But surely the cost cutting was a big incentive, too. Over the 30-year life of the system, Cinema West is looking to save more than $627,000.

I was so, so, so excited about Regal Entertainment's announcement last august that the theater chain had developed a new complaint system called Regal Guest Response. The system utilizes hand-held devices that are given to select customers, who are then responsible for alerting management about problems with the film's picture or sound, film piracy or audience disturbances. But it has been almost a year since the company began testing out the walkie-talkie-like contraptions in 13 of its locations, and I was beginning to think the system would never be expanded to the rest of the country. This week, though, the chain, which runs Regal Cinemas, Edwards Cinemas and UA Theatres, is rolling out the devices to 114 theaters.

According to Regal, the test run showed that customer etiquette improved in the locations using the devices. The company did not, however, specify how frequently patrons were tattled on by their fellow audience members or whether the etiquette improvement was based on customers being aware of the system. Apparently if you are a member of Regal's Crown Club (as I am) then you have a good chance of being one of those selected to carry the device into the theater and monitor the screen and crowd. For the rest of you seeing a movie at any of Regal's locations this weekend, be on your best behavior, because the guy seated behind you might just need to push a button in order to have you removed.

In response to this news, New York Magazine has created its own modified version of the device, which offers more amusing complaint options, which are specifically applicable for NYC theaters, including buttons marked "Mentally Ill Person Shouting At Screen" and "Hookers". The magazine also added a button that we all wish we could have in this age of bad movies: "Plot/Cinematography."

One part of the Oscar telecast that made me angry was Jerry Seinfeld's routine about the deal between the moviegoer and the movie theater. He claimed that people have the right to drop their trash on the floor after being ripped off at the concession stand. A lot of other people thought the bit was funny, enough to hope the comedian would one day host the awards, but to people like me, whose career is or was in the theater industry, pushing the idea that cinemas are completely to blame for their own attendance problems just makes matters worse.

Of course, the theater industry is at fault a good percentage of the time, at least as far as recognizing their place and duty in the distribution/exhibition process, and according to Techdirt, the industry may finally be waking up to the issues of demand and of the importance of the moviegoing experience. The blog features a great quote for theater owners to remember, originally stated by Marcus Loew: "We sell tickets to theaters, not movies." Some chains and indies have been conscious of the experience issue for awhile now, particularly fun theaters like the Alamo Drafthouse and theaters with special deals like AMC, but the issue of enhancing the movie-going experience has been difficult to address on a wide scale. There is some progress, though -- with the planned broadband and/or satellite distribution of digital movies to theaters, the ability to run more showings of a popular title will be easier and quicker. Theaters will just cancel a less popular movie and run the higher-demand title on its screen instead.

Imagine going to the movies on a Saturday night and having your show ruined by rowdy teenagers. Okay, maybe this has happened to you many times, but was it ever 100 rowdy teens? And did the movie you were seeing get shut off in order for the management to take care of the situation? It is no wonder that movie attendance is down when this sort of thing can happen in a nice, suburban multiplex like the Cinemark 8 in Youngstown, Ohio.

This past Saturday night, one screen at the Cinemark 8 was shut down in order to remove 100 kids from the premises. When the police arrived, they had to break up a fight among some teenage girls, at least two of which ended up in custody. One was a 13-year-old who kicked a can of pepper spray out of an officer's hands before kicking another officer in the groin while resisting arrest. The girl's 15-year-old sister was also taken away by the police and charged with disorderly conduct, apparently for screaming at the cops to let her sister go.

A manager at the theater was unable to tell me the name of the movie the kids had been watching, but of all the titles playing at the Cinemark 8 this week, Unaccompanied Minors seems the most likely as well as the most ironic.

Here are some past stories on cinema rowdiness:

Cinema Postpones "Gang Movie" Stomp the Yard

Surprise! People Prefer Movies at Home

Regal Entertainment Has Read My Mind

Theater Vandalism? Don't Blame Jackass

Like most movie bloggers, I read the trade magazines. But I don't just read the obvious ones, like Variety and The Hollywood Reporter. I also read related trades, such as Professional Candy Buyer and In Focus. The latter of these was the official magazine for the National Association of Theatre Owners, but its final issue has just hit the streets (er, cinemas). I haven't actually read the print version since leaving my former job as a theater manager, but I've kept up with NATO and the industry via the magazine's website.

With the end of In Focus, NATO will not be without a trade. It has chosen Box Office magazine, which has been around since 1920, to be its official publication. I've never been a big fan of the B.O.M. site, mainly because I was never familiar with the print version, but the site does have more in the way of content, like reviews and blogs, than the In Focus site. I guess I'll have to get used to it, as it will now be my main source for theater industry news and info.

I'm not sure how many of our readers are that interested in multiplex innovation and concession trends, so I rarely blog about the things I learn from In Focus, but I thought I'd share some of the last stories the trade has featured in its pages ...

Despite the fact that Jackass Number Two is the most popular movie in America this week, some people around the country aren't all that happy to be showing the crude new release. Over the weekend, I told you how a theater owner in Hoopeston, Illinois closed his cinema for two weeks because he didn't want to book the movie (or anything else), and now comes this photo from a fourplex in Orange City, Iowa. Apparently the people running the theater aren't familiar with a certain four-legged animal let alone the watering-down of its impact as a curse word.

I wish I could have seen their marquee when it featured the following titles: Buttbuttins; The Buttbuttination of Richard Nixon; Baadbuttttt! and the Ron Jeremy classic Girls Who Take it Up the Butt 21.


[via Fark.com]

A new poll conducted by The L.A. Times and Bloomberg has revealed the obvious: people prefer to watch movies at home rather than at the theater. The poll, which surveyed males and females aged 12 to 24, showed that in one demographic, 21-24-year-olds, less than 10-percent prefer the theater (the percent increases somewhat the younger the person). Aside from that old news, the poll did have some interesting results. The main attraction for going out to the movies, for instance, appears to be either the bigger screen or the chance to go with a group of friends. Most people could care less about seeing a movie when it first comes out. The factors that turn people off the most are the cost, either of concessions or tickets, and then rude/talkative moviegoers. As it turns out, bad movies aren't a deterrent, which means that people will see any old crap if the price is right. The last question in the poll asked about the time it takes for moviegoers to tell their friends about the movie they've seen. As far as word-of-mouth buzz is concerned, the results seem to show that studios should let it take its time to generate.

Other findings in the poll: Teens are interested in watching movies on a PC but not so much a cell phone or a video iPod (or similar); Only 10-percent of teens consult movie reviews; Young people in general are seeing fewer movies per year as they grow older; Pre-teens are offended by sex and nudity; Few young people are offended by violence, gross-out humor or bad language; Dan Glickman believes, "you can't have a thriving movie industry without having a thriving theatrical business." Okay that last one was in response to the poll, not a part of it. Anyway, I love when Glickman says such things while he does nothing to actually aid the theatrical business. If he has indeed looked at the poll results, he should currently be talking to studios about lowering ticket prices, since it is Hollywood that forces the price-increases upon the cinemas in the first place.

After reporting last week about plans to soon equip one-third of American cinemas with digital projectors, I received a few comments telling of disappointing encounters with the new format. It got me wanting to do some more research on the technology and the experience, and hopefully soon take in a digital showing somewhere. I haven't yet become an expert on the subject, but I did come across an interesting set of articles in Sunday's Ventura County Star, both written by Allison Bruce, which give the pros and the cons of both digital and film projectors.

Aside from the obvious factors that make digital attractive -- clearer picture, cheaper distribution -- Bruce includes an amusing comment from director Barry Sonnenfeld in which he says studios could easily change a movie that has been badly received by critics or audiences, after it has opened in theaters. He cites King Kong as a good example of a movie that would have benefited had Universal been able to cut out 40 minutes of the film after hearing that viewers complained of it being too long. I highly doubt that any studios would actually take advantage of this, though. After all, isn't that why they have test screenings?

One thing I think that hurts digital, evident from Bruce's article supporting digital, is that most of the format's pros are beneficial to studios and theaters more than to audiences. The cheaper distribution, the ease of projector use, the issues with piracy and the scheduling ideas for exhibitors are all meant to save the businesses money. But will it trickle down the savings to the consumer? No way. In fact, I see digital being used as an excuse to raise prices for the ticket buyers. Consider that the big theater chains are about to borrow a collective billion dollars. It is obvious that we, the audience, will be depended upon to pay those loans back.

It isn't a secret that DVD sales keep Hollywood profitable these days, and it isn't big news that DVD sales are reaching a plateau and potentially will begin a decline in the next few years. So, Hollywood is in trouble! According to a NY Times article, the home entertainment divisions of all the major studios appear to be nervously seeking out a new way to get money out of consumers. With the industry divided over hi-def formats, download sites not yet showing returns, Netflix gaining ground, and video-on-demand cable services providing more selection, there isn't much time before home video sales drastically fall. Even Steve Beeks at Lionsgate admits companies have depended for too long on the "shameless" act of re-releasing titles in new packaging "as long as people would buy them."

I've got a good idea for a new cash cow for Hollywood: Movie theatres. Instead of ignoring the downfall of moviegoing, why not invest in the experience again? Stop taking advantage of the theatres that work so hard to aid your business and instead help them get back in the game. It  might be more difficult than sitting around and waiting for consumers to accept new technologies, but it might just be a better solution in the long term. I mean, what does Hollywood have against the cinemas anyway?