
Roger Ebert: The dying of the light - kyleslattery
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/05/the_dying_of_the_light.html
======
krschultz
As someone who finds just as much interest in sound quality as the lyrics, as
critical of the picture as the storyline, I whole-heartedly agree. Most movie
theaters are simply horrible. The sound is atrocious (overly loud and muddy is
the most common problem) and the pictures have become dimmer and dimmer.
Having to travel further to find a good screen just makes movie theaters that
much worse. Give me a Blu-ray and my home setup for quality over most movie
theaters.

I used to get most movies off of Netflix and then see action movies in the
theaters. I thought that I was better off seeing the spectacle on a large
screen. But the technical inferiority of the typical movie theater has led me
to flip my viewing habits. Now I really only see comedies in the theaters and
watch everything else at home.

You still can't replicate a crowded movie theater at a comedy, it makes it far
funnier to laugh with other people.

~~~
theclay
I couldn't agree more. The last time I went to the movies, it felt like such a
rip off that I vowed never to return. Questions: 1) How long are
advertisements anymore? It felt like 15+ minutes. 2) Is there no cell phone
etiquette at all?

~~~
eru
In Germany I witnessed 30+ minutes of advertisements.

~~~
aw3c2
Yeah, we first get commercial adverts, kinda like in TV but usually more
elaborate. Then movie trailers. When I still went into the cinema it was
common for the movie to "start" at 2000 and then actually start at 2030 to
2045. Which is just one reason why I do not feel bad about pirating movies.

------
ctdonath
New iteration of an old problem. Not sure if I was the "Kodak spokesman" he
referred to.

\---

Movie Answer Man

Roger Ebert / February 7, 1999

Q. In your recent review of "Virus", you commented: "It didn't help that the
print I saw was so underlit that often I could see hardly anything on the
screen. Was that because the movie was filmed that way, or because the
projector bulb was dimmed to extend its life span?" A dirty secret is that
movies are under-lit in most theaters. Films are produced with the intent that
they be projected at the brightness of 16 foot-lamberts. Field research by
Kodak found that they are often shown at 8-10 foot-lamberts, well under the
SMPTE standard for brightness. To get theaters up to this and other standards,
Kodak is introducing the Screencheck Experience program. The under-lighting of
screens may be acceptable for a few movies--lest you see the entirety of their
badness--but in general it unnecessarily degrades the theater experience.
(Carl Donath, Rochester NY)

A. I've seen thousands of movies and I believe the Screencheck Experience
program would only confirm that "Virus" was severely deprived of foot-lamberts
when I saw it in a Chicago theater not a million miles from the Water Tower.
Martin Scorsese, who travels with a light meter, once told me movies are
projected at the correct brilliance in New York and Los Angeles, because
that's where the filmmakers live, and they squawk. In a lot of other places,
he said, the theaters turn down the juice to save on the replacement costs of
expensive bulbs.

~~~
e40
The common thread is that the corporations in the supply chain between you and
the creators of the content really don't care much about the experience you
have in the theater. They care about maximizing profit. We need to link, in
their minds, their bad decision making and reduced profits. That is the only
way any changes will be made.

Of course, for my part, the movie going experience is horrible for additional
reasons: commercials, talking patrons, and crying babies. I've seen one movie
in the last 6 months and there was a crying baby __and __and a talking child
in the theater. Had I not traveled 40 minutes to see the movie, I'd have asked
for my money back immediately.

~~~
marshray
You'd think with the panic the film industry is in they'd be falling over
themselves trying to please the moviegoer. Instead we see them trying to treat
you as a captive audience and squeeze more revenue out of your eyeballs.

They forget who actually holds the money in every transaction: the customer,
and few transactions are as thoroughly optional as movie tickets.

I'm sure the talking and disrespect in the movie theater is a symptom of the
problem. People no longer respect the theater because it's stopped respecting
them, and in the process lost its own self-respect.

~~~
jacques_chester
> Instead we see them trying to treat you as a captive audience and squeeze
> more revenue out of your eyeballs.

I'm going to blame this on B-school theory, particularly Michael Porter. What
Porter did is take economic theory about the undesirable behaviour of
monopolists and turn it around. "You should screw your customers and suppliers
in _this_ fashion!"

And in the short term, it absolutely works. In the long term you disgust the
people who put you there -- your customers -- and most industries are _not_
natural monopolies.

------
bambax
> _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..._

James Bond? Okay, not every theater can afford to have James Bond in the
projection booth... ;-)

\- - -

A serious and interesting information is that for Pirates 4, people apparently
chose to see the film in 2D (60% of first week gross) rather than 3D: _"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."_ (quoted from Gitesh Pandya of BoxOfficeGuru.com)

~~~
forkandwait
Re 3D: The only reason we pay the extra money for 3D is that the 2D is not
available at the time we want. I think 3D is a clear example of technology for
its own sake (ooh! cool!), but which doesn't actually help the story be
experienced (your involvement with the characters is not enhanced at all,
etc).

~~~
ams6110
There was a piece posted here some months ago that made the claim that 3D
movies would never work, because the human eye (or brain) has to work harder
than normal to process the false perception of near and far objects which the
eye has to focus on at one fixed distance (the screen surface).

~~~
berberich
Correct - that was also a post by Roger Ebert:
<http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html>

------
gatlin
I'm fortunate enough to live in Austin, TX and we have several Alamo
Drafthouse locations here (<http://originalalamo.com>). They treat movies like
events: most locations during peak times show current fare, but they also have
"Weird Wednesdays" and "Terror Tuesdays" with old movies, and similar
specialty nights; they do MST3K-style riffing on old classics every once in a
while; they serve food and beer; and they have a very draconian policy on
talking during movies: do it twice and you're out. They also publish a program
much like the local stage theaters each "season."

They're very professional and enjoyable, and are the only theaters I visit
these days. Otherwise, hell, I'll put up with my 480p projector and a hacked
Wii over sticky ringtone-festivals across town at $7 a pop.

Oh, and the sound and picture quality are un-paralleled, which was my point:
theaters which care care about all aspects of the experience, not just
technical excellence.

~~~
BrandonM
_> ...sticky ringtone-festivals across town at $7 a pop._

I only wish movies were $7. The local AMC is currently $8.50 ($11.50 for 3D),
and that's in Columbus which is generally cheaper than most big cities.

------
larrik
Sony's name is really being dragged through the mud lately. Not that they
don't deserve it, of course. It's just interesting to see how many different
areas of business a company can be attacked in at once.

~~~
carmen
SONY is fantastic. a Vaio X and Vim, Chromium and Xmonad is a perfect dev box.
their shortwave recievers are a cut above the competition in selectivity and
build quality. im still using some video monitor of theirs from the late 70s
to catch up on youtubes.

~~~
upthedale
_a Vaio X and Vim, Chromium and Xmonad is a perfect dev box._

I have never used a Vaio, but I would question how much one contributes to
being a perfect dev box. You can install Vim, Chromium and Xmonad on any other
machine.

 _im still using some video monitor of theirs from the late 70s to catch up on
youtubes._

Again, I haven't used Sony stuff from the 70s, it may well be fantastic.
However, that was over 3 decades ago, and irrelevant when evaluating their
behaviour in recent times. I certainly won't be buying anything from Sony
anytime soon - I simply don't trust the brand.

------
sluckxz
I have never seen a 3d movie yet. I went to my best local theater, that was
built within the last ten years (There actually are only two local movie
theaters.) to see How to Train Your Dragon in 3d. The opening credits/intro
pieces looked incredible. I was so excited! When the movie started I realized
there were only two tiny speakers at the front of the theater by the screen
outputting audio. I started complaining to the point that i was getting
shushed by some patrons. Mostly asking around who else noticed the audio was
broken.

After a few minutes I went to speak with the manager. Basically I was told I
was the first person to complain and that was the way it was supposed to be. I
couldn't fathom that to be correct so I continued to question the manager.
Eventually she somewhat admitted that the audio, for some technical reason she
couldn't explain was not properly able to be played on their 3d
projection/audio system.

So I left. I got the ticket price refunded but not the cost of my concessions.
I couldn't help but feel mass amounts of consumers were being ripped off. I
felt the team that produced that fine film would have been heartbroken to have
seen the movie there. I know i was not willing to watch a movie, my first 3d
movie! with audio the quality of a poorly pirated movie.

I considered finding someone to complain too. I imagined the theater was
breaking rules by showing the film with such a key component horribly
crippled. But I did not.

I have not been back to see a 3d movie. I would like to see one someday. I
will go again, perhaps to a theater in another town, someday. I hope they get
their "stuff" together. Articles like this do not inspire confidence.

------
kylelibra
If the movie industry wants people to stop pirating movies, they need to stop
giving them excuses like this to do so.

~~~
swah
OTOH this makes TS videos even worse.

~~~
kylelibra
Maybe that's the secret strategy.

------
brxta
OT: None of my coworkers recognized the "dying of the light" reference.
[Insert rant about how nobody reads anymore.] It's Dylan Thomas:

Do not go gentle into that good night,

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

~~~
bcaulf
Wow, that is sad. My knowledge of literature and poetry is spotty at best but
I certainly picked up on the reference without a moment's thought. The ability
to make literary references in a few words is a basic aspect of literacy. I
suppose their brains are probably crowded with internet memes and celebrity
facts and have no space for this sort of more beautiful trivia. Something I
love about geeks is that their big brains tend to retain more references like
this, so when they talk and listen they can use the whole language, including
classic literature.

------
ck2
Somewhat OT, did they do that thing yet where they were going to synthesize
his voice from past reviews?

I'm very curious to hear that.

Haven't been to the movies in years but last few times I was there what really
drove me crazy was the messed up sound - way too loud and the quality sucked.
If the picture is also poor now, well I guess I am staying home and waiting
for the bluray release. Everything is out on disc for rental in less than six
months now, not a big wait.

~~~
naner
_did they do that thing yet where they were going to synthesize his voice from
past reviews?_

Sure: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SR9OS74Sa8s>

They had it working last year IIRC.

~~~
ck2
Actually in that video it's not working yet.

He gives a preview of it at 5:40 but it's a little rough.

------
kmfrk
The entrepreneur in me wants to point out that any cinema owner worth his or
her salt would get great PR from making it clear that they make sure that
their projection (and sound) is as intended by the director, now that all the
discussion is blowing up.

At least owners who live in a place with nearby competing cinemas.

------
chrismealy
"It is as if the Industry is courting self-destruction." And how.

------
ChuckMcM
It is an interesting variation on what I think of as 'crapitalism.' The
increase in profitability at the expense of quality.

As Ebert points out, crapitalism works because consumers let it work. If there
are enough people willing to pay to have the lower quality product, then the
motivation to supply the higher quality product is removed.

What is missing is a good feedback mechanism for 'fixing' the problem.

Let's accept that Ebert is correct in that the cost of the projectionist and
their training is the dominant factor in the quality of the projection. Now
take what it would cost to hire a projectionist that did quality projections,
and raise ticket prices to cover that cost.

As the theatre which charges a higher ticket price than any other theatre in
the area, you will find you get fewer patrons, that will reduce the number of
tickets sold so you will need an even higher price to cover the lower volume.
But the higher price will reduce the size of your market. Once you cross the
price where the per-person ticket cost exceeds the expected BluRay release
cost, your attendance will drop to nearly zero.

It is mentioned in the article that people already feel that the 'home'
experience with bluray is better than their theatre experience (for some
number fraction of people).

The message here is that movie theatres are essentially already dead, but like
some species of shark they haven't realized it yet. It's only a question of
'when' they will cease to exist.

Interestingly this will be blamed on "piracy."

But the actual issue will be that the industry has moved into a place where
the cost of presenting the information (the 'movie') is exceeding the marginal
value of that information to the consumer. That has occurred because not only
do people have more choices on how to consume the information, the relative
costs of those choices are shifting. A 55" 1080p LCD television is now under
$1000. That is a 'durable good' (3 - 5yr lifetime) so represents less than
$30/month at 3 yrs or $20/month at 5 yrs of cash flow. It costs $20 for two
people to go to the movies, it costs < $10 to rent a movie/stream it. So the
value equation on 'cost to consume' is increasingly leaning toward the living
room and the marginal value of seeing something in the theatre has to compete
with that.

I was thinking that digital projection would actually help theatres by
reducing their labor costs but having seen a digital projection setup and the
complexity and cost that are layered into the system to prevent copies from
being made, the cost equation made things actually worse (you need more skill
projectionists).

~~~
jodrellblank
Apple does all right with higher costs. "HN advice is often raise your
prices".

"ChuckMcM Theaters. We're more expensive because that's what it costs to give
you a better experience."

"ChuckMcM Theaters. Our projectionists make a film look a million dollars, and
it will only cost you $40. One showing per night."

Etc.

~~~
ChuckMcM
It's an interesting choice of comparisons, why not use Vera Wang evening
gowns? I mean its just fabric right? Except both Vera (who designs lovely
evening wear) and Apple aren't actually playing the same game.

A more apt comparison would be Windows based laptops. This is because a pre-
requisite for this effect to occur is the ability to compete on price. Since
everyone who has attempted to make compatible hardware that was cheaper than
Apple but ran MacOS has been sued mercilessly into bankruptcy, using Apple in
this case fails.

Theaters, like MS Windows laptop makers, have a cost they have to bear and
they pay a tax for a key ingredient in their product to a third party (the
studios, or Microsoft depending on which we're talking about.) The product the
consumer buys is a combination of the part the supplier got from someone else,
and the part they made themselves. Their margin of course being their revenue
above their costs.

When, unlike in designer gowns or Apple equipment, there isn't a legal barrier
to enter, multiple entities pop up to supply the demand. They compete on
quality, feature sets, and price.

The less maneuvering room they have around feature sets, the more they compete
on quality and price. And the less sensitive the _bulk of the market_ is to
quality, they are left competing on price. I'm sure this is really obvious so
I won't belabor the point.

For me, that leaves the interesting challenge of finding ways to make quality
a differentiator in a market with low barriers to entry. If you have any ideas
on that I'd love to hear them, they would be the kind of things that let
entrepreneurs break into and disrupt existing markets.

~~~
jdminhbg
Saying Apple has a monopoly on Apple equipment is like saying Vera Wang has a
monopoly on Vera Wang gowns. There's no legal barrier to competing with Apple
to make general-purpose personal computers. Dell/HP/etc are choosing to
compete on price, and licensing Windows lets them do that, just like
outsourcing your fabric manufacturing to a third party in Cambodia or wherever
lowers costs for a clothing designer.

------
afterburner
So, this is another case of Sony's locking stuff down impacting its practical
quality/adoption?

As a counter to one of the points in the article, I don't think people
splitting 40/60 on 3D/2D is a "clear rejection" of 3D. 3D still gives a lot of
people headaches or other discomforts, and it does cost more and look worse
from bad angles (and you'll get the bad angles because there's less 3D
theatres and they're packed). Maybe compared to a 3D event movie like Avatar,
but that's not a fair comparison.

EDIT: Also, I finally some ammunition to use against people who insist that I
should turn the brightness/contrast on my TV down to be "theatre" correct.
It's supposed to look brightier, even in the theatre! :)

------
SoftwareMaven
Given the fact I have no depth perception and all 3D does is reduce the
sharpness of the image and force me to wear stupid glasses, the day 3D wins is
the day after I leave the theaters for good.

------
dhyasama
Does anyone now of a good resource for theater reviews? Some quick Googling
didn't pull anything up for me. It would be interesting to see a listing of
which theaters use which projectors as well as sound system quality.

------
roadnottaken
He said you can tell if a movie is digitally projected because it has a 'D'
after it in the listing. Is that only in newspapers? I don't see that info on
MovieFone, does anyone know where it can be found?

~~~
dangrossman
I usually look up showtimes on Fandango and they clearly label any digital
showings as "DP (Digital Projection) Showtimes". I usually see those for Regal
theater listings, it could also be a matter of other chains not reporting the
information.

------
erso
Does anyone know of a resource that lists theaters based on projection and
sound quality? I'd like to find out which theaters in Manhattan are worth
going to.

------
io
I'm sitting about 200 yards from the 90-year-old Virginia theater in
Champaign. I need to get over there more often, I guess. :)

------
jodrellblank
_Short-sighted, technically illiterate penny-pinchers are wounding a great art
form._

And a lot more than that.

------
grovulent
Another quality article by the Ebert.. quoth the Ebert:

"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."

Note how the Ebert cites his 'gut' evidence right at the bottom of the
article. This is not by accident - but a master stroke. For why would you
admit that you have no pragmatic basis for your outrage at the beginning of
the article? This would simply alienate you from those readers who might, oh,
you know... be after some kind of empirical data.

I know I probably deserve to be down voted - in order to cure me of my irk.
(After all - why should I care if people like the Ebert?)

But it's IRKSOME this guy is so well read.

~~~
nonrecursive
I obliged you with a downvote.

Almost the entire article is devoted to explaining that there is an empirical
(the word I think you intended when you used "pragmatic"? not sure)
degradation in film projection and why that is.

He then relates that to the comments he's had on his blog and in email about
how movies look better on blu-ray than at the theater, as well as other
comments from professional movie critics. This doesn't seem unreasonable at
all.

I'd like to hear more about your contentions with the article, because I don't
really see how what you wrote corresponds to what Ebert wrote.

~~~
grovulent
How does one get downvote powers anyway?

So yes - clarification is needed. I'm willing to take on faith that there is
measurable degradation of film quality. Let us grant that there is plenty of
empirical evidence for this claim.

There is no empirical evidence presented besides blog comments that this
measurably effects the greater portion of hedonic goodness in theatre goers.
Worse - I see no presentation of empirical evidence whatsoever for Ebert's
larger thesis that the degradation is sufficient enough to have a measurable
effect on market share (as against dvds etc). Bearing in mind they were losing
market share before 3d.

Hence there is no pragmatic reason to be upset beyond perhaps you're own
heightened sensitivities - which Ebert himself may possess - I have no idea.

In any case - it's an extremely poorly argued article.

But it is truly weird - People just love the Ebert.

~~~
nonrecursive
Thanks for clarifying!

You make a good argument that Ebert's argument isn't sufficiently scientific.
Ebert also doesn't provide any data for his hypothesis that the degraded
qualities of movies is going to effect box office returns.

However, I think these are the wrong criteria for judging the article. I don't
think Ebert's it's meant to be scientfic, nor is his article primarily about
economics. I saw it as more of a love letter, which is very personal, very
subjective. His last paragraph:

"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."

The primary purpose of the article isn't to explain the potential economic
impact of the degradation in projection quality, or to provide scientific
proof that the majority of people are affected. It's to say that movies look
shittier, and to explain why - and to express how sad it makes him that movies
are looking so shitty. I saw the remark about how people would be less likely
to return to theaters as more of an expression of his unhappiness than as the
central point of his article.

Personally, I found the article very helpful. I saw Thor opening weekend, and
I was confused about why it looked so dim. It was disappointing to me to view
something so graphically rich in a way that made it look it was 50 years old
and faded. I didn't know what was wrong, but now I do, and now I know how I
can attempt to see movies in a way that I'll like more.

