bad movie selection in the Picture House
purpledog
saying that they show bad movie, actually I find it pretty good. I just
think it's a pity to show the same movie all day long. Look at this
week for instance:
An Inconvenient Truth (U): 12:20, 14:30, 16:40, 18:50, 21:00
Little Miss Sunshine (15): 12:00, 16:30, 21:10
Three Times (12A): 12:15, 15:00, 17:45, 20:30
Volver (15): 14:10, 18:40
Ok, let's forget about the first one, I'm not a big fan of USA
propaganda, even if it is for a good reason. Why the hell do they only
show 4 movies (almost three?). This cinema has only three projection
rooms and is suppose to be independant. It SHOULD try to use its power
of expression, to show AS MUCH AS IT CAN. There are so many movie
outthere which are really worse a ticket.
Instead of that, I can only choose between three movies. I saw them all
actually, and they are pretty good. Too bad I cannot go more often. So
guess what I am doing? I'm renting DVDs. But wait! The selection is so
poor (except the emporium which is "ok"). So, so, so what? Oh yes,
of-course, I'm downloading movies on the internet. The selection is so
good!
Too bad really... Too bad
D J.@hoyme.com Mark D J.
news:1159129362.3...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> The selection in the Cambridge art cinema is really poor. I'm not
> saying that they show bad movie, actually I find it pretty good. I just
> think it's a pity to show the same movie all day long.
Can someone on the Council who reads this perhaps tell us how long it has
been since the expiry of the quality-control agreement that the Arts Picture
House made when we lost the old trust-owned Arts Cinema and got this purely
commercial and externally owned set-up instead...?
Thanks.
M.
Paul Gotch
> show 4 movies (almost three?). This cinema has only three projection
> rooms and is suppose to be independant. It SHOULD try to use its power
> of expression, to show AS MUCH AS IT CAN. There are so many movie
> outthere which are really worse a ticket.
Because when showing 35mm film it's quite hard to make a profit. There is an
upfront fee for hiring the film in the first place the a percentage fee per
audience member to cover royalties. Infact it costs the Arts Picture House
more to rent the film than Cineworld or Vue because they are independant.
Also each screen is only going to have one long play unit. The 35mm film
arrives on 9 small reels or so and must be spliced together and fed onto one
huge reel which is mounted on a long play unit in order to be shown.
If the cinema was to show three different films per screen per night they
would quickly go bust due to the additional up front film hire charges and
the additional staff costs to prepare and handle the fiim.
> of-course, I'm downloading movies on the internet. The selection is so
> good!
Which is copyright violation and illegal. I'm no fan of the MPAA but people
downloding illegal copies of films from the internet just plays into their
hands and give them a reason to keep DVD prices high because they are
losing n bilion mythical dollars per year due to piracy.
The cinemas will eventually all go digital solving the film handling
problems however the distributors will attempt to hang on to their old
pricing model. It'll take a shake out and the distributors seeing their
profits going down due to cinema closures before they change their pricing
models.
-p
--
"Unix is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are."
- Anonymous
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Fox
wrote:
It's not the only cinema in Cambridge, you know. You've got a choice
of far more than three films if you look up Vue and Cineworld as well.
Linda ff
Martin Burchell
> The cinemas will eventually all go digital solving the film handling
> problems however the distributors will attempt to hang on to their old
> pricing model. It'll take a shake out and the distributors seeing their
> profits going down due to cinema closures before they change their pricing
> models.
Hasn't the Picture House already "gone digital"?
Martin
Francis Turton
Linda Fox wrote:
>
> It's not the only cinema in Cambridge, you know. You've got a choice
> of far more than three films if you look up Vue and Cineworld as well.
>
Perhaps the OP wants to see films that have some substance to them
rather than overhyped production line Hollywood tosh?
--- www.dogsticks.org ---
Jens Tingleff
Hash: SHA1
purpledog wrote:
> The selection in the Cambridge art cinema is really poor. I'm not
> saying that they show bad movie, actually I find it pretty good. I just
> think it's a pity to show the same movie all day long. Look at this
> week for instance:
>
> An Inconvenient Truth (U): 12:20, 14:30, 16:40, 18:50, 21:00
> Little Miss Sunshine (15): 12:00, 16:30, 21:10
> Three Times (12A): 12:15, 15:00, 17:45, 20:30
> Volver (15): 14:10, 18:40
>
Well, they were playing "A scanner darkly" once a day for a loong time,
which seems to be more or less what you're asking for (as I understand
you).
So, yes, this week it looks like it's back to earning money (when I saw A
Scanner Darkly" I don't think there was more than three people in the
audience), but my general impression is a little less bad than yours.
<shrug>
Best Regards
Jens
- --
Key ID 0x09723C12, jens...@tingleff.org
Analogue filtering / 5GHz RLAN / Mdk Linux / odds and ends
http://www.tingleff.org/jensting/ +44 1223 211 585
"I have fallen for you like a blind roofer" 'Hot Shots'
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFF4tUimJs3AlyPBIRAkeFAKDRpzYS5UFNL2J4ssePztMAPsHx/gCg1YeB
XSVHFoGhzg2/GHJloPw+GVA=
=7tMQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Roland Perry
17:17:06 on Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Francis Turton <ftu...@3glab.com>
remarked:
>> It's not the only cinema in Cambridge, you know. You've got a choice
>> of far more than three films if you look up Vue and Cineworld as well.
>
>Perhaps the OP wants to see films that have some substance to them
>rather than overhyped production line Hollywood tosh?
A shame he dismisses the one film from the four which most meets that
criterion :(
--
Roland Perry
Dan
news:1159129362.3...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> saying that they show bad movie, actually I find it pretty good. I just
> think it's a pity to show the same movie all day long. Look at this
> week for instance:
>
> An Inconvenient Truth (U): 12:20, 14:30, 16:40, 18:50, 21:00
> Little Miss Sunshine (15): 12:00, 16:30, 21:10
> Three Times (12A): 12:15, 15:00, 17:45, 20:30
> Volver (15): 14:10, 18:40
So they're showing a documentary, a big hit from this year's Sundance
film festival, a film by a director (Hou Hsiao-hsien) whose work hardly ever
gets shown in this country, and a film by the most internationally
recognised
non-English-language film director out there. A fairly wide-range of films,
even if they're only showing four.
> This cinema has only three projection rooms and is suppose to be
> independant.
From the films above, it most certainly is showing independent cinema, and
does operate independently.
> It SHOULD try to use its power of expression, to show AS MUCH AS
> IT CAN.
Why should it show "AS MUCH AS IT CAN"? The programmers have
obviously decided that these are the films they want to show.
And don't forget that for the Picturehouse to show a film they actually have
to PAY for the privilege for the use of the print. If they had six/eight/ten
prints
at any one time, this just wouldn't be economically feasible if they're only
going to be shown a handful of times.
And you're posting this a few weeks after the Cambridge Film Festival (where
they showed upwards of 100 different films in eleven days), and a few days
after they showed films like DESTRICTED, Jafar Pahani's OFFSIDE and
SHANGHAI DREAMS - films you're hardly likely to see in many places
in the whole country outside of London. And pretty soon the Tuesday night
films associated with the film course will be on, and there's usually a good
retrospective series to watch over Autumn/Winter. As far as I'm concerned,
the Picturehouse is a godsend compared to the rest of the cinemas in
Cambridge.
> There are so many movie outthere which are really worse a ticket.
I'd like to hear what else you think they should be showing.
As far as I'm concerned, they show pretty much all of the (independent)
films
in general release that I'd expect to see.
> Instead of that, I can only choose between three movies. I saw them all
> actually, and they are pretty good. Too bad I cannot go more often. So
> guess what I am doing? I'm renting DVDs. But wait! The selection is so
> poor (except the emporium which is "ok").
How about trying the online DVD rental places? Lovefilm, for example.
(there's
actually a special offer for lovefilm on the picturehouse website)
> So, so, so what? Oh yes, of-course, I'm downloading movies on the
> internet. The selection is so good!
>
> Too bad really... Too bad
Well - if you want to watch a new film every night, then a three-screen
cinema
won't be able to help you out, and you'll have to rely on other sources. If
you're
downloading films off the internet that might actually get a commercial
release
in the UK, then you're not going to help cinemas like the Picturehouse who
will
have to focus their attention more and more on films that will make them
money
as opposed to the more niche films that they often show.
Dan.
Paul Gotch
> Hasn't the Picture House already "gone digital"?
I know they have had digital gear in particularly during the film festival
but I don't know if they've put in permanent digital projection. It's still
the case that a lot of stuff is only available on 35mm.
purpledog
> I'd like to hear what else you think they should be showing.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, they show pretty much all of the (independent)
> films in general release that I'd expect to see.
What other source of information do you have apart the little booklet
provided by the picturehouse cinema? Ok, that's a bit provocative,
sorry :-)
But YES, there'a an awful lot of movie outhere that we won't see in
cambridge because of the poor quality of selection. I'm lazy but if you
insist one more time I'll try to gather a list.
And yes this is great to have this festival in Cambridge, but that
doesn't feel the whole year unfortunately.
And yes, it cost money to show movies. I'm not a cinema manager and I
don't actually know if it's feasible to show a greater variety of
movies. Still, this what I would like to see.
The art cinema is quite good, well, at least the best in Cambridge in
terms of independant cinema. The only one actually and that's why it
could be better. Now it simply feels the gap just next to Vue and
Cineworld: as much mainstream as possible but sufficiently independant
to avoid the competition.
Fair enough, that where the money is.
But...
Dan Owen
>
> What other source of information do you have apart the little booklet
> provided by the picturehouse cinema? Ok, that's a bit provocative,
> sorry :-)
What sources of information? I follow what gets released each week by
reading the reviews in the Guardian ), use the launchingfilms website
http://www.launchingfilms.com to see when things get a UK release,
follow what's being shown at the larger film festivals around the world
(Cannes, Toronto, Sundance, Venice, Berlin) to get an idea for what's
currently doing the rounds that *might* get a release in the UK, and also
read a few film-specific websites to follow reviews and news.
So I've got a pretty fair idea of what's out there.
> But YES, there'a an awful lot of movie outhere that we won't see in
> cambridge because of the poor quality of selection.
So first of all you're bemoaning the number of films shown, and now you're
complaining about the quality? As I said in my previous post, Cambridge
is phenomenally lucky to have the Picturehouse. We get to see films here
that many people will never ever see in a cinema.
And if they programmed more and more films, the quality will surely
suffer. Programmers will be selecting films based on artistic merit (which
obviously comes with a large degree of subjectivity) as well as for
commercial considerations. There's no point in them showing a film that
only sells a couple of tickets (which happened when I went to see the
Thai film TROPICAL MALADY, and I was the only person present)
as much as you would insist on it.
> I'm lazy but if you insist one more time I'll try to gather a list.
Go on then - I'd be interested to see what you think the picturehouse
should be showing. You could always cc the manager of the picturehouse
who I'm sure would forward your suggestions onto the programming team.
> And yes, it cost money to show movies. I'm not a cinema manager and I
> don't actually know if it's feasible to show a greater variety of
> movies. Still, this what I would like to see.
Ok - I imagine it's not feasible, so it's not going to happen. Join lovefilm
and catch with films that way.
> The art cinema is quite good, well, at least the best in Cambridge in
> terms of independant cinema. The only one actually and that's why it
> could be better.
I fail to understand your logic here, but I can't be arsed to argue.
> Fair enough, that where the money is.
Yes - and that's one of the key things. THEY HAVE TO MAKE MONEY
OTHERWISE THEY WON'T EXIST ANY MORE. And then where will
we be? What you're proposing is (I'm sure) completely financially unviable.
Remind me not to invest in any business you decide to start.
Dan.
Plum
was good enough to be startling. Should be seen.
"Dan Owen" <dan....@mathworks.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ef8krv$2p7$1...@fred.mathworks.com...
purpledog
> > cambridge because of the poor quality of selection.
>
> So first of all you're bemoaning the number of films shown, and now you're
> complaining about the quality?
Yeap, sorry, not very clear. I'm definetely talking about the diversity
here, not the quality.
btw, no need to feel offended really.
Cheers
Ian Manning
> The selection in the Cambridge art cinema is really poor. I'm not
> Ok, let's forget about the first one, I'm not a big fan of USA
> propaganda, even if it is for a good reason. Why the hell do they only
> show 4 movies (almost three?). This cinema has only three projection
> rooms and is suppose to be independant. It SHOULD try to use its power
> of expression, to show AS MUCH AS IT CAN. There are so many movie
> outthere which are really worse a ticket.
The Arts Picture House has been under threat ever since the Cineworld
opened, and both Vue and the Cineworld started showing what would be
traditionally considered arts house fair, but the type that also gets
some general release (Million Dollar Baby was a good example).
They can't risk loosing money constantly so have to show more mainstream
stuff.
--
Ian "tutenkamu" Manning
"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he
didn't exist."
Kevin Spacey (Verbal Kint); The Usual Suspects
purpledog
This week in UK:
Click - USA
Echo Park L.A. - UK
Hoodwinked - USA
Johanna - Hungaria
Krisana - Australian
Life and Lyrics - UK
Mountain Patrol - USA
Nina's Heavenly Delights - UK
World Trade Center - USA
Zidane: A 21st Century Portrait - french
This week in France:
12 and Holding - USA
Chacun sa nuit - french
Kebab Connection - german
L'Accordeur de tremblements de terre -UK/german
L'Héritage -french/georgie
La Méthode - spanish
Les Aristos - french
Melissa P. - italian
Président - french
Sarajevo, mon amour - bosniac
World Trade Center - USA
Same number of release. More USA movies in UK, 2 non-english-spoken
movies. The only movie the picture house will show next week in this
list is "Echo Park L.A"
Ofcourse that's only one random week and it doesn't say much. Could be
interesting to have more numbers... Perhpas one day I'll try to get
some real (i.e. better) stats...
Paul Gotch
> So first of all you're bemoaning the number of films shown, and now you're
> complaining about the quality? As I said in my previous post, Cambridge
> is phenomenally lucky to have the Picturehouse. We get to see films here
> that many people will never ever see in a cinema.
Plus the Cambridge film festival snarfs premiers for quite a bit of stuff
that by rights ought to go to Edinburgh simply by being earlier in the year.
Chris Shore
> arrives on 9 small reels or so and must be spliced together and fed onto
> one
> huge reel which is mounted on a long play unit in order to be shown.
Doesn't anyone do manual reel changes any more? We used to project feature
films
at school on a pair of 35mm Kalees (with carbon arc lamps to boot) and
always
did running changes from reel to reel. It isn't that difficult but it does
require at
least two operators to do it and I guess most cinemas work on single-manned
projection setups these days...shame!
Chris
Michael Hoffman
> Doesn't anyone do manual reel changes any more? We used to project feature
> films
> at school on a pair of 35mm Kalees (with carbon arc lamps to boot) and
> always
> did running changes from reel to reel. It isn't that difficult but it does
> require at
> least two operators to do it and I guess most cinemas work on single-manned
> projection setups these days...shame!
Why is this a shame?
Dan Owen
> "purpledog" <frank....@gmail.com> wrote
> Comparison of national release:
>
> This week in UK:
>
> Click - USA
This is an Adam Sandler film and as such, barely qualifies to be called a
film.
> Echo Park L.A. - UK
This is from the USA and is in a mixture of English and Spanish.
> Hoodwinked - USA
> Johanna - Hungaria
> Krisana - Australian
This is actually Latvian
> Life and Lyrics - UK
> Mountain Patrol - USA
This is a film from China (filmed in Tibet) in Mandarin and Tibetan.
> Nina's Heavenly Delights - UK
> World Trade Center - USA
> Zidane: A 21st Century Portrait - french
> This week in France:
Comparing what it released in the UK and France is completely irrelevent
to your original argument of the "bad" programming at the Picturehouse. If
you have a problem with the types of films released in the UK compared to
France (which is a wholly different market with a much stronger national
cinema
than ours), then take it up with the distributors, not the cinemas (who can
only
choose from what gets released).
> Same number of release. More USA movies in UK, 2 non-english-spoken
> movies. The only movie the picture house will show next week in this
> list is "Echo Park L.A"
Ok - so there's actually more than 2 non-english spoken films in the list,
but
films don't always make it straight to all cinemas on opening night. If
you've
followed the Picturehouse over the years, you'll see that we almost ALWAYS
get films a couple of weeks later than when they get released in the UK
(apart
from the larger releases). Many of the films you mention, many of them are
getting
an initial release in London and other ("key") cities afterwards
Looking at http://www.launchingfilms.com/index.php
Johanna - shown at the ICA Cinema (key cities 13th Oct)
Zidane - opening at a handful of cinemas in London and Key cities (& coming
soon to the picturehouse)
Krisana - opening at Cine Lumiere and Tate Modern (key cities tbc)
Mountain Patrol - a couple of London cinemas and key cities from the 6th of
October.
So they'll come here, but they're getting an initial release in London, then
they'll
make their way to the key cities around the country - just be thankful that
we
live in a key city and will at least get to see these films. Films also
don't get to the
picturehouse because the film companies charge more for prints early on in
the
run than afterwards.
And I'll ignore the implicit argument that the non-English-language films
are
somehow automatically better than English language ones. In the (shorter)
list
of films above, there are two that I want to see (but not overly excited
about
them) and one that I've seen (Krisana) that I'm fairly amazed is getting a
release
at all.
> Ofcourse that's only one random week and it doesn't say much.
You don't say.
Dan
Al Grant
> Go on then - I'd be interested to see what you think the picturehouse
> should be showing. You could always cc the manager of the picturehouse
> who I'm sure would forward your suggestions onto the programming team.
One thing that arts cinemas traditionally do (IME) is to
show old films as well as new ones. So one can catch
up on the canon of great, or at least arty, films, just by
sticking around long enough. I would guess they are
cheaper for the cinema to rent (or even own a print of).
AFAICT this is not happening at the Arts Cinema.
Perhaps part of the problem here is competition from
student film societies?
> Yes - and that's one of the key things. THEY HAVE TO MAKE MONEY
> OTHERWISE THEY WON'T EXIST ANY MORE.
I don't know whether the arts cinemas I used to go to
broke even, but I do know they seemed to be spending
next to nothing on having a smart, clean front-of-house
and glossy advertising. Which perhaps made them more
rather than less likely to attract financial support from
genuine cinema fans and arts lovers.
Simon Morris
>
> One thing that arts cinemas traditionally do (IME) is to
> show old films as well as new ones. So one can catch
> up on the canon of great, or at least arty, films, just by
> sticking around long enough. I would guess they are
> cheaper for the cinema to rent (or even own a print of).
>
> AFAICT this is not happening at the Arts Cinema.
> Perhaps part of the problem here is competition from
> student film societies?
>
I remember that happening nearly 20 years ago, both here and in Oxford,
when student film societies were also good. I think the old Arts Cinema
stopped doing this (so it's not just the new Arts Picture House), and I
think I remember hearing at the time that increased charges for old
prints were to blame.
S.
Mark T.B. Carroll
(snip)
> least two operators to do it and I guess most cinemas work on
> single-manned projection setups these days...shame!
A few years ago over here when Dawn was a cinema manager, projection was
typically unmanned once it got started - some nights it was basically
her and a few high school kids running six screens on old, dodgy
equipment. As labor costs go up and corporations get greedier, there are
fewer people available as 'minders' for things. (The high school kids
were mostly selling tickets, food, etc. while Dawn tried to keep most of
the rest of the place running.)
-- Mark
Mark T.B. Carroll
(snip)
> One thing that arts cinemas traditionally do (IME) is to
> show old films as well as new ones. So one can catch
> up on the canon of great, or at least arty, films, just by
> sticking around long enough. I would guess they are
> cheaper for the cinema to rent (or even own a print of).
Hmmm, that's interesting. Certainly much we've rented on Netflix lately
has been old, even some from the 1930s. So it would appeal to some.
(Actually, I wouldn't mind an opportunity to see later science fiction
stuff like 2001 on the big screen.)
Certainly films that are some weeks old are cheaper than the latest
releases. To what extent that effect continues, I've no idea.
-- Mark
Chris Shore
"Michael Hoffman" <cam....@mh391.invalid> wrote in message
news:efaqk1$cd0$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
Simply because it was fun for those of us who did it and it's
a shame to think that nobody does it any more...
Espen Koht
"Chris Shore" <chris...@arm.nospam.com> wrote:
> Doesn't anyone do manual reel changes any more? We used to project feature
> films
> at school on a pair of 35mm Kalees (with carbon arc lamps to boot) and
> always
> did running changes from reel to reel. It isn't that difficult but it does
> require at
> least two operators to do it and I guess most cinemas work on single-manned
> projection setups these days...shame!
Why would you need two operators for this? Two-reel systems with
changeover between two 35mm projectors can be manned perfectly well by a
single projectionist.
Espen
Espen Koht
Paul Gotch <pa...@at-cantab-dot.net> wrote:
> Because when showing 35mm film it's quite hard to make a profit. There is an
> upfront fee for hiring the film in the first place the a percentage fee per
> audience member to cover royalties. Infact it costs the Arts Picture House
> more to rent the film than Cineworld or Vue because they are independant.
My only experience with this is from the States more than a decade ago,
so correct me if things are widely different here, but the cost will
depend a lot on what kind of 35mm film you are showing. First run films
were expensive, but back-catalogue stuff was surprisingly reasonably
priced. At $250 I think shipping and handling costs were often more than
the rental! I don't remember if we had per head fees, but that's less
problematic; your ticket price factors that in.
> Also each screen is only going to have one long play unit. The 35mm film
> arrives on 9 small reels or so and must be spliced together and fed onto one
> huge reel which is mounted on a long play unit in order to be shown.
But once on those long play platters you don't have to spend time
rewinding all those reels. Or, if you don't show each film many times,
use a changeover system.
Tony Naggs
Grant <alg...@myrealbox.com> wrote
>
>One thing that arts cinemas traditionally do (IME) is to
>show old films as well as new ones. So one can catch
>up on the canon of great, or at least arty, films, just by
>sticking around long enough. I would guess they are
>cheaper for the cinema to rent (or even own a print of).
>
>AFAICT this is not happening at the Arts Cinema.
I cannot believe you have looked at a programme from the Picturehouse
before posting. You can see most of it here:
http://www.picturehouses.co.uk/cinema_home_date.aspx?venueId=camb
Plenty of great films from the past come to Cambridge for a visit every
month.
There is a children's film showing every Saturday morning, often an
older classic - this Saturday Gene Wilder leads in Willy Wonka and the
Chocolate Factory. I think the Picturehouse group tour these prints
around their group.
There is a repertory art film on Sunday afternoons, and very wide range
features for Friday & Saturday night lates - this week including Grease
and the director's cut of The Wicker Man from 1973. These certainly
count as great films in my book.
The monthly tour by "Future Shorts" of a collected programme of new &
old short films from around the world visits this Friday night too.
Not to mention such things as the touring retrospectives, NFT re-issues,
Alliance Francaise matinees, etc...
>I don't know whether the arts cinemas I used to go to
>broke even, but I do know they seemed to be spending
>next to nothing on having a smart, clean front-of-house
>and glossy advertising. Which perhaps made them more
>rather than less likely to attract financial support from
>genuine cinema fans and arts lovers.
I guess the glossy programme is largely possible through sharing the
cost of collecting pictures & descriptions across the Picturehouse
group. It certainly alerts me to films with only one or two screenings
in a way that occasional visits to the programme on the website does
not.
The Cafe is good, and I will often meet friends there just for a coffee
and/or crepe.
Tony
--
"If you don't know, invent." - Robert Baden-Powell
Steve McIntyre
Al Grant <alg...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>Dan Owen wrote:
>> Go on then - I'd be interested to see what you think the picturehouse
>> should be showing. You could always cc the manager of the picturehouse
>> who I'm sure would forward your suggestions onto the programming team.
>
>One thing that arts cinemas traditionally do (IME) is to
>show old films as well as new ones. So one can catch
>up on the canon of great, or at least arty, films, just by
>sticking around long enough. I would guess they are
>cheaper for the cinema to rent (or even own a print of).
>
>AFAICT this is not happening at the Arts Cinema.
>Perhaps part of the problem here is competition from
>student film societies?
The Arts seems to be getting on OK on that front too in my experience,
with regular showings of older movies at later showings and weekend
matinees.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com
We don't need no education.
We don't need no thought control.
Chris Shore
> changeover between two 35mm projectors can be manned perfectly well by a
> single projectionist.
I can see that it could be done. The way our projection room was setup
madeit impossible though. Two projectors next to each other with run
switches and lamp shutters on the right hand side of each meant that you
had to have an operator for each. Would be quite feasible to move the
controls on the right hand projector to the centre so a single operator
could sit in the middle I suppose but ours wasn't set up that way.
I recall someone once trying to do it single-handed, involving starting
projector two and then running tound the back of it to handle the
picture/sound switch from the centre position. It was possible and
fun but not reliably repeatable!
Chris
Kevin Symonds
"Tony Naggs"
> I guess the glossy programme is largely possible through sharing the cost
> of collecting pictures & descriptions across the Picturehouse group. It
> certainly alerts me to films with only one or two screenings in a way that
> occasional visits to the programme on the website does not.<
The email sent out every week with information on what filsm and events and
offers are on is very useful, I'm aware of whats on, even if I'm not going.
There is one thing I think the cinema needs but doesn't (and can't) have,
and that is a decent entrance.
Having them squeezed either side of the entrance to the Regal isn't exactly
welcoming.
Kevin