(Sorry about the break, but I’m afraid that I’ll exceed the character limit)
Even before that experience, I saw Sweeney Todd (a wonderful movie) at the wonderful Ziegfeld in New York. There was only one screen, but so much space (about 1100 seats!). In the “shoebox” theatre, on the other hand, I hated how the space was intentionally limited just to get another screen in the building. This is an example of an attempt by the AMC corporation to sacrifice quality and space for $$$. I mean, what’s the purpose of such a small theatre just for the sake of an extra screen? Add to that the unneccessary commercials (previews are fine) and overpriced refreshments, and that’s why I hate the multiplexes in general (even though in my area- Morris County, NJ- there’s no other choice).
Believe it or not, I am in high school, and I am of the multiplex-going generation. However, after reading the various comments on small-town theaters (I was curious), I happened to overanalyze my thoughts on movie theatres (I like to analyze a lot). I started to agree, and have agreed ever since, that the local theaters, when not subdivided into smaller cinemas, provide the incentive for MANY PEOPLE to see the movie comfortably, as a COMMUNITY. If you want to add another screen, that’s fine, but don’t subdivide a big screen for that reason! I would just build a big one-screen theater, and if another was necessary, I would build another one close to it (if not directly next door).There, the focus would be QUALITY and SERVICE, not money and greed. (That’s why I want, one day, to go to the Lafayette- that may be the only place left like that)
Say, why are the movie slumps occuring? Because MONEY is the incentive for moviemaking, not originality or talent, and the operations of the multiplexes (in general) are based upon MONEY, not SERVICE. This is the end of the Golden Age of moviegoing…
I remember going to this theatre a couple of weeks ago and went through one of the worst movie experiences I’ve experienced. It wasn’t the great movie (I Am Legend) or the comfortable seats. It wasn’t the concept of stadium seating, which is a good concept. It was the amount of space in the “shoebox” theatres.
That day, I went with a friend to see the movie. As I walked down the corridor towards Theater 4, I noticed the number of seats on the walls. Theatres #1 and 8 had about 360, and Theatres #2 and 7 had about 250 (I don’t remember exactly what it was). However, Theatres 3 and 4 had 146 seats, and 5 and 6 had 123.
The tickets said that the movie was in Theater 4. My friend and I walked in ten minutes before the show started, and the movie was out for a couple of weeks already, yet the place was PACKED. We looked at the stadium seats- no room for two. We were forced to look at the front row (which I hate)– no room for two. We literally had to SPLIT UP to find seats. Yes, I had to sit next to a complete stranger. It could have been worse, for the person was rather nice instead of a complete asshole, but it was still disappointing that I couldn’t sit with my friend.
(Sorry about the break, but I’m afraid that I’ll exceed the character limit)
Even before that experience, I saw Sweeney Todd (a wonderful movie) at the wonderful Ziegfeld in New York. There was only one screen, but so much space (about 1100 seats!). In the “shoebox” theatre, on the other hand, I hated how the space was intentionally limited just to get another screen in the building. This is an example of an attempt by the AMC corporation to sacrifice quality and space for $$$. I mean, what’s the purpose of such a small theatre just for the sake of an extra screen? Add to that the unneccessary commercials (previews are fine) and overpriced refreshments, and that’s why I hate the multiplexes in general (even though in my area- Morris County, NJ- there’s no other choice).
Believe it or not, I am in high school, and I am of the multiplex-going generation. However, after reading the various comments on small-town theaters (I was curious), I happened to overanalyze my thoughts on movie theatres (I like to analyze a lot). I started to agree, and have agreed ever since, that the local theaters, when not subdivided into smaller cinemas, provide the incentive for MANY PEOPLE to see the movie comfortably, as a COMMUNITY. If you want to add another screen, that’s fine, but don’t subdivide a big screen for that reason! I would just build a big one-screen theater, and if another was necessary, I would build another one close to it (if not directly next door).There, the focus would be QUALITY and SERVICE, not money and greed. (That’s why I want, one day, to go to the Lafayette- that may be the only place left like that)
Say, why are the movie slumps occuring? Because MONEY is the incentive for moviemaking, not originality or talent, and the operations of the multiplexes (in general) are based upon MONEY, not SERVICE. This is the end of the Golden Age of moviegoing…
I remember going to this theatre a couple of weeks ago and went through one of the worst movie experiences I’ve experienced. It wasn’t the great movie (I Am Legend) or the comfortable seats. It wasn’t the concept of stadium seating, which is a good concept. It was the amount of space in the “shoebox” theatres.
That day, I went with a friend to see the movie. As I walked down the corridor towards Theater 4, I noticed the number of seats on the walls. Theatres #1 and 8 had about 360, and Theatres #2 and 7 had about 250 (I don’t remember exactly what it was). However, Theatres 3 and 4 had 146 seats, and 5 and 6 had 123.
The tickets said that the movie was in Theater 4. My friend and I walked in ten minutes before the show started, and the movie was out for a couple of weeks already, yet the place was PACKED. We looked at the stadium seats- no room for two. We were forced to look at the front row (which I hate)– no room for two. We literally had to SPLIT UP to find seats. Yes, I had to sit next to a complete stranger. It could have been worse, for the person was rather nice instead of a complete asshole, but it was still disappointing that I couldn’t sit with my friend.