Do you remember what a movie should look like? Do you notice when one doesn't look right? Do you feel the vague sense that something is missing? I do. I know in my bones how a movie should look. I have been trained by the best projection in the world, at film festivals and in expert screening rooms. When I see a film that looks wrong, I want to get up and complain to the manager and ask that the projectionist be informed. But these days the projectionist is tending a dozen digital projectors, and I will be told, "That's how it's supposed to look. It came that way from the studio."
The most common flaw is that the picture is not bright enough. I've been seeing that for a long time. In the years before digital projectors, the problem was often that tight-fisted theater owners weren't setting the Xenon bulbs in their projectors at the correct wattage, in the mistaken belief that dialing them down would extend the life of the expensive bulbs.
Not true. If you ran a 3000W bulb at 2000W, you'd extend its life by all of 2.3 percent. Yet when Martin Scorsese used people around the country to actually check theater brightness, he found most of the theaters involved were showing an underlit image. An Eastman Kodak spokesman told me in the late 1990s: "The irony is that their only real achievement is to cheat the customers."
That was then. This is now. Driven by a mania to abandon celluloid in favor of digital, increasing numbers of chains are installing 3D-ready digital projectors. As everyone can tell simply by taking off their 3D glasses, the process noticeably reduces the visible light from the screen. I got emails from readers saying the night scenes in "Pirates of the Caribbean" were so dim they were annoying.
Ah, but what if you saw the movie in 2D? As it happens, a lot of people did; Gitesh Pandya of BoxOfficeGuru.com reported: "less than half of the Pirates weekend gross came from 3D screens, with more opting for the 2D version." He attributes that to moviegoers being "cautious with their dollars." After the weekend, David Poland of MovieCityNews.com ran the numbers and determined 60% of sales were in 2D and 40% in 3D: "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."
There may have been a reason consumers shied away from 3D. An expertly written article by Ty Burr in the Boston Globe reports that some 3D projectors, particularly those made by Sony, produce "gloomy, underlit" images of 2D films. His article must have hit a nerve; and I've seen it posted and referred to all over the web. The newspaper found dark images on eight of the 19 screens at the high-end AMC Loews Boston Common on Tremont Street.Burr wrote: "This particular night 'Limitless,' 'Win Win,' and 'Source Code' all seemed strikingly dim and drained of colors. 'Jane Eyre,' a film shot using candles and other available light, appeared to be playing in a crypt. A visit to the Regal Fenway two weeks later turned up similar issues: 'Water for Elephants' and 'Madea's Big Happy Family' were playing in brightly lit 35mm prints and, across the hall, in drastically darker digital versions." His observations indicated the problems centered on Sony projectors: "Digital projection can look excellent when presented correctly. Go into Theater 14 at the Common, newly outfitted with a Christie 4K projector, and you'll see a picture that is bright and crisp, if somewhat colder than celluloid."
He says there is a reason for this: "Many theater managers have made a practice of leaving the 3D lenses on the projectors when playing a 2D film." The result is explained by an anonymous projectionist: "For 3D showings a special lens is installed in front of a Sony digital projector that rapidly alternates the two polarized images needed for the 3D effect to work. When you're running a 2D film, that polarization device has to be taken out of the image path. If they're not doing that, it's crazy, because you've got a big polarizer that absorbs 50 percent of the light.''
Fifty percent! It can be worse than that. I quote: "Chapin Cutler, a cofounder of the high-end specialty projection company Boston Light & Sound, estimates that a film projected through a Sony with the 3D lens in place and other adjustments not made can be as much as 85 percent darker than a properly projected film." Your best bet is apparently to (1) find a theater that doesn't use digital at all, (2) doesn't use Sony projectors, or (3) still projects light through celluloid the traditional way.
Digital projectors have been force-fed to theaters by an industry hungry for the premium prices it can charge for 3D films. As I've been arguing for a long time, this amounts to charging you more for an inferior picture. The winners are the manufacturers of the expensive machines, and the film distributors. The hapless theaters still depend on concession sales to such a degree that a modern American theater can be described as a value-added popcorn stand.I have an email from a Hollywood professional who writes me: "During the last awards season, I went to an Industry screening of 'The Social Network' at Sony Studios, in their James Stewart facility -- what they said was their best screening room. The movie looked dark and muddy; truly awful. Then I looked back and saw that the picture was emanating from a twin-lens rig. After the show, I complained to the projectionist about the image. He explained that the process of shifting both the lens and changing the silver screen to a white matter screen, which they were equipped to do, was too time-consuming. So he told me that his supervisor authorized showing the movie to Academy voters through the 3D lens, which looked like shit. And this is at Sony Studios. Just imagine how bad it is in the real world. It is as if the Industry is courting self-destruction."
Sony refused to comment on the Boston Globe article. 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, and Steve Kraus, of Chicago's Lake Street Screening Room.
Ty Burr writes: "So why aren't theater personnel simply removing the 3-D lenses? The answer is that it takes time, it costs money, and it requires technical know-how above the level of the average multiplex employee. James Bond, a Chicago-based projection guru who serves as technical expert for Roger Ebert's Ebertfest, said issues with the Sonys are more than mechanical. Opening the projector alone involves security clearances and Internet passwords, 'and if you don't do it right, the machine will shut down on you.' The result, in his view, is that 'often the lens change isn't made and audiences are getting shortchanged'."
The problem isn't with all digital projectors, and seems most common with the new Sony 4K projectors, which has lenses too difficult to adjust for most of the (semi-skilled) multiplex projectionists. It is possible to project a high-quality digital image, and I've often seen that done. But only if theaters insist on it, and manufacturers like Sony make changes allowing their lenses to be changed as needed.
The movie industry feels under threat these days from DVDs, cable movies on demand, a dozen streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, Fandor and Mubi, and competition from video games. Decades ago, it felt a similar danger from radio (it introduced talkies) and television (it introduced wide-screen). The irony today is that it hopes to rescue itself with 3D, which is not an improvement but a step back in quality. The fact that more people wanted to see "Pirates" in 2D than 3D is stunning. The fact that 3D projectors in some theaters are producing murky and dim 2D pictures makes me very unhappy.
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.When people don't have a good time at the movies, they're slower to come back. I can't tell you how many comments on my blog have informed me that the writers enjoy a "better picture" at home on their big-screen TVs with Blu-ray discs. This should not be true. Nobody at Ebertfest confused the experience with sitting at home and watching a video. A movie should leap out and zap you, not recede into itself and get lost in dimness.
I despair. This is a case of Hollywood selling its birthright for a message of pottage. If as much attention were paid to exhibition as to marketing, that would be an investment in the future. People would fall back in love with the movies. Short-sighted, technically illiterate penny-pinchers are wounding a great art form.
¶
What can you personally do to be sure you see an ideal picture? Matthew Humpries at Geek.com writes:
• The title of the movie listed by the theater will have a "D" after it if it is being shown on a digital projector
• If you are in a D movie, look at the projector window when seated. If you see two stacked beams of light it is a Sony projector with the 3D lens still on.
• A single beam of light means no 3D lens, or a different make of projector that doesn't have the issue
• If you see the two beams, then get up and go complain. You paid good money to see the movie, so make a fuss until they either give you back that money or remove the lens. Seeing as that's an involved and time-consuming process, expect a refund.
Here is the Boston Globe article by Ty Burr.
Images on this page darkened for effect.
... and they wonder why less people are seeing movies in the theatre. "It should look like a movie! -- not a mediocre big-screen television."
Thats absolutely the crux of it.
The town i grew up in has a movie theatre on the main street, with a wide sidewalk in front of it, and places to eat all around. A popular place to go and I have many fond memories of going there, but I havent been since middle school, even though I lived there until going away to college.
All through high school I would go to other theatres in other towns (and a large regionally-drawing theatre in a terrible sprawly strip mall) because the local theatre always had the image out of focus, lines and crap showing up in the image, and surround sound that went in and out (with the stereo sound at the front staying on).
I dare say that thats a town of bluray watchers and much more occassional movie-goers due to this.
Avatar in 3D was so dark it was terribly distracting. When I saw it in 2D at another theater, the picture was bright and a hell of a lot easier on the eyes. I don't like 3D, I'm much rather not spend an extra 3 dollars or more for a darker print that I have to wear glasses in.
This is infuriating.
It is also darkly humorous that moviegoers were first unwillingly in theaters with darker-than-usual images thanks to managers using dimmer bulbs...and now they are actually paying extra dollars and putting glasses on in order to have the images darkened.
I've only seen two movies that "worked" for me in 3-D: "Avatar" and "Up." Unless you can really "do" something with the 3-D, what is the point? In theory, Hollywood seemed eager because they thought it could up the artistry by bringing the films to a new plane, but in execution it ruins the atmosphere and gives headaches to angry filmgoers.
Such a shame.
Roger, great article.
A month ago I went to see Scream 4 here in Brazil and thought I was either crazy or approaching seniority 4 decades too early. The picture was dim, slightly out of focus and, since the movie takes place mainly at night, dark throughout.
Apart from the digital projectors running 2D movies, here in Brazil we still have a serious problems with exhibitors dialing down the bulbs, though.
Like you said, I think the main problem is consumer apathy.
I live in Boston and will say that I have noticed a suspiciously dark image at one showing I went to recently for a 2D showing of Thor. I have been to the Boston Commons theater and haven't experienced a too dark image so maybe they have changed their practices since the article or I have just been fortunate enough not to be in one of the 3D lens projected theaters. Perhaps, I just didn't notice that anything was wrong, but I don't think so because with Thor I knew it was too dark. Also Pirates in 3D was one of the darkest films I've ever seen and really cemented for me how bad 3D is. The 3D added nothing to the film except a higher cost and an extreme level of darkness.
The real problems of multiplex (and, for that matter, chain art-house) projection far transcend image brightness. They stem from the fact that not a SINGLE employee at many theaters knows how a film should actually look, much less how to properly project one. This has gotten worse over the years, I've noticed, and more than ticket prices or bad 3-D conversions, it is the biggest current threat to cinema-going's future. My theory as to why it hasn't gotten much prior publicity is because most major critics live in markets (New York, LA, Austin, Chicago, Seattle) where the majority of screenings either take place in screening rooms with immaculate projection, or at least at a multiplex where someone who cares about film is manning the projector.
Living in San Diego (which boasts neither of those two things), a majority of the 250 movies I see a year have at least one projection problem. With the exception of one megaplex that runs bright Christie 2K digital presentations immaculately, I have faced problems at EVERY theater I frequent (25+).
For instance, last week, I went to see "Madea's Big Happy Family" at a local Regal 16-plex on 35mm. There was a massive judder driving the image in and out of focus, probably from an easily-troubleshooted problem like emulsion build-up in the gate. I wave down the employee whose sole job is to monitor "picture perfect presentation" (you know, the one who distractingly walks across the auditorium with a flash-light twice a show). He looks at the image and says, "So what's the matter, sir?" It took him a full minute of watching--until text came up and made the problem exceedingly obvious--for him to even notice that something was wrong. He took me to the manager, who simply offered a refund. No apology, no vow to do anything, leaving the other eight patrons there to rot, watching an image that could very well make them sick from its instability. (It happens -- when I worked at a theater, a longtime employee told us about several people vomiting in the aisles from just this.)
Fine, I say, having put up with such issues many a time. I decide to hop over to "Hanna", trying to make the best of the situation. That print had thick, green build-up scratches on five of the reels, but I sat through it because by that point I had given up.
The average moviegoer might not be able to vocalize what's wrong and might not have the conviction to complain, but they sure as hell notice egregious presentation problems. "There's a line through the screen!" a man whispered to his wife.
And, as you note, digital is making the problem worse, not better. While it has solved scratches and another one of my biggest pet peeves at 35mm sites (poorly-set shutter-timing, resulting in an intolerable flicker), it has its share of problems and has resulted in even more uneducated employees. On several occasions, the movie has been playing in the wrong aspect ratio and I've run out to tell them. "Wrong format!" I holler. "What's that?" the projectionist himself has said on more than one occasion, deferring to an uncaring manager. (When 2.35 is set to 1.85 and visa-versa in a digital house, the image just "zooms in" rather than appearing stretched out as it would in 35mm.)
Indeed, by comparison, brightness seems like a small issue when you're forced to compare it to even bigger train-wrecks...
Nearly seven years ago, I began working for AMC as a 16-year-old. A year later, I was finally given my shot at running the booth. While I received wildly inadequate training (only about 15 hours worth, from another employee who had been inadequately trained before me), I at least CARED about what was on the screen. I educated myself on the problems that could arise by reading the manual, diligently monitoring every show for scratches, dirt, inadequate illumination, and improper volume. If I didn't know how to fix it, I asked. But in the digital generation, kids who couldn't care less about proper presentation are in charge, thanks to the ability to start a show with a few clicks of a mouse. And when they are put in charge of the few remaining 35mm houses, the disaster gets even worse. When patrons complain, they often act offended, as if it is a pretentious thing to do.
It is easy to blame people not going to the movies on bad product or texting teens, but there have always been bad movies and people know that they aren't likely to encounter teens at a matinee. I suspect the real reason they don't go is that that movies look better on their HDTV, which is a complete and utter shame. To anybody who knows not only how great film can be, but LOOK, this is a knife to the heart.
I ran into the much the same kind of situation years ago in a film theater showing the cleaned up "Fantasia" from Disney. Most projectors then had Cinamascope lenses on them as standard equipment, so Disney supplied corrective lenses with the prints to bring the image back to the original 4:3 aspect ratio. I complained, the theater manager didn't want to do anything because, he said, he'd have to switch the lens off for the trailers and ads.
I was, apparently, the only person in the theater who noticed that the mushrooms had lost height and gotten very fat, and that the image was seriously lacking in contrast.
(addendum: the captcha you-all use for this page is beyond my abilities as a human to figure out. Keeps telling me I have entered it wrong, but it surely looks right to me. Okay. It seems we are supposed to divine which space is really a space and which is simply extra area between letters.)
When I saw "Thor" it was presented on a 4K projector. And I knew right away something was wrong. Any area that was white, or had a brightness to it, had a red / green fuzz on the edges. It was incredibly distracting and really ruined the experience of the film.
So I can spend 11+ dollars on a roll of the dice, or I can stay at home with my bright, crisp, widescreen, HD, TV -- which everybody else seems to have gotten in the past 2-3 years too.
I've always been a big proponent of going to the movies, but in terms of picture quality it's not even a contest anymore. It shouldn't be true, and I consider it just as sad as you do, but it is true: TVs are better. Movie theaters have committed Darwin Awards-style suicide.
Thanks for addressing this issue Roger, experiencing the full beauty of a movie on the first viewing is of the uppmost importance. Geez our cinematic experiences seem so different from what the characters in Cinema Paradiso had!
Can I propose that you help spearhead an effort to do something about this? I'd like to see it get adopted that movies have a config grid displayed before the movie gets started. Something similar to the gamma grids you see on sites like this should do: http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html
And... the calibration screen should have lines... find some user-friendly display that makes it apparent that people should complain to the theater if they can't see parts of the grid correctly.
I noticed the brightness problem back in the late 60's and early 70's. It annoyed the living hell out of me. I wear glasses and spend extra time cleaning them before I watch a movie at a theater. I'd much rather have a bright picture with spots on my lenses than a dull one with no spots.
Digital stuff is ok. It has it's place in life. I'm a computer programmer by trade (Software Engineer if you were a fabulous babe). I know what is being done to sound. This is another sore spot. I have Menaires Desease. It's not fatal nor a huge problem, but I have a hearing loss in my right ear. When some
sound engineer takes a 'noise' and splits it into several different audio streams in order to process them into a full, rich experience - only one thing happens: I can't understand ANY of the human audio. I still have good hearing, but not good enough to have subtle nuances of sound broken apart and directed at me from different points in the room/theater. Any differential in the arrival time of a sound to my ears turns that sound into noise. Couple that with a dim image and you've got a really annoying thing going on.
Guy Ritchie did a car commercial with James Brown. It was wonderfully shot, but James spoke so poorly that subtitles appeared upon the screen whenever he spoke. That's what all movie actors sound like to me now - James Brown not feeling nor speaking nearly as well as he knew that he could.
The dim screen and digitally processed sound are reasons I now watch lots of stuff on a superb computer monitor with 2 stationary speakers, a nice sub-woofer, and all the digital enhancements turned off. So I guess I just contradicted myself by seeming to indicate that digital stuff is good on a computer, but not so good at a theater.
How is it that Michael Mann can shoot a movie at night with no lighting to speak of and it turn out so bright and crisp??? I suppose he actually knows what he's doing. Adopt technology
when you understand it, not before.
Having attended more movies at the Alamo Draft House in Austin than is normal for a man living in San Francisco, I can say with ease... I notice.
Having worked for Carmike Cinemas from '83 to '89 as a manager/projectionist (yes, they had already phased out all their projectionist by '82) and being one of the few that learned to be a projectionist over being a manager, I notice.
You may have hated the last Indiana Jones movie, but at least you didn't go on opening weekend to an AMC theater (AMC Van Ness 1000, to be specific) and watch a print scratched from start to finish with lateral scratches on the Saturday of opening weekend. I asked for my money back and they said "I don't understand. No, you can't have your money back." (I eventually paid again to see it at The Castro theater and it looked great.)
Hoo BOY do I notice. I notice and I complain. And nothing happens and no one cares and if this is the future of the giant chain theaters then all I can say is Good Riddance. If we are left in the aftermath for 20 years with dead studios and only movies made by kids with enough money to buy DSLRs that do video, then I am all for it.
In San Francisco the best place to see a movie is The Castro theater. They have great projection in place and a projectionist in the booth. Wherever you live, seek these out, not because doing so will make them succeed, but because doing so will sadly be your last chances to see great projection in your lifetime in you are over 40 (unless, of course, you live in Austin, Texas where Tim League will make sure you watch the best movies of your life with the best projection of your life until he dies).
Mediocrity will win this battle... for now. But, in the long run, what might can win is the smarts of people who pay on a regular basis to see movies. The general public is what keeps movie-going viable. The incredible density of mediocre films exist because of the sad fact that many movie studio executives sadly do have their hands on the pulse of the nation: people want to feel good and they don't want to be challenged. At least... that's what people kind of think at first. And then INCEPTION comes along and says "Hey, look, you don't have to settle for TRANSFORMERS 2 this summer." Or THE DARK KNIGHT comes along and says "SPIDERMAN 3? Sorry about that, mate, but I promise I'll be a better super hero movie for you." People are stupid at first, and sometimes in the middle, and even a few are at the last, but in the end, the real end, they are smart. Smarter than any mid-20s early 30s movie executive. Smarter than Republican politicians ever give them credit for. Smarter than the Vatican or the hellfireandbrimstone preachers.
There will always be crap, yes. Bad literature still exist. Bad religions still survive. Bad pop music is released every day. Bad, bad, bad beer is still drank. And we read bad books on bad paper that rotted. And we praised gods through bad religions for centuries. And we listened to low quality MP3s for years until we knew we didn't have to. And we drank bad beer for a long, long time. And we all know people who still read shitty books, go to shitty churches and pray to shitty gods, and listen to shitty music in the most compressed possible format, and even a few who still drink lousy beer in what might very well be the golden age of the microbrew. The battle is ours to win, and passion for great literature, great self-revealed spiritual revelation, great music and great ways of listening to music and great beer to be on our shelves is a battle against against ignorance that can only ever be won with one weapon: passion.
Passion to get up and complain whenever the projection or sound is bad is where you start the battle. Complain to an adult working in a theater, never the concession stand or ticket counter. Make them find a manager or projectionist (although the latter may very well be the concession stand kid). Share with everyone where you hate seeing movies and where you love seeing movies. Make if a habit to let people know how important a particular movie was to you because it looked amazing, or how terrible you felt after a movie that looked terrible.
Don't fail your local movie houses, btw, by feeling bad about complaining if the projection isn't good. They need to know that you notice and they need to know that if you notice that you won't come back because they are no better than the chains if they are going to let their lamps burn dim and their shutters get out of synch. They need to know. Make them live up to being independent.
URGENT! URGENT! URGENT! Adverbs are NOT to be hyphenated to the descriptors that follow them! I'm seeing more and more of this lately, and it's becoming alarming. Hyphens are for linking nouns to other nouns, to verbs or to gerunds. It's a fact that Roger Ebert is one of the very best living prosaic writers, but the presence of 'expertly-written' in this otherwise excellent article is a sad irony.
I saw "Cave of Forgotten Dreams" in 3D yesterday and was sorely disappointed. Werner Herzog said that the 3D showed the subtle ways the painters worked the curves of the cave walls into their work. I didn't see anything there that couldn't have been done in 2D. This was one of the 3D movies I was most eagerly awaiting, and I could hardly stand it that way. I think, in the end, the darkness of the cave simply overwhelmed anything the 3D could have added.
Part of the problem, I think, is that there's a great 3D delivery method in autostereoscopy, which uses no glasses or eye-crossing. It's used on the Nintendo 3DS and various 3D cameras on the market, and on the Nintendo system, it's beautiful. It's bright and clear, and even on a lower brightness setting, it's much easier to look at than RealD. There are flaws (your head has to be in a specific spot for it to work), but it's easily the best 3D method I've seen so far. But in the theaters, that won't work.
Still, are these dark almost-but-not-quite-sunglasses the best way that Hollywood and James Cameron's money could find? I've seen Crayola coloring books with 3D glasses that were clear and undimming, with the only problem maybe being a sort of chromatic aberration. Would that not work in a theater? At all? With "Cave," I ended up taking my glasses off during interviews and less 3D-ish shots just so my eyes could relax.
I think "Drive Angry" would have been fun to see in 3D; it's always a little sad to see things coming towards you knowing that it was supposed to pop off the screen. I was eager for "The Adventures of Tintin" in 3D. After all, it's Spielberg; he surely must have some good ideas for it. But hearing about and seeing the "noir" look in the film, I think I'll go for the cheaper tickets. I'm still eager for Wim Wenders' "Pina;" the trailer looks bright enough. I'm waiting to see how the trailer for Scorsese's "Hugo Cabret" looks, and I'm waiting to see if Neveldine/Taylor ever makes "Crank 3D." Most other 3D movies, though? If it's worth seeing, it'll be worth seeing in 2D.
As for dark projectors? Fun fact: In the "not-art" category, a lot of Sony's first batches of video game systems have mechanical issues; buttons won't work, pixels will be dead, etc. I guess this is just Sony being Sony. (For what it's worth, I've been to a couple digitally projected movies and live shows, and they've all been bright and clear. Thank you, Cinemark.)
Some of you commenters are clear cinephiles who know their stuff when it comes to projection, and I can claim no such level of expertise. However, what you say strikes home. People do believe the picture is crisper on an HDTV at home. The average moviegoer can't pinpoint the source of their visual discomfort or list many technical examples, but the feeling of inferior imagery is staggering at the subconscious level. I'm now thinking of the many times I've been blindsided with amateurish projection and how it has degraded the moviegoing experience, and it's no wonder I've had a harder and harder time convincing my friends (mostly film students) to pay the price of a movie ticket.
The day of the projectionist is over for me after this year. My theater will include all the 3D digital projectors with the moveable lens that needs to be manually adjusted. Problem is the movies will run on cue by a program set up to link with all the individual theaters. The managers I've talked to are as of now unfamiliar with how the program works or who controls all the digital screenings outside the theater. I would love to know what program took my job from me and who will be there to adjust those 3D lenses from a theater that is sharing both a 3D and 2D movie.
Oh, and they're for linking nouns to descriptors, like 'coal-black'. That too.
Being 15 years old and the key demographic for 3d productions, i feel dissapointed my the movie industry. However i think(hope) 3d is a fad, and will fade soon.
Roger, this is off topic, but I feel like telling you anyhow because it's relevant to my life at the moment. I had previously seen videos of you and Siskel debating the quality of Full Metal Jacket, and your position (paraphrasing) was that Apocalypse Now had already tread much of that ground, and tread it better. I wasn't even alive when those movies came out, and so growing up I had overheard references to both movies with generally the same frequency, so both existed in my mind as equally hallowed films of the Vietnam War. After I saw Full Metal Jacket, I was pretty impressed, so I cut you some slack, thinking there's no way you could have predicted it's lasting legacy in film.
I just saw Apocalypse Now for the first time over the past weekend (the misfired rapture being purely coincidental) and I'm so sorry I ever doubted you. I wholeheartedly agree that AN is a masterpiece, and while FMJ still stands as a good film in its own right, it stands in the shadow of a giant.
This might explain the terrible picture quality when I saw "The Kings Speech" (Odeon Cinemas, London) - I was dismayed at the quality of the presentation. I thought initially that this might be a stylistic decision on the part of the film maker, but on viewing the trailer online and phoning some friends who have seen the film at a different cinema, I was shocked to learn that the film is in fact bright and colourful. The Odeon cinema image, in contrast, was dark and colourless - indicating (I thought at the time) a projector bulb at the end of its life.
No wonder I prefer to watch films on a projector at home these days.
I saw Pirates:OST in 3D, and it is horrible! So if the best thing about your movie is the visual effects, why destroying it by making it half of the time like a blackboard and the other half ridiculously unrealistic.
The worst thing is, you can barely find a theater showing 2D version here in Hong Kong and Guangdong, China.
Mickey
Hong Kong
The cinemas used to be a magical place. Families actually used to dress up to go and enjoy the evening. It was an event. Now (without sounding too cynical--but I am) it seems to have evolved into glorified babysitting and distractions from boredom.
Some folks my age might care to remember this, but there is just something magical about the way a film makes you feel when all the right lighting (or texture) elements are in place; film grain and all. There is indeed, this textural "organic look" to the way movies used to appear visually on the big screen. Something I have an endless affinity for that (I believe) only certain people from my generation and the one's who came before can appreciate. People think I'm crazy but it is true.
With all due respect to the current middle schoolers and high schoolers who may watch their theatrical films downloaded illegally, or maybe on Netflix or an I-Pad; they just don't know what that's all about. I like my movies to look the way I described above, and I think you do too.
There is much talk of 3-D today, like a lot of people I find that it hurts the film sometimes rather than improve upon it. It is often too dark and murky. Much detail is lost. I enjoy the escapism of a visual palette that doesn't need "stuff popping out at me" to give me a good time. The visual interpretation is sufficient. I saw Kung Fu Panda in 2-D and loved it. The visuals really stuck out.
On the other hand I first saw Inception on a huge I-MAX 3-D digital screen and hated it. Not because the movie was bad mind you, it is a fantastic film but because I felt the image looked too clean. It's almost as if somebody snuck into my living room, stole my Blu-Ray player and just projected it on a huge wall on the side of a building. Not only that, the frame rates were too fast I thought. It gave the film a very digital/artificial look. I like the way film looks, it is at 24 frames a second. That's the way it should be. I've watched movies all my life this way. It adds a dream like quality that accompanies good art. When you use a digital camera from Best Buy, you can't capture art but real time imagery. If I wanted to go outside, I wouldn't go to the theater.
Can you imagine watching the Coen Brothers’ True Grit on a super crisp digital screen that was dim? Yeah, I didn’t think so. Don’t get me started on that Blu-Ray home theater 3-D stuff. But that’s another discussion.
Dear Roger,
great article. I often had to complain in theaters about the projection, but usually because it was not in focus (another thing that theaters care little about). I now have started avoiding 3D films because I find the effect annoying and somewhat ugly, and because it doesn't seem to gel with other stylistic devices -- it actually puts a limit as to how freely camera perspective, camera movement, and focus can be used at all. It is depressing to hear that it starts spoiling 2D movies too.
Here is another thought why 3D can prove self-destructive for the industry. At some point when 3D television sets will be brought to perfection, people will discover that most seats in a theater do not produce a good 3D effect in the first place. For example, people sitting in the front row practically have no chance to perceptually fuse the images because the binocular disparity is too large -- I suspect this is why so many people are getting headaches. Once 3D movies seriously arrive in the living-room, the theater industry will get in trouble.
I recently saw Water for Elephants in a large multiplex theater and noticed it seemed very dark to me too. Unfortunately that theater is all that is available to us 25 miles outside of Boston. And I might add people checking their messages and texting during the movie was a distraction too.
Theatre owners really seem to have lost their minds. Home theatre technology -- high definition screens and small, powerful sound systems -- is the biggest threat to their existence one can imagine, and they are pinning their fortunes to a fad that has always been married to terrible movies. 3D can't make a bad movie better, but it sure as hell can make a good movie a bad experience. With respect to Roger, I really enjoyed Thor... except for the fact that a lot of the scenes were so dark and blurry I could barely tell what was going on.
Roger is right that they've been busily digging their own graves by indifference to image quality for years, though. I remember seeing Ang Lee's Hulk movie on opening night, in the largest digital theatre in my hometown. This is not an exaggeration: we could barely tell that the Hulk was supposed to be GREEN, the image was so murky. A friend has complained about the same issue to the corporation that owns the theatre, and received no response. Bright images created by strong bulbs (and loving maintenance by a skilled projectionist) make all the difference.
I am a movie lover, the kind of person who prefers to see a new movie on the big screen as it was intended. If I had the cash, I'd be at the movies every night, not once a month (or several times a year, perhaps) on "date night". I am the demographic that theatre owners most covet, the repeat customer who'd rather be at a real movie theatre than watching a film on DVD. Yet they continue to drive me away with rising prices and declining quality, while on my modest home screen I can get perfect picture and sound every single time.
Dear Roger,
I always enjoy your posts about the state of cinema presentation and share you feelings on 3-D.
Many readers of your journal often complain about the quality of digital projection and the poor standard of 35mm film projection. I have worked as a projectionist for a cinema chain in Australia. As a enthusiast of cinema I imagined it would be an interesting and rewarding part time job. I thought some of them might like to know what it is actually like to be a projectionist.
The establishment I worked at now prefer employing many casual projectionists rather than a few full time qualified staff. The casual projectionist is typically a student planning to go on to better things and doesn’t really know or care a lot about film presentation. They are also typically under-trained.
The senior projectionist had been working in projection for 15 years. His initial training took six months. That is; working full time hours, fully supervised for six months. Starting last year I barely received six weeks training. Management were not prepared to spend any more money on new recruits.
The wages I received were no better than what the girls behind the candy bar earned and I had to keep track of seven 35mm projectors and one digital projector. The schedules typically called for as many as six or even seven of the projectors to be started within a single half hour block. A single 35mm projected will take three to five minutes to set up. If something goes wrong there is preciously little time to set it right.
In addition to running the films for the day a projectionist also needs to take care of “film handling.” This means making up and breaking down prints and changing the ads on all prints once a week. One has to be extremely time conscious and preform the work quickly. But the faster you go, the more likely you are to make mistakes. If a problem arises, (temperamental equipment or human error) there is no-one else in the theatre who is qualified to help.
As the policy of employing many casuals took off I found my hours cut back. I could have used this time to see free movies at the theatre but the new recruits were doing such a rough job I ended up going to a competing chain and paying to see movies there, where I knew they would look good. I felt sorry for all the customers who patronised my employer.
In short, it was a pretty thankless job and I became eager to leave.
The problem may be that head office identified their average customer as some-one who only went to the movies 4 times a year. People who visit theatres so infrequently are unlikely to complain. They don’t really know what their looking for and since they’ve already paid for parking, dinner and a baby sitter, they’re not likely to ruin their night out just because the movie looks a “little dark.”
Maybe the industry really is doomed.
Kind regards,
Antipodean Movielover.
It's too bad that shoddy exhibition practices are still so prevalent because when the new tech is used properly it's amazing and, depending on the movie, potentially superior. Lumping in the pointless, cynical post-conversions and premium upcharges with what Cameron did with Avatar is wrongheaded (and it's sad that even that movie apparently suffered from some lazy presentations because seen properly it was a unique cinema-only experience of the first order).
I've seen a fair amount of releases in 3D over the past 2 years and I can think of only ONE since the release of Avatar that warranted the treatment and was presented in a fashion that earned the premium charged and hoop-jumping of wearing the glasses. I've also seen a few movies in 2D in digital theatres (which also carries a premium charge) and have had at least one experience that was undeniably stunning relative to other, frequent visits to cinemas (2D or 3D, film or digital). It's the whole thing about your mileage may vary - in this case subject to the competence of exhibition.
The worst part about this discussion is the possibility that there is deliberate effort to degrade exhibition as cost saving measure (while simultaneously upcharging), which is only slightly worse than the rank and file incompetence one assumes is the driving factor. I'm reminded of when we upgraded home TV service to HD and being completely underwhelmed by the quality. It didn't take long to discover that our cable company was in fact degrading HD signals in order to fit more of them into their limited bandwith (to compete with the number of HD offerings satellite companies boast). You can guess which company that was, and whether or not we switched to satellite. Moviegoers will do the same, if they aren't already.
It's somehow very fitting that the best projectionist's name is James Bond.
Is it just me, is it just the contrast with the white background and general bright site layout, or do all the included images look kind of dull, dark, not-so-good?
Ebert: Smile. I mention in a footnote that I darkened those images to make a point.
My God. If it isn't bad enough that they're trying to shove 3D down our throats, now they're ruining our attempts to watch movies in 2D!
People have to stop being sheep, get up when they see that their films are unwatchable for preventable reasons (not merely by nature of inherent horribleness), and demand their money back. That's the ONLY thing that will wake up theater owners.
Oh, Roger, you've been my hero since I was a child, and you still are. You voice what I think, when it comes to movies. Two years ago I went to see Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince at the IMAX in London, after having seen it twice at the IMAX in New York City. I couldn't believe how dark the picture was. There were places where you couldn't see the expressions on the actors' faces or details of the set around them. My friend thought I was crazy. She didn't notice any difference, but I noticed it the minute the Warner Bros. logo came on the screen.
I hate 3-D movies. I find it completely unnecessary and something that panders to this generation's need for anything techonological. I've been going to movie practically since birth, and some of my best memories are seeing 2-D movies like Raiders of the Lost Ark at the Ziegfeld theater. No 3-D, no massive CGI. Great picture, great sound.
I've always felt that just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. All of the technology we have at our disposal, when it comes to movies, is not necessarily making them better. It's just making them . . . more.
I've had this, this is wrong, feeling in theatres all too often.
If it's Film projection, the bulb is often not bright enough. If it's Digital or 3D it opens up a heap of technology that projectionists need to master. Master, not fumble around with. It's not Plug and Play. Let's not even get started on focusing and sharpness of projectors. (these problems were all there with 35MM projection)
And it is so true that the industry needs to look at how their images are projected on the big screen. There is no Q.C. at the final stage of projection. Seems silly no?
I think about all the people I work with and have worked with, making movies, going through all that effort, only to have it ruined by someone not wanting to or being able to change a lens or bulb.
Could this be why home theatre is so popular?
Ugh...this is a HUGE issue in our household. At some point I simply draw the line and refuse to spend my dollars with a company that has bad practices. But I'm running out of companies!
The dimness is still an issue...but an even bigger issue is BLURRINESS! We stopped seeing films at Cinemark theaters after one film was so blurry we couldn't make out faces if they were more than 5 feet or so from the camera lens. We had long given up complaining about the blurriness...most of the time it never got fixed or did not get fixed until 45 minutes into the film. Often the house lights would be left on in the theater and again, not turned off until half an hour or so into the film. Complaining would get us our money back or free tickets, but we finally decided to skip that theater chain altogether and we started going to AMC for our multiplex needs. A farther drive, but worth it to take a stand.
AMC was fine for a while, and the blurry problem started creeping in there too. Then the dimness issue started rearing its head as well.
So here's the issue (laced with a question): When we see a digital presentation, it's often too dim. We saw a trailer for Jim Carrey's new penguin movie...and the title backgrounds were supposed to be stark white. They were medium grey.
But…if we go to a non-digital presentation, we often deal with blurriness. Is digital easier to focus for some reason? Or am I experiencing coincidence?
Also…why on earth do people sit like lemmings and just accept whatever is put in front of them?!?! I actually don’t think this dimness issue will be any kind of financial problem for theaters because people seem to be so passive about it that they don’t care. Isn’t attendance really up now? Why would they change anything if people put up with it? And they do. And what does that mean for those of us who grew up in darkened movie houses and yearn for that experience without the anxiety of feeling ripped off?
And lastly, is anyone else sick to DEATH of those flashing red dots? I’m told they are for the purposes of stopping bootlegging…but I notice them every time and they take me out of the film. The fact that most people don’t even know what I’m talking about when I mention those flashing red dots is all the proof I need that consumers are not attentive enough to care about dots, dimness, blurriness, house lights, 18 minutes of commercials, or any other out-of-place annoyance.
I’ll go crawl back under my rock now.
I have not seen a movie in a theater for well over a year now. At home, I control the brightness. I have a DVD that I can use to optimize the picture as best I can. It is no substitute for a competent presentation on the big screen, but those don't seem to exist anymore.
By the way, I still keep a CRT around for the standard-def DVDs. For some reason the newest 1080p sets can't display 480p as well as my seven year old tube set can.
I'm the manager of a theater in the midwest and we use the 2k Christies with the Master Image wheel filter sitting in front of the lens and when we're showing 2D we always make sure to lower the filter out of the way. The problem with a lot of these issues lies with corporate policies, when they don't let you pay your booth or floor people more than minimum wage you can't really expect to get too much out of them. But that doesn't matter to the customer, they just paid $10 to see a movie and are rightfully upset with presentation and customer service, especially with blu rays coming out within 3 months of theatrical release essentially killing a former vibrant second-run business.
The movie business is shooting itself in the foot from top to bottom, film companies try to maximize their revenue by bumping the home release forward forcing theaters to compete with easy internet piracy and Red Box. Their answer to all of this is forcing the theaters to throw down an extra $100k per projector so their patrons can watch some hastily converted gimmick through sunglasses.
Ebert: You put it in a nutshell. That said, apparently the 2K Christies are better than the 4K Sonys.
Let me get this straight, they go after the people for illegally downloading or copying their movies but turn around and screw over the people who actually pay!?
Other than the independent Cedar Lee theater in Cleveland (where the overhead lights always dim on time, the audio is always crisp, and the projection bright and clear), I have almost given up entirely on going to the theater. It's a diminshment of the art form to do movies in the family room -- and yet it's sadly superior to what takes place in movie theaters.
Seeing the rerelease a few years ago of "Apocalypse Now" at the Cedar Lee reminded me of what I'm missing.
We have an HD projector and white reflective screen at home for our TV. The result is a picture 15' from corner to corner, and so bright and clear we only go to the movies once a year, if that. But we consume movies through Netflix, on demand cable and AppleTV on a weekly basis of about 5+ a week.
Our home system is better than the hassle of waiting in line, buying a ticket, having my seat kicked, overpriced popcorn, listening to other people talk on their phone, and dark dim pictures.
I definitely notice it when the movie looks funny. I'm not sure that I have a good benchmark to judge against really, but even without knowing exactly what it should look like I still know when it looks wrong. It seems to me that movies are looking worse all the time. I rarely go to 3D films and you can just tell that the 2D films are getting short shrifted. The picture can be dim, blurry - somehow you can just see the digital-ness of everything. The movie was probably filmed on a digital camera, edited in a computer, obviously, then digitally distributed to the theatre where it is digitally projected. In theory this process should make everything perfectly lossless, but it is somehow noticeable to me and certainly lessens the magic of going to the theaters. It does indeed make one feel that their HDTV would be just as good if not better.
Incredibly informative. I thought I could dodge all of this crap by simply not attending 3d movies, but now I see that this isn't the case.
I wonder how long until film editors start doing what music producers are doing to adjust to the faults of digital music and altering the sound to the point of inducing distortion relative to what the analog version sounds like.
Being part of the generation that grew up during the peak years of analog media it's often hard to get a sense of whether the differences I perceive are due to fading senses (I'm 69), or factors like these. But I suspect that those of us who know what the alternatives looked/sounded like will all be like voices crying in the wilderness in our vain attempts to convince others as we go around croaking "My dear fellow frogs, this is not a hottub, it's a cooking pot."
Thank you for this article, Mr. Ebert. When I saw Bridesmaids last week, I knew that there was SOMETHING between the projector and the screen that caused the film to appear dimmer than it should. I wasn't aware of the 3-D lens issue, so I thought the fault lay with myself. Armed with my new knowledge, I can now confidently ask theatre staff to correct or reimburse!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems often that the same type of problem can arise with theater sound projection. I remember the scene in "The Social Network" in which the characters that Jesse Eisenberg and Justin Timberlake portray are talking in a crowded noisy nightclub. After seeing the film twice at two different theaters, I noticed that the second time around that I was barely able to hear what the characters were saying due to the volume of the background nightclub sound being almost overwelming. I would be surprised if anyone else in the theater would be able to tell you what Sean Parker was trying to tell Mark Zuckerberg.
I enjoy 3D most of the time (Beowulf gave me a headache, and Clash of the Titans was just terribly done), and I usually don't really notice the dimness. I have to say that I saw Pirates in 3D the other day, and for the first time I really couldn't see much in the night/shadow scenes. I don't know if it was just the way the film was made or if it was a projector issue, but it was definitely annoying.
I do enjoy a good 3D film and get a lot out of the experience. For the right film (Avatar, Pirates) it's a great choice for me. Regarding this quote:
After the weekend, David Poland of MovieCityNews.com ran the numbers and determined 60% of sales were in 2D and 40% in 3D: "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."
In my view, that has more to do with the fact that my cinema (Harkins-awesome!) had just 4 3D showings per day and a whopping 13 2D! They simply have more traditional screeens to show it on. That hardly constitutes a clear rejection of 3D.
I saw Avatar twice in 2D and once in 3D. I really didn't notice any problems in brightness, but I guess it was slightly dimmer but I blamed that on the glasses.
Before blu-ray, I got ahold of a digital projector and hooked up to a DVD player one weekend when we had family over. I felt I had the movie theater experience this way with Bruce Willis' HOSTAGE and a few others. I feel when blu-ray quality projectors come out and the price is affordable, theaters will be dead...as long as you have comfortable seating and a 9 foot wide blank wall.
This happened this past weekend when I went to see Thor (which you disliked but anyways) The whole movie was so dark it was a constant annoyance. The scenes shot in Asgard were so dim it was like I was slowly going blind. I prefered watching the New Mexico scenes because it was a bit brighter. This theatre doesnt show 3D films but I wondered because of the Digital Projector it was making the picture dark. It was a shame, I want a nice picture!
3D, nazi mindset, global rulers, foriegn bankers, drone politicians.
2D mentional, teachers dulling facts, dumbing down our future.
1 dimentional, flat culture, always taking, never giving.
Yes, thiis is the age of darkness and deception, money power over integrity, false leadership into followship of fools.
There's a reason why places like the Tampa Theater still get large crowds for movie showings.
Thanks so much for bringing this issue to the forefront, I thought it was my imagination (or aging eyes).
It's a no-win situation. If you go for film, it will more often than not be out of focus, out of frame, no sound, wrong aspect ratio, heavily scratched or all of the above. Digital avoids these problems, but you run the dimness risk. (Here in L.A., I've been fairly lucky on that count--I think, since so many movies are dark to begin with.) And that doesn't matter much to kids today--anyone dumb enough to pay $12 or more for the brain-dead crap that fills most screens isn't going to care about picture quality anyway.
But here's the elephant in the room that no one seems to have yet addressed: would the declining 3-D numbers be less of a decline if there were no upcharge?
The bottom line is simply this: Theatre executives could care less about the quality of projection on their screens, it's the popcorn sales baby!
As I've told many a theatre executive, people don't come here to eat your popcorn, they come to see the MOVIE and if you make it a miserable experience, they'll get their popcorn at Wal-Mart while shopping for a big screen TV.
Such short sighted bean counters. You can't make money if there are no butts in the seats!
I admit I'm not the most educated when it comes to the intricacies of film projection, but this is disheartening. I imagine the number of multiplexes far exceeds the number of truly expert projectionists, but you would think that the theaters, under claims of struggle and financial stress, would strive to provide the best experience possible to the moviegoers who open their wallets.
Those I know who are audio-video snobs echo the comments of those who say Blu-Ray picture and a quality surround sound system make the home viewing experience more technically appealing than a cinema in both picture and sound quality. After recently viewing The Matrix Blu-Ray on a Samsung 46" LCD HDTV, I'm inclined to agree. The picture was bright and nothing short of stunning. Even the sound coming through the television was quite good and I imagine would be stellar on a quality sound system.
That said, I still love the act of going to the movies, smelling the popcorn, sitting in the seats, sharing the experience with an audience. I can still recall seeing Return of the King on opening night, with the audience oohing and aahing and even cheering at some parts. It's hard to duplicate all of that at home. But with a job that makes it difficult to go out on weeknights, ticket prices at $10 on the weekends, a box of Nestle Buncha Crunch at a whopping $3.50, an oversized Cherry Coke at $4.00, a trip to the cinema is more difficult to justify. The knowledge that cinemas aren't projecting the films properly adds to that difficulty.
Now imagine your average family of four going to see the latest Pixar film, which would be Cars 2 this summer. With tickets, food and drink, that trip may be a $75 - $100 affair. And because a theater is using the equipment improperly, that family will be robbed of the brilliant hues and tones and details that Pixar generally provides. Fleecing the customer indeed. Might as well just wait for the Blu-Ray.
Look at the genre of movies that typically win the weekend box office. It explains why theaters can get away with poor lighting and projection with your average moviegoer.
Thanks for helpful post. In this week, I will watch "Kung Fu Panda 2" in 2D, and I will confirm whether they also use the digital projector with 3D lens in my town. I have been suspicious about this.
It's shocking that theaters seem so lackadaisical about the home HD threat. Why should I go to a theater that doesn't show movies in celluloid anymore, just glorified HD, and adding insult to injury, making it look like mud? And why aren't studios more pissed that their product is displayed so shoddily?
I enjoy what a movie theater offers that can't be replicated at home -- the communal experience, and sitting close enough to a superior-to-HDTV picture that it fills my full field of vision. However, if operators are just going to gouge attendees with ever-higher prices for a shittier screening, I will trade that for a picture I will be more satisfied by at home.
Ebert writes:
"Your best bet is apparently to (1) find a theater that doesn't use digital at all, (2) doesn't use Sony projectors, or (3) still projects light through celluloid the traditional way."
Roger, you forgot option (4) forgo theaters entirely and just watch films at home. This pains me to no end but as I film buff, I want to see a film in the best possible manner. This essay proves my suspicions about the industry now. Immensely sad.
With rising ticket prices, inconsiderate movie patrons, the proliferation of cell phones, the lack of "quality" studio films, etc... I'm much better off investing the money from tickets to into the best home theater possible.
Theaters are dying and their own management, with the studio's helping, are to blame.
Chris
People used to poor consumer-level digital projection at home, school, and work may be used to dim images?
Roger, I have always appreciated your efforts to improve the moviegoing experience for the paying customer, and your recent crusade against 3D is a mostly valid one -- I have, so far, seen only two modern films that effectively used the technology: "Avatar" and "Coraline." ("TRON: Legacy" came close.)
But I don't think digital projection is an evil. It may even be the preferred presentation for many films, given how many are shot digitally. (And a movie like "Toy Story 3" is a purely digital creation.)
I think there are many theaters whose managers still care. In the Chicago area, there are two all-digital facilities -- Muvico 18 in Rosemont and Randhurst 12 in Mount Prospect -- that deliver a perfect experience every time, and I saw a 2D digital presentation of "Pirates 4" this past weekend at the AMC 30 South Barrington that looked fantastic.
There's no reason the night scenes of Pirate needed to be dark in 3D. Yes, 3D eats light but the light that's left is the same level of illumination you would want on screen in 2D for a night scene. It's the day scenes that will look muddy and listless unless great care is taken.
The 3D presentation of films is simply premature.
A) We need more light.
B) We need higher "temporal" resolution--the 48 or 60fps presentations that James Cameron has talked about and that Peter Jackson is reportedly using on The Hobbit. If the benefit of 3D is that it's visceral then this will help eliminate strobing and other 24fps-based "artifacts" that don't respond well to 3D presentation.
C) We need more dependable and largely invisible technology. On the projection side, a digital projector should be able to read the information file of the movie it's playing and correct ITSELF for the right type of screening. This is completely possible. On the viewing side, cleaner, lighter, unobtrusive glasses or...hope of hopes...no glasses at all.
D) Letting the filmmaker be the only one who decides whether or not the film is presented in 3D. This will insure that an artistic or story telling approach that embraces 3D is present and will differentiate the film clearly from any cash grab conversions.
I think a particular irony is that Pirates 4 was SHOT in 3D and people considered it to be mostly flat with a few 3D gags, whereas the crowd I saw it with cheered when the 3D Green Lantern trailer (not shot in 3D) played. So beyond the technical there seems to be artistic choices at work that either help or hinder audience's reactions to 3D. (Or their cheering had nothing to do with the 3D at all.)
Roger,
As with many of the other commentators above, I am a former multiplex theater projectionist who went into the booth before the digital revolution swept up the masses into their current hysteria. I loved working at theaters and when offered the opportunity to learn projection, I jumped at it, even though I was paid nothing extra over the popcorn sweepers. I admit that the training was sketchy, but the person I learned from was another cinema fanatic and with her instruction I did the best I could. Luckily I was placed into a new theater (a 10-plex) with top-of-the-line Christie equipment (platters, lamphouses, sound & projectors). While there I worked as closely with our regional projectionist (a 20-year union member) to learn about cleaning equipment, building prints and fixing issues like misaligned shutters. After moving to Colorado I learned even more from a general manager who could have been a union projectionist. Things like changing the oil in a projector and other advanced theater tuning for light (bulbs and reflectors), sound (pink noise?) and screen maintenance. After 10 years of projection, I find it difficult to ignore presentation issues and have offered to fix issues for theater management on more than one occasion.
Today, if I ask about fixing the framing on a screen, I get a blank look and it makes me wonder how much more shoddy presentation I can take in a theater.
Just a few things to correct you and Ty on.
It is a very rare multiplex that has a projectionist tending 12 digital screens. More like zero. The only selling point for digital projectors is they can totally get rid of booth workers.
Don't blame the untrained minions at the multiplex for not changing the lenses. As James Bond points out, that requires levels of security clearance the manufacturers and the studios are not going to give to floor staff. DCI is about the studios having total control of the presentation. That Sony manufactures a projector that REQUIRES a trained service technician loaded down with secret codes to change a lens is strictly a corporate issue, which does need to be addressed.
As a small art theatre that will sooner or later be forced to go digital (DCI or Die!), I am truly appalled at the low level of presentation quality the corporate theaters deliver and the corporate studios encourage. The conversion to digital is going to wipe out lots of small theaters in the future. What it does to movies as an art form is something we should watch closely.
I already knew how much I'd rather watch a movie on my home system. After reading this entry, I realized how much I'd rather spend time on this website than watch a movie in a theater.
I went to a film festival in Birmingham, AL last year, and for the digitally projected films, it was about 50/50 chance of getting the aspect ratio right. The third time I went up to the projectionist, and told him the aspect ratio was wrong, circles are not elliptical, and he obviously had not the slightest understanding of what I was talking about.
Great article.
For Bostonians in particular, here's Ty Burr's follow-up article.
http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/blog/2011/05/projection_woes.html
In it, he explains exactly what projector is in which theater at some of our major movieplexes. I'm so glad Mr. Ebert and Mr. Burr are calling attention to this distressing nation-wide problem
Ebert: Ty Burr has started something.
Wow. Great article!
I think you've cleared up for me why I haven't noticed the darker film situation that you've been talking about for a while. Maybe my theater shows it the right way.
And, I always take my family to the 2D version now, even though we usually have both options.
I will definitely be looking up at the projection booths from now on.
Hello Roger.
I have to share your article with my friends and family. I hope that the opinion of an expert make them see things differently, because I feel like a freak when I go to the movies with them and I'm the only one complaining about the quality of the screen and sound.
Rarely one of my friends notes problems with the image, and more strange if someone pays attention to the sound quality.
Pirates, Thor and Fast Five have invaded all the good screening rooms in the movie theaters of my city. I had to watch 127 hours in the worst screening room with medium screen quality and an awful sound. What a shame, this is a very good movie with a great soundtrack but Thor 3D and Jack boring Sparrow 3D are pushing away other good movies from the audience. This is sad.
Thanks again for your article, always a pleasure read your experiences.
Miguel Ramirez, from Aguascalientes city, Mexico.
Roger, I am old enough to remember when our small town United Artists' theatres would proudly run the Projectionist Union's clip at the beginning of each film. It always reminded me that someone CARED about the films too. I remember the one guys from the Ayers, wized older gentleman, who seemed to quietly do his job.
Today it is a minimum-wage paid kid that is running around between other duties. And they don't care, nor understand - customers are nothing but a nuisance to them. I am one of those people who will get up and say something about quality. It matters when I pay upwards of $8/ticket and popcorn and drinks for my family, we are splurging and I want to enjoy the experience.
You are right again in bringing up how the movie industry is killing themselves. They have chosen to release movies within 3 months, so whether we show up and plunk down hard-earned money doesn't matter to them since they think enough people will buy the DVD's. I won't even discuss the stupidity of 3D since I don't like them, and the whole need to "use" it cheapens the product - not to mention the projected images.
I prefer movies in a theatre, however like many others, I've come to hate the experience since the projection errors are blatant, people's kids are not being taught this is "quiet time" (especially when they come into R rated movies with mom and dad), and all the morons with their phones. I hate that I go to a theatre early, grab my "sweet spot" seat and have people coming in late being twerps all around me.
I LOVE Alamo Drafthouse, and I wish they would bring their magic to Corpus Christi - I'd like to see a movie in the proper atmosphere. We love driving up to San Antonio and Austin to watch movies at their Drafthouses or even an IMAX. I'd love to work for them, they are making movies fun again - and presenting them properly.
Oh thank Crom. I thought my eyes were going.
I wonder how many of those folks who saw PotC4 in 3D only did so because there weren't other options (including "all the 2D theaters were sold out").
I hate 3D movies as 3D movies, and to hear that their technical needs make even 2D movies look bad is disappointing. I hope studios get the message that filmgoers are sick of this pointless fad.
Fantastic article. But you know, I'm just not going to drive all the way to the theater, deal with parking, pay for the ticket, wait to get in, wait through the previews/commercials, and then find out the picture is sub-par.
I'm simply not going to go. Here's hoping fan websites pop up in different regions with critical reviews of the projection (and sound) at various theaters.
The problem is that theater employees are no longer there to ensure a quality theatrical experience for their customers. They're there to make money for the theater by selling over-priced popcorn and soda. Why pay someone to sit in a projection booth when they could be in the lobby up-selling someone to the chain's useless rewards program?
When you add in the washed out look from digital color correction with under-lit films, it totally magnifies the problem.
I have a small kid. I only get out 6-10 times a year for "date night". It used to be a no-brainer: we take that time to go to a movie. Now, in between the quality of the home set and the high cost for poor quality product at the movies, we go out to the movies more like twice a year. 2 times! And the industry wonders why audiences are dwindling? We'd go a lot more if the quality of the movies and the showings were higher. A lot more. How can I be sure? Because we used to. That's why.
I went to see a press screening of The Conspirator at a theatre that had recently acquired a digital projector so it could screen Werner Herzog's The Cave of Forgotten Dreams. I remember exiting the theater in fury because of how dark the film was and lambasting the cinematographer and director for creating a picture that was impossible to see. What good is a film, after all, that prohibits you from really seeing the actors' faces?
I can't take back what I ended up writing (and I had other issues with the film anyway), but it makes a hell of a lot more sense now.
You should try watching a movie at the average multiplex in India. 'Bad' doesn't begin to describe the projection quality. It's still a step up from how it used to be before the multiplexes came around and the old single screen movie halls were still around. The projectionists used to mix up the reels on a regular basis!
3D honestly hurts my eyes no matter where I sit in the theater. I understand that the movie industry wants to innovate in order to get more customers and make more money (this doesn't make them bad people necessarily), but this clearly isn't the way to do it.
Everyone I know that saw Thor specifically went for the 2D. Not only is 3D more expensive, it is unnecessary most of the time. In addition, some theaters advertise a film on REAL 3D or Digital 3D. I don't know what the difference is and I would hate to pick the "lesser" one so instead I choose 2D. That being said it is disgusting that now the 2D can't even be trusted to be correct. This is why a lot of people skip the theater and wait for BlueRay.
*shrug* The movie industry lost me a long time ago because they made it very clear they didn't welcome my kind and barely made any sort of concessions for me: relegating me to impossible hours (if I work, which I do), limiting me to a subset of currently available movies, and only giving me a day or two per week here or there (if I am lucky) to see their movies.
Why? Because I am deaf and they will only grudgingly, GRUDGINGLY at best, show anything with captions on. I jumped onto DVD's the moment they started coming out and have not looked back. I have probably gone to the theater -- for movies I already knew the basic premise of -- four or five times in the last two decades.
So it doesn't surprise me the least to see they are screwing the rest of you by being too freaking lazy -- as they are too freaking lazy to educate their employees how to switch captions in and out -- to switch 2D/3D equipment around properly. Falling income motivating them to cut corners even further to try to squeeze out more profit? Good luck with that. It won't work.
Movie industry? Screw 'em. Let them sow what they are reaping.
Constant projection problems in Orlando-even at the art-house theater-have caused me to retreat to the safety of Blu-Ray in my home. I'm starting to wonder if I have EVER (in all my 33 years) seen how wonderful 35mm film can look. I may bother to see 2 films (at most) in a cinema this year. This saddens me greatly, even as it helps me to save money.
The one time in my life I've seen Buster Keaton on the big screen: 4x3 image cropped at top and bottom to fit 16x9 screen. His head was cut-off on the wide stunt shots. This was at an art-house theater that hosts a significant film festival.
The Dark Knight: Morgan Freeman (wearing a dark suit) was almost invisible, lost in darkness at the edge of the frame. The whole image violently shook and only the center 15% of the frame was bright.
No Country for Old Men: Out of focus.
Children of Men: Out of focus
Finding Nemo: Mis-framed
Don't get me started about all the audio dropout.
When I have politely complained, I have gotten nothing but arguments from the staff.
I can't think of another industry where this degree of failure is tolerated, even rewarded. If a restaurant undercooked the food 50-80% of the time, they'd be out of business in a matter of days. I'm a videographer/editor and it breaks my heart to see the hard work of so many craftsmen/women being ruined by poor-meaning amateurs.
Roger it's worse that you think. At our theater that rotating disc for 3D (The Master Image Wheel) spins SO fast it acts like an intake fan.
Over the course of weeks it becomes coated with dirt and grease from POPCORN POPPER emissions!?
It's unpreventable, the part can't as of yet be cleaned, and requires replacing the entire disc at significant cost.
The result is of course a filthy looking image on screen.
This is nothing, Ive been to theaters where the teen projectionist didnt know how to work his projector. I've seen movies with microphones at the top of the screen. People thought the director had done an awful job, when in fact it was the projectionist's fault. Movie theaters dont care about movies. Unfortunately.
Between talkers (bad), instant-messengers (worse), useless 3D (annoying), expensive tickets (ridiculous), and sequels (uninspired), I may go to the movies two or three times a year now.
This year I've seen The King's Speech in the theatre, and that's it. Everything else has been Redboxxed or Blockbuster Expressed on my 52" plasma or the 12-foot digital projector in the basement.
I expect that I'll see Harry Potter 7.2 at one of the local true IMAX theatres (non-LieMAX and non-3D, thankfully). Winnie the Pooh with my toddler. Maybe Cowboys and Aliens, but that's likely it for 2011.
I used to see everything. Now that I'm out of the habit, do theatre chains really expect me to pick it back up again? I have no problem waiting 3-6 months to see it cheaply and in comfort and blessed silence with no bloody iPhone screens lighting up half the room.
Watching movies at home will never compare to an ideal theater experience. Unfortunately, the chances of a theater experience being ideal are tiny.
I now limit my theater experiences to the annual Wisconsin Film Festival (where painstaking care is given to projection), and occasional forays to the Sundance Cinema we're lucky enough to have in Madison. Praise is due to Sundance--films always look great there. Your comment about "leaping out and zapping" made me think of watching "Inception" there last summer. It was truly dazzling.
I have a pretty high end HD projector at home. I calibrated it and was pretty happy with the result. After a while, the lamp started going (symptom is that the projector won't start), but I kept using it until it hit 2000 hours because I'm stubborn and cheap.
I then replaced the lamp with a third-party cheaper lamp, and, although I have no light meter at home, I swear the picture is much dimmer. The main calibration I had to do on the original lamp was a great reduction in "Picture" (white level). It was far less with the new lamp.
I wonder if the lamps that some cinemas are buying for their projectors are inferior product too? I could see some penny pinching going on when a chain of multiplexes buys them by the caseload.
In any case, I may not be able to wait for 2000 hours this time...
It's funny how when you first started posting about how you didn't like 3D, some people would say, "Roger you are behind in the times," and "3D is the future, you need to get with it." I would read those comments and shake my head, as just because it's "the future" doesn't make it a good thing. I am an adult and I really don't "ooo" and "ahh" because something on the screen looks like it's coming right at me!
I have been with you since this everything-must-be-in-3D fad started. Hopefully people will, just like they did with Pirates, ditch 3D more and more and those in charge will put an end to this. If they keep trying to force it down our throats, people just won't go. I have absolutely no desire to see a 3D movie, and I definitely won't be buying a 3D television so I don't have to worry about seeing it in the comfort of my own home.
Something I've noticed about 3D: I have one eye. While I haven't seen a 3D movie in a theater (I may eventually have to, because I have a 2-year-old son, but at this point, why should I?), I've seen plenty of made-in-3D movies at home, projected in 2D. What I've noticed is that I can generally tell because the picture is more -- je ne sais quoi -- rich, perhaps, or deep. Just as filmmakers changed their approaches in cinematographer when switching from black and white to color (usually to the detriment of the films, because they no longer relied on shadow for mood), it seems like they've done the same here; from a cinematography standpoint, I think it's a great improvement. But the fact that monocular me can tell the difference suggests that a lot of 3D has nothing to do with the actual 3D "effect" of having a split lens. Indeed, a quick review of trigonometry will reveal that two eyes are only significantly better than one at close distances, i.e., less than 15 feet or so; it's why I have no trouble driving, but really avoid parallel parking. The farther back in the theater you get, the more you've wasted your money on the 3D. It seems to me that much of the 3D advantage has to do with filmmaker choices that they could have made before they had the 3D technology (although, to an extent, it's tied up in the same rendering richness). So if/when 3D films die out, I hope the filmmakers continue with those cinematographic improvements they've made to push the tech (they can do away with objects flying at the screen, though).
Timely to see this revisited. My wife and I went to see Bridesmaids at a Laemmle theater last weekend. Laemmle is supposed to be "arthouse" so I assumed the projection quality would be better than average, but it was terrible. It really was the first time I truly noticed this point you often make about the brightness - the picture was so dim and washed out it was straining to the eyes to watch. I even gave the "dialing down the bulbs" explanation to my wife when we talked about it afterward! Did not know about this new affront to moviegoing. I'm among the many would-be moviegoers that would pay more often for a good experience, but in finding myself constantly gouged for a poor one now just "wait for it to come to Netflix."
This reminds me of the other blog post you wrote regarding Maxivision.
I was sold after I read that.
Not sure if I'll get an answer from you but I'm curious if since then, if you've heard of any developments on that front?
Perhaps if the POTC 3D pattern continues, the industry may relent and admit it as a passing fad? Then what's next? Will Maxivision finally have it's day?
I hope so. I miss the excitement of going to a theatre. I've all but given up on it and we just have movie nights with my bluray and big screen at home.
(sidenote: I just bought the Dark City Bluray copy and listened to your commentary. Great job. I cant imagine spending 3 days going frame by frame studying a film, as you mentioned you had done. Phew!)
I Googled it after reading this and came across a story saying Vue, my local cinema chain, have made a deal to put Sony 4K projectors in all their cinemas across Europe. Boo! Hope they make sure to set them up properly for 2D films.
Dim is bad, certainly. But no fine detail is equally bad, if not worse. Why spend $15 to see something shot (or post processed) at the resolution of my home TV set? About the only good thing that digital projection "may" bring is an opportunity to improve the temporal resolution: maybe we'll move to 48fps or faster?
Whenever possible, I try to see FILM-IMAX prints of a movie. There is one house here in LA that still has FILM-IMAX (not crap digital imax). I had the opportunity to see Inception printed to Film-IMAX. It looks pretty good. I also saw the Dark Knight on FILM-IMAX. The scenes that were shot on IMAX stock were breathtaking. It was as if a soft-blur filter had been removed from the projector. Crisp detail, finally.
The theater owners and movie companies are endangering their own future revenue streams by emphasizing near-term profit over sustainable competitive advantage. Their present trajectory takes them into a future where the theater experience is identical to the home-viewing experience. The only benefit left to the theater is early access. Even that may go away if independent producers decide to release their works via PPV, digital streaming and so forth. It appears that the theater chains and movie companies are just milking the dying theater system for the last money they can squeeze from it. WHAT A SHAME.
With proper technical standards and capital investment, theaters CAN provide a viewing experience that surpasses anything available to the (non-ultra-wealthy) home viewer. Perhaps even digital can be made to work right? 8K, 16k, 32K systems? Replace the reflective screen with a matrix of high density, high-power LEDs. Improved temporal resolutions?
In the mean time, I seek out the optical FILM versions of movies, especially FILM-IMAX prints.
I had the opportunity to see ShowScan when I was a young person. I had the opportunity to see numerous films shot in 65mm. I've had the opportunity to see many 35mm films printed to 70mm and FILM-IMAX. It now makes me very sad to enter a theater and see a film post-produced and/or exhibited in 2k crap. We truly are regressing. Greed for higher profits has prompted technological regression. I pay $15 and often see the equivalent of Super-8. And just like the banking executives, the movie executives just lean back in their chairs and laugh at us.
You would think that Los Angeles would have fewer theater problems, considering that so many movie industry people live here. Unfortunately, LA is just as prone to projection problems as anyplace else. At the AMC theaters at Universal Studios, I attended a 3D showing of "Rio" in which the aspect ratio of the film was totally off. A new projector had been installed in the theater, but they had not made proper adjustments for it. So the top and lower third of the image were cropped off entirely, along with portions of the left and right sides.
This underlighting of movies is precisely why I have not gone to the theaters in over three years. In fact, I have no plans to ever go see a movie in a theater ever again. I watch them at home, on blu-ray with my tv set to the correct level of brightness.
Blurriness. The main problem in projection today is that screens cannot seem to handle camera movement without blurring the image. Is this also an effect of digital projection?
...probably.
Roger, I'm always annoyed when I read you and other critics talk about how frustrated you are with audiences who would rather watch movies at home, so it's nice to see you acknowledge one of the impediments.
For a couple of years, I wrote for a website that sent me to press screenings here in New York, and it didn't take long to get spoiled by the experience. There are several advantages to watching a film as a critic that regular audiences don't get:
1. They're free.
2. Critics have more respect for the experience than the average moviegoer, so you don't get the blinking cell phone lights or inconsiderate talking.
3. Screening rooms are always more comfortable and the quality of the picture is often better.
So when I read a critic write about, often with a tone of superiority, how the at-home experience is inferior to the theater experience, I want to tell them they're not allowed to attend a press screening or film festival for a year. They have to see movies the way the rest of us do and then they should come back and tell me which they prefer and why. And if they haven't experienced a lot of talking, a lot of dim movies, and a lot of disposable income disposed of, I want to know where they're seeing movies and move there.
I'm not sure how many movies I've seen with poor picture quality. It was the worst during "Public Enemies," a film I didn't care for anyway, but which was so underlit that indoor scenes and night scenes were barely visible. I knew it couldn't be the film because no competent cinematographer would have allowed that.
No, actually, "Inception" was worse. I loved that movie, but half of the screen was out of focus.
I'd guess that maybe 50-60% of movie showings I go to will have no disruptions or noticeable technical issues. But when you buy your movie ticket you take your chances. A full-price ticket in Manhattan is $13. For me, that's an expensive chance to take, and discount and matinee prices are very difficult to find. Impossible to find at art-house theaters. I'd rather see clear, bright, detailed pictures on my 14" laptop without audience disruptions for $10/month from Netflix than pay more to get less. I don't even need Blu-Ray; regular DVDs and streaming give me a much better experience for the price than going to a theater these days.
If viewership has moved to home from the movie theaters, it's not a problem of moviegoers not respecting the purity of the medium. It's a simple costs-benefits analysis.
An article in Wired recently detailed the 'Good Enough Revolution.' Basic premise is that sometimes people don't want or need "the best," and the "good enough" is what ends up being adopted en masse. This adoption results (contrary to logic) in that product becoming the standard. (e.g. the .mp3 format, the inferior sound of which people have now started to PREFER over higher quality formats)
This only makes sense if we shift the idea of what's being valued here. If what's valued is simply to have (or have done) a thing, not the maximizing of experience one can derive from a thing, then quality becomes irrelevant. Tarkovsky or McG, there's no longer a difference. "Let's go SEE a movie" becomes "Let's go WATCH a movie."
If the average person valued the experience of seeing a film (as those who have taken the care and time to write here do), then I have to imagine a pristine and widely available theater-going experience would exist to support that. But it doesn't, so they don't. So they question is, why?
Honestly wish I knew. But to bring it back to that article in Wired, often Necessity is the culprit driving us away from quality, and towards convenience. Which would then also, tragically, make her the mother of Paul Blart Mall Cop, 3D, and Paul Blart Mall Cop in 3D.
That poor woman...
-b
Thanks, Roger. I have been noticing this and have been wondering what was happening or even if it was just my imagination. But I've been pretty sure it was a real change in projection.
Many theaters don't seem to be managed very well but I had no idea it extended to degrading the projection. I'm going to start complaining! Every time!
I knew I wasn't crazy. I've heard this issue talked about before, but I made the mistake of seeing POTC4 in 3D; I even complained to Sundance Kabuki on their Facebook page here in San Francisco that I bought my ticket under their "No refunds, no exchanges," policy before they added a midnight showing. They exchanged my Friday tickets for Thursday ones, but moved us to a smaller theater as well. Anyhow, my friends know I'm a diehard POTC fan (I am willing to pay even if the plot might be subpar - too much eye candy) and asked what I thought of the film. I told everyone the movie was thumbs down because it was SOOO dark. First the glasses are tinted, and for some reason Kabuki leaves some overhead lights on which washes out the screen even more. I expect more from Sundance since they've gone to extra measures to make the movie-going experience special (21+ over balcony bar and showings, tables between seats, eco, etc.), but I realize that obviously it's the equipment and production as well. I agree with the other poster that Pixar did a better than average job with "Up" to compensate, but when I told my friends who are more of your average moviegoers, and I don't think they notice because they don't know/can't describe what they're missing. I don't remember what movie I saw in the theater recently, but I noted that I love that physical feeling of going from a dark scene (say the night before) to a bright, daylight scene, and all of the sudden you and everyone else in the theater is awash in light. You have that moment of blindness as your eyes adjust to the light. Placed correctly, that physical moment can be a vehicle that carries your emotions forward along the arc of the film. That might be the moment that you take a sidelong glance at your date, and see a tear glistening from the light on his face causing you to snuggle a little closer since you can move the armrest out of the way. So let there be light!
What about sound? Is it just me or sometimes the sound is soooo loud it actually hurts the ears!
I'm far more positive about 3D than many film critics (though not about retrofitted 3D, which is an abomination comparable to colourisation). I am, however, greatly angered by the projection of 2D films through 3D lenses, and about poor projection in general.
As you put so brilliantly in this article, watching an expertly projected film is a joy. But it should not be a rare joy available only to those of us invited to specialist screenings: it should be the basic joy of filmgoing.
One of the best virtues of film is, or at least should be, that a movie is the same wherever it is seen. Were the world's best actor to appear in a play directed by the world's best director, it would appear only on Broadway or in the West End, and only a tiny portion of those who would like to see it would get to.
But when the world's best actor appears in a film by the world's best director, practically everyone can see it - and they can see it shown at the same standard as it is everywhere else. They are, though, often prevented from doing so.
We would not go to galleries where we could not see the exhibits as they were intended to be seen; we would not go to a concert where we could not hear the music as it was intended to be heard; and yet we go to cinemas and see films that are not shown as they are intended to be seen.
I've long been convinced that one of the chief reasons for this is that most people simply don't know they are being subjected to sub-par projection. (Why should they? Every cinemagoer should be safe in the expectation that the film they have paid to watch is being shown as intended.)
After this post, I imagine that situation will change. Thank you for bringing this to the world's attention
Pedants should be very careful to get it right when criticizing correct punctuation usage.
Standard usage says that 'expertly written' should be joined by a hyphen when preceding a noun, as it was in Ebert's blog post (it seems he has since changed it, and I would urge him to change it back). However, if it comes after a noun in the sentence, then there is no hyphen.
When I first saw the title of this entry, I assumed it was referring to cinematography, not projection. In recent years I've noticed that very few directors seem interested in the visual aspect of their jobs. There are exceptions, obviously; directors like Paul Thomas Anderson, Joe Wright, Tarantino, Linklater, Eastwood, Scorsese: they all make films that are consistently visually interesting. But they are in the minority. How often do you watch a big budget picture, or any studio film really, and find yourself admiring the camerawork? Say what you will about the juvenility of a film like "Kick-Ass," but visually it was one one of the most striking action films to come out in years, with a strong sense of composition and favoring long, smooth takes, as opposed to the rapid-fire editing that's become the standard for modern action films.
If you take this into account with the problem you bring up, of many films being projected flat-out incorrectly these days, you come to the heart of the issue: movies just aren't as strong a visual experience as they used to be. It's up to the moviegoers to remain informed and to speak up when necessary, or it's a problem that's going to stick.
On a sidenote, I just saw "Thor" last night, in 2D. I enjoyed it to a minor degree; I found the campy humor and often trippy visuals to be strong suits. However, it was incredibly cartoony, and I found it nearly impossible to take seriously. Most of the battles were absurdly staged and closer resembled an episode of Looney Tunes than actual warfare. From reading your review of the new "Pirates of the Caribbean" film, it sounds like it may have some of the same problems. You also lamented the disappearance of a decent sword fight in modern films. I think I may have a solution for you: HBO's "Game of Thrones." The best way to describe it in a single sentence would be '"Lord of the Rings" for grownups,' but that doesn't really do it justice. It's got a brilliant cast, including Peter Dinklage from "The Station Agent" (who's becoming one of my favorite actors) and Sean Bean (who in my mind will always be the best James Bond villain). The whole thing's just incredibly well done, and if there were one show on TV right now that I would recommend to anyone, this would be it. I know your schedule's pretty damn jam-packed already, and I know you don't generally like to spend much time on television, but if you happen to get some down-time and find yourself looking for something to do, check it out and see what you think. I don't think you'll regret it.
Any movie really worth seeing should be seen on 35mm (or 70mm, in those rare cases where applicable). In 2011, retrospective/repertory programming is a novelty anywhere other than the top five markets, in which you have to live to enjoy that kind of programming regularly. In 2021, 35mm will be a novelty anywhere other than the top five markets, where you'll have to live to enjoy that format regularly. (And 70mm will be consigned to an annual American Cinematheque event, to be sure—which will probably draw few pilgrims.)
For years and years, I saw at least two movies a week on 35mm. I haven't been to the movies in two months. Format transitions aside, moviegoing has become a joyless and even toxic experience. Typical audiences are comprised of too many discourteous monsters who will challenge and spite anyone who might hush them. Exhibitors and their crew don't know or care enough to get it right. Complaints about presentation (an opportunity for which is invited by practically every single foray to the multiplex), in my experience, are mostly met with indifference.
Cinema managers exist primarily to police their patrons, and respond to projection complaints with the smug, miserable authority of a clip-tie wearing McDonald's shift supervisor. "You're the only one who complains" is a line I've heard too many times to count—even in instances with a 15% focus deviation, or a standard flat lens absentmindedly being used to project an anamorphic image. And that sadly illuminates the only audience exhibitors and the industry real care about: the lowest common denominator. I recall a conversation with a regional theater chain manager, in which he recounted having attended a crowded showing at one of his venues and though he noticed significant aperture shadow, none of the 300-odd patrons in attendance seemed to care—therefore, why should his company?
There are too many people on this planet who are willing to spend $12 to see a DVD projected onto a 20-foot screen and are incapable of discerning the difference, and too few people like Roger Ebert, and those who've authored the other comments here, for the slope to remain anything but downward. And this template applies to almost every aspect of our culture.
I recommend that critics and other journalists of the cinema industry cease referring to a video projected in alternated polarized frames for left and right eyes as 3D. It's not 3D. It has no parallax (the ability to see different sides of an image from different angles). It uses a binocular illusion of depth, like a moving Viewmaster. This should properly be called Stereoscopy. A hologram is 3D, and if anyone ever manages to invent moving, talking, holograms, that would be a good cause to raise ticket prices. If critics cease referring to "3D" as "3D," it would be a gesture to the industry that no one is fooled.
(the Nintendo 3DS mentioned by another commenter is also simply stereoscopy. Move your head and you won't see a different side of Mario; the effect will just break)
Dear Roger,
Have you attempted to--or do you plan to--start watching "The Wire"?
It will probably go down in history as the great literary narrative of the decade. It is great in too many ways to count.
I think few would do it the kind of justice as you. Your insight, acuity, and passion will surely recognize how and why it is by far the greatest television series of all time--and more than that. The only great narrative that captures the tragedy of contemporary urban America.
This is unrelated to this piece (I agree with you on 3-D by the way!). I'm sorry. This is important. I didn't know how else to ask you this. For your sake ... watch (or, if you have, write on!) "The Wire." (I know it's 60 hours, but it's worth any 30 movies.)
Big fan,
Thomas
Thank you for your thoughtful comments, Mr. Ebert. I haven't been impressed by any presentation of a movie as much as I was at a 6-track 70mm screening of "Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom" over 25 years ago, at one of Toronto's largest cinemas. I think I paid $10 for the deluxe experience back then. I can't imagine walking into a multiplex today and watching a glorified video, especially whjen the potential to screw it it up is so great in the name of progress, where you spend more money at the concession for a bucket of popcorn than you do for the price of admission, which is sadly still more affordable than any major sporting or concert event, where a second mortgage is almost a prerequisite..
Saw a dreadful presentation at a Regal recently. The picture was dark and murky. The corners of the image barely visible. Sure enough, a quick check of the projection port glass revealed the image to be split into two streams of light. Management response was :It's not our fault. The movie came that way." When I mentioned that perhaps it was the lens, I was told "they're all that way" and as the manager made a quick turn to the upstairs door without so much as an apology, told I could go check any of the other auditoriums for proof. Most of the theatres were on intermission, but I did check a 2D show of Priest. It was also extremely dark (darker than the 35mm print I saw at a different, independent, theatre) but was also streaming through two small windows on the 3D lens.
I just quite my job at a movie theater because it wasn't quite what I imagined it should be, and frankly that made me depressed. The staff and management put more attention into concession with its newly equipped Ben and Jerry's stand then into the movies themselves. Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the proper phrase was, "Dinner and a movie," and that you weren't able to have your cake and eat it to, at least while the movie is showing. In my six short months they fired all projectionists but one, who in conversation I can assure you was miserable doing the trade in which he came to love. The majority of the projecting, or rather the button pushing, fell into the hands of incompetent managers who knew very little of cinema and had every right to complain. The very day this fiasco took place I wrote up enough refunds to make my hand numb. This is ridiculous. How are viewers suppose to love movies if the people running the theaters don't give a damn about them? And why should they? "The King Speech," was a damn good movie that was out for six whole months in the theater, while Harry Potter was there for about two. Which isn't a bad thing at all. But that's because they made near to a dollar off of each ticket sold for The King Speech, compared to Harry Potter which was a matter of cents. Let's face it, these days a movie like The Kings Speech is a long shot. A damn good drama seems of little importance to the movie studios, so why in the hell should the theaters care either. They make too much making America fat, which is a whole other problem.
Thanks Roger, you're right! One of the many reasons I don't go out to the cinema is that the picture quality is horrible; sometimes the black levels are crushed or the image is out of focus!
Home theatre can look perfect for those of us who desire the theatre experience. My friend from Chicago is one of the best calibrators in the business and makes his living traveling the world, tweeking home theatre setups. You would be hard pressed to tell the difference between a well mastered blu-ray (say, something from Criterion or the BFI) and film, except for the lack of projector noise:)
One of the problems you could tackle is the horrible quality of many films being released on blu-ray, which is the only way many people will ever experience classics like PATTON or THE STRANGER. Some studios vomit forth their catalogue while others lovingly ressurect the past, preserving it "as intended by the creators" forever!
Keep this in mind: for home viewing, black and white films need a seperate calibration than color, so most film lovers have never seen a B&W film properly! BTW SOME LIKE IT HOT and THE MISFITS look wonderful in high definition and nothing like digital projection when blown through a nice projector matched to a low gain screen.
I went through a digital transition as a projectionist. Installed was a fully automated system that ran off of a schedule and only required movies to be "built" on a computer. After my theater cut back hours for projectionists, it left 2 days out of the week that there wasn't one in the building. I had made a very stern point to move the z-screen and light doublers (two different Real-D systems) out of the way of the lens when switching between 2D and 3D movies. When I got back to start my work week, I would notice that 2D movies were showing through a z-screen or doubler (XL system). It would get brought up to managers and they never seemed to care or were too busy with other things to get to it. The picture ended up looking awful. This was never an issue while using film. Plus, as any projectionist who has worked on both the film and digital side would tell you, film is just more fun.
Where's the "rage, rage?"
Well... I can complain all I want but the idiots at the theater don't understand. I will opt to stay home and watch my big giant tv where the damn picture looks way better...
I saw Batman a few years ago and it was just dim..so was Toy Story 3. It looked better on my TV.
ugh... this sucks. doesn't anyone in this country do their job.
mickey
So, Roger, what's your prediction for the future of movie houses?
Thank You Rodger. This 3D craze has made me not want to go to the theatre anymore. This is coming from someone who has worked in the business and has seen a lot of movies in the theatre. I will check the next time I see a digital film in glorious 2D. Most of the time movies look better on my Data Projector at home. I repeat, I am a person who used to see a lot of movies in the theatre even though I have over 1000 movies at home on all formats from Laserdisc to Blu-Ray. Not now.
I'm sad to say that many people, perhaps most people, simply don't have the ability to perceive anything but the most jarring defects. Personally, I can't perceive any of the problems mentioned on this thread. The only way I would ever notice is if you placed two images side by side and I could do a direct comparison. I suspect that I am far from alone - hence the general sense of apathy displayed by theatre chains to this problem. Many of the posters here really are one-eyed men walking in the kingdom of the blind.
That said I am still angered by the foolishness of the movie chains and their self-destructive greed. I may not be able to perceive the dimness problem with 3d movies (I perceive 3d movies about the same way I do any other movie), but I know a pointless gimmick when I see it, and I sure do notice the extra cash I'm paying for this "feature" that no one ever really asked for.
I don't think you are going to win the war on image quality. But believe me, it's becoming increasingly obvious, even to people like me with such dull senses, that when it comes to 3d movies, the emperor has no clothes. We can slay the 3d beast by boycotting 3d showings of movies, proving to them that 3d is a fading fad and not the wave of the future. Hit them in the pocket books. It's the only way they'll learn.
When I was growing up in Torrance, CA, our area of LA County had maybe 15 screens. That's walk-in and drive-in theaters combined. In 2011, the same area has maybe 60-100 screens. Multiplexes sprouted up in malls throughout the 1980s and 1990s.
Given this vast growth, what made us think that these new screens would host films exhibited with thoughtfulness and care? There are only so many expert projectionists to go around. The kids in charge these days make peanuts, my guess is they aren't unionized, and they thus don't feel motivated to acquire any expertise. One might point out that they should feel pride in a job well done. That's something you either have or you don't -- most people don't.
There are two or three reliable screens left in Los Angeles: my favorite is the Samuel Goldwyn theater, owned by the Academy (AMPAS) and used to exhibit remarkable films from years ago, or recent films of merit. They use the best prints available (new, in many cases), they have real ushers, there is no concession stand whatsoever, and their projectionist and projection system are both the best available. I love that place. It's a pity there isn't one in every town.
But the multiplexes? I'll go to them occasionally, when friends want to see Thor or (the surprisingly good) Piranha 3D. Any blockbuster effects-driven movie that I wouldn't be disappointed to miss. But when I really WANT to watch a movie, such as Brick, or Let the Right One In, I can't leave my experience in the hands of the multiplex. THAT'S the reason I watch movies on my home theater system. I don't think it's better than the Goldwyn. It isn't. But I KNOW that it's better than the multiplex.
The new screens installed by my local art house theater (purportedly to accommodate their digital projection equipment) are even more irksome to me than dim projection. Rather than an unbroken screen surface, I am now looking at panels with obvious seam lines that distract in every scene but in particular turn brightly lit scenes into a festival of vertical stripes. The reflectivity of the panels is inconsistent, perhaps because they do not seem to be mounted flush one with another or perhaps they're inconsistent in texture? I don't know but it's as annoying as hell when the color of the sky changes 6 or 8 times as your eye takes in the full screen. When we complained in person to the theater owner, he dismissively informed us the future is digital. I love the movie theater experience and am happy to pay for it, but this has pushed me to the point of passing up any movie I'm not dying to see.
My wife and I do not go to cinemas to see movies much any more. We used to go every week – or even twice in the same week. But not any more.
There are several reasons for this, but one of the most significant ones is that the presentation quality has declined significantly over the last decade.
I think that the main reason for this is due to digital cinema projection currently being basically inferior to properly lit and projected film, and some of the theatre practices that make it worse (turning down lamp brightness, not changing lenses and removing polarizers for 2D presentations, and such).
We live near the world headquarters of a major theater chain. And next to that building is one of their theatres with maybe 16 screens. It is the closest theatre to my house. We went to see 300 there in March of 2007. The presentation was horrible. I do not have a problem with dark, grainy film – if it what the director wanted to show, but I have a big problem with the grain looking like bright, multi-color confetti. I also have a big problem when the few bright items on the screen that were meant to be bright are not so bright and have a green fringe on the left side and a pink fringe on the right side. There were horrible compression artifacts and stair-stepping on diagonal lines. It was just a huge mess.
It was a late show and after it was over, the lobby was almost empty. I saw a young man with a badge in the middle of the lobby and thinking that he was the manager, I walked over to him to explain my displeasure at the quality of the presentation. It turned out that he was, indeed, the manager on duty and I began to tell him the problems with what I had just seen.
He abruptly reached around to his back pocket. Not being able to see what he was reaching for and fearing that it might be mace, I stopped talking. He said, “Go on…” and produced a pad of Free Admission passes.
When I finished with my speech, he handed me FOUR passes and apologized that our time had been wasted. He said that he HATED that NEC digital projector (and its server) and that he has to deal with several customers a day who are displeased with it. He wished that it would fail completely and be replaced with something that actually works.
He went on to explain that they install and test out new digital cinema projectors there and the suits from next door come over and have a look. Unfortunately, if they spent any money on the projector, they usually do not want to remove it before it dies – no matter how bad it looks.
He further went on to tell me about a recent Sunday afternoon when they had that house sold out and full of sub-teen girls there to see a live concert (maybe Miley Cyrus) delivered via satellite link. A nearby thunderstorm produced a power blip an hour before show time. None of the other equipment in the building had a problem, but the server that ran the NEC digital cinema projector would not boot. Frantic calls to the server manufacturer in California went unanswered because, well… they were not in on Sunday.
They did not get it going until the concert was almost over and they had refunded every ticket. Lots and lots of very unhappy girls.
He and I spoke of many things related to digital cinema projection and its problems. But one, in particular, sticks in my mind. We discussed the REAL reasons why the exhibition industry was moving to digital projection: reduced costs from not needing to pay for silver prints or spend money to transport 200 pounds of film, and so on. But then he said that it was his opinion that the main reason that minute was to reduce piracy of new movies.
I asked him how that was working out and he said, “Maybe not too well.” He said that about a month earlier they had received their hard drive with Ghost Rider via FedEx on Monday morning before the Friday opening. He and the general manager had loaded the movie on a server and screened it be sure that all was in good order and then locked the drive up in the screen room.
On Friday morning, the hard drive was not in the locked screen room. Oops. They had to get the one from another theatre in town to open the movie.
I asked if the movie was encrypted on the drive and he said that he had heard that it was, but that he did not know for sure and thought that it probably was not… and if it was, it was probably a very weak encryption. He figured that when everything moved to satellite delivery with local storage in the server or projector, security would be much better.
I wondered aloud how much easier it was to stuff a tiny external hard drive in one’s coat pocket and get out the door with it than to somehow get out with five or six giant, heavy film cans. He said that obviously the Hollywood suits are not thinking things all the way through very well, or were relying on consultants who were getting money under the table from the digital projection manufacturers.
I asked if didn’t he think that with all the problems with digital cinema projection, more and more people would just buy a home theater setup and watch stuff at home and he said that he would buy one as soon as he could afford it. He also said that things had been skewing toward teens and twenty-somethings at theatres for a while and he thought that would continue and that Hollywood would pander more to them with content and that most of them would not care how bad it looked just as long as a lot of things blowed up real good on the screen.
Then he said that they would be getting some Sony 4K digital cinema projectors one of these days and that the demo he had seen had been very impressive.
Skip forward to June of 2009. The Hangover is getting some good reviews and we decide to venture out to the nearby theatre to see it a couple weeks after its opening. It was playing in only one house, and it was a small one.
Wow. It was dazzling. The white buildings and sand of Las Vegas were so bright and pure white that we actually thought we could feel the oven-like heat of that place come off the screen. There were no scratches, no splices, and no registration problems – so I was fairly sure that it was a digital projector. I could not see any pixels. It did not look like I was watching through a screen door like DLP things look. What magic digital technology could make things look this good? Could this be digital cinema projection perfected? Maybe I would be going to the movies a lot more in the future. When the movie was over, I stood up and looked into the projection room. It was a Sony 4K digital projector.
Well. Now I would know what to look for.
Not so fast, Junior Mint breath. What I later discovered is that almost no one working at a theatre knows anything about what brand and model projector is in any house in the place. And worse, I soon discovered that even the Sony 4K projector is not mighty enough to light up a large screen to the proper brightness or has the resolution needed for me to not see pixels on a large screen. It is only dazzling on a small screen.
Crap.
And now this 3D lens and polarizer stuff.
I guess that we will just stay home and watch things there.
I'm notorious for complaining and demanding my money back if the presentation is not up to snuff. I love celluloid projection, but I hate how woefully undertrained most projectionists are. Since most theaters went digital, I've noticed far less instances of misframed movies. Why this is I'm not exactly sure, but it's a relief nonetheless. I got a little tired of arguing with clueless managers who just insisted that the top of the frame is supposed to be cutting off all the actor's heads.
As far as dimness, I've also noticed less of it these days. I've got the Alamo Drafthouse now and great projectionists I suppose.
This reminds me of the death of HDCD and the proliferation of highly compressed MP3s: it seems most people just don't care much about audio quality, and the same may be true of visual quality. (I'm not one of them. I have a projector and screen at home with a sound system a multiplex can't get near.) On the other hand, I"m encouraged by the numbers for the latest Pirates of the Caribbean: die, 3d, die!
Movies are much more fun AT the theater. You can take a date out...try to get your arm around her.... Watch the audience react, or not react. Here a hundred people say how crappy, or awesome a movie was. After The Dark Knight, the whole theater clapped. You won't hear that at home by yourself. I enjoyed the wonderful "Insidious" AT the movie theater, hearing all the women scream and jump (and the men also!) I may have thought the movie kind of stupid watching it on a small TV screen by myself. Instead, the audience reaction realy added to that particular movie - it was a movie that HAD to be seen with a reactive audience.
If theaters continue the dim-ass movie train their on now, much of the joy of watching movies will be gone as theaters simply go bankrupt as everyone stays home. All to save the $17 that comes with dimmer bulbs!
I think the 2D movies look dark, to get people used to 3D movies. Not to sound like an old man, but when I was a kid, movies were events. Now, like the music industry, movies are becoming disposable. Name a movie in the last 10 years, people will remember 10 years from now. Don't say "Avatar", there is already people who liked it, but upon a second viewing, find it not so good. Where are the icons? Where are the really good, event movies?
Hi Roger. Great article. While showing 2D movies with an extra 3D lens is certainly deplorable, the problem goes much further than this. I went to see Thor in 3D with my family last weekend and was absolutely stunned at how dark the image was. All of the outdoor earth scenes shot in the desert looked like those horrible day-for-night scenes you see in cheap TV shows. The image was not just dark but also completely lacking in colour detail and contrast. It was like I was watching the movie through a grey lens. I know I have seen other 3D movies where the glasses did not seem to have this undesirable effect, so what is going on here? Are these modern movies not being brightened (compared to the 2D version) as they should be to compensate for the 3D glasses or is something else going on in the movie theatre? The presentation of Thor was so bad that even my youngest child noticed the problem. Is this a common problem when seeing a new movie in 3D? Are they actually presenting these with the same light conditions as the 2D version despite the need for 3D glasses?
The theater near my house is a new multiplex that opened about three years ago. It does not have a 3D projector, which confuses me. After reading this article, I now have learned to appreciate what they don't have. You can't make an error with a projector that can't do 3D to begin with.
Great article! Now, all these years of wondering if my eyes were going out are explained, especially in the case of the "nicer" Digital expositions being too dim. Last year, I went to see Flash Gordon shown at a local "Art House" theater during a midnight showing, and instead of a superior experience to my DVD, it started with sound and print problems. Granted, there's probably not much call for a nice new print of Flash Gordon, but I was saddened to have an experience less than my old school TV & standard def DVD! The economic factors and business practices are not unique to movie theaters; across the service industry, the practice of hiring cheaper, easily replaceable labor is rampant. People always get these crackpot ideas of about how to "save" pennies or whatnot, never factoring in the increased maintenance costs and lost repeat business due to their Scroogery. All they can see is that saved some pennies on their balance sheet.
Until the new technology, I have missed out on 3D. I am near-sighted in the left eye and blind in the right. When Real 3D came along, I was excited to see what all the fuss was about. To my severe disappointment, I find that I wasn't missing much.
I have seen only a handful of films in the new 3D process and I find it muddy and dark. I find that, unless someone holds something at the screen like a sword (as in the last Pirates of the Caribbean) or a spear (like Beowulf) it works, but those are brief moments. They add nothing to the film. I'll stick with good old 2D, if you please.
As for the brightness, films have always been too dark and too loud. I don't know if I'm getting older or the technology is getting too brobdingnagian for its own good.
It's not just the video that's better at home on a 65" TV with blu-ray. It's the sound, too.
I recently went to see a couple of movies at a new Emagine theater near me that I'd heard had luxuriously large seats, great concessions and a great experience.
Instead I had to get brutalized by sub woofers so load that even with my ear plugs in they shook my body, and it was literally impossible to hear half the dialogue because the subwoofers were turned all the way up and the speech so low we couldn't hear the words.
Not only that, the QUALITY of the sound was so bad it was worse than anything I'd ever heard before in my whole life. Even a Joe Walsh concert at Hart Plaza detroit that heretofore had been the worst sound I'd ever heard was better than Emagine sound.
There's just no conceivable reason I can see currently to see a movie at a theater now. Between the tiny seats and no foot room of AMC theaters, the horrible sound that requires ear plugs and still isn't safe to hear, and the lousy, grainy pictures, why oh why would I go to a movie.
Years ago I went every Tuesday. Now, for the last several years, there's no reason.
(stupid captcha deleted my post on submission)
I have never noticed the dim picture of a digital projection until I saw a movie in Milton Keynes, England at Cineworld Cinemas. I have never in my life seen a picture as bright or as perfect as then. It was a true wonder and it was one of my best movie experiences ever in a movie theatre. They also offered unlimited movies for 14.99 pounds a month with a 1.50 pound surcharge for 3d films. You get to see as many films as you want no matter the time or date. My sister (who lives there) said that everyone she knows has this pass and everyone sees a film once a week. It is constantly packed. Now this is how you run a movie theatre business considering so many theatres here in the U.S. are struggling or bankrupt. Now back in the states I have a hard time going to the theatres. It just isn't as fun as it once was. Even the theatre I frequently go to doesn't seem as good as I once thought.
It probably doesn't help that those of us old enough to remember films shot and projected on film are now middle aged, with less adaptability to darkened images and less ability to focus on onscreen text.
Like all teenagers, I sat and read in darkened rooms while older relatives switched on lights around me, proclaiming it would ruin my eyes. But it wasn't that I couldn't see; it was that they couldn't see. This all came back when I got my first progressive lenses.
Too bad those awful 3D lenses don't account for needed correction :) Instead they apparently spread infections. And ruin our moviegoing experience.
This is a fantastic article, Mr. Ebert. One can only hope that somebody important, in Hollywood or elsewhere, will put themselves on the line and make a public stink of this until NATO agrees to address the problem.
Maybe for your next article you could go into other major issues with watching movies in a theater today - like broken or badly mixed sound channels and patrons that have given up any semblance of respectful, polite behavior in the auditoriums.
And the real shame is that the crisp new bright digital display in your home *still* doesn't show pictures as good as we used to get from the analog monitors. The main problem (for me at least) is that any area of gradually-changing color shows nasty pixellation effects, and there's graininess on the edges of things. Horrible.
By the way, please start using a capcha that doesn't give you a new challenge each time you preview. Very annoying.
My experiences with movie theaters parallel those mentioned in Danny Baldwin's comment. In fact, my last experience trying to see a mainstream movie could well be my last, it was that bad in every aspect, from ticket buying to having an employee yell at me when I complained they were showing the film in the wrong aspect ratio.
I used the "mainstream" qualifier because National Geographic did tempt me into the local art house with "The Last Lions", but the impetus there was that there is no announced plan yet for a DVD release of that film. Any other film, I can wait for and be rewarded by seeing it on my own properly set up screen and sound system.
My teen daughter and her friends watch most of their movies on DVD or online (or on their phones). Their experience and expectations of a film are completely different from mine, since their delivery medium is usually in a setting filled with distractions, both within and outside the viewing screen. They are often bored with the notion of going to a large dark room and doing nothing else but watching a film for its entire feature length.
When I can actually persuade them to go to a real film with me - not a blockbuster movie, but a film that has something genuine to say and uses real filmic language to convey its message - they are blown away and talk about it for hours later. Unfortunately, at most multiplexes around here (we live outside the US), all we get are blockbusters, usually dubbed. And movies are expensive, even without the 3D premium ($17 for 2D, $22 for 3D).
So the kids stick to watching stuff on smaller, lesser screens - albeit perhaps with adjustable brightness and contrast - in a distraction filled atmosphere that can't help but diminish even the best film.
Can you imagine sitting through La Dolce Vita if you had the phone ringing, pop-up ads, Facebook notifications and friends talking the entire time? You'd be bored after ten minutes because the film demands your undivided attention. And if you did make it through to the end, you'd be wondering why the heck Marcello looked so sad about that cute girl waving to him at the beach.
My great-uncle was one of those professional, lifelong projectionists in California, proud of his work and very knowledgeable about film in general. The other half of the family were professional printers and newspaper people. There was a deep appreciation not only for the visual product, but also the finer points of technology behind it, and the influence of the medium on the message it conveys.
And yes, the assembly-line attitude towards multiplex showings and employees is one of the main problems - like most businesses in the entertainment sector, the only way to achieve change is through customer activism. It's always a matter of swimming upstream, but sometimes it's worth it.
I'm still working on getting that across to our family's next generation.
Fortunately, not only am I an optimist, I am also usually that adamant movie-goer you see marching up to the concession stand (there's never anyone in the projectionist's booth these days) to complain about an underlit screen.
Three years ago I received laser surgery to correct my 20/400 vision. The surgery was very successful, so much so that i now have between 20/10 and 20/15 vision. This has made my awareness of projector focus even more acute. Several movies I've attended over the last couple years have been really out of focus. This was most obvious the second time I watched Inglorious Basterds in the theater. My first viewing was in a high-end theater that projected a superior image. The movie subtitles were all crisp and clear. A couple weeks later I took my girlfriend to a different theater to watch it again. I couldn't believe the difference in quality. The movie was way out of focus with very blurry subtitles. Though this was the most glaring example, other movies have been severely lacking in the focus department. This has seemed even more prominent now that my vision makes the flaw even more obvious.
Two years ago I took my kids to Sherlock Holmes. This movie was so dark that I swear that 50% of the time you could not make out what was happening on the screen. I could tell that there was a decent movie there somewhere but it felt like I was watching the movie with sunglasses on. It was horrible. A while later, I rented the movie on Blu-Ray and watched it on my properly calibrated 52" HDTV and it was like watching a completely different movie. I actually enjoyed the movie this time around. I've had other experiences where the movie seemed too dark. For instance, I took my kids to Where the Wild Things Are and had a similarly dreadful experience.
It's hard to get your brain around what trying to watch a movie that is dim does to the experience. I live in the Seattle area and to me it feels like driving home from work in the winter where it's thickly overcast almost all of the time and it's not quite dark and not quite light. The sun is up there somewhere but it's been attenuated so much by the clouds that it's almost painful trying to resolve what you are seeing. On days like that you wish for total darkness.
It's gotten to the point now where I have decided to forgo watching movies in the theater. Why would I when I get a vastly superior experience at home with my HDTV/Blu-Ray/5.1 setup? The only thing that used to pull people into the theater was the superior image and sound. I don't think the movie industry can afford to degrade their product in light of home theater advancements.
I understand with the rise of Netflix and the Internet that Hollywood had to do something. It's ironic that they made their product practically unwatchable. I saw two or three 3-D movies and said to myself "alright, they tricked me out of a few bucks, no mas".
Sooo, right now I'm planning my next trip to the theater will be to see The Hobbit in Dec, 2012.
I view the 3-D era as a stopgap measure by Hollywood. It's the only way to look at it, it's definitely not a superior product. It'll fade away (pun intended) in a year or two and then I'm assuming Hollywood will
have more of a handle on piracy and Netflix. If not, we're all screwed more than we are right now.
I like this idea. The industry should endow an independent rating group call it something like "Good View". Adding some kind of metric at the beginning would help patrons see quality differences and educate the public. It could be coupled with an industry imposed equivalent to the "How is my driving" hotline number to call and report poor quality. Each theater would have to earn and maintain a "Good View" seal of approval. Then I could look up a theater's independent quality rating based on user feedback before I go.
As movie lovers, what are we to do?
I want to see a movie in a theater. On average, I see two or three per week. My high-def flat screen looks great, but it's not the same. Yet, theatrically, films are improperly projected. Audiences are disruptive. You pay a premium and are assured a terrible experience. (IMAX 3D screenings in Atllanta, for example, are $18 per person.) I wish I lived in Austin and could only frequent the Drafthouse, but alas.
To avoid the 3D lens issue that causes dimness, I can avoid digital projection at the multiplexes, but for how long? And if I do manage to find a 35mm screening of a film I want to see, odds are good that it will be incorrectly framed, the print will be damaged, or the bulb on *that* projector will not be emitting light at full power.
The two words that most resonated for me from Roger's article were these: "I despair." Despite everything I know and everything I want, I am continually tempted to give up the theatrical experience and simply wait for Blu-ray. I don't like to buy movies I haven't seen (I, uh, used to have a problem), so that means I wait 28 days post-release for them to emerge on Netflix. (And who knows how long that will keep up, as well, with the studios and ISPs conspiring to undermine it?)
Why is this so difficult -- so complicated? All I want to do is find someone to give my money to, so I can see a movie the way it was meant to be seen.
The key line here for me was: "But at some level there is a difference. They feel it in their guts."
After not seeing a movie in the theater for many years, I recently went to see Tron 3D and was so disappointed by the murky visuals but couldn't put it into words until I read this post. Even watching the Youtube trailer was a more vibrant experience than the one I had in the theater.
After paying good money to see a 3D movie "the proper way" and being so disappointed by it, I decided to stick with my at-home experience in the future and keep the extra money in my pocket.
It's remarkable that a struggling industry is not more aware of such a central issue - the customer's experience!
Roger, I greatly enjoyed this article and have several "amen brother" moments. Having had a son 16 months ago, my movie-going experiences are now few and far between. So, when this happens, you do feel cheated. However, in my experience, I often assume that the picture is dark for effect or tone and don't necessarily realize that the film was unnecessarily dark until I rewatch it at home.
The part that really bothers me is the Carmike Theater out in Morris, IL. This is a smaller, old school theater compared to today's megaplexes with the charms and challenges of smaller movie houses I remember in the 1980s. You can even still get in to see a new release for $7. The two most recent films I have seen there were Vantage Point and Knowing. The picture was noticeably superior being both very bright and extremely sharp. At one point, I turned to my wife and asked, "Is it me or is this picture really good?" Sh agreed. After he movie I realized that it was shown with a digital HD projector. The question is, if a small rural theater with limited resources can provide a superior picture, what excuse do the big box theaters possibly have? Unfortunately, the film industry is not the only one offer lower quality for higher prices.
The last movie I saw in the theatre was Star Wars 3. The sound was bad with the surround sound off and only the mono screen speaker working. The lighting was dark, even though this was before the age of 3D. And the print was indistinct because everything was computer generated and processed and had less resolution than proper film. This was the worst in a long series of degenerating film quality. I couldn't stand it anymore, got my money back, and haven't been back. Sure, I'd like to see a crisp bright print with good sound that is worth paying to see. We have to accept those days are long gone along with the loss of drive-in movies and 70mm prints. They aren't coming back anymore than GM will start making quality cars. It's the loss of an era because people don't care about quality and can't be made to care.
@Antipodean Movielover- Thank you for providing context for the reality of present day projectionists. I have been in the projection booth for nearly eight years (almost as long as I've been a manager), and presentation has always been profoundly important to me. Recently, word came down from our corporate office that we were to train floor staff for working in the booth from now on. While the employees we've trained have picked up working in projection quickly and effectively, it still has presented several issues and needless difficulties that wouldn't have been present had they just left those of us who have been working in booth for years to do the job we love so much.
Roger,
Once again you have delivered another superb look at what REALLY is ailing the movie business- namely, their misguided faith in 3D cinema and digital projection. While digital cinema does provide some benefits (no scratched prints, no sound/sync issues, easier building/removing processes), 3D is like a band-aid being applied over a lost limb (and since reading Mr. Burr's article Sunday after you posted it on Facebook, I've begun noticing the darkened light levels on even 2D movies coming from our Sony 4K projectors more clearly). While I have enjoyed many films and their use of digital 3D over the past few years, as a theatre manager it's clear that audiences are rejecting it. In our second weekend with "Thor" we asked for (and received) approval to replace one of our three 3D houses with a second 2D house because the disparity in 2D vs. 3D attendance was crystal clear (bottom line: our one 2D house had out sold all three of our 3D houses COMBINED).
The technical issue with Sony's 4K projectors and the 3D lenses is accurate. Unfortunately it will be several months still until the theatre I work at begins installing 2D-only Sony projectors so that we can put 2D films in houses that are properly equipped to show them without the dimming issues we currently face; another casualty of misguided belief in 3D. (Thankfully, we do have one NEC projector and one Barco projector with movable 3D screens so people in these theatres don't have to deal with the same issue as those in the Sony houses.)
That's why I just download movies.
I don't think people aren't going to the movies because the picture or sound quality is poor, or the ticket or popcorn's too expensive. I think it's because they have to "go" to the movies. The market has spoken, and it says it wants everything to come to it, available immediately. I know people who get Netflix because they can watch movies on some version of their "f-ck-ng phone," as David Lynch so eloquently put it. The "home theater" is often a mid-range setup at best--whatever's on sale at the Big Box, just a monitor for vidja games. No, the movie business knows it needs to find something that will convince people that they should make a special trip and sit quietly and do something at a specific time and place. Good luck with that: We're about five years from strap-on, wrap-around media/communication devices, our attention always on what we want when we want it, our Depends snug on our behinds so we can talk to everybody and see everything while going wherever--and stopping for nothing, not even Nature's Call. "Picture quality" is for people too old to peer into an iPeepshow. So have fun storming the castle, but I don't think anyone's home.
Based on your review, a friend and I drove an hour into the far western Chicago suburbs to see "I am Love". It was so dark and murky that it was impossible to see the coda shown during the final credits not to mention how grey the Italian countryside looked. In the past, I chalked this up to a cash-strapped art theatre owner unable to buy proper light butbs. Thanks for your explanation. I will mail a copy of this to the theatre owner.
Roger, grateful and belated thanks to you for showing "I Am Love" at Ebertfest this year. I finally could see the coda and go home to tell my friend what I saw and let her decide what it meant.
Last Friday, I attended a screening of Bridesmaids with my girlfriend. I got stuck in traffic and by the time I got to the theater, the movie had just started. I walked in during the opening with Jon Hamm and Kristen Wiig in bed - two people with light skin, in a well lit comedic sequence. I looked up into the auditorium, and could not see people in seats. The theater was so dark that I had to hold a hand rail and wander up the aisle whispering her name to find where she was seated.
I noticed a darkness to the image, especially around the edges. It was ridiculously distracting. I will do everything in my power not to attend screenings at that theater in the future (and have for some time, actually, having had problems with projection there before).
I am lucky to live in Rochester, New York, where the Dryden Theater at the George Eastman house regularly shows films in their intended formats, projected to the highest standards. I have seen older 3D films such as Andy Warhol's Frankenstein and Dial M for Murder at the Dryden, and enjoyed them very much! I have seen brand new films robbed of a larger release, like Southland Tales, or new versions of modern classics like Blade Runner, at the Dryden. I have also seen old films like Rebecca projected on silver nitrate. I was introduced to Three Women and re-introduced to Umberto D from the balcony of the Dryden when you visited us several years ago, Mr. Ebert. My personal favorite screening at the Eastman House was an original print of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre from the 70s - complete with bad spices, missing frames, lost or scratchy sound -the print showed a life of its own beyond the film, and made the experience richer for that. These are examples of films shown to those who love film and love to experience it properly.
Unfortunately, for new releases, especially mainstream ones, I am finding that higher ticket prices, in combination with rapidly
decaying projection standards and increasingly less considerate
audiences, it's more enjoyable and cost effective to wait for Blu-ray.
This means that I am deprived of the opportunity to enjoy films,
especially comedies or horror pictures, as they were intended - with an audience!
Add to this the obscene commercials preceding the film, and that's why I don't go to the movies anymore.
I find the TV episode format more conducive to character development. I defy you to name movies that approach "The Wire", "Breaking Bad" or "Mad Men" in quality of writing.
It's already almost summer, and I tried to think back to the last movies that I saw that looked bright enough. Interestingly, two of them, Win-Win and Cedar Rapids, showed at a theater with no 3D capability. Hanna wasn't bad, but it's hard to make a movie with bright scenes of snowscapes look dim.
Before that, I had to go back to True Grit and The King's Speech (a movie in which the acting overshadowed the brilliance of the cinematography) to think of movies that "looked like movies."
On the other hand, I saw a special showing of Casablanca, and it looked great. I was slightly disappointed by the fact that it was on DVD, but the movie was so good it trumped that.
First of all, I agree with the thrust of the article that bulbs are too dim (even in digital), that 3D pictures are often too dark, and that most multiplexes care not at all about picture quality or brightness.
I do have a grip with the article though. Simply saying that 60% of people opted to see Pirates in 2D doesn't prove much. To really understand this we need to know what percentage of screens (well, seats really) had 2D vs 3D. What if 70% of the showings were on 2D screens, but only 60% of viewers saw it in 2D? In that case 3D was in more demand than 2D. On top of that even with a 60/40 split the 3D version probably made as much money or even more based on the 3D surcharge.
Given that they grabbed more money per viewer for the 3D version and a significant number of people saw that version, they (studios and theaters) would be leaving money on the table to not have the 3D version.
p.s. As mentioned above, the CAPTCHA is terrible.
Roger, I've emailed my Carmike multiplex manager and his manager multiple times complaining about the dim movies they were showing, and I've yet to receive even a form letter in return. In addition to serving lousy tasting popcorn and showing films that are not properly lighted, my relatively new Carmike multiplex is often dirty.
Business must be good because they don't know how to treat customers who are still willing to drop $20 on a movie and a box of popcorn.
I used to go to a movie every Saturday afternoon at Carmike. Did it for close to twelve years.
Now I only go if there's a film that I think will be worth seeing on the big screen. And most of the time I end up grinding my teeth viewing it because it's so damn dim.
Count me in with those buying DVDs and watching at home now.
I'm lucky in that near where I live the AFI has a theater that at least has a standard. But everywhere else it seems they are moving over to the digital projectors. Do I notice? Yes. When the movie is dark and you can't seem to make out details it is distracting from the film. When the celluloid is bright and illuminating it adds that much more. I'm not sure if it will make the film but it can certainly break it.
I've pretty much stopped going to movie theaters because of ridiculously high prices and the fact that movies almost always look better in Blu-Ray on my home flatscreen. Movie tickets simply are not a good value.
Mr. Ebert:
Seriously!
Don't use HALF of a reference to a poem--especially when the other half fits your point so well.
"RAGE against the DYING OF THE LIGHT!"
...from Dylan Thomas: "Do not go gentle into that goodnight."
Ebert: I already stole that for the title of an earlier blog entry.
Great Article Roger. My feelings exactly. My passion for GOING to the movies is so much less then it was 30 years ago - and it's not just because I'm getting on in age. I've had "light" issues for too long a time now, and it only has gotten worse with the digital thing. Uggghhh......Roger, tell me what to do - including winning a $300,000,000 jackpot - for me to make MaxiVision 48 a reality.....just from what has been described, heck, that will make me want to go to the movies again.....with real enthusiasm.....
40% is hardly a 'rejection' - what percentage of screens are allocated to each format? How many regions are without 3d screens?
My town doesn't have a 3D theater - if I want to see a 3D film, I have to drive 75 minutes each way, over a mountain range.
I know YOU hate 3D and grasp at anything to 'prove' it has no appeal to anyone because it doesn't appeal to you (much like your stance on video games), but this statistic hardly proves anything.
You need more data, and not stuff you pull out of your a$$ like that completely bogus and unscientific post you did about Walter Murch's hypotheses (I won't dignify them by calling them theories).
For someone who writes about science as much as you do, you have very little grasp of actual science or scientific process.
Stick to reviewing movies - opinions count in the arts, but they don't mean beans in the sciences.
While I found Ebert's article interesting, his despair was evident. Your reply was a provocative call to arms. You, sir, are on to something. While Theodore Sturgeon once observed that "90% of everything is crap", it need not be so if we put our shoulders into making a change.
Roger,
Next time you are in Costa Rica, come pay us a visit!
MoviesInTheJungle.com
I love movies, but have lost my love of movie theatres. My modest home theatre is far superior to any movie house in the Calgary area. I'd be very surprised if any of the theatres here even employ a projectionist. The picture is always too dark or not focused, the sound is distorted due to blown speakers--it's outrageous. These days when a film that I've been eager to see is released in theatres I find myself saying, "Good. It's out. Now in 3 months I'll be able to buy the blu-ray and finally see it."
I've worked at a mall multiplex for nearly 8 years. Within the past year, we've installed one 2k Christie digital projector with Master Image 3D (which of course also necessitated a screen change). We're meant to be entirely digital by the end of the year, an incredibly expensive process. In short, hundreds of thousands of dollars are being spent on digital projection and 3D--driven by studios and distributors, not exhibitors. Instead of spending money training projectionists on presenting the best 35mm presentation possible--or even the best digital projection possible--the exhibition industry is blindly installing new technology.
This process has primarily been driven by studios. Studios make movies, and they make their money on movies. They want 3D because it makes them more money, and since vertical integration faded more than 50 years ago, studios have tried and tried again to control exhibitors. Only have one screen that shows 3D? Show our movie in 3D. If not, you don't get it at all. Show this movie, or you don't get our blockbuster next month. It's business--and they control much of the content in mainstream movie houses, and exhibitors either oblige or lose out.
In short, studios are making more money on less customers attending theaters--a trend they're just fine with, as they try to shorten windows between theatrical release and VOD and DVD releases. So who loses out? Theaters. They make their money on concessions, as is frequently noted. And who takes all the shit? Theaters. Even the ones with projectionists who care about the one thing they can control, but only to a relatively minor degree--presentation.
"A single beam of light means no 3D lens, or a different make of projector that doesn't have the issue"
I believe this is incorrect. A single beam does not guarantee correct projection with no 3D filter. There are other kinds of 3D filters/lenses which do not split into two beams. It is just as easy to leave the 3D filter in place for these other kinds of projection.
In short, if it's too dark, complain.
There are some uncomfortable truths here:
Uncomfortable truth one: The traditional business model for both the music and movie industries is dying. Technology has changed the way
consumers are "consuming" the product, and those industries need to adapt to survive. And they are not adapting fast enough.
Uncomfortable truth two: The music and movie industries are killing themselves with bad decisions. The movie industry is diluting the movie-
going experience with issues such as bad projection and TV quality commercials in front of movies. I don't mind advertisements (after all, I
love to watch movie trailers on a big screen), but make them more like 60 second "events", rather than advertisements that seem more like they
belong on television. The music industry took way to long to adapt to digital music, and wasted an incredible amount of time and resources
trying to put the genie back in the bottle (which never works), and in the process the RIAA also engendered a massive amount of ill-will by
behaving hostile towards their customers.
Uncomfortable truth three: Piracy is not solely to blame for the decline of the movie and music industries. It is a symptom, not the root
cause. Piracy is hardly new. People have been making copies of CDs, cassettes, DVDs, and VHS tapes for decades. Most people, I believe, if
you give them a way to conveniently and affordably obtain a legit copy, will do so. See as evidence the steady rise in digital sales of music
and movie streaming services.
Uncomfortable truth four: Convenience and cost will trump quality every time. Sales of physical CDs are declining, while sales of digital
music is steadily rising in exchange. The major digital music outlets, such iTunes and Amazon, offer their music now at 256k, which, while
better than the 128k they started at, is still not CD quality. However, while there will always be a discerning minority bothered by this, the
majority of consumers don't care that a MP3/m4a download is of slightly lesser quality than a CD so long as they can get it now, and get it
cheap. On average, $0.99 a song, or $9.99 an album for digital, which is notably less than the cost of a physical CD (typically $13.99 + tax,
also with the added inconvenience of not being able to go buy it at Best Buy at midnight after you just heard some totally dope song during the
late showing of a movie, and having to actually get in a car and spend that gas you just paid $4 a gallon for and take your lazy butt down to
the store and be subjected to lines and dealing with real human beings). This means digital projection is here to stay, regardless of any
quality advantages celluloid may hold. On the larger scale, digital is less expensive to mass-produce (it's just a file or a disc, instead of
miles of film), and easier to distribute. However, for the movie industry, this also means even the gullible masses will only be willing to
pay an outragous price for a second rate presentation for so long before they just go "eh, I'll buy the blu-ray and just watch it at home on my
HDTV and surround sound system from WalMart".
Uncomfortable truth five: The state of the economy is a factor. The cost of going to the movies keeps going up, as does everything else
associated with maintaining our standard of living. As this point, I would wager that for many people going to see a movie at the theater is
no longer an impulse decision. For my family, the cost of admission and concessions for three people (kids will always want something) means
going to a movie can potentially break the budget. There are several movies coming out this summer I would love to see in the theater, but my
family will not be seeing any of them. Just too expensive. We MIGHT spare enough money to take the family to see ONE movie this summer.
Uncomfortable truth six: The majority of consumers aren't concerned with the artistic merit of their entertainment, so long as it succeeds in
distracting them for a little while. I often hear the argument "if the music/movie industry would make better songs/movies, they wouldn't be
in trouble". I don't believe that is the case. More discerning consumers will roll their eyes at movies like "Transformers: Revenge of the
Fallen" and "G.I. Joe", but those movies delivered still delivered on the mass audience requirement of mindlessly entertaining them for two
hours, so they made a ton of money and both currently have upcoming sequels, which will undoubtedly also make fistfuls of cash. I don't think
the "quality" of the product is a significant issue in the marketplace, so much as perceived value. The more something costs, the more
critical people will become of their experience. Theaters are jacking the price, but are not improving the experience proportionately. In
fact, as Roger Ebert and others have pointed out repeatedly in recent years, the theater experience in many cases is actually deteriorating.
Of course, we live in the real world, where things are rarely simple, and as such, I realize some of these issues do not have readily apparent
solutions. Movies are costing more to produce, and the expense associated with operating a mega-multi-plex isn't getting any cheaper, so
convincing theaters to lower admission or concession costs or remove intrusive and obnoxious advertising that provides additional revenue is
unlikely to be a popular idea within the industry, and in fact may not even be possible to do and still allow theaters to turn a profit, so I
don't really see an easy way to make going to the movies an affordable experience again. Maybe a family ticket (four for the price of two) or
a "season pass" sort of arrangement would help entice people back into the theater, but since that would complicated ticket sales calculations,
and so many entities in the business get paid based off box office revenues, that idea is unlikely to get any traction, either.
On the other hand, some issues are totally correctable if theater owners simply cared enough to do something about it, such as making sure
films are projected properly and with sufficient light, and fixing issues with damaged speakers or sound systems. Unfortunately, too many
theater operators would much rather complain about their failing industry than to actually take action.
Roger,
Thanks for bringing up this issue. With your credibility and influence, perhaps someone will take notice. I think it needs to start with the studios and the distributors - and I think theaters need to be held to some kind of quality standards - or at least, there should be some kind of certification process, that if met - would ensure the paying public that the sound and image would meet some reasonable quality standard.
I'm currently on my third-generation home theater system (now with blu-ray and a hi-def projector) and nine times out of ten, the image I project at home is superior to what I see in the theater. However, I saw a film in Boulder, CO recently at the Century Theater, and I was blown away by the sharpness, brightness, and image quality - it looked far better than my home system. I had not seen a movie presentation like that in many years - and it made me realize how good movies can look, but also, how bad the quality levels have fallen in most movie theaters.
I think Stanley Kubrick once said: You either care about something, or you don't - and that is what makes all the difference in the outcome. Obviously, what we have here, are people in industry that just don't care. Why should the public continue to patronize them?
For me, it's always been like that. I have *never* lived in a town with a movie theater that was able to hold all the parts of the experience together at the same time. The rare theater that could focus the projector couldn't figure out how to get rid of ground loops in the sound system - or to even control the volume so that loud passages wouldn't be distorted.
They could get away with it when I was a kid simply because there were no other options for watching movies at home save to wait for them to appear on network television.
From the perspective of *this* casual moviegoer, not much has changed with the advent of digital projectors and 3D. Movie theaters were killing themselves in the 1970s with bad sound, dim images, out-of-focus projectors, and sticky floors - only they didn't realize it since home theater was practically nonexistent. Fast-forward to 2011 and causal moviegoers like me can enjoy bright, focused high definition pictures and clear multichannel surround sound without leaving the house.
Ebert says:
"I can't tell you how many comments on my blog have informed me that the writers enjoy a "better picture" at home on their big-screen TVs with Blu-ray discs. This should not be true."
It has been so ever since the days of laserdiscs and standard definition televisions for some of us. (Theaters in less-populated areas have always been horrible ... at least, from my limited perspective.)
"If as much attention were paid to exhibition as to marketing, that would be an investment in the future. People would fall back in love with the movies."
I think I'd have agreed with that statement if this conversation were going in in 1975. As you say, movie theaters rebounded from the threat of television and radio. But today? Interactive media - on top of all the other media outlets folks have in 2011 - might be too potent an adversary for the traditional movie theater.
Roger--You've performed a service to cinephiles (and the industry as well if they have the insight to realize it) with this post on image quality. I had the great good fortune to strike up a wonderful acquaintance with John Norton, who was a Vice President at the now-gone General Cinema Corporation. He was an executive who would go to bat for good theatrical presentation and made GCC a leader in THX, Kodak-approved projection, and qualty speaker systems, like the HPS-4000. There were no dim bulbs if John Norton had anything to say about it. I learned much from him, and we can only hope exhibitors get more like him. The state of theatrical presentations is really sad today. Again, thanks for bringing us up to speed.
Our national movement Art House Convergence, bands art houses around the nation together to discuss these important issues. The AHC looks to experts like Chapin Cutler to guide us through these transitions and ensure customer experience remains first and foremost. Bricks and mortar art houses depend on community support and our communities demand great presentation. We thank Chapin for his support and hope to be able to filter though the challenges ahead by knowing that individuals like those who have commented here on your story are supportive of their local art house presenters.
Let's keep talking about who's benefiting most, and whether or not presentation in the end will suffer and whether expectations from our consumers and supporters will in fact lessen with such demands for digital cinema as a delivery system.
I operate seven art house screens exclusive to American independent, international and documentary cinema, bolstered by genre, repertory and re-issue screenings and programs. The digital wave is of concern for a non profit specializing in the exhibition of cinema and the art house can only hedge our bets for so long before our content providers (distributors) will be following industry and for-profit trends that will force our exhibition equipment switch-over. Find us on the web at arthouseconvergence dot org and if you have a local art house in your city, become a member or supporter or simply attend movies at their theaters.
from those of use who love movies.
I really hate capitalism.
Mr. Ebert, your mastery of the English language never ceases to amaze me. This is a superbly written piece, one that I'll be showing to every film fanatic I know. Thank you very much!
"less than half of the Pirates weekend gross came from 3D screens, with more opting for the 2D version." He attributes that to moviegoers being "cautious with their dollars."
I choose 2D and it has nothing to do with dollars.
I choose 2D because the awkward 3D glasses, dim screen, and cheesy 3D tricks detract from the movie watching experience.
Thanks,
Steve in Kanata
No. In answer to your questions, no. I simply don't care how a movie looks. I know other people do, but I don't really understand it. It's like when I read those letters to the editor in a magazine "Loved your cover. What an amazing picture" and I think "what are they talking about. Who cares what the cover looks like." I don't care if I'm watching a movie on my little old 13 inch tv or on the big screen 42 inch we got for the kids. I hardly notice. I'm not saying that this is a good way to be. But it is just who I am. I am interested only in the story, the acting. How beautiful it looks...eh...who cares? Yeah, I know. Lots and lots of people but not me. Never me.
I think big box theatres could work harder to make going to the movies a more personal experience. Right now it's as drab as can be.
If I want to go to a movie, I'll drive an hour to an international film series at a community college. At the beginning, someone makes a short announcement and says welcome.
I have to say, however, one fun movie experience at a theatre chain was seeing Twilight and listening to teen girls cheer and the boys boo and yell "stalker!"
Last film I saw in 3D was Alice in Wonderland. I hated the glasses and did not really notice the special 3D effects.
Granted, I am over 40 and have over 40 eyesight. As such. 3D does little for me. When my husband and I go see Pirates on our day off next week, it will be in 2D. Easier on our eyes, easier on our pocketbook. Sorry, greedy theater owners and movie producers.
I've noticed in the last year or so how dark movies have become, even in scenes that take place in bright daylight. Yes, I notice. I think if we could see a properly-lighted scene next to a typically dim scene, we would notice a huge difference. Imagine going to a museum and looking at a Monet through a sooty window. Who would put up with that? Why should movies be any different?
Thank you, Roger. I thought I was going blind! I really did. I couldn't understand why the movies seemed to be darker and darker....
Personally, I won't get up in a movie to go complain anymore. The only people I can find are high school students, and I miss something going on in the movie. I hate it.
My experience in the movies is reliant on so many other people who have to do their jobs right every time. If I rent a DVD, it's all on me--and that, unfortunately, is becoming more and more what I do.
The following is as much a confession as a point upon which to brag, but when it comes to image quality - I'm anal. I'm anal because I notice all "the little things" most people don't. Even a brief flash of peripheral light has the power to catch the corner of my eye akin to a fish hook tugging on it.
It doesn't take much to draw my gaze. And why you're not the only one who has noticed a drop in picture quality.
To Whom it May Concern;
I CAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE.
And I don't believe in enabling people to cheat me by way of supporting them in their efforts to. I don't believe in paying more for a thing, than it's worth. I should be paying LESS to watch a crappy image.
There are dozens of theaters in the greater Metro-Vancouver area. But I'll only go to tiny handful and even then, not without praying each time that someone doesn't ruin the movie for me with a cell phone (may you all rot in Hell, along with the parents who've clearly raised you badly.)
And so the last thing I have the patience for, is a poorly projected film.
And why I was happy to discover that I'm able to watch the following French import right now on Netflix Canada...
La Tête en Friche
(My Afternoons with Margueritte)
In fact, it's playing right now. I'm checking image quality. I can see Depardieu on the park bench, counting pigeons...1, 2, 3.... there's Margueriette... And albeit it's on my monitor, at least it's not a dark, muddy, dim picture. Nor a cell phone in sight - or worse.
Christy Lemire was with her husband (I believe) watching "Sucker Punch" in a cinema not long ago, and a couple seated in the row ahead of theirs, were "fornicating".
I can't wait to hear what's gonna happen when that Chinese 3D porno starts playing screens in North American...
'Sex & Zen 3D' to play in U.S. theaters
Once upon a time, back when people had standards, "coming soon" meant something entirely different, eh?
It's not only 3D and dim bulbs (of all sorts), it's also a basic change in cinematography. The basic "three point lighting" of films from the 30s up until very recently is now seen as "old fashioned" and the key light or rim light which was used to break up fg and bg are no longer used - often making the fg blend into the bg. I think this is the real problem, and 3D just amplifies it.
The going-to-the-movies experience has been on the downward slope for some time now. People chattering away like it's their living room; ever-rising ticket prices for ever-stupider entertainment; endless trailers; ear-damaging decibel levels; mobile phone screens lighting up all around the audience; absurdly expensive snack "food" from chemical factories; etc.
Now this: They won't even show a film properly with state-of-the-art equipment.
Just when you think Hollywood and its partners couldn't have any more contempt for their customers, they get amazingly creative to prove you wrong.
3D movies make me sick. Literally. Motion sickness. So the likelihood of me spending money to see one is somewhere below nil. If the 2D movie I've paid to see is dark and murky because someone can't be arsed to change a filter, then I guess I'll be spending a whole lot less money by renting the movie and watching it at home. Simple, from the consumer's point of view.
"The newspaper found dark images on eight of the 19 screens at the high-end AMC Loews Boston Common on Tremont Street."
I'm not surprised. I had the same problem when I went to the AMC theaters for the Seattle International Film Festival last year. Only the first film I saw there looked bright enough, and one of the other films (Last Train Home) had the director IN ATTENDANCE. That is one reason why I'm sticking to Landmark Theatres and SIFF Cinema this year. They occasionally have hiccups, as well, but at least they know how to project their films.
SIFF organizers, if you're reading this, you might want to check on the brightness level of the films this year at AMC. If they're still dimming the bulbs, maybe they shouldn't be included in next year's festival.
My two blog posts that mention dimness:
http://litdreamer.wordpress.com/2010/06/17/siff-week-three-last-train-home-chinacanada-quebec-2009-87-mins/
(start reading from "One caveat")
http://litdreamer.wordpress.com/2010/06/17/siff-week-three-last-train-home-chinacanada-quebec-2009-87-mins/
(start reading from "Another caveat")
Count me in with those who would rather watch at home.
Better picture, sound, environment, and selection of titles.
The ability to pause, rewatch a great scene, smoke, drink, eat affordable food, get affectionate with my date without making a spectacle of myself, go straight to bed after it's over and browse IMDB if I get curious about something.
No idiots talking to each other or on their cell phones or kicking the back of my chair, or crying babies, or missing the beginning by getting to the theater late, or a dozen trailers and commercials if I get there early.
As someone else pointed out, Roger, you're spoiled by critic screenings. Do you remember what it was like to watch a movie in public?
Hi Tom. I appreciated your comment.
I came of age in the late 70's with my high school job being a cinema usher in a General Cinema Co. two-screen theater in a mall. Great job. Good company.
I was a star-struck kid, and the stars were the projectionists. They seemed like professionals with a craft. Not a lot of people got into the booth to see them work. The door was locked. You had to earn their respect to get in. And I wanted to get in. Not only was it a mystical place, but they had Playboys in there.
Fond memories of those years.
I remember seeing movies at the local cineplex years ago. I had to position my palm in front of my face, thumb and index fingers extended, to block the glowing green EXIT signs on each side of the screen... they actually washed out the projected image.
Our local movie house shuttered about two to three years ago. Then, last Fall, a new owner cleaned it up (it had remained unoccupied) and re-opened it, with a promise to the community that he would devote at least two of its twelve screens to indie/art/foreign films. This was a noble goal but, as you might have guessed, things didn't work out so well.
At screenings, the sound would be turned up either painfully high (Jane Eyre, which crackled, the sound was so shrill and bright) or so low that audience members could be seen leaning forward to hear (The Illusionist). The picture would be crooked (Another Year). Large portions of the film would be projected past the maskings onto the walls (Rabbit Hole). And on and on and on. At the showing of Of Gods and Men which I attended, the film was turned off before the epilogue (I still have no idea what happened at the conclusion of the film). Most of the time, the end credits are not shown. Furthermore, the house is almost always pitch black before a show; I generally have to wait several minutes for my eyes to adjust to the darkness, to avoid sitting in someone's lap.
The owner is rarely present. He has placed all of the responsibility for running the joint in the hands of an assistant manager, who is a sophomore at a local college (that is, mostly otherwise preoccupied, and very "young"). On the initial occasions when these screening issues arose, I would alert him, though the issues would rarely be resolved. A couple of times, he has offered me a free pass to another movie as consolation. He has done this grudgingly. They know me now, and most likely think I am "that picky guy who complains." I have never, ever seen or heard any other moviegoers take issue with the inferior quality of the projection or theater environment. This disturbs me greatly, as I feel it is a reflection of the general apathy of this community toward both the quality of its art offerings and the value of the money they spend to view them.
I have asked the theater repeatedly on their Facebook page if they are planning to book Malick's The Tree of Life. They never respond. I am sure now that if they do, and if I pay to go see the film there, I will only get angered by the sloppy care with which they present the film (as stated, their track record has proven to be abominable). I am thus planning to travel out of state to an independent cinema 3 1/2 hours away (the Belcourt in Nashville) to see it, where I know it will be presented professionally. Is this crazy? Am I?
Meanwhile, the indie/art/foreign film pledge seems to be eroding. The rule of thumb now seems to be to double-up houses with Madea films, family-friendly animated films, and slasher franchises. All of the films currently booked there are the same consumer-based "product" found at one's average mall multiplex.
I am so disappointed.
I was spoiled by the Brattle Theatre in Cambridge, Mass. in my formative cinema-watching years, but I have pretty well decided that it is easier on my psyche to just wait several months until the blu-ray is released, and watch it on my HD screen. Not the preferred method, but it seems that, until there are some dramatic changes at this theater, I no longer have an attractive choice.
Bummed Out in Birmingham
To me this issue is analogous to a larger problem in American culture, and that is our propensity to accept mediocrity.
It's at Wal-Mart with their shoddy products (many not even made in America). It's the loudness war in music production. It's in crappy cars and poorly constructed houses and big box stores collapsing at the first sight of a tornado. It's poorly written films mishandled by short sighted studio executives. Shoddy clothes. Manufactured food. News-as-entertainment on the cable networks. It's everywhere, and the reason it happens is because it increases profits for corporations and because they know we as consumers accept it.
The only way to force out this type of practice is to vote with your dollars. Don't go see crappy films on crappy screens, don't shop at Wal-Mart, and buy food locally if you don't want to accept manufactured garbage. Because if we keep buying what they're selling, THEY'LL NEVER STOP SELLING IT.
3D only works if both of your eyes are close to equivalent in vision. I am part of the 1-5% of the population that has amblyopia (vision in 1 eye is significantly worse than the other). For us, 3D is not an option. I couldn't see Avatar until a few months after it was released and it started moving off 3D on to 2D screens. As theaters move away from 2D, we are being left out of the film-going experience.
I do because I watch them on DVD, theaters are for suckers.
I've noticed a ton of theaters in my area don't play films in surround sound. All the sound seems to come from speakers at the front and the rest are just for show.
My first movie experience at the cinema was 'Honey, I Shrunk The Kids', and I was 6. I'd never been exposed to anything quite like it before, and yes, going to "the pictures" was an EVENT.
No longer.
This issue runs parallel with the MAIN issue: the end of all good movies around the turn of the millennium. The artistic wasteland of the 2000's makes the somewhat grungy 90's look like the Renaissance Era. Where are the English Patients, Schindlers Lists and Silence of the Lambs? Hell, where are the Terminator 2's that we still rave about for years and year after release? Avatar and The Dark Knight weren't THAT good... (Can we all be honest with each other about those films yet? Or is group-think still in effect?) What else did we get these last 10 years? Harry Potter and Pirates of the Caribbean- cheaper by the dozen.
Right now the movies playing near me (that aren't kids films) are Thor, Scream 4, Source Code, Insidious. They fall into the categories: yet another comic book movie, another sequel of a franchise from the 90's, another mind-bending time-line-twisting movie, and another hack 'em slash 'em. All of these categories then falls under the grander "beating a dead horse" category. And if I do choose to see one I risk putting up with poor sound, dim screen, and the feeling like I haven't really been to the movies at all.
Now an anecdote: Stayed home the other weekend and watched Apocalypse Now Redux on Blu-Ray with a nice bright LCD screen and my decent 2.1 sound system, lights out, no distractions, on MY couch, with MY popcorn, and MY beer, and MY cigarettes and had the BEST night at the movies in a long, long time. I was calling out to the screen and stood and clapped at the end. I was immersed and fully entertained and thought-provoked.
So yeah, I remember what a movie looks like.
Conclusion? You can't sell ice to Eskimos. There are no more good movies and there are no more good reasons to go to the cinemas.
There are those of us who love supporting theaters and go all the time, but the combination of bad image quality, lazy staff, and now $12.00 movie tickets (!) are just too much. I've reduced my schedule to seeing 4-5 movies a year, and that's going to only go down further as I invest more in my home theater system. I give up.
There's a comment back up there somewhere, where Sasha gives the Tampa Theater props -- and generally, they deserve them. But I mind me of a time a couple of years ago when they did one of their occasional rep stands of West Side Story. They projected it, apparently, on alternating A and B projectors... and one of them was *decidedly* out of focus.
I did go and complain, and they finally got it fixed by about half way through...
But you know who's finally to blame for all of this?
Us. Cheap, pinch-penny, buy-it-at-Walmart cause it's cheaper, *us*. Sure, some of it's the chain management, trying to profit-take. But movies have only gone up from $5 to $8.50 in my neck of the woods... since 1986 when I saw Broadcast News. That's not bad, compared to, say, milk, which has more than doubled.
If we're not willing to spend the money, we won't get what we don't pay for. In that same time, the minimum wage has *well* more than doubled, from, I think, $3.50ish/hr to $7.25. Gotta pay those people somehow.
(PS: "text entered was wrong" a bad error message if the Captcha is the problem)
No reason to panic just yet, the backlash against dim 3d has reached mainstream (thanks to you), and moviegoers are voting with their dollars at the box office.
Check out this review of 'Priest'
http://www.reviewsontherun.com/episode/10/93
What's really sad is that there was a short window, between the advent of digital projection and the arrival of 3D projectors, when overall theatrical projection improved. The first generation DLP digital projectors were mounted in front of the original xenon bulbs of 35mm projectors. They were a tiny bit dimmer, but the image was rock-steady (no gate weave), uniformly sharp (no gate to clean), and always perfectly framed. It was great. It didn't last.
Now, as has been mentioned, both digital and 35mm projection are usually unsatisfactory.
French film critic, Michel Ciment once asked Stanley Kubrick why he preferred 'natural' lighting.
"Because it's the way we see things." he said.
It was always difficult to simulate natural lighting and unimaginable if considering using only the dim illuminations of candelabras or oil lamps. Then there was "Barry Lyndon" which I saw twice early on. The first time I was impressed but clueless to the techniques employed. Not long after I saw the movie again, and by then was aware of Kubrick's use of a specialized Zeiss lensed camera to "photograph candle lit scenes in old English castles - by the light of the candles themselves!" Incredibly there was never any dying of THAT light. Au contraire, those scenes remain among my most cherished movie moments.
Kinda wonder what Kubrick thought of 3D. Can't find a word.
visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/interview
have you seen Season of the Witch?
they might just as well have put a dark bag over the camera...film has gotten so dark that you can't see a lot of it...
the whole 3D thing?
I come from a family of eyeballs that don't quite focus center (qu'elle surprise?) but in my family if we try to watch a film in 3D we have to close one eye and still wear the damn glasses...waste of time and money in my books...
that's why I watch movies at home...I can adjust the brightness and I don't need the 3D...altho neither helped with the likes of Season of the Witch...LoL
What about the other dimension? Sound is getting shortchanged too. When I go to the theater I have to bring earplugs with me (literally) because they turn it up so loud and have those horrible huge subs that drown out the mids and up during basically anything.
If you live in Dallas, Texas do not go to the U. A. Galaxy Stadium 10 operated by Regal Entertainment Group.
They have the worst projection of any Theatre in Dallas.
3D always gives me a headache 2/3 the way through the movie. Also, you can never really "enter" the world of a 3D movie and mentally leave the physical theater because the movie "comes out" into the theater. Suddenly, the person walking in front of you to get to their seat is no longer a shadow you can dismiss, but a being within the cubic space of the movie because awareness of actual physical space is forced by the movie and the room overlapping.
I am glad to live in LA and use ArcLights and Leammles; their quality is very high.
I will never forget the time I went to see Gran Torino in the Edwards in Santa Clarita, a conservative city north of Los Angeles, and they loaded the wrong movie into the projector - Bride Wars! Did that sold out house flip when the wrong title came up! They did switch the right movie in, only to have it burst into flames about halfway through the movie during a very tense scene, which was actually quite beautiful when projected and plenty bright.
Thank you for posting this information. There have been a few times when I've seen a movie that seemed dark. Naturally,if the theatre is digital projection, I assume the theatre is projecting it with enough light. Now, I will complain loudly if a movie looks dark. Fortunately, I don't experience that very often. My 'usual' problem at a theatre is the gate(is that correct?) is not set properly, so it is a bit too high on the screen--heads being cut off slightly, or too low, so there's too much headroom.
I sure miss the days of a THX certified theatre. Even in Seattle, the last THX theatre was not renewed when remodeled. I have raised a stink about it, but the new manager of the Cinerama says, "The projection technology is good enough so we don't have to pay for the certification." Bull.
This argument, while valid, is also moot.
Other than some specialty venues, movie theaters will be gone in 5 years or less, and that's because studios will realize how fast they'll be able to make a ton of money debuting movies on pay per view.
Charge $30 per home for the latest release, get 70 million homes worldwide to pay, and you've made more money than an entire theatrical run and later DVD release combined -- all in one night.
Great article, and pretty much directly transferable to a similar discussion about replacing musical instruments with synthesized versions.
This is an important part of the reason why we stay home and watch films on our large screen plasma TV with surround sound. I confess that I did go to see Avatar in 3-D Imax and the quality was brilliant, and the 3-D very effective; that movie suffers in 2-D because there is much less "dazzle" and the story lacks depth. But the regular theaters where I live are horrible; the last few times we went out the experience was so bad that we resolved to stay home. Typical problems: wrong lens on the projector, out of focus, too dark, sound quality distorted.
But current film making is partly to blame for the execrable state of the movie theater experience and the reduced expectations of movie goers. The "dazzle" is missing from so much filmmaking today. Even with beautiful actors, filmmakers hardly know how to make them look good and let them tell stories, and more importantly, so few filmmakers seem to understand how to use film cinematically! Movie theater films look like they were made for TV, with important scenes poorly paced and trivialized. Cinematic opportunities for story-telling, drama-building, and character delineation are squandered. Writing has been subsumed by marketing.
Being a projectionist myself, I can't tell you how much of this article rang true to me. I have completely agreed with your comments regarding 3D movies, and the continually diminishing picture quality in theaters. The absolute worst is a flickering bulb when it has been left in the projector too long, awaiting to be changed, its like watching a strobe light. I too always consider complaining, but I know that nothing can, or will be done to solve the problem, as its either under-trained staff, or budgetary concerns. The main reason why I will only watch movies at my theatre is because if the picture is not as bright as can be, and the sound is not in digital format, then I can simply go up and fix the problem myself. I was one of the few who screened Pirates of the Caribbean in 3D, and I could not tell you how much of a headache I got from the low light level, at parts I was confused about who was fighting against who. The only film I have seen that was worth the 3D surcharge was Avatar, every other film has been very disappointing, but I cannot complain too much, as I see 99% of the movies for free, so I am not what you would consider a typical customer. Another reason for the dark image has to do with the fact that when dealing with a 3D capable theater, when the 3D screen is in place, we projectionists are supposed to be changing the bulbs from a 2000 watt bulb, to a 3000 watt bulb so that more light shines through, but because of the short turnover between films, and because of how expensive the bulbs are themselves, they have not even been buying the 3000 watt bulbs, and just sticking with the 2000 watts, leaving a darker picture as mentioned. The nice feature about our 3D screens, which are Real-D 3D systems mounted to NEC digital projectors, is that its merely a second lens that can be moved in front of the actually projector lens simply by sliding it into place, so it only takes 2 seconds to slide back when showing a regular 2D film. I am one that will gladly sign any petition that comes my way to try and end this 3-Dimensional madness, for it has been nothing but an annoyance since the day they decided to tell us that this is what were going to want.
Sadly, the only thing this industry understands is the language of money.
A class action lawsuit is coming.
Just wait.
Nine a.m. Sat down at 7 a.m., 181 correspondences behind. Wound up reading all of these remarks instead. My favorite, Paul J. Marasa, "have fun storming the castle but I don't think anybody's home."
So! Moviehouses exist only to sell overpriced popcorn splattered with some micturate-looking chemical goo, red-dyed hot dogs and now even Ben & Jerry's (Hi, Ben. Remember Circular St. House?). This is no poetic irony, it's the iron-clad fact of the matter and has been for decades.
Sales depend on Consumer Units too insensate to recognize the badly focused pictures. Their bellies stick out from under unisex Wal-Mart t-shirts. The sound blasts high to drown out screaming Consumer Unit kids and their Consumer Unit moms on cellphone to their moms or girlfriends.
The Consumer Unit dads are drunk, stoned and both. They don't want any "think" movies. They want stuff blowing up so time passes quicker while fulfilling a wan sense of obligation to doing something, anything, with the family.
In swoops an enormous yellow box-office earth-mover with 40 foot tall wheels to scoop the tonnage out of these Consumer Units' pockets with fat-gushing belly-busters, anything featuring overblown muscles, boobs, butts and accoutrements that go "clang! Click! Whirrrrrr!" against improbable giant doodads or monsters that do the same.
VrrrrRRROOOOMMM, goes the Hollywood-industrial complex earth-mover, spatspatspatSPUTTER sput sput chuggachugga VRROOOOM, swoop! Consumer Units sucked into noisy expensive-looking phantasms, picture darkened to conceal cheap production values, popcorn-cum-yellow-goo belched out at a sufficient rate, Consumer Units' experience executed according to the American First Commandment, "Buy 'em low, sell 'em high."
It works great. Everybody's happy but that spoilsport Roger Ebert and his picky little fringe group. You know the type. They question things with these whiny tones of voice. They buy chocolate with names like "Lindt." If there's any beer in their fridges, it has names like "Stella Artois" or "St. Pauli Girl." Sometimes not even McDonald's is good enough for them! At least so they tell their friends. This has all been recorded. These are the last to buy chemo-butter popcorn anyhow, if they even will.
You know, Paul J. Marasa,, now that you mention it, I wouldn't storm this castle either. The technology is so accessible now that you can see and hear a movie better in a pup tent made of your blankies in bed.
All that's missing is the social experience. It IS a lot of fun to watch movies with people, semi-strangers and strangers, who like the same kinds of stories you do. Ebertfest is SUCH a good demonstration of that. So? Set up your technology and invite people somewhere besides those godawful industrial people-scooping bins at the mall.
Can it not be done? Why wouldn't it?
Great info-
I will cancel my opthamologist appt.
Really worried about my sight until I read this!
Now, about my acute hearing at the movies.....
This just reminds me of all the people who don't notice when their widescreen television is stretching a 4:3 image and making everything funhouse-looking. Some people think that's just what new TV's look like. Meanwhile I'm in the corning crying.
As a (semi-skilled) multiplex projectionist, I see the need to keep myself up on the technology. I run 20 screens a day and somehow manage to not have these issues. A large part of that is the projectionist taking the initiative to learn what they need to do for best picture quality. Every theatre who does not have fully trained actual projectionists has a company that comes in and fixes stuff. These companies are usually staffed by old union projectionists. They will usually Explain what they're doing in detail if you hang around and look interested because they care about the industry.
Of course, someone did mention the minimum wage issue already, but pride in your job is important at any pay grade.
That said, I work for a Canadian company and we (as far as I know) contract through Christie for all our digital installs at all our locations. Moving a screen/box out of the way is way easier than changing lenses.
I actually do prefer digital picture, when presented properly. Especially since it eliminates film scratches caused by idiots who dont care about their jobs. I'm willing to suffer through any digital quirks if it means never seeing a scratch or a splice again.
You went to see 'Madea's Big Crappy Wedding' and you're complaining about the projection quality?
I can understand why people flock to their big screens now. Movie theaters on the whole are atrocious places. But I can't do it myself. I hate being at home. It is never dark enough, never quiet enough (dogs, traffic). The movie is never loud enough because it is too loud for everyone else. And then there is the glare and reflections from all your house stuff. This doesn't even take into account idiots getting up to go to the kitchen every ten minutes to shovel food into there mouths or to the bathroom or to answer the phone.
I look at movie house like a kind of art museum. They show art, not always great art but art none the less. And when in art museum there is a quiet and respect as you look at the Picasso and contemplate you don't munch chips loudly and move on.
For me a movie house is the same way. There is a quiet, even amongst the laughter or screams or popcorn nibbling, and you just watch and contemplate. This doesn't even factor in the fact that for me a HUGE part of the experience is that at a theater the movie is larger than life. There just something magical about the fact that Ingrid Bergman or Russel Crowe's head is much bigger than your little skull in your little seat. That is where much of the films power and command comes from is the fact that the image is HUGE.
This doesn't even factor the in practical aspect that in a theater you can actually read the tile of the book Carrie Fischer was reading (a flame thrower manual) in Blues Brothers, which explains the flame thrower in the next scene. And course all those Tattoos in Momento.
I remember they were showing Avatar on the back of a plane seat on a flight I was on and I nearly died from laughter. Those floating pebbles - Oi! What a joke.
I have the same problem with music quality. They now kill dynamic range by loudening and clipping music even remastered "classic" albums, even classical music, simply to compete with today's music that is clipped and louder still. It seem all the arts as we know them are starting to die because the public is just uninformed and when they get informed feel like they have no voice.
It just makes me very sad to think of what young film goers are missing out on in terms of the art.
Thankfully I live in an area that has some good movie houses.
But a large sector of the populous I imagine does not nor can they afford flat screens and netflix. And the theater managers are not apt to do or change much because being they only theater in a 25 miles radius they can say, "If you don't like it go elsewhere." When there is nowhere else to go.
Your stats are lacking an important component. When you say that "only" 40 percent of those who saw Pirates chose to see the 3D version, this does not tell us anything unless we know the percentage of theater space devoted to 3D showings. If (these numbers are by no means accurate, but are just used to give an example) three million total seats (seats per theater, times number of showings) were devoted to the 3D version on opening weekend, and six million total seats were devoted to the 2D version, then 33 percent of capacity was 3D. And so if 40 percent of those who saw Pirates saw the 3D version, the 3D version did BETTER than the 2D version. On the other hand, if fifty percent of capacity was 3D, then you are right that 3D lost out to 2D.
I do agree with you about the inferiority of 3D. I used to enjoy the novelty of it. But as I've aged, I have come to find it tiresome. It hurts my eyes. Maybe because it's too dark, or maybe because of eyes don't appreciate the trickery involved into making them think they are seeing something real. Even early in a movie, before my eyes have started to hurt, I find it distracting.
"I began by asking if you notice, really notice, what a movie looks like. I have a feeling many people don't."
And I agree. Most people don't. From personal experience, the percentage of people who have their HDTVs set to the wrong aspect ratio is significant. Can't they see that everyone is squashed?
What's worse is it isn't just us ignorant masses who can't perceive an incorrect aspect ratio. Frequently when I am watching local news in Hi-Def, they will show a bit of standard definition footage -- and they will stretch it to the width of the screen, rather than block the sides so it remains in the correct aspect ratio.
Furthermore, browse the videos on CNN.com and you will find many that are in the incorrect aspect ratio. What the hell?
So yes, I'm sure most people sit in movie theaters not realizing that the image is too dim. But I'll tell you, they don't need to be conscious of the problem for the problem to matter. If one group of people watches an improperly-projected movie and another group watches a properly-project movie, the second group will enjoy their movie-going experience more.
You would think that would matter to theater owners. You would think they would want to give people the best experience possible. Instead of giving them crap and encouraging them to stay home.
I'm trying to make the phrase message of pottage make sense, and I can't. I assume this is some pun I'm not getting, based on the Biblical mess of pottage. Explanations?
TRiG.
Ebert: A mess of pottage: http://bit.ly/mJoCbE
For me, there is another reason to wait for the BluRay / DVD: Dubbing. I live in Germany and everything is dubbed and I hate it. So much is lost in translation, like the sometimes special accents actors learn for their role, or whenever they speak more than one language. I can accept dubbing for people who cannot understand English as a way into the film. But original version are hardly ever offered anywhere. On BluRay or DVD, there is almost always the original language track and proper subtitles.
So I don't go out much to The Movies anymore, but I have seen dark pictures and out of focus / scratched prints, too. And employees who have other worries than a good projection.
My father recently reinstalled an outdated speaker system for our family's main television setup. Ever since then, DVDs have been a pain to watch because I'd spend at least a quarter of the time adjusting audio output settings in an effort to keep the sound balanced. Imagine character dialogue at seventy-five percent less audibility than music and sound effects, plus random scratching. Not acceptable. We've also had past problems with flickering light.
So it can be said that I'm more than a little picky when it comes to the movie watching experience. Most of us reading your column are probably that way too because we love movies so much. And because of that, it's all the more baffling why I cannot relate to the ongoing crusade against 3D.
Virtually every critic (professional or amateur) I've ever read has made at least one negative comment regarding dimness in 3D pictures. Yet I have never experienced this for myself. I even tried extra hard to look for darkness while watching On Stranger Tides in an effort to understand all the negativity, but found the image to be perfectly satisfying; right on par with typical 2D. So this means either I have magic eyes that allow me to see 3D better than anyone or the vast majority of theaters are doing something wrong with their projections while my local theater is doing it right. The latter scenario is probably more likely.
On the other hand, I have experienced just about every other technical flaw in existence. Inconsistent volume settings, visible scratches, off-target projection...you name it. I've always been too timid to make any formal complaints to theater management. But after reading all of these comments, it's now clear that a wake-up call is needed.
Roger, thank you once again for your clear and concise explanation of what goes on with movie projection. I have followed all your posts/articles regarding 3D and appreciate the instructions at the end of this post. I will look for the double-beam. There are two things I would like to comment on:
1) If things continue in this fashion, don't the studios and movie theaters realize, by continuing this madness, they force more people to turn to other sources for watching movies, such as Netflix, downloads from said source or Amazon, on-Demand, DVDs, etc.?
2) I have yet to see a review from a Movie Reviewer telling me, or telling the general movie audience, whether a movie is worth seeing in 3D or not without having seen it and paying a premium? I think this will determine a lot about the success of this format. If a movie is up-converted to 3D, I will definitely skip it -- you know it's not worth it.
But how are we to judge if a 3D release is worth seeing in 3D? I am glad that Pirates did not do well in 3D. I am planning to see it in 2D anyway. But, as an example, how would I have known if it really was a good 3D movie?
Maybe, this level of criticism would help make both worthwhile movies and theaters better. And maybe, I don't know what I am talking about....
What kills me is how much work goes into making the film in the first place. They spend so much time on one shot, doing multiple takes from different angles. What is the point? They act like they are obsessive-compulsive or something. Not trying to put down OCD people, of which I am one. It is just that even I know when to move on from something. I guess they want to have different shots to pick and choose from in the editing, and do not want to be stuck with only one shot, like Ed Wood did. Still, too many choices make it harder, doesn't it? And yes, maybe there are some problems with a shot we don't see, but I think they could tell the actors and stuff what went wrong. I have done background work for three upcoming films-Friends with Benefits, New Year's Eve, and Men in Black 3, and they don't exactly treat you very well in that department-although they do feed you well-the craft on films could feed third world countries! I guess it all goes with the territory Roger. You've been on sets and seen all the hard work so you would know. For example, you visited the set of Barfly and wrote about it. I'm not sure how much you are into celebrity gossip about sets and all that since that isn't your job. Your job is to review the film and not take into account what happened behind the scenes, although you have done that in some reviews, like with Scrooged. As for 3D, I agree, it isn't necessary.
You the man, Roger.
Roger, your "cry in the dark" preaches mainly to the choir. The folks who could do something about it don't care. They're busy counting their millions.
One realistically doubts that exhibition will improve, as the profiteers make their money no matter the quality. To fix this problem they might have to forego that next Lear Jet or vacation home. Won't happen!
Sadly, we pay BEFORE the movie instead of AFTER. At least in restaurants we have the option of withholding payment for lousy performance. Not in the movies.
The 14- 24-year-old moviegoers the studios REALLY aim their product toward have no concept of exhibition quality because they have never seen it. I have a delightful great niece who would love to see "2001" or "Lawrence of Arabia" in 70mm on a huge screen, but I doubt she ever will get that chance. I count my blessings that I know what she's missing.
This less-than-optimistic assessment comes from a film lover who is tired of walking out to the lobby to complain about projection, three or four times in the same movie, to staff who cannot discern major problems or fix them.
But I love you for tilting at this particular windmill anyway.
Coming in 2012
"Dali 3D"
Philippe Mora directs. Allan Cummings is Dali. Judy Davis is Gala. And Tilda Swinton as Man Ray(rumored).
A friend just fwd'd your article 'The Dying of the Light' to me. I have sent it to everyone I know who loves movies. It enraged, and inspired me in equal parts. When I worked at Pixar on 'A Bug's Life', one of the first things I remember was going to the theater in Corte Madera with a guy from the camera department and putting a light meter on a painters pole to check the footcandles hitting the screen before we did a screening of our lighting tests. It was well under lit, and Pixar had enough clout(Disney) to compel the theater to replace the lamp. I feel for the industry, but lament their penny-wise, pound foolish approach they have taken to fighting off the threats they see around them. Hopefully someone with the power to change this mistake will respond to your article with direction from above, or enough people like me will apply pressure from below- directly to theater managers- and we'll see this change. I know so many people know who say, '..not worth the 3D price', all the time. It's my birthday today, and this article was a fantastic present, always love to read you, but especially when your passion is really boiling off the page. I'm going to the movies later, thank you for arming me to "rage, rage against the dying of the light", I will complain if I'm seeing a 2D movie on a 3D rig.
I'll be watching My Afternoons with Margueritte at SIFF, provided it doesn't sell out (it shouldn't, as it's on a weekday). I'll let you know how the projection quality is, Marie!
As for cell phones, I suggested today that there be a volunteer position created at SIFF for someone to go around and hit people on the head if their cell phone rings, buzzes, lights up, or otherwise distracts from the experience.
And on that note, if you cell phone is buzzing or making noise, don't ignore it as if it's not yours. TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY AND TURN THE DAMN THING OFF! Then give everyone around you a dollar. Better yet, give them five dollars. If you follow these guidelines, I'm sure you'll either run out of money to pay for your cell phone, and therefore stop being a distraction to others, or you'll make extra sure that it's off each time you go to the theater. :-)
I have to agree with almost all of the comments re the dumbing down of the theatrical moviegoing experience. On the other hand, I recently saw an IMAX 3D showing of a documentary film called Born to Be Wild. The 3-Dimensional image on the screen was so realistic that I almost felt that I was there on the plains of Africa. But a couple of weeks later I watched a standard 3D film in that same AMC complex that had such a dimly lit image I kept nodding off. Except for the Imax auditorium, the entire complex is equipped with Sony 4K projectors. The image quality was always superb, that is until the 3D equipment was installed. Now I understand why the picture quality has deteriorated in some of their auditoriums. I used to run a small rep house here in Toronto and we prided ourselves in giving our audience the biggest, brightest properly presented movies with the best in multi-channel sound. The cinema is now gone but the facade has been restored and has been fitted with a historical plague. It makes me feel like a dinosaur, but at least we had pride in what we accomplished. Especially when some of our patrons remember us fondly to this very day. Will people feel the same way about their local megaplex 20 years from now? I doubt it.
Such "rage, rage," Rog!
This is the new America, not your America of the '50s, or even mine of the late-'60s/early-'70s. The suits have taken over pretty much everything, and all they're doing is milking our dying empire for every last drop of blood they can get before it collapses utterly. We live in a country that seemingly worships the unholy alliance of greed and stupidity which is our ruling classes, and most things have become commoditized and cost-analyzed to the nth degree. Here I am in Vegas, also killed by the greed/stupidity of the suits/bean counters.
Anyway, have a great holiday weekend, all!
Walter, so far, Roger's blog's captchas don't have spaces...ever.
Randy! Wow, thanks for your comments. GCC was a quality company. They took technical things seriously. The closest I got to working for them was being a theater checker. The "pay" was free tickets and GCC bucks to spend at the concession stand. And you had to fill out a theater evaluation form for every film you saw. I did this for several theaters south of Boston. I got a tour of the projection booth at the flagship theater at the headquarters building in Chestnut Hill. They had THX in several auditoriums and a 70mm projector in one of them. The Braintree (MA) theater near where I lived had a 70mm projector as well. Thanks again for your post!
I think the problem is that movies have turned into widgets, just like most other media.
My wife used to work at Houghton Mifflin and we used to talk about how Mr. Houghton and Mr. Mifflin probably loved books, loved publishing, loved creating interesting bindings. Then money people took over and Houghton Mifflin no longer produced books, they produced widgets.
Same has happened in movies. Don't you think the Warner brothers loved making movies? Now the decisions are made by money people who it seems don't even know what a good movie actually is. Movies have become widgets.
So why wouldn't that also be the case for theaters? They don't care about movies, they care about selling popcorn-widgets, soda-widgets and ticket-widgets.
I used to go to the movies every Friday and Saturday. Now if we go four times a year I'd be surprised. Much of it is because of the quality of the films produced, but more of it is because of the lousy experience of the theater.
It's bums me out more than I can say.
Hollywood treats the viewing public like cattle to be bled to death, and like criminals.
That is why:
1) Video games are taking over from Hollywood in creativity and customer loyalty.
2) I haven't watched a Hollywood film in several years, not in a theater or at home.
I worked with the Sony 4Ks for a while, and I'm pretty sure you can just loosen the mounting bolts on the polarizers and move them out of the way without having to open the machine. It wasn't policy to do so at our theater, but I can remember seeing the polarizers left in a position out of the way of the light path. I could be wrong, but seeing a dual beam, may not mean that the light is being fed through a polarization screen.
Excellent comment!! I just love the entire thing ... and it, for me, is inspiring ... I may still read shitty books, listen to bad music in worse formats, and pray to all my bad gods while drinking bad beer ...no, sorry, I won't be drinking bad beer, not in the Golden Age of the Microbrew (besides, I'm from Canada, which has a reputation for good beer anyway) .. but, now I WILL always give good feedback to my independent theatres...and especially to the bad ones .... I feel a lot of free movies will be coming my way!
Thank you for your great and well-worded insight!
Earlier today, I received an email from the Seattle Cinerama theatre in response to your blog post. They told me that they make absolute sure that they are using the right equipment for whatever movie they're showing. This is good, as he seemed to know what he was talking about, saying specific wattages and lenses. Still miss THX, though...
But, the Cinerama WILL have a 70mm AND three-strip Cinerama festival in September, I've been told! Here's hoping I get to see "How The West Was Won" and "This Is Cinerama" after the deluge of summer movies. Plus, I like how this festival will be playing at the same time that "Star Wars" will be released to blu-ray...
Ebert: We should all have a Seattle Cinerama.
I've read most of the comments here and I agree and understand what everyone is saying. The movie industry is doing what it can to remain profitable, that's why they came up with this stopgap measure that is 3-D. Why 3-D? They had to find an excuse for people to come see their product that cannot be duplicated (pirated) elsewhere. Yes, 3-D is temporary, it's a fad, it will disappear probably in a year or two. However, 3-D did keep Hollywood's head above water. The dim theaters are a byproduct of all this, very shameful.
I just read the US Government has started an all out war against piracy, maybe this is Hollywood's second Salvo.
DVD's and Blu-Ray discs are going the way of the dinosaur. They'll be gone in less than five years. Hollywood simply cannot make money off them (illegal copying aka piracy) and they're moving to online streaming methods. They're working on something called Ultraviolet and it will be out shortly.
Once Hollywood can have the freedom to produce movies that will not be stolen they'll go back to making a decent product again. They'll probably tell the theater owners to turn up the light too. Hang in there folks.
Sorry to be a curmudgeon, but films haven't looked right since the days of the carbon arc. My father was a projectionist in those days and pointed out the change to me. Xenon lamps have spikes (emission lines) in their colour spectrum.
This must be happening only in the US, because at the theater I work in (Finland), the digital projectors have programs installed that shift between the 3D and the regular 2D, there's no lenses that we have to put on or take off of the projector.
The image is clear and bright, and movieish, on the 2D screens, but I have to say the 3D is awfully dim when you put on your glasses.
But that is not our fault. In fact, whenever we play 3D movies, we run the lightbulbs with full power, you can see the brightness if you take off the 3D glasses, but with them, it is still too dim.
I've really started to hate 3D because of this, and since we are still a relatively small theater, we can only show the 3D versions, in fact, the studios don't even send us the 2D versions since they know which version brings in more money and people are still easy to trick in with the promise of an experience of the third dimension.
We are shifting towards digital projectors, only one auditorium doesn't have a digital projector, and even though working with the film is sometimes a chore, it means no 3D and the image will always have the look it was suppose to, the FILM.
Great article. I really agree with you.
3-D (to me) seems to be more like a "Wow, that's really neat" kind of reaction when you see it for the first time, then after a few minutes, it's a headache. I also believe that there aren't many quality movies being released anymore either, it really hurts (in more ways than one) to go spend $10 on a movie that ends up being total crap.
I suspect that the dimness could be piracy prevention technique, as cameras have a hard time getting a good picture from a dark screen. Most of the movies I have seen recently are almost TOTALLY in the dark. 3-D probably falls in this arena as well, as only a theater can offer 3-D movies (though if someone is pirating a movie I honestly doubt they care whether it's in 3-D or not). Regardless, if that were even the case, they should not punish everyone for the crimes of others. I guess they'll do whatever makes more money.
Mr. Ebert,
I have taken to skipping the chain theaters closest to me and driving down the freeway to an AMC Theater because the brightness issue got worse over the past 5 years.
A lot of the time, I have started preferring the Blu-ray to the theatrical experience because the colors and light are sharper. Even things in the dark, like when I squinted my way through "The Prestige", are easier to see.
Where I find myself correcting people, is not theaters, but stores like Radio Shack and Barnes & Noble or eateries like Bubba Gump who have HDTVs up playing movies but the film is strecthed out because the setting are wrong. For example a 2:35:1 film may have overly huge black bars and I'm told like a child "It's widescreen. It's supposed to have those". I explain, I own a TV like that, and it is not supposed to look the way it does, and I I try and talk them into handing me the DVD player remote so I can fix it.
They could make it brighter than the sun and that wont fix the real problem of Follywood injecting their bs marxism into almost every film.
Ebert: Yeah, yeah.
The local chain in Lansing is showing a "great movies" series. I was thrilled - repertory cinema is pretty much extinct around here. Then I went to one move.
Sigh. They were projecting a standard definition DVD on a theater sized screen. It looked terrible. And the worst part? They had the gall to advertise the series as "Digitally Remastered!" While technically true, that's like advertising a 1972 Pinto as a car that will keep you toasty warm. You're kind of pushing a drawback.
I wrote a letter complaining, and got a response back from the vice-president admitting that the picture quality was lower, but saying they just can't afford to maintain the moving parts in the film projectors any more, and anyway digital doesn't degrade like film, so it must be better.
Film doesn't HAVE to degrade if you don't have popcorn monkeys running it. And he didn't say a word about the blatantly deceptive advertising.
Excellent post. This is just the latest in a litany of movie theater sins. For me it began with the shrinking of large theaters into multiplexes. My list of frustrations extends to minimal cleaning between showings, elimination of intermissions, patrons who talk during the film, cell phones going off, light from texting, light from laptops, young children at films for adults, poor maintenance of chairs, advertising before the film plays, endless previews before the film plays and of course poor projection quality. I long ago ceased attending films in commercial theaters. I watch films at home, in my own home theater. My theater does not equal the experience I remember as a young adult, when the above maladies were in the distant future, but is dramatically better than attending today's mediocre commercial showings.
Perhaps this reflects our modern day culture. Like the travel industry, big box stores, TV news, recording quality, politics, etc., the trend is to patronize the customer, dumb-down the product, collect the cash and hope we all accept the garbage we are fed.
Two years ago I had been layed off and after walking around all day at the mall and it's restaurants job hunting I ducked in to AMC for a $5 matinee of 'Angels & Demons' to relieve my stress. The print was badly damaged in the middle. It resembled 'Grindhouse'. I had already gotten up twice for snacks pre-movie, and once for the bathroom so I remained in my chair so as not to bug the people who sat idly by. Afterwards, the customer service desk was un-staffed and nobody came my way. I found the theater phone number online. The manager or assistant manager was surprised when I told her what happened and she put me on hold. In the background she could be heard asking if somebody knew about this and a man said something about the print had been dropped by accident and un-spooled and was put back together. For my troubles she sent me two free passes I used with a friend to see UP in 3D
Surely you jest, Eric! Have they kept a backlog of transcendent story product in reserve, just waiting for all those damn pirates to stop stealing their precious, breathtakingly beautiful and profound films?
Seriously, the studios (and record companies, and pretty much any other company that doesn't implement currently viable technology now) have been ripping us off for years with their multiple "NEW IMPROVED" DVDs, now they're using Blu-ray as another transitional ripoff medium. The technology for solid state product exists and is economically viable, and the less moving parts in any equipment, the longer it's going to last, but they continue to pump out born-to-obsolesce product and fix prices. They cry "Piracy!"; I cry no tears for the almost entirely non-creative suits profiting obscenely from exploiting our mindlessly consumerist culture.