Steven Soderbergh bites the hand that feeds him!

[Jay Gladwell]

Originally Posted by Hugh DiMauro

More often than not, I am sick and tired of trying to enjoy a movie when you have fatmouths running their traps the whole time, talking on their cell phones or bringing in crying infants. Those instances have taken the enjoyment away from seeing a movie. It just seems like people today are less socially graced than, say, twenty years ago?

Heck, nowadays, just try and tell a fellow movie patron to keep quiet. What you're likely to get is some sort of retaliatory gesture/action on his/her behalf. I forsee "theatre rage" increasing just like "road rage."

Hugh, you said it! Why would anyone want to pay an additional $3 to have a miserable time? I can do very well without today's "communal experience," thank you.

Someone else mentioned "projection" and the problems these days in the theaters with poor projection. Why should I, a paying customer, have to tell them how to operate their projector?

Back in the dark ages, when I was in college, I was a projectionist. I was trained for several months by a professional the fine art (and science) of running two carbon-arc projectors, if you'd like to see the type, go here: www.oz.net/~louie/35mm/35mmproj2.html. It was loud and it was hot, but we took pride in projecting a quality image! This was long before the advent of platters and xenon lamps.

Now days you got one pimple-faced kid running several platter projectors, which amounts to flicking a switch. Then he goes off and calls his friends on his cell phone. Things have not necessarily gotten better, and I ain't gonna pay for that! I'd much rather watch a DVD on my big screen TV where I have total control over the picture and sound--much better than what the theaters are offering these days.

Jay

[Glenn Gipson]

As much as many of us are gripping about theaters...I seriously doubt that there is one person in this entire thread who will NEVER step foot in a theater again. A Steven Soderbergh film is just meant for DVD...but something like the premier of Star Wars or Matrix (1) just has to be seen in a theater, I’m sorry. And many of us single guys stand a better chance of taking a first date to the theaters, as opposed to our big screen TVs at home. Going to the movies will always be one of the best ice-breakers in a blossoming relationship, where as inviting some chick over to your house on a first date sends the wrong message. Theaters will never die.

[Michael Bernstein]

Originally Posted by Jay Gladwell

Hugh, you said it! Why would anyone want to pay an additional $3 to have a miserable time? I can do very well without today's "communal experience," thank you.

Someone else mentioned "projection" and the problems these days in the theaters with poor projection. Why should I, a paying customer, have to tell them how to operate their projector?

Jay,

I wish every projectionist took his or her job seriously. I don't know if things really have gotten worse; I see more flaws now than when I was a kid, but then, I'm more critical. (First great movie experience: Star Wars. Episode IV, 1977.) I also wish every line cook took his job seriously. And drugstore clerks. Don't get me started on people who drive cars, oh my GOD!

Sure, every time you step into a movie theatre, you risk having a crappy experience. I wish moviegoers behaved better, too. But nothing at home can match my best movie-watching memories. Like when I saw Dancer in the Dark. A few people walked out in digust and boredom. Most of the rest of us who stayed were deeply affected by the movie, and our attention to the screen was absolute.

Or when I saw Episode II (Attack of the Clones), and--between the truly stunning battle scenes--we had to sit through some of the most excruciating dialogue ever written. You know, when Anakin tells Padme:

I can't breathe. I'm haunted by the kiss you should never have given me. My heart is beating, hoping that kiss will not become a scar. You are in my very soul, tormenting me. What can I do?

..At that moment, some joker yelled out: "USE THE FORCE!"

The whole audience--about five hundred of us--laughed with relief. It felt great, like "we're all in this together," and that helped us enjoy the movie.

But then, I'm in favor of all sorts of communal experiences. Watching movies together; going to weddings, funerals, the theatre, a nightclub, even watching a game in a bar. I think it's good for us. Plus, I like it.

Michael

[Luis Caffesse]

There is a door you go through when you're nominated for 2 director's acadamy awards simultaneously. It's called the HOLLYWOOD DOOR. He's part of the machine, and sinse he is one of the few who was lucky enough to get there, I don't think he should slap us in the face, patronizing/hypnotizing the indie audience because we make mini-dv films too (which for the most part I shoot film by the way, because it simply is more professional).

"He's part of the machine"?
So now he's a 'sell out' because he makes a great living making the movies he wants to make? Hmmm, I thought that's what you wanted to do too?

I mean, not liking his movies is one thing...but isn't he exactly where you want to be?

And I would add, I seriously doubt that Soderbergh is trying to patronize or hypnotize the indie audience. The truth is, he's making the movies that interest him, and he probably hasn't thought twice about people like you or me. He's too busy making his movies....while we're spending too much time talking about his plans instead of working on our own.

[Dave Ferdinand]

Originally Posted by Luis Caffesse

while we're spending too much time talking about his plans instead of working on our own.

Well... I'm doing both, actually.

I have to say that Soderbergh is full of it. He just wants to make films his way so he doesn't have to put up with the Hollywood machine, or system, whatever you call it. But the funny thing is that it was that exact same system that made him a 'good' director. It's easy to get a lot of resources on your side when you won Oscars, even if you didn't deserve so.

In my opinion, he lacks credibility to come up with 'new' ideas on how to make and distribute films.

[Michael Struthers]

Soderburg lacks credibility? I gotta laugh at that one....let me know when you have about 40 high-level production credits...

Anyway, studios do not EVEN CARE what happens at the 4 million dollar budget level. They are after much bigger profits. The studios and the distributors are in bed together, as they should be. You want to bypass the system, fine. But you are limiting your audience.

Everyone loves going to the movie theater, and it's about more than just the movie. It's a social situation imbedded deeply in our culture. It will NEVER go away.

Watching movies over the web will be here soon, but who's going to take a date to his laptop? In fact, I submit that even as film theater-going fractures into smaller chains, theater moviegoing attendance will increase.

[Joel Guy]

Originally Posted by Michael Struthers

The studios and the distributors are in bed together, as they should be.

Why should they be in bed together? This is monopolistic practice that hurts smaller, non-studio movies, and thus, destroys diversity. At one point, independent theatres thrived in America. Now, they are barely getting by. This goes back to the Hollywood Antitrust Case of 1948 and the Paramount Decrees, which ended (for a time, at least) the studio's control of production, distribution, and exhibition. Since the 80s, and with the rise of mega-media conglomerates, our government has failed to update or enforce this ruling. I know this isn't the only reason that independent theatres are struggling, but it is a very important one.

[Michael Struthers]

Studios have access to big distribution chains. Independants can show their movies through landmark or other small chains. These theatres are usually only in major cities, so if you're out in the sticks, you won't get them.

You can go around the system, by selling just to dvd, cable, internet etc you just have to keep your budget low because your available audience is much lower.

Distributors don't want to lose money either, and they are not going to open "Irreversible" or something like that on 2000 screens because they'll go broke.

It's a business.

[Adam Christopher]

I haven't enjoyed going to the theater since I was a kid and it was the only way to see a movie (way, way back in the late '70s and '80s) with one exception. My wife and I saw the Lord of The Rings trilogy when the 3rd movie came out. We were in that theater for about 12 hours and had the time of our lives. It was like an intense military training expedition and by the end, the entire theater felt like a family. That was great. That's the only recent fond memory I have of going to a movie. I don't think people will ever quit going to the theater, you'll always have the teen-age kids out on a date that can't make out in moms living room, but personally, I think it's way more cost and trouble than it's worth. Actually, even if it were free and no trouble at all, I think I'd rather stay home.

[Nick Hiltgen]

I don't care for soderbergh, with the exception of oceans 11 which was a remake, but he was born in GA so at least he has one redeaming quality. I also don't care for cuban, but that's only from an HD stand point, in that he has an interesting choice of what makes it to hdnet and what doesn't.

That being said I cannot let this misinformation about movie theaters continue, this is not an attack on murph, but I'm not going to let his opinion influence the readers of this thread with points that are in some places completely wrong.

<<Joel, the theaters going digital is an upgrade. You obviously haven't worked as a projectionist. The film is handled in a way that degrades it every single time it's shown - not to mention it breaks, tears, and scratches every single time it's handled.>>

Murph I worked as a projectionist for 5 years at three different movie theaters 2 in georgia one of those having a very strict manager and the other a very drunk one. And 1 in L.A. with a new manager every couple of weeks. Hopefully this makes me qualified to respond to your statements.

Film does break, but more often then not now with myler film (introduced in late 98) film just stretches, this is good and bad, but in my opinion more bad then anything else. Film does not scratch every time it's handled (at least not by me). It does get degraded but that it happens very minimally to the point that a film shown a couple of hundred times will look remarkable similar (if projected correctly) to the way it look when it came out of the cans.

<<There are on average of 10 reels per movie and each reel is about 10 minutes...some kid or drunk guy is taking the reels off and throwing them on a rewinder which is damaging the reel. >>

False, movies typically come in 18-20 minute reels, which makes the average movie 4-6 reels, the 10-12 reels movies I can think of were Titanic, Apocolypse now redux, Horse whisperer, Gone with the wind re-release etc. The reels themselves are recycled and damaging them is very difficult, the film itself can get damaged, however if done properly on a make-up/ tear down table, this is not the case, in my experience this is done properly around 75% of the time.

<<Not to mention the finger prints on about 10% of every single frame on a film. If the theater has a platter system it doesn't matter...the films come in on 10 reels and have to be spliced together.>>

True, and false. Film does have to be spliced together but then typically (unless something has gone wrong) the only things being touched "by human hands" is the tail and heads of the film which will consist of maybe 10-12 frames of used footage and a foot and a half of outside wrap. 10-12 frames is about half a second. Figure this happens at the beginning and end of each reel and multiply it by 6 times for a 2 hour movie you're looking at about 6 seconds of film "degraded" by human hands (this does not include credits which often have a cue for the lights to come up... however most people aren't too concerned with credit quality)

<<They are all touched by human hands before it every is shown to the audience. It's appalling really when you consider the care up to the last moment it's send out from the studios. The theaters are at least 80 years behind - literally, they have not upgraded the way films are shown in 80 years.>>

Not true while many projectors are very old (40-60 years) that doesn't make them bad at being projectors. There have been advances in soundtrack (dolby sr all the way up 7.1) and in over all quality of theaters (THX).

<<You want to tell me that digital isn't an upgrade? Go into any theater and ask to sit with the projectionist for one movie viewing and you will probably throw up.>>

This is possible, in all non-union theaters the projectionist is responisble for as many as 12 films and to trouble shoot that many prints is mind blowing, it's also possible the projectionst hasn't bathed in a couple of weeks and has lost the ability to communicate with other people, but that's only speaking from personal experience.

<<It's sickening to watch the film go through a projector.>>

I disagree, if done right the sound of a properly running projector can be nearly theraputic.

<<Also, the light used on a lot of projection systems is a welding arc...it stinks. Someone is standing there adjusting the light constantly adjusting two welding rods to whatever lighting they like...no standard light amount, just whatever they feel like doing.>>

Simply wrong, the bulb used is a xenon bulb, it is regulated by voltage regulator in the projector, possibly murph ended up at the WORST movie theater ever and that's what he's reporting on but I haven't seen an ARC lamp used in any of the theater that I worked in or engineered for, it's simply not practicle anymore.

<<If you sit there and really watch a movie in the theater and pay attention to the screen...you'll see the light going all over the place it's horrible.>>

Possible but not probable, the bulbs are turned (to prevent further flickering and adjusted to get the screen at (forgive me as it was a while ago) 20 ft candles in each section of the frame when at full white. (again that could be wrong but that seems like it was the right number.) That is to say without any film running through the projector, this is a tedius and time consuming process, however most big chains will have it done every year or so.

<<Also, every single time the reels change it's the projectionist who's looking for a single little dot (cigerette burn in the right hand corner of every single reel!). They look for that burn mark and start the new reel whenever they feel like it!!! It's insane in 2005 for 80 million dollar movies to be projected this way.>>

Reel to reel (the process murph is describing) is not used in many of the theaters anymore, it's not cost effective and will eat into the profits of the theater (why have two projectors running one movie with a handful of projectionists for 12 screens when you could have one prjector per movie and a single projectionsit to handle 12 screens?)

<<I could go on and on about it, but I've done it and recently too. I did it for a learning experience and boy...I truly understand why filmmakers and studios HATE projection systems. It's the worst link in the chain because like I said..some kid or some drunk guy is in charge of very major things regarding your movie.>>

I've been both that kid and that drunk guy while being drunk is a henderence being a kid is not, on behalf of anyone who's been a projectionist at the age of 17 I urge to reconsider your opinion on youth and their ability to project.

<<Here's the # reason projection SUCKS. Ready for this? Independent theater owners EDIT...and I mean, CUT out up to 10 minutes of movies and you don't know aboug it. They get the projectionist to trim bits and pieces from the movie just to save some time, so they can get movies back on the screen sooner and/or close up early. It's totally true and a fact...I've seen it done in front of my eyes. Let me ask you...have you ever seen a movie in the theater and for some reason things didn't make much sense? Then you rent the movie about 6 months later and you think, "I don't remember that scene? Weird". No, it's not always a directors cut...it's the theater owners cut!! It happens all over the place because "time is money". They do it because they can and it saves them money. Does the public care or know about it? No, because people are stupid and go with the flow. I personally hate it.>>

This is possible, however murph said a critical thing INDEPENDENT theaters. Most of you reading this go to a google plex which is owned by carmike, amc, lowes, etc. These companies are not interested in having someone recut the prints because it leads to too much extra man hours/potential for damage for something that's not going to effect them in the long run. (why shave off 10 minutes of a movie when you could open teh theater an hour early and have customers in there for longer.

[Nick Hiltgen]

continued from previous post.
<<There is good reason studios and filmmakers hate theater owners. It's a situation where the theater owners can totally screw with the studios in so many ways and the studios can't do anything about it. Except, they can work towards educating the public and that's exactly what they are doing now. They are making it clear that theaters need to "upgrade" to a system that's "secure" - it's not so much the public the studios care about...it's the theaters!! Yes, pirates are a concern...but, theater owners are the ones letting the pirates into the theater right? What about what the theater owners do to the films? The studios have their hands tied because theaters have the upper hand bigtime.>>

No, the upgrades of which you speak are easily in the half million to million dollar range and that's with out running a redundancy system because, are you ready for this the newest versions of digital projection (the ones I worked with) don't have a rewind button, or a play button, so let's say you're working in California and a rolling blackout hit's the theater (despite the emergency generators) as soon as that power goes out, you can't fast forward the film to the spot where it ended you have to start it from the beginning, so we had to run a film version as well as the digital version so if the digital version quit we'd at least be able to start the film version, without throwing off our time tables.

And come on, pirates? The theaters lose out the most when pirates get into the theater, that's not even a fair comment.

Further, the studios are the ones causing your high ticket prices, theaters make maybe 10% if they're lucky from the cost of tickets EVERYTHING else goes to the studios. Now concessions those are because of the theater, but that popcorn and coke has to cover the cost of the guy selling it to you, the guy paying him, the lights, the water, and especially the projectionist that murph hates.

<<If studios and Steven Soderbergh keep pushing it'll force the theater owners to do business in a more systematic way. Right now, it's so crazy the way it's done that the studios have no choice but to live with it. Once things get "upgraded" I'm sure things will improve across the board.>>

Steven soderbergh is rediculously possessive about his films, my head engineer was screening a film for him on a theater that was set percisely to SMPTE standards and soderbergh still wasn't happy with it, but it's his film and he can say whatever he want's and that's probably why hes so gung ho about this p2p thing.

<<I know you are talking about resolution, but I've seen the latest digital projection systems and the average public won't know the difference because the digital "prints" are made and projected at such high rez. Yes, film projection is higher rez. However, there are many factors that you must look at....how far is the screen from the projection booth? How large is the screen? What type of digital projection is it? What is the source material?>>

You're right the average public won't know the difference, so whats the point of upgrading?

<<It's a complicated matter and it's not there just yet, soon...just not yet. All I know is that digital projection is the solution to a lot of problems....not just one (rez).>>

True, but it's also the cause of a whole new set of problems, and though everything WILL move that way but it will be a while.

<<That's the longest post I've ever written..whew!>>

the longest response I've written, whew indeed.

Oh and the silver content of prints is a moot point as 99% of theaters don't buy prints they rent them and often at a higher cost then it is to buy them. though the average replacement cost of a film is $1500

Hopefully this cleared up some of the misconceptions, I do agree with murph that theaters should and will go digital but there is more to the argument then what he has presented. Finally Murph and I don't mean this as an insult but to me it is obvious that YOU'VE never worked as a projectionist or if you have it was at the worst theater in the country I honestly believe that if you go into the projection booth of any other theater in the country you will not find the same problems.

[Christopher C. Murphy]

Nick, you did insult me in your last paragraph because I DID work as a projectionist. That is why you AGREED with almost everything I said.

You took the time to post a rebuttal, but the fact is you literally agreed with just about everything I said. The only difference is you worked at different theaters than me and experienced different levels of the SAME THING. Therefore, I am seriously thinking you are taking my original posting personally instead of professionally.

Amazingly, I believe you even admitted to being the "drunk" projectionist I talked about....and Chris Hurd has too! (Chris Hurd is a God, and he probably invented the "drunk projectionst" job!). I personally didn't show up drunk because I seriously needed the cash at the time (I own a house and needed supplemental income at the time), so I couldn't F-up the gig. If I were in a position where I didn't have such a large responsibility..I would have probably been a "drunk" projectionist too.

So, I read all your comments and like I said you agreed with just about everything I said or at the very least said it was "possible". It IS possible and does exist. There are TONS of independent theaters out there playing first run Hollywood films. You have worked at places that do things a certain way...great for you. But, I make it a point to go into and meet projectionists all over the country...I've been in dozens of booths in VT, MA, NH, ME, FL, CA, TX and even Canada. Oh.....and I've even got a video of me BEING TRAINED on a platter projection system in a theater that I worked at locally by where I live! So, I've worked on platters and 2 projecter systems.

You said that the 2 projection system isn't out there running arc rods??? HA! There are still projection systems out there that running and are like 80 years old...and they'll be projecting the new Star Wars film! Arc rods are still used my friend...just not in the theaters that have newer projection systems. Also, I don't know many indie theaters using the audio DTS CD's accompanying the reels in the mail?? I know we got them and threw them in the trash! So, how many other theaters are throwing away the DTS CD's?? I don't really know for sure, but if I was told to throw them away I'm sure others are too. We used the soundtrack on the actual film itself. Is that bad? No, not really if you don't mind analog being converted to digital! Is the digital DTS on CD better when watching a film? Yes! But, we threw them in the garbage because the theater didn't have "surround" sound...just a hybrid system like most indie's. (obviously, that's my opinion and I've definately been to many theaters that don't have surround.) Remember, my main focus is indie theaters and not the nationwide chains.

Oh, excuse me...I forgot the exact amount of "reels" on the typical film. I projected "Troy" and "The Alamo"....(the last films I projected) and they were 10 reels at least. It's about the time of a film, so if a film is over the standard time...it's going to go over the standard reel limit. You also have to take into account the trailers needed to be spliced onto the film. (not that it affects the overall time - just reel 1) So, get off your high horse man and get off my back. I don't care if you've worked in more booths than me...I've worked as a projectionist. Maybe it was the worst theater in the country, but I HIGHLY doubt it! It was actually a very nice theater originally opened by a "Mayer"....a same last named cousin of "Louis B. Mayer". The theater was once the mecca of theaters in New England. Regardless of all that...it currently runs A-list films for like 5 surrounding towns.

Man, I could go back and reply to all your comments. But, I can't stand people like you that make posting on here a miserable experience....which is why I don't post as often anymore. It's a selective process now and it didn't use to be. I don't like these types of threads...I start a harmless topic and people start bashing. Maybe I'm guilty of it too, so I don't think I'll be replying to this thread and continuing the bitch fest. It's counter-productive.

[Nick Hiltgen]

Woah Pilgrim,

First let me say that I'm sorry if it sounded like I was on a high horse. For anyone to be on a high horse because they've worked at a movie theater (or 3) for 5 years, well that's just sad, but it did afford me a large view of what goes on in the industry. I don't care if I worked in more booths either, heck no one does, my response was to your statmenet to Joal.

I do admit to being a drunk projectionist, however that never occured while I was "on the job", that was typically when I had to screen 4 different showings of a crappy movie (think matrix 3) at 4 a.m. after which I needed a drink, who wouldn't.

The problem I had with what you wrote was that it didn't seem to apply to the vast majority of theaters, and that was the info that it seemed you were applying your experience to. When it comes down to it the major movie chains have killed the mom and pop indy theaters for the most part, but with that they also killed a lot of the points you are making. So when you get up and proclaim that the movie going experience is horrible because of projectionists (which I did take personally, you're right) and then state different facts that I find to be misleading, I feel obligated to speak up.

I guess I'm the lucky one and your just par for the course given your experiences. I still don't believe that reel to reel is as comman as you imply but if you have evidence to back it up then far be it for me to say otherwise. I guess the key word was independent as opposed to chains.

The main issue I had was you made it sound like the things that happen happened at all movie theaters all the time, when in fact it seems like that was more of a collective of all the bad things that happened at all of the theaters you've been to. I am being honest in saying that those things do happen but the broad the affirmation that all theaters do that does not seem to be the case for me.

As far as digital goes I don't know that I have enough information to base an opinion on it, which is why I steared clear from it for the most part I do know that it's expensive and that cost is prohibitive for most chains much less independent theaters. Yes it will get cheaper and yes the projection experience will go that way, but that doesn't mean that all theaters are bad (as others in this thread have attested to).

As far as the age of the actual projecting equipment, I don't think that's as big a deal as you make it. This is just my opinion but if the lamp house runs correctly and the gears are aligned right there really isn't a need to have the newest film projector on the market.

Perhaps it would have been fair to say that it sounded like you've never worked as a projectionist at a large theater chain as opposed to me who has done little work at a smaller independent house.

I'm sorry if you feel people like me make dvinfo.net a bad place to post, I try to be fair and reasonable, but there are times when thins hit close to home and I may become a little more aggressive then need be for that I apologize. I was simply trying to make sure that both sides of the situation were presented. You've noticed horrible things, I've noticed things not being that bad, that's all. I'm not trying to make this a miserable experience but I'm sure if people got up and were complaining about something like the lack of multicam support in FCP5 you would feel just as obligated to clear up the misconception. Anyhow it wasn't meant as an attack, I can understand how it may have sounded like one, and I apologize, it was written at 4 in the a.m. and perhaps some of the animosity I had toward the neughbor with his TV blasting was taken out on you. Heck it wasn't even meant as a bitchfest I just want the facts to be clear.

[Christopher C. Murphy]

Ok, things are cleared across the board...

[Chris Hurd]

Howdy from Texas,

Originally Posted by Christopher C. Murphy

I am seriously thinking you are taking my original posting personally instead of professionally.

As a neutral third-party observer, I didn't see anything "personal" about Nick's post. As a former projectionist myself, I think Murph hit upon some of the remaining traits from what is quickly becoming a thankfully former era of movie theater projection. Nick covered the way things are now for a majority of American movie theaters, especially the newer cineplexes. Nick's post was about the majority of theaters today and Murph's post was about the occasional exceptions.

Originally Posted by Christopher C. Murphy

(Chris Hurd is a God, and he probably invented the "drunk projectionst" job!).

Um, no. Please, no, I am not now nor have a ever been nor will I ever be a deity of any form. As far as the drunk projectionist is concerned, I did not invent that job but rather inherited it as the result of some very strong peer pressure from my co-workers upon my young, naive and highly impressionable mindset at the time. When that did occur, it always happened *at* the workplace only very late into the shift; I never once showed up that way nor would I have ever dared to. That reference pertains to some early fall semester Saturday nights, in retrospect far too many of them, when we'd screen "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" as a midnight movie and even then I'd imbibe usually only after the changeover (at the only place in town that still used a two-projector system). In those situations I was accompanied by an equally lit concession staff and manager as well as a far more drastically inebriated audience. Good times to be sure, if only I could remember them. I was just barely at the legal drinking age at the time and attending a college that was known for its partying more than anything else.

Our copy of "Rocky Horror" was the same forlorn, brittle print that had been continuously bicycled across the region for a couple of years, and had seen incredible abuse (always at the hands of other operators, of course). Hence my reference to splicing in that condition while a house full of drunken students howled like mad over what might not have been the first or even second interruption of the night. Late in my career we actually advertised "New Print!" on the marquee when we finally received a minty-fresh "Rocky Horror" replacement from our distributor (the promise of this eventual inevitability may have actually hastened and elevated the abuse thrusted upon the old one, but every projectionist in the region took great care of the new print from then on).

Originally Posted by Christopher C. Murphy

You said that the 2 projection system isn't out there running arc rods??? HA! There are still projection systems out there that running and are like 80 years old...and they'll be projecting the new Star Wars film!

While there may in fact be a few houses that are still burning carbon arcs, they are becoming more rare every year and are increasingly harder and harder to find. Most all new major metropolitan cineplexes use Xenon lamps, platters, and fully automatic projection systems... not to mention stadium seats. I ran projectors in a medium-sized college town in Kansas back in the early '80's, and all four theaters had Xenons even then. Two had platters, one had a 2-projector manual changeover system, and one (the only twin theater in town at the time) had a rare single-projector, single-giant-reel-to-reel for each auditorium which was always breaking down.

Originally Posted by Christopher C. Murphy

Man, I could go back and reply to all your comments. But, I can't stand people like you that make posting on here a miserable experience....which is why I don't post as often anymore. It's a selective process now and it didn't use to be.

I certainly don't get that impression at all, but this might be the right time to close this thread. I think it's all been said and done at this point.