Talk:Movie theater

Theatre vs cinema

if americans call cinema's theatres then what do they call theatres?

First Motion Picture Theater

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)

• Correction: The 1902 movie theater was not a standalone theater. It was, in fact, a storefront in a still-standing building in LA. A photograph of the building sometime taken several years after 1902 has been located and will be included in a publication sometime in 2008-2009.(Movieresearch (talk) 02:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)).

The New Orleans Theater was a "store-front" theater. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Movieresearch (talk • contribs) 02:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

First "Theater" other thoughts

In Cinema Treasures someone raised the issue of the "building." His opinion was that the definition revolves around whether or not the physical buiilding was constructed from the ground up for the purpose of showing motion pictures. This had to do with Tally's Electric Theater in LA 1902.

There were so many public "showings" of motion pictures in 1896 all over the world where a projector was set up in a room and the images projected on a wall, that the issue of what a "theater or theatre" was is an important one.

The issue of "first screening" is easier to separate from the issue of "first theater" than it is to separate "first theater" from "first theater building constructed" or "first theater designed only to show movies." Seems like something worth doing, however.

The Lumiere brothers can only claim to have charged money before anyone else.

What's the point

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)

History

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))

The last commercially distributed (albeit limited) movie to have an intermission that I remember was Hamlet, with Kenneth Brannagh. Moviegoers would be at the theatre for 6 hours. (The Lake Effect 01:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC))

The History section hgere is horrible, and makes absolutely no sense. It's in desperate need of revision. Could someone who actualy knows about movie theatre history fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.253.128 (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"Venue" vs. "Building"

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)

---

Food and Berverages policies

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)

If you can find a reference, sure. Binksternet (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

Ideas for expansion

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)

Living with your parents is relevant to movie theaters?

"...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)

added link to new article

to projection screen, Santtus 11:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

"Flea Pit" as synonym in British English for Movie theater?

Does anyone have documentation for this alleged usage in British English? It sounds so bizarre that I'm wondering if someone's playing a practical joke (as with the John Seigenthaler episode). --Coolcaesar 23:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The term origionated from the unsanitary nature of smaller cinemas. Watch The Smallest Show on Earth for usage of the term

From Oxford English Dictionary quotations

1937 Daily Herald 3 Feb. 12/4 Even the patrons of these palaces [sc. cinemas] referred to them as ‘*flea-pits’. Ibid., A peaked service cap with the name of the flea pit written on the band in gold braid. 1971 Ink 12 June 14/4 He went to a fleapit cinema.

Usage on BBC Website http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3833683.stm

Spelling

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)

Changes and reorganization

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)

One section said that "Arm rests pose a hindrance to intimacy" ... I have changed this to "Arm rests pose a hindrance to intimacy for some people". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.137.177 (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Matinee Loop

The wikified link from "matinee" under the "pricing and admission" subheading links to the matinee disambiguation page, which links directly back to this page (no where explaining what a matinee is). Someone needs to de-wikify the link from this page, and include an explination for what a matinee is.

Matt 20:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed the link to go to the definition at wiktionary- there's only so much you can say about what a matinee is, and why reinvent the wheel, right?

Edits by Oberst

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)

I believe you need to take a mild tranquilizing pill. I had intended to do some more work here, and by not getting back to it I may have left a couple parts of the connected articles in an unfortunate inbetween state, but to call it vandalism is uncalled for. A few notes:

• I took the text from megaplex as part of the starter for the Multiplex/Megaplex section, intending to suggest it be turned into a redirect to movie theatre, as there is not enough text there to justify a main article/subarticle structure, and the entire multiplex/megaplex distinction seems best handled in the full movie theatre article. Given that there is no "multiplex" article, just a disambiguation redirect here, I became uncertain whether a redirect was desirable, since an enlargement of "megaplex" might also have been possible in the future, and forgot to revisit the issue and either put a "merge" suggestion tag on multiplex, or ask for it to be expanded.

• The "bad" text was largely already in place or taken from the AMC Theatres article (as Wikipedia's source of info on multiplex origins), not written by me, and I make no warranties for its quality. I was mainly attempting to organize existing contributions where possible, not completely evaluate and rewrite them, however desirable that might be in the future. Movie theatre is the appropriate place for the origins of the multiplex, which can then be summarized and/or linked to by the AMC and other theatre articles. I actually created a copy of the AMC article to start excising what I transferred here- there were some questions about non-AMC multiplex origins I was trying to track down. I didn't realize I hadn't made any alteration of the source section of the AMC article, which I regret, but that wouldn't have affected what was put in here.

• Since you presumably looked at the edit history, you would have seen a number of other significant edits I made at the same time, including rewriting the intro[1], consolidating existing sections into "Presentation" and adding to the text[2], etc., which were obviously not vandalism, and I would hope a brief look at my contributions would indicate i'm not some sort of rogue article destroyer. If you had a problem with the "Multiplex and Megaplex" section you could have contacted me directly and asked what happened, instead of going off on your little tantrum here.

Regards, - David Oberst 09:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Major movie theatre companies section

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)

I think that's a great idea. --Usgnus 23:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Drive-ins

The section on Drive-in's makes the statement "They are now almost extinct". It is certainly true that the number of drive-ins is much, much lower than in their hey-day, they are not at all close to extinction. There are currently 407 drive-ins in the US. The 1990s saw a significant number of reopenings and even some new builds as they transitioned to a new family entertainment model.

General Points

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)

Cinema vs Theater

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)

a theatre is a place where plays are preformed, movies are played in the cinema. 86.137.16.46 (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Split

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)

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)

I concur that there should be a split. The list is getting rather large. --Coolcaesar 05:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

Split completed. There is now a list of movie theaters and cinema chains. — WiseKwai 08:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus for move. If debate still continues, you might wish to try a compromise article title, as the drawbacks of both "movie theater" and "cinema" are made quite clear here. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 10:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Read the first sentence of the article. It states that the term cinema is used in most (if not all) English speaking countries, while Movie theater/theatre is only a North American term. Clearly, to represent a worldwide perspective the article should be moved to "cinema". Shaizakopf 10:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support oppose. Good to see this is being discussed, rather than just unilaterally moved. To me, the word "cinema" refers to the broader subject of the film industry and films in general, and not just a building where you go to watch movies. I guess that's my native usage bias hanging on, which can't be helped. — WiseKwai 11:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: On Wikipedia itself, there is the series of Cinema of ... articles about the film industries of various countries, which is what I had in mind when I mentioned the "broader subject" above. Maybe this article could be named "Movie theatre"? ;) — WiseKwai 06:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Since the term cinema is more widely used around the globe - as stated in the opening paragraph of the article. --DAJF 11:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - as mentioned above and seen in Cinema (disambiguation), "cinema" is ambiguous.--Patrick 11:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support - "Cinema" is understood internationally but movie theater is too much of an Americanism. Reginmund 17:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support - I agree with the nominator. violet/riga (t) 22:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - The other side of saying that cinema is the word of preference outside of North America is that it isn't the vernacular of first choice within North America. Thus, it, too, isn't a worldwide term. It's "chiefly British", according to my Oxford Dictionary. Truth is, no noun can be found in this case that will satisfy the vernacular leanings of everyone around the world.
• Support - This is probably the best place to put it because it seems more like an international term. Besides, I live in Pennsylvania where this usage is relatively not uncommon. Parable1991 05:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"Wordwide perspective" thus can't be the determing factor in this case, but clarity.

Movie theater is preferred because cinema can mean both "the art and/or industry of making films" and "the place where films are shown". While it's certainly true that most speakers of non-North American English will more naturally reach for "cinema" in a sentence like "I'm going to the cinema tonight", no speaker of English will misunderstand what one means when one says "movie theatre". Movie theatre means nothing other than "the place where films are exhibited to the public". Cinema requires context before its meaning is clear. Hence: blue links at Cinema (disambiguation) and red links at Movie theater (disambiguation).

Even in French, and Italian, it's an abbreviation for the projector, or cinematograph, itself. Slavic languages take a similar approach, however their word, kino, derivs more specifically from the kinetoscope. So there's ambiguity there too. In any of these places, direct translation of "movie theater", while uncommon in the vernacular, is not "improper" and it makes the meaning clear. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 23:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support. "Cinema" is the most widely-used, widely-recognized term. The reasoning that "cinema" also means film-making isn't particularly relevant, because there is no article about film-making named "cinema", that article is called film, so renaming this article isn't going to affect people looking for that one. Crazysuit 02:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - this is exactly why this kind of thing should not be up for a vote. People always vote according to their nationalities. The manual of style is very clear about this: whoever started the article, the language from that country is used. This keeps us from tearing each other's throats out. And, to be honest, I really doubt that the term movie theater is any less well known abroad than cinema is known in the US. The Evil Spartan 04:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• That is a last case scenario and only applies when other avenues have been explored. violet/riga (t) 09:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The argument to move is entirely that this is a North American term. If there were some other reason to move, the Anglo-American guideline would not prevent it; but this is the sort of move request that it was written to deprecate. Leave it alone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: There's a guideline about this sort of thing? Where? — WiseKwai 07:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English.--Patrick 11:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Cinema isn't exactly ambiguous in the U.S.. This move is for neutrality because "cinema" is acceptable around the world. Reginmund 20:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Cinema is ambiguous, while movie theater is unambiguous. Note nominator moved Cinema to Cinema (disambiguation) when making this nomination. Vegaswikian 21:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note that a similar move for Cinema was made around a June 22 move discussion. Vegaswikian 21:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Cinema is vague and ambiguous in American English (and as a lawyer, I get paid to spot when people are vague and ambiguous and to make that objection, among with many others). Reginmund is clearly unfamiliar with American English. Standing alone, the phrase "the cinema" in American English can refer directly to either the entire art and industry of making motion pictures or a particular movie theater. The phrase always has to be read in context and even then can be very confusing. For example, the sentence "Lisa loves the cinema" can mean that Lisa likes the art of motion pictures in general (that is, she is a fan or aficionado of the art of filmmaking), or that Lisa likes to often visit local movie theaters. These two meanings are clearly distinct because Lisa can enjoy motion pictures while rarely actually visiting a movie theater in person (for example, by making her own home movies or by watching professionally produced movies on TV or cable or satellite or DVD). It's because of this ambiguity that Americans (1) either avoid using the term cinema in casual conversation (it's much more common in writing), or (2) always clarify what they mean, or (3) ask the other speaker what they mean by "cinema" if it's not immediately obvious. --Coolcaesar 05:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Reginmund lived in Seattle for three years so don't judge Reginmund if you have no idea who Reginmund is, what Reginmund knows, or where Reginmund's been. Now as for your [ambiguous] sentence "Lisa loves the cinema", is it any less unusual to say "Lisa loves the [movie] theatres" in the U.S.? Yes it is. Americans refer to it as the "movies" and only refer to the establishment as an actual theatre. I called it the cinema when I lived there all the time and nobody even flinched. In fact, the actual room was referred to as the "cinema" (e.g. Cinema 6 or Cinema 8) and seldom the actual establishment. It's not an unusual synonym there. Reginmund 05:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Response to comment - Well, when Americans refer to the movies, meaning the art and industry as a whole, they are referring to what is already covered by a separate Wikipedia article at film. PLEASE read this article under discussion about "Movie theater" which refers to the actual buildings in which films are shown to the public. If you're arguing for making this an article about cinema in the sense of film, that makes no sense (to have a completely redundant article) and will cause someone else to propose a merge with film. Also, I am aware that there is a minority of local movie chains that use the term cinema, but the vast majority of American exhibition chains (including all the big professional ones like Regal and AMC) use the term theater, and that's why we have the National Association of Theatre Owners---NATO, not NACO. Finally, the reason no one flinched is because they would have heard your accent and shrugged it off as another peculiar Britishism like "lorry" and "saloon car." --Coolcaesar 19:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Since when does the "movies" refer to the film industry? I have never heard this expression before. Could you please give me an example of this usage? I never said that we should make this article about cinema in the sense of film. I also never said that the term "cinema" is only used with local chains which is untrue. Carmike Cinemas and Cineplex Odeon are some of the largest cinema chains in the U.S.. You also need not explain why they didn't flinch. I was there, and when I first came to Seattle, I had started using "lorry", "tramp", "underground", "anti-clockwise" and they were dumbfounded. Reginmund 23:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Who created the first multiplex? We seem to have a problem here...

We have an incoherent non sequitur in the article that needs to be fixed. It seems to me that a bunch of Canadian editors are pushing a POV that their country had the first multiplex when multiple sources indicate that Stan Durwood of AMC Theatres is the inventor of the multiplex.

I just ran a few searches on the major online databases (public libraries in California subscribe to huge databases like ProQuest and InfoTrac which allow remote proxy access from home) and came up with the following published reliable sources indicating the general position of the American media that Durwood invented the multiplex:

Leonard Klady, "Obituaries: Theater owner Stanley Durwood dies at the age of 78," Variety 375, no. 9 (July 19, 1999): 40.

"Credited with fostering the multiplex era .... The creation of the first two-screen theater has become part of movie mythology. Durwood claimed that in 1962 he was standing in the lobby of his 600-seat Roxy in Kansas City mulling over its poor grosses when he realized he could double his box office by adding a second screen and still operate with the same size staff. A year later, his idea came to life with the Parkway II in a suburban mall."

Anonymous, "Stan Durwood: Multiplex Theater Pioneer," Los Angeles Times, 16 July 1999, A22.

"Stan Durwood, a movie theater entrepreneur credited with inventing the multiplex theaters that now dot nearly every suburban mall, has died .... Durwood came up with the idea of building two small theaters next to each other. They opened in 1963. It was clear he didn't quite have the multiplex figured out yet: Both screens played the same movie, "The Great Escape," ... But the idea was born, and according to AMC, Durwood coined the multiplex name at that time, too."

Diana B. Henriques, "Stanley Durwood, 78, Inventor of Multiplex," New York Times, 16 July 1999, A17.

"Stanley H. Durwood, an entertainment industry executive who is credited with inventing the multiplex movie theater, has died Wednesday night at his Kansas City, Mo., home after a two-year illness."

Nan Robertson, "Multiplexes Add 2,300 Movie Screens in 5 Years," New York Times, 7 November 1983, C13.

"In 1962, along came Stanley H. Durwood, a Kansas City entrepreneur with a homespun accent who is usually acknowledged as the pioneer who pushed the multiplex idea."

Anonymous, "Milestones," Time, 26 July 1999, 17.

"DIED. STAN DURWOOD, 78, ebullient creator of the now ubiquitous multiplex movie theater; of esophageal cancer; in Kansas City, Mo."

Therefore, if no one objects, I'm going to revise this article over the next week to indicate that multiple American sources (referencing everything I just mentioned above) credit Stan Durwood as the inventor of the multiplex, and that this contention is disputed by Canadians. Does that sound fair enough? --Coolcaesar 07:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It may be better to say that Durwood coined the word multiplex and was the first to develop it as a business concept in the 1960s. But it makes no sense to credit him as having "invented" something in 1962/63 which was already in existence in Ottawa years earlier. See Elgin Theatre (Ottawa). --Mathew5000 10:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem. Did Nat Taylor understand the importance of the multiplex, besides the idea that one could show two different movies at once? What I'm referring to is the idea of staggering start times so that a relatively small team can operate multiple auditoriums at once. That's the real value of the multiplex concept.

Also, the simple fact is that regardless of what Canadians think, the American press, both mainstream and for the motion picture trade, clearly regards Durwood as the inventor of the multiplex. To assert otherwise would be original research in violation of Wikipedia:No original research. Only if, say, a professional investigative reporter or a historian of motion picture exhibition were to delve into this issue and publish original research elsewhere in a reliable source stating that Taylor invented the concept of the multiplex before Durwood, then we could paraphrase that publication and cite it on Wikipedia. --Coolcaesar 07:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Cinema not universal outside North America

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)

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)

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)

Category needs renaming

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)

cinima vs Movie theatre (again)

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)

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)

Quote

Perhaps include this quote:

Why should people go out and pay to see bad movies when they can stay home and see bad television for nothing. -Samuel Goldwyn

S. Goldwyn quotes

errors in "interlock" and "sound levels"

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)

Amschmid (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

3D

The early 3D movies, that is in the 1950s, used colored glasses to try to separate the left and right images to the left and right eyes. I understand this was not entirely successful and caused many of the viewers to develop headaches while watching. Does anyone know if this is a problem still with the newer processes such as polaroid or mux switching the images? In addition, is there any information on the number of people who have differing sight in each eye who are not able to view the 3D movies properly. Does any of the above have any effect on the popularity or lack of popularity of 3D movies. Is any of this a cause for their commercial failure to date?

Film exhibitor?

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.63.177.219 (talk)

Images removed

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.

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.

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))

Umm, the Image shown labeled as "Movie camera" is actually a movie projector... 73.170.171.202 (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Oldest movie theater still active

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)

US-centric article

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)

Delete specific pricing examples

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)

Requested move 20 January 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. closed early per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 20:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

---

Movie theater → Cinema – To put it simply, cinema is the WP:COMMONNAME. Ngram makes that very clear. In addition the spelling of "theater" is only a relatively new Americanism, and its spelling is not accepted by a number of individual theatres and organisations even in the US. Cinema, followed by theatre is the preferred spelling globally including in non-English speaking countries. AusLondonder (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose "cinema" has several meanings, only one of which is movie theatre. The entire film industry is also called "cinema", and cinema is already an existing page, and I seem no reason to merge that page onto here as a gigantic hatnote. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Very simplistic response from someone prone to ignoring multiple Wikipedia naming policies. Given that the cinema page is currently a disambiguation, we can easily create a "cinema (disambiguation)" page with this page becoming the building, the most common context in which cinema is used AusLondonder (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: The Ngram link you've shown, unless I'm mistaken in how these things work, is listing every example of the word "cinema" and "Movie theater". Given that "cinema" is frequently used, even in the U.S for the medium itself, it stands to reason that "Cinema" would naturally appear more times. I would guess there is no real way to determine which is the more common name for a movie house. I would imagine that it's probably split around 50/50 in which case even if we made the switch to "cinema" there would still be intense debate.

• Another thing worth noting is that a title for a Wikipedia should be clear to everyone. A good amount of Americans I would say would not be aware that a Cinema refers to a movie house, where British people could easily recognize from the use of the word "theater" that it's an alternate name for Cinema. --Deathawk (talk) 06:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose "Cinema" embodies a wide range of cinematic topics so I don't think we can categorically say that the movie theater article is the primary topic. The term is best served by a disambiguation page. Betty Logan (talk) 07:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Move to Cinema (movie theater). Chortle. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose While I am Greek and in my language "cinema" is the common term for the movie theatre, I appreciate that this English term manages to disambiguate the building from the film industry and the entire field of film. They are also commonly known as "cinema", as seen in articles like Cinema of the United States. I do not think we should change this to a more ambiguous title. No opinion on whether the spelling should be "theatre" or "theater" as the terms are interchangeable derivatives of the Ancient "théatron". This is far from the only term in English which is regularly spelled in two ways. Dimadick (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose primarily for reasons stated above. Although I hate the American use of the word theater, as someone who enjoys the Theatre it makes conversation difficult because when you simply say theater, most people assume movie theater in America, which requires more effort to convey you saw something in the Theatre versus Movie Theater. (rant over). Tiggerjay (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:TITLEVAR says not to change from an American term to a British one unless a topic has strong national ties; no such strong national ties exist in this case, at least not to the UK. As others have noted, cinema is also ambiguous and thus not appropriate. Finally, this has been discussed and rejected previously and while consenus can change, the issues at hand have not. Calidum T|C 17:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:TITLEVAR, and also because "cinema" is ambiguous across the dialects. RGloucester — ☎ 17:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I find it astounding that because American editors don't understand the term cinema, they block a move to the WP:COMMONNAME uses globally. Those referencing WP:TITLEVAR such as User:Calidum and User:RGloucester - please be aware "theatre" is widely used in the US - overwhelmingly, in fact, by theatres. See Category:Broadway theatres - almost all spell are spelt "theatre" AusLondonder (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm British, not American. The article has been stable at this title, and should not be changed per WP:TITLEVAR and WP:TITLECHANGES. The move request was for a move to cinema, not to movie theatre, and no evidence was provided for a move in that direction. WP:COMMONAME does not enter into the discussion of WP:ENGVAR-related matters. If you really wanted to move this article to cinema, you'd need to first move cinema to cinema (disambiguation) and prove that movie theater is the primary topic of cinema. At that point, having demonstrated WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, you'd need to show that the term was adequately understood in America per WP:COMMONALITY. You did not do any of these things. I believe that Americans do understand "cinema" in reference to the building, as many American cinemas are named such. However, we cannot base page moves on perceptions, only on policy and guidelines. RGloucester — ☎ 02:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Concur with RGloucester. Furthermore, the U.S. is the global leader in movie theatres (although China is catching up fast). The largest trade association in the movie exhibition field is the U.S.-based National Association of Theatre Owners. Not cinema owners. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Coolcaesar, please do not continue the misconception that it maters as to who has more "cinemas/movie theatres/movie theaters/movie houses/picture houses/kinemas/&c." in the world. That's not how our policies work. Either variety of English is acceptable. The one that has been here since the start and is stable remains, as per our policies of WP:TITLEVAR and WP:TITLECHANGES. RGloucester — ☎ 06:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Also concur with RGloucester. Further, "theater" in the US refers to movie houses and "theatre" is understood to mean staged plays/musicals. Calidum T|C 05:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

User:RGloucester - I don't see how WP:TITLEVAR applies here, because theatre is widely used in the US. AusLondonder (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• This is something of a bad non-admin close, since yes obviously the RM should have been to Cinema (building) and User:AusLondonder made a simple mistake in the RM template which could have been teased out in discussion and the template amended to include (building) in the template. We should have a discussion on something which is clearly a very odd term in the world's biggest cinema (building) market, India. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 21 January 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Tiggerjay (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

---

Movie theater → Movie theatre – WP:TITLEVAR does not apply here, because "theatre" is widely used in the US. This is evidenced by the National Association of Theatre Owners, the trade body in the US. I am a strong supporter of WP:STRONGNAT and respecting national varieties of English. Theatre is also the preferred spelling globally, in places such as the India, the UK, Ireland, South Africa, Australia, Canada and also non-English speaking countries in Europe. WP:COMMONNAME should apply here. This will also make the title more internationalised (with cinema being the preferred usage in many countries) AusLondonder (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose and speedy close. This crap is getting old. Calidum T|C 05:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Why is it crap? Also, why is it old? AusLondonder (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose as nonsense – WP:TITLEVAR does apply, and so does WP:TITLECHANGES. Moving this to "movie theatre" does not make the article title any more "global", as only Americans refer to the subject as "movie theaters" or "movie theatres". "Movie theatre" is not the common name in India, Britain, &c. The only potential grounds for this move would be if "movie theatre" were shown to be more common in American usage than "movie theater", and you've not done that. RGloucester — ☎ 06:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I have demonstrated that movie theatre is widely used in the US AusLondonder (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

You have shown no evidence that "movie theatre" is more common than "movie theater" in American usage. You've mentioned that one particular organisation has a certain name, but you've not looked at usage amongst the populace at large, at books, at newspapers, at dictionaries, at anything. RGloucester — ☎ 06:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

That organisation is a trade body of theatres and it recommends use of "theatre". AusLondonder (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

We do not follow the style guide of lobbying organisations. We follow English usage as determined in reliable and scholarly sources. Please see WP:UCN. RGloucester — ☎ 06:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, the last time I encountered you at a name change was from Burma to Myanmar, where you opposed in vain the change despite massive evidence supporting use of Myanmar in the media and books. You said it Myanmar was "confusing". So it seems little point exists in actually discussing the matter with you. AusLondonder (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

In citing WP:UCN are you suggesting a change to movie theatre would render the name "unrecognisable"? AusLondonder (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that you've not demonstrated why the proposed move has any merit, and hence, per WP:TITLECHANGES, there is no need to move from the stable title. RGloucester — ☎ 06:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per MacMillan Dictionary: "In both the UK and the US, a theatre is a place where people watch plays or other performances. In the US, you can also use theater or movie theater to mean a place that shows films. In the UK, you see a film at a cinema." In this context "movie theater" seems to be the more common spelling. Yes, it's an Americanism but we don't change article titles just on that basis alone. Betty Logan (talk) 06:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Tell that to the National Association of Theatre Owners AusLondonder (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

They seem to be aware of it. At their website they consistently use "theater", apart from in their name, which could just be a historical anachronism. Either way it doesn't really matter since we don't alter spellings just because of a regional variance. Betty Logan (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose; WP:TITLEVAR applies, plus, here in Australia and New Zealand, we don't go to the 'Movie Theatre', we go to the Cinema. Speedy close please.  InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  08:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I tried to move to cinema, the term used globally (except the US) per WP:COMMONNAME but nope. AusLondonder (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Close and restart with RM for Cinema (building) per Indian English. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose — proposed move would hardly "make the title more internationalised" as claimed, given that outside of the US the term "movie theater" (with any spelling) would hardly be used (in favour of "cinema"). Within the US "theater" cf. "theatre" seems by far the most common spelling. Why move the page to a title that doesn't appeal to anyone?! _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 08:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Exhibitor clearance

What is an "exhibitor clearance"? (See this and this.) —BarrelProof (talk) 04:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Outdated information

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)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• FI-AHDISTUS.svg
• FI-PÄIHDE.svg
• FI-SEKSI.svg
• FI-VÄKIVALTA.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The Canadian inferiority complex

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)

Food subsection deleted

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