Theater curtains: open before or after the movie starts.
Darren
then started the film.
What is the proper way to do this?
I think that starting the film then opening the curtsins gives a more
dramatic effect.
Who is right?
Darren
Lincoln Spector
"Darren" <dnem...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:h1Tmj.130$uZ....@newsfe05.lga...
>I saw two films at two different movie palaces. Both opened the curtains
> then started the film.
>
> What is the proper way to do this?
>
> I think that starting the film then opening the curtsins gives a more
> dramatic effect.
days that the operators don't always know the procedure.
Lincoln
Neil Midkiff
> I saw two films at two different movie palaces. Both opened the curtains
> then started the film.
>
> What is the proper way to do this?
>
> I think that starting the film then opening the curtsins gives a more
> dramatic effect.
I've been told that showing a blank screen to the audience was always considered
a breach of etiquette in the classic days of movie palaces. A blank white
rectangle also would look out of place amid the exotic decorations of the rest
of the auditorium, which were an important part of the filmgoing experience.
We're lucky to have the chance to see it done absolutely right at the Stanford
Theatre in Palo Alto.
http://stanfordtheatre.org/stf/
The heavy red curtain opens (an "Austrian" curtain rising upward) to reveal
lighter-weight beige curtains, on which the projection begins with the studio
logo. The lighter curtains then open in the middle (traveling horizontally from
the center to the sides) to reveal the screen as the main title begins.
-Neil Midkiff
J. Theakston
> "Darren" <dnemet...@charter.net> wrote in message
Expanding on this-- the idea is that your screen is never exposed
unless there's something being projected onto it.
J. Theakston
Peter
>> What is the proper way to do this?
>>
>> I think that starting the film then opening the curtsins gives a more
>> dramatic effect.
> That's how it's supposed to be done. But so few theaters have curtains these
> days that the operators don't always know the procedure.
The curtain should begin opening at the last black frame of the
Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp logo, and should be as nearly fully
opened as possible by the first note of the horns in the Fox Fanfare.
The operator should "lead" this point by several frames.
It is AGAINST THE LAW for the curtain not to be fully open during the
dissolve to the A CinemaScope Production/Picture extension.
--
CinemaScope®: The Modern Miracle You See without Special Glasses!
--
Peter
Martin Hart
says...
Here's way more than you ever wanted to know about the use of the
curtain in a real theatre, or here at my house.
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/roadshow_presentation.htm
or
http://tinyurl.com/2btsve
Marty
G Bell
Filmhouse in Edinburgh open the curtains as the opening logo or
calssification certicate is showing which I think is the right place.
They shut them after the adverts and previews, which catches younger
people out who start sniggering thinking the management have made a
boo-boo! Also it lets them move the black screen covering so the screen
is the proper size for the aspect ratio of the film they are showing.
Hate the multiplexes where you have excess screen to the sides when showing
a non-2.35:1 ratio film.
Graham
veyoung
Theatre Example: William Goldman's Midtown theatre in Philly installed 70mm
projection in late 1955 and ran the first three Todd-AO features as
full-blown all-seats-reserved, 10-shows-weekly, advanced-prices roadshow
events without benefit of any curtains or masking whatsoever....screen too
large. Same with the Times Square Paramount after the VistaVision install,
although during that period no films were actually "roadshown" there, it was
nevertheless a first-run "class" "premiere" venue. Both houses displayed
color light effects on their otherwise blank screens.
Film Example: I wonder how theatres handled (or mishandled) "Duel In The
Sun" in 1946 which had both a Prelude AND an overture, the latter being
mostly music, but which also included off-screen narration by Orson Welles
whose famous booming voice could have possibly been diluted by layers of
curtain fabric. Did anybody open and/or raise the curtains then?
"Darren" <dnem...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:h1Tmj.130$uZ....@newsfe05.lga...
ep4...@yahoo.com
mentioned in a previous post that many contemporary films either begin
w/o logos or titles or have important sound effects (musical or
otherwise) during the logos; I personally would not ever show a blank
screen even if the logos contained important material - figure out
some way around it (not being a projectionist I am not sure what that
would be).
As for not ever showing a blank screen: at the long gone Harford
Loew's Poli there would sometimes be previews in CScope. The curtain
would be closed, lighted, & opened and lights faded for the 'flat'
preview, then closed and opened for the scope preview; while closed
the masking for the scope preview would have been dropped. As the
scope preview ended the curtains were again closed, the masking
raised, then opened for the flat preview. As the previews ended,
regardless of the AR of the coming feature, the curtains would be
closed, lighted, and opened again and the lights faded, with of course
the scope masking being dropped if necessary. I have no idea how much
of this was done either backstage or in the booth or some combination
thereof and I sometimes wondered if guys were bumping into each other!
Martin Hart
7bbefa...@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, ep4...@yahoo.com says...
<SNIP>
> As for not ever showing a blank screen: at the long gone Harford
> Loew's Poli there would sometimes be previews in CScope. The curtain
> would be closed, lighted, & opened and lights faded for the 'flat'
> preview, then closed and opened for the scope preview; while closed
> the masking for the scope preview would have been dropped. As the
> scope preview ended the curtains were again closed, the masking
> raised, then opened for the flat preview. As the previews ended,
> regardless of the AR of the coming feature, the curtains would be
> closed, lighted, and opened again and the lights faded, with of course
> the scope masking being dropped if necessary. I have no idea how much
> of this was done either backstage or in the booth or some combination
> thereof and I sometimes wondered if guys were bumping into each other!
Just a minor correction. The 'scope screen maskings moved in and out,
not up and down. The method of presentation that you describe was used
by virtually every theatre, regardless of size, in the U.S. until
General Cinema Corporation showed everyone how to save money. A dozen
blue flood lamps cost considerably less than fifty feet of drapes.
Marty
--
The American WideScreen Museum
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/
R...@theatresupport.com
Dunno about the Hartford theatre, but in at least some of the grand
old dames, scope masking did move up and down. The theatre design was
for the old academy ratio, and there was even a problem fitting
wide-screen, and then scope exacerbated the problem. Since there was
no spare real estate at the sides, scope masking had to trim the top
and/or bottom to present the proper aspect ratio. IIRC, one of the
Lamb designed theatres where I projected had this system.
Scott Norwood
In article <o2a1q3l0gmgdfr9fv...@4ax.com>,
<R...@theatresupport.com> wrote:
>
>Dunno about the Hartford theatre, but in at least some of the grand
>old dames, scope masking did move up and down. The theatre design was
>for the old academy ratio, and there was even a problem fitting
>wide-screen, and then scope exacerbated the problem.
Top masking appears to have been popular in neighborhood and
small-town theatres from the beginning of Cinemascope. I've worked
in several like this. A 1.66:1 (more-or-less) proscenium seems to
have been common. One actually had a 1.75:1 screen installed circa
1955 with top and side masking for scope (the sides only moved out
by about a foot, and moved in for Academy). This was redone a few
years ago and I belive that it is now a common-height system.
--
Scott Norwood: snor...@nyx.net, snor...@redballoon.net
Cool Home Page: http://www.redballoon.net/
Lame Quote: Penguins? In Snack Canyon?
Scott Norwood
In article <MPG.220a4c13e...@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
Martin Hart <oldto...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>Just a minor correction. The 'scope screen maskings moved in and out,
>not up and down. The method of presentation that you describe was used
>by virtually every theatre, regardless of size, in the U.S. until
>General Cinema Corporation showed everyone how to save money. A dozen
>blue flood lamps cost considerably less than fifty feet of drapes.
...until someone realized that the company could save even more money
by dispensing with the blue lamps and just showing advertising slides
on the screen between shows....
Robert DiMucci
> In article <o2a1q3l0gmgdfr9fv...@4ax.com>,
> <R...@theatresupport.com> wrote:
>
>>Dunno about the Hartford theatre, but in at least some of the grand
>>old dames, scope masking did move up and down. The theatre design was
>>for the old academy ratio, and there was even a problem fitting
>>wide-screen, and then scope exacerbated the problem.
>
>
> Top masking appears to have been popular in neighborhood and
> small-town theatres from the beginning of Cinemascope. I've worked
> in several like this. A 1.66:1 (more-or-less) proscenium seems to
> have been common. One actually had a 1.75:1 screen installed circa
> 1955 with top and side masking for scope (the sides only moved out
> by about a foot, and moved in for Academy). This was redone a few
> years ago and I belive that it is now a common-height system.
>
result that academy-ratio films are shown on larger screens than scope
films.
Scott Norwood
In article <jM6dnXwfw-vzez3a...@rcn.net>,
Robert DiMucci <rdim...@erols.com> wrote:
>>
>Sadly, about half of modern multiplexes are designed this way, with the
>result that academy-ratio films are shown on larger screens than scope
>films.
Agreed that there is no excuse for this in a new build. I was referring
to venues which were designed and built prior to 1950, where there were
no other options when they converted to show widescreen and scope formats.
The worst example of this that I have seen in a new (well, ten years ago)
venue is one that uses a common _width_ screen, so Academy is about twice
as tall as scope. This is a college and not a commercial venue, but it's
still pretty bad.
R...@theatresupport.com
(Scott Norwood) wrote:
>In article <jM6dnXwfw-vzez3a...@rcn.net>,
>Robert DiMucci <rdim...@erols.com> wrote:
>>>
>>Sadly, about half of modern multiplexes are designed this way, with the
>>result that academy-ratio films are shown on larger screens than scope
>>films.
>
>Agreed that there is no excuse for this in a new build. I was referring
>to venues which were designed and built prior to 1950, where there were
>no other options when they converted to show widescreen and scope formats.
I wish it weren't so, but there actually are excuses for such designs.
A limiting factor in most multiplexes is the width of the screen, and
fire laws that dictate exits near the screen. In retro-builds, where
the original construction supporting columns are spaced without regard
to the need for a larger theatre span, smaller auditoriums have to fit
a lot into that width.
In new construction, the cost of the added square footage can drive a
location into unprofitability. Typically (with some notable
exceptions, like Herman Stone's concept of equal auditoriums), the
auditoriums are differently sized to accomodate different sized
audiences effectively and efficiently.
The big auditoriums will have all the bells and whistles, and most
casual moviegoers may never even see the smaller ones. As movies go
from first week into subsequent weeks, they are moved to smaller
auditoriums to make way for new product. Some films lose in the move,
and some actually benefit from not having a sparsely populated barn of
an auditorium.
When the architect or engineer designs the complex, he often does so
with the expectation that a couple of smaller auditoriums may rarely
host a scope film. If the management and bookers hold to that, it
works fine. If not, then the audience suffers. On the side of the
audience, stadium seating seems to promote the wider auditoriums that
handle scope well.
One major new issue in theatre construction is the limited time of
viability of a site. One theatre that I ran as a premier theatre for
a major city became more valuable as retail space within 15 years.
Another new construction lasted about ten years before being torn
down. Wasting money on empty square-footage makes even less sense
when the cost can only be amortized over a short time.
IMO, changing demographics, changing marketing decisions, and changes
in the technology all seem to be conspiring to turn movie theatres
into either traveling tent shows or large screen destinations. The
continuing inroads of 3D will likely create the need for more changes,
possibly back to narrower sight lines, or even (micro-) louvered
screens. My crystal ball is a bit cloudy where it will all end.
Brian
> In article <jM6dnXwfw-vzez3a...@rcn.net>,
> Robert DiMucci <rdim...@erols.com> wrote:
>> Sadly, about half of modern multiplexes are designed this way, with the
>> result that academy-ratio films are shown on larger screens than scope
>> films.
>
> Agreed that there is no excuse for this in a new build. I was referring
> to venues which were designed and built prior to 1950, where there were
> no other options when they converted to show widescreen and scope formats.
>
> The worst example of this that I have seen in a new (well, ten years ago)
> venue is one that uses a common _width_ screen, so Academy is about twice
> as tall as scope. This is a college and not a commercial venue, but it's
> still pretty bad.
>
ago that used the same standard screen for everything. The film was
anamorphic and one of the on screen captions showed the location as
"Worth", presumed to be a suburb of Fort Worth and then the action moved
to "Lon Eng". In the end guessing the locations proved the most
enjoyable part of the movie!!
Martin Hart
says...
>
> In article <MPG.220a4c13e...@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> Martin Hart <oldto...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >
> >Just a minor correction. The 'scope screen maskings moved in and out,
> >not up and down. The method of presentation that you describe was used
> >by virtually every theatre, regardless of size, in the U.S. until
> >General Cinema Corporation showed everyone how to save money. A dozen
> >blue flood lamps cost considerably less than fifty feet of drapes.
>
> ...until someone realized that the company could save even more money
> by dispensing with the blue lamps and just showing advertising slides
> on the screen between shows....
>
>
Yeah, I neglected to include that part. It's all pretty nasty nowadays
and I just detest going to what is passed off as a theatre.
But I guess I can't bitch too much. Even my own home theatre uses a
common width screen, being video based. Had it been film then I'd have
gone with common height.
Matt Lutthans
Cinerama in Seatte:
1. At an 11PM screening of Oklahoma! in 70mm, the lights dimmed all
the way, the curtains opened all the way, then the overture started.
Ugh! Complete darkness. (To make matters worse, the overture started
at a slow speed -- presumably 24 fps -- then somebody flipped the
switch and the speed increased to the proper rate.
1. At a DLP screening of "Signs" a few years ago, the curtains opened
fully, then there were all sorts of flashes on the screen, like
somebody forgot to turn the projector on or didn't have things patched
in correctly. About 15 seconds later, the "film" started.
I hate to only pick on the Cinerama, but very few theatres around here
I know of still use curtains. There's the North Bend Theatre in North
Bend, and I've never seen a problem there.
Matt Lutthans
Seattle
Martin Schemitsch
wrote:
[...]
Hi Marty,
> Even my own home theatre uses a
> common width screen, being video based.
Some time ago I mentioned our setup here at home, which has been tweaked
into "nearly" common height thanks to the CRT-projector's flexibility in
the area the rays are scanning on the tubes (I reserved full width for
scope only, everything else uses more and more "underscan", optical path
remains unaltered)... ...no dedicated screen area, just a white wall, so
there are no masking problems with the slightly differing height
whatsoever...
...anyways, this solution isn't perfect, but there is one out there:
Marty, you surely know about these special (expensive :-) motorized
anamorphic lenses in combination with digital 16:9 panel projectors which
give you perfect common height automatically (and brighter picture as a
bonus!) with standard letterboxed 16:9-enhanced scope transfers? ;-)
(they simply discard the black bars by stretching the image back to
16:9-height and than do a 1.3x anamorphic expansion with the lens moved
into place by motors)
Which doesn't work with Ben Hur of course, LOL!
I'm not into HD, so who knows what they come up with in that arena...
> Marty
Martin