Talk:Movie theater

message: There seem to be an increasing number of "contenders" for the title of first movie theater:
New Orleans, Buffalo, NY, Tally's Theater in LA, the Georges Melies Theater in Paris.
Part of this problem revolves around the definition of "theater" and what, exactly, was done first.
The New Orleans Theater May 1896 was modified from a standing building. Tally's theater (1902)was the backroom of another building. The Buffalo Vitascope Theater (October 1896) was a separate theater specially constructed for that purpose in the basement of a larger building.
There ought to be some concensus about this definition.
*Correction: The small theatre Thomas Tally opened in Los Angeles in 1896 was in the back room of his phonograph parlor on Spring Street. His 1902 Electric Theatre on Main Street was in a building built specifically to house a movie theatre.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.248.168.191 (talk) 02:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Motion Picture Theater 

message: This is a very large article about movie theatres... is it really necessary?  As far as i can tell the only bit worth having is the box-office pricing numbers (70% etc.)
==
I think this is important for people who actually want any historical information. This is an encyclopedia so its purpose is of course to give detailed information on a certain subject. By the way "Box-office" and "Movie Theater" are not the same thing but if you are only interested in the basic concept, that's what the dictionaries are for. Also, there is a more relevant article about box office in Wikipedia. Look up "box office bomb".--120.29.151.143 (talk) 04:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: What's the point

message: Anybody remember intermissions? I thought there might be an bit here on it, and also the girl who would come along and sell ice-cream, and Pearl and Dean. Along with a little line on the death of the local cinema in relation to the multiplexes. (The first of which in the UK was the Warner Bros one in Leicester I think).(Halbared 18:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: In the first sentence, wouldn't "venue" be a better word than "builing," since it would describe both indoor and outdoor theaters?
:If you feel it would be better, go ahead and change it. :-) —Frecklefoot 18:19, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: "Venue" vs. "Building"

message: Would the banning of outside food and beverages be legal as it is the same as banning someone if they are wearing a Nike shirt? Would it not count as Monopoly.
:A movie theater is private property, so as long as they're banning outside food & beverages equally for everyone (as opposed to doing so on some sort of discriminatory basis), they're in the clear.  Basically, by entering their property & buying the movie ticket, you agree to play by the theater's rules.
::How about the fact that women can hide food/drinks in their purse, and men can't? ;)76.182.144.118 (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find a reference, sure. Binksternet (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

text: So to update your analogy, it's the same as you saying that Nike shirts are not allowed in your house, then telling someone to get out for violating that rule.-Rhrad 16:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Food and Berverages policies

message: Moved this from the article; it belongs here.
:some ideas for expansion of this article:
:* history of the movie theater
:* culture around 'going to the movies' 
—Frecklefoot 18:19, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Ideas for expansion

message: "...privacy in the back-row). This applies in particular for young people who still live with their parents, and these parents tend to monitor and/or forbid certain activities."
I agree with the 'back row' traditionally being associated with privacy, but the point about escaping parental control is surely irrelevant to an article about movie theaters. In its presently unqualified state it is unlikely to reflect movie theater culture worldwide either - is it a US-centric point? I would remove the line, any opinions? --Air 16:40, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Living with your parents is relevant to movie theaters? 

message: to projection screen, Santtus 11:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  added link to new article 

message: Article previously said:
:In the United States, the correct spelling of a theatre showing motion pictures (a "movie theatre") is "theatre". By contbyrast, "theater" is the correct spelling for a live-stage theater building. These spellings were made official by the National Association of Theatre Owners some time ago, yet most Americans do not know of this distinction.
:In the United Kingdom the spelling "theatre" can have both meanings, but is rarely used to refer to a cinema.
Correct spelling in English is determined by consensus of usage, not the mandate of trade organizations.  A distinction doesn't really exist if nobody even knows about it.  It also isn't attested in the American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Edition.  I didn't bother looking elsewhere...  Go ahead if you'd like.  Craigbutz 22:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: I did some work to reorganize and rewrite the article, consolidating some of the sections as subsections, etc.  I added the "Multiplex and Megaplex" subsection with info from the megaplex article (which I may propose as a merge/delete candidate eventually) and the AMC Theatres article, which can now point to it here.  
I generally chose to arrange the existing text into the structural changes instead of rewriting for now, even parts that could probably use some work in the future (the detailed description of how to walk along a row with people standing up or not reads somewhat strangely, for instance).  As suggestions for other eager editors, if there is going to be an "Intimacy" section it really should include something about the role drive-ins have played in this regard, and the "Controversies" section could probably include something on the role of movie theater companies in NC-17 debate in the US.  
I'm also proposing moving the entire "Major movie theatre companies" section into a separate article with a title such as "List of cinema and movie theatre companies" (which matches the appropriate category name), and leave just a reference to the list article here.    David Oberst 09:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes and reorganization

message: For no apparent reason, User:Oberst copied large portions of the multiplex and megaplex articles into this article without any attempt to summarize them or organize them, in direct violation of the Manual of Style.  I am cleaning up the mess right now and raising the issue on the talk page so that other editors can monitor his edits in the future.  If Oberst is unable to edit the article in a way that improves it (as opposed to damaging it) he may need to be taken to arbitration.  --Coolcaesar 07:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by Oberst 

message: From above: I'm also proposing moving the entire "Major movie theatre companies" section into a separate article with a title such as "List of cinema and movie theatre companies" (which matches the appropriate category name), and leave just a reference to the list article here. David Oberst 09:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a great idea. --Usgnus 23:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major movie theatre companies section 

message: I thought I'd just chip in with a few comments to see what others think.  Firstly, the article is pretty USA-centric.  For example, the 'History' section is almost exclusively occupied by American the history of the industry in America.  Does anyone have a source that could shed light on the first purpose built structure in the world, as opposed to America?  As a more general criticism, I think that this section would benefit from being significantly expanded to detail the development of the diverse range of film-exhibiting enterprises throughout the world.  Admittedly, much of this is covered in later sections, but it all seems a little disjointed to me.
A further example of the focus on America is in the 'Design' section.  The statement:
Traditionally a movie theater, like a stage theater, consists of a single auditorium with rows of comfortable seats, as well as a lobby area containing a box office for buying tickets, a counter and/or selfservice facilities for buying snacks and drinks, and washrooms.
is certainly applicable to more recent, multi-screen venues, but is at odds with the arrangement of many establishments the world over.  In France, for example, many (if not most) urban cinemas have only a very small lobby area, with the ticket booth often on the street itself, and without any facilities to purchase food or drink, or indeed, in many cases, any toilet facilities.  Such a description also ignores the more informal nature of many cinemas outside more developed areas.  From my own personal knowledge I could point to West Africa (especially Nigeria) as a region where many cinemas are either unable or unwilling to maintain an establishment along the lines of the above quotation.  
In the section on 'Other venues', I think that the phrasing is a little misleading.  It could be taken as meaning that student-run film presentations have only been in existence since the late 1990s.
I think that an extensive list detailing discount pass schemes at a range of multiplex chains is superfluous.  It seems to me that it is pretty superfluous information, and the merits of its inclusion are outweighed by its negative impact on the flow of the article and the likely 
inaccuracies that will go unchecked as corporate policy effects price changes.
Perhaps the article could go to greater lengths to mention innovations in theatre technology outside of the audio-visual realm.  A little more information on 3D films might be welcome, in addition to some information on Smell-O-Vision, for example.
I think that this:
It is common for moviegoing teenagers to throw various foodstuffs — most notably popcorn — at each other, though sometimes at other moviegoers.
is an over-exaggeration.  Of the hundreds of films I've seen in cinemas in many countries and cities, I've only encountered the throwing of 'various foodstuffs' on a handful of occasions.  As an issue of disruption to the film-going experience, it certainly pales in comparison to talking or the ringing of mobile phones.  Perhaps a brief section on theatre etiquette could encompass these, and any other similar, points.
There are a number of un-sourced statements, or points made without adequate citation.  For example, the anti-piracy warning 'shown at cinemas in the United Kingdom' goes without a reference.  I believe it is a FACT (Federation Against Copyright Theft) notice that began showing a couple of years ago, but it might just be the invention of an over-zealous poster as far as the uninformed reader is concerned.  I would argue that such a quotation is unwarranted in any case; it does little to flesh out a picture of the issues surrounding film piracy or various actors' approaches to it.
'Reportedly the Islamic Courts of Somalia do not allow cinema.' is another good example of an un-sourced statement.
I think that the lengthy list of cinema operators in different territories is out of place and could be broken off into a separate article, if it is to be retained at all.
The external links sections could be greatly expanded if pages could be found with further details of the development of theatres over time, touching on issues such as architecture, technology, business practice and the relationship between theatres, studios and the films themselves.
Sorry to have gone on at such length, but I think there are the seeds of a pretty good article in here, if some (albeit significant) work was put in to it.  I'm interested to hear what other people think on this one.  Benwilson528 03:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General Points

message: I generally use theater to refer to it being in theaters, whereas I use cinema for the establishment itself. 67.188.172.165 01:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cinema vs Theater

message: It has been proposed that the listing of movie theater and cinema chains be split into a separate article. I support this, but wonder what the name of the new list would be? — WiseKwai 02:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wisekwai asked me (as the person to put it on in the first place) to comment (which I will gladly do, but to be honest, I am not normally working on cinema articles). I think that - as bland as it may sound, "list of movie theaters and cinema chains" is the appropriate title. We can always make it more interesting than a simple list by making it into a table (see the table included in Museum ships which might have columns for data like "date established", "date closed", "seating number"s and a "comments" row for what makes it special. Cheers Ingolfson 05:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I concur that there should be a split.  The list is getting rather large.  --Coolcaesar 05:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Holding on the split for now. See move proposal below. If the new name goes through, I guess the list title would be "List of cinemas and cinema chains". — WiseKwai 11:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Split completed. There is now a list of movie theaters and cinema chains. — WiseKwai 08:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: Most English speakers outside North America probably live in Britain, and I assume that contibutors here are right in saying that they use the term cinema in preference to movie theatre. This is not universal elswhere. In New Zealand, usage has moved from the older picture theatre towards movie theatre, in ordinary speech anyway. No-one here would talk of "going to the cinema"; we are more likely to "go to a movie" or (sometimes, still) "go to the pictures". However, cinema is universally understood, and is often used in the media. A quick google of the term "picture theatre" turns up a preponderance of New Zealand and Australian web pages. I'd be interested to get some Australian input on this.
:One thing about the main divide being between British "cinema" and US "movie theater" is that this talk page doesn't consist of several megabytes of ignorant argument between half-educated Americans and half-educated non-Americans over whether theater or theatre is the "correct" spelling, of the sort that plagues pages on other subjects where the two spelling traditions are different. Koro Neil (talk) 10:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As a Brit, having lived in Australia - I can confirm Australians never say "movie theatre" - it is always "cinema" or more often "cinemas" - referring to a mutiplex complex with multiple screens.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Distant Cousin (talk • contribs) 13:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm an Aussie and no one ever says 'theatre' unless they mean an actual theatre. 'The movies', 'the pictures', etc. are used occasionally but otherwise it's always 'cinema'.Metalion SOS (talk) 05:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Cinema'' not universal outside North America 

message: :Category:Theatres in Houston, Texas needs to be renamed to :Category:Theaters in Houston, Texas - How do I do this? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Category needs renaming

message: It seems really inconsistent to have this artical as 'Movie Theater' when both Film (instead of Movie) is used and Theatre is used (instead of Theater). Plus there are aticals called Cinema of Canada and Cinema of Australia and Cinema of the United States, these are 3 of 4 major English Speaking countrys, as well as this most countrys have an artical called Cinema of Country. I think these are reasons to consider to moving it from movie theater, while it is mostly based on opinons from were people are from, but having every other artical under the motre used British Version, then having one artcal under the US version. Alexsau1991 (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Having checked the CInema of the US article, I find that it refers to the movie industry as a whole, and not the buildings in which movies are shown. This conforms with how I perceive the general use of cinema, theater, movie, etc. in the US is. A theater may be a building devoted to performances, either live or filmed, or "theater" may refer to the art of putting on live plays. In fact, a building, or portion of a building devoted to the showing of movies would almost always be called a "theater"; occasionally the spelling "theatre" is used, probably becvause the British spelling is perceived by some to be more prestigious. "Drama" refers to the study of plays as literature. "Cinema" refers to the study of movies as an art, here in the US one does not go to the cinema, but you might study "cinema" in college; although I would say that most Americans are aware of the British use of "cinema" and would understand perfectly well what was meant by "going to the cinema". "Flim" can also be used in this sense as well as a verb for the actual process of recording images. Slang terms like "big screen", "silver screen", and "small screen" are used in the generic sense: you might talk about an actor who makes a transition from the "small screen" to the "big screen" as a career move, but you don't "go to the big screen". Commonly, one goes to the movies or a movie, "flick" or "flicks" is also well used, hence "Netflix"; "moving picture(s)" or "picture show" were once somewhat common but now are rather archaic. Wschart (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  cinima vs Movie theatre (again) 

message: I work at as a manager/projectionist at a multiplex and I have found some errors:
Interlocking
I'm not sure that the term "interlock" is used correctly.  Older 3D systems did require 2 synchronized projectors, an advantage of digital projection, and it may be possible to combine soundtracks, but I have never heard of that done and it is most certainly a thing of the past.  
When we use the term "interlock," we are referring to a process of running the same print in two auditoriums at the same time.  The film is threaded normally through one projector, except that instead of immediately being wound back up on a platter, the film is then threaded through a second projector.  An extra long leader is used to cover the distance between projectors.  Although the same film is being played by both projectors, the movie will be delayed on the second projector proportional to the amount of film required to cover the distance between the projectors.  Extra rollers are also hung from the ceiling or on poles to keep the film off of the floor as it travels between projectors.  The operation of the motors of the projectors must be very precisely calibrated so that they run at the same speed or too much film will accumulate between projectors, or conversely the slack could be used up causing the film to break.  However, they do not actually need to be synchronized except for the start since each projector plays the film independently of the other projector.  In our theatre, they are electronically linked so that when one projector is started, the second will also start without manual coordination.  
We do this often for big openings when we need to maximize the number of seats available for peak showtimes.  We only interlock a film through 2 projectors, but theoretically it could be done through any number of projectors, given enough extra film, even an entire multiplex, but this would be very risky and unpractical.  I have also heard of other theatres that call this "dual"ing.
Sound levels
Projectionists do not adjust the sound after the trailers.  With the platter system in use at modern multiplexes, the projectionist starts the projector and then moves on to start other projectors and will not return to that projector until it is time to start the next show.  Once the projector has been started, automation handles the light levels and the shut down of the projector after the show.  It can also change lenses if needed, but this is extremely rare (I've never seen it done).  However it is not not connected to volume levels.  We adjust the volume to an appropriate level and leave it until a movie that is unusually loud or quiet is placed in that auditorium.  No adjustment is made for attendance.  Unless there are a lot of loud customers, there should be no need to (and that is a problem handled by removing loud customers).  The auditoriums already have fabric on the walls, many cushy seats, and some carpet, so the change in acoustics between a full house and an empty one should be minimal.  We assume the trailers to be the same volume as the movie.  However, many people do think that trailers are recorded louder than features, similar to complaints about TV commercials.  Although there may be some truth to this, it may also be simply that trailers are likely to promote the most exciting aspects of the advertised movie and include a lot of screaming, explosions, and loud music.  
Sound Levels - In Addition
Sound level differences between trailers and main movies will be sound compression. The trailers will have the sound tracks highly compressed which will make them sound much louder. Also, with Digital Projection there will be no projectionist at all and therefore no control of theater volumes whatsoever. They will stay at the levels preset by the installation/service technicians. As an aside, in the 1930s and 1940s there used to be a bell push in the auditorium for the manager or someone to signal to the projectionist to adjust the sound levels. (F. H. Richardson's Blue Book of Projection - Sixth Edition - Quigley Publishing 1939)   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.198.145.187 (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  errors in "interlock" and "sound levels" 

message: The term Film exhibitor gets redirected to this page. Is the term 'Film exhibitor' not much broader than just a movie theater? E.g. a TV station, DVD rental store, Video-on-Demand supplier could all be considered film exhibitors... Link comes from Production company. (Not sure if this is the right place to discuss it, if not my apologies)
Styck 10:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film exhibitor? 

message: Hi All, 
As per the cleanup tag I have removed 2 images from the left of the article, listed below.
I don't see much point in removing from the "right" of the article as I find them all quite neat and streamlined.
thumb|left|Many older movie theaters, such as the River Oaks Theatre in Houston, Texas, have been restored and play arthouse movies; newer multiplexes in the areas with restored theaters show first run films.
thumb|left|Other older movie theaters, such as the Texas Theatre in Dallas, Texas, have been deemed historically significant and undergone restoration. The Texas Theater is shown here in 2008 with replica marquee and appears as it did in 1963 when Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested on the premises. The building today hosts live theater.
Kindest regards,
Mr. NiceGuy
(MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 03:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Images removed

message: The article claims that L'Idéal Cinéma - Jacques Tati from 1905 is the oldest still active movie theater. A bit further down it is mentioned that Korsør Biograf in Denmark from 1908 is accepted in the Guinness Book of World Records as the oldest. Why is the former not acknowledged by Guinness as the oldest? --C960657 (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldest movie theater still active 

message: This article is very US-centric. The relevant movie technology and the first movie theatres evolved in Europe. There should be a general history section. If you want to have  a closer look at the US specifically, perhaps it could be integrated to the corresponding American cinema article. Cheers Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  US-centric article 

message: I propose that the "some examples" list in the "pricing and admission" section be removed.  It seems to be a catch-all for advertisers.  Specific examples aren't necessary.  Thanks for your input.  Magnolia677 (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete specific pricing examples 

message: What is an "exhibitor clearance"? (See this and this.) —BarrelProof (talk) 04:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It means that the movie exhibitor obtains a promise from the movie distributor that the distributor will not release the same film to theaters within a certain radius of the exhibitor's theaters.  Speaking in an informal sense, that zone is then effectively "cleared" of competition, so that anyone who wants to see that film in that area must go to the theaters of the exhibitor who holds the clearance.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's roughly what I thought, although you explained it much more clearly than those sources did. If such agreements are a common practice in the business, they should be discussed on Wikipedia. Is there any article that mentions them? —BarrelProof (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not really, because it's an arcane business practice which is explained primarily in hard copy books on the motion picture business.  Google Books reveals one possible source and another one.  Note that this should not be confused with the much older run/zone/clearance system, where "zone" was the geographical exclusion and "clearance" was the length of time of an exclusive run. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exhibitor clearance 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Movie theater. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927040846/http://www.histori.ca/minutes/minute.do?id=10229 to http://www.histori.ca/minutes/minute.do?id=10229
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100222092057/http://www.landmarktheatres.com/AboutLandmark/AboutIndex.htm to http://www.landmarktheatres.com/AboutLandmark/AboutIndex.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Movie theater. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101227003509/http://www.cinemark.com/aboutus.asp to http://www.cinemark.com/aboutus.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Movie theater. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060420043234/http://www.boomchicago.nl/Section/Real-Amsterdam/330 to http://www.boomchicago.nl/Section/Real-Amsterdam/330
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081203191400/http://www.myvue.com/faq to http://www.myvue.com/faq
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160127113436/http://www.bulktix.com/movies/ to http://www.bulktix.com/movies/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: The facts in this article were last updated, from what I can see, in 2013. It's now 2021. I'd do it myself but it wouldn't be possible until the 13th at the earliest, due to the quantity of things that need updating. Anyone up to help?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AidenTEM (talk • contribs) 17:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated information 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
* 
* 
* 
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion 

message: I keep seeing this trend across multiple film-related articles on Wikipedia: Canadians keep exaggerating their country's contributions to the development of film production and exhibition.  For example, the current version of this article claims that Canadians invented the multiplex in the 1950s, even though the sources I added to the specific article on multiplexes show that the multiplex format was invented and mostly developed in the United States. -- Coolcaesar (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Canadian inferiority complex 

message: someone deleted my subsection called "Food" can the editor please explain why? Malteserspop (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Food subsection deleted