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.

To quote an official MPAA movie ratings poster: "THE SYSTEM CAN'T WORK UNLESS YOU UNDERSTAND THE SYSTEM."

How many NC-17-rated films did you see in the theater in the past year? Maybe one? That is if Ang Lee's Lust, Caution even played in your 'hood. And considering the most screens it ever played on in any single week was 143, I highly doubt it (understandably, it could have played in more than 143 locations over the course of its 20 weeks in theaters, but I doubt many more).

But if there had been more NC-17-rated films, and they actually played near you, would you have gone to see them? And if so, why? Because you expect something more titillating than the other releases to choose from? And if not, why? Are you afraid of others thinking you are going to see something dirty? Are you embarrassed about both attending and watching graphic sex on screen? Do you correlate the experience to going to a porno theater?

One year ago, the MPAA's film ratings system was exposed for being unfair and inconsistent. This was thanks primarily to the documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated, which screened at Sundance. Now, without acknowledging that film's possible influence on the decision, the MPAA is announcing a change in the ratings process and procedures. A campaign is set to begin at Sundance on Monday, when Dan Glickman will be joined with Classifications & Ratings Administration head Joan Graves to officially go over the revisions.

Variety has the list of changes, which includes the decision to publicly post the standards that must be met to receive a particular rating. Also added to the appeals process is an allowance for a filmmaker to compare his film's content with another lower-rated film's content in order to make a consistency argument. Other parts of the revision include a description of the still-anonymous ratings board members and new rules for the eligibility of those members.

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 ...

Because they'd rather deal with piracy than address dwindling audiences and shrinking box office receipts (Really, can you blame them? It's to hard find anyone to arrest because audiences are small, while pirates are everywhere!), the MPAA, the National Association of Theatre Owners, the Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association and the Motion Picture Theatre Associations of Canada have come together to...create a website! Woo hoo!

Announced yesterday at ShoWest, www.fightfilmtheft.com was designed to train theater employees to spot people with camcorders and stone them with Whoppers stop their piracy mid-stream. In addition to telling employees what to look for and how to proceed when they spot a pirate (just so you know, you should NOT "Grab the recording device out of the suspect's hand"), the site also publicizes a rewards program that was initiated last year by the MPAA and NATO. Under the program, employees who "stop theft" get $500/incident - there's a downloadable form to claim the reward and everything. However, since last year there were 69 incidents and only 30 rewards given out, it sounds like you theater employees need to read the rules damn carefully before trying to do any enforcing. Otherwise, all you'll get for your trouble is a whack with a tripod, which totally isn't worth $8 an hour.

[via THR]