Do Movies Need To Be Seen On The Big Screen?
- is the title of a great “crosstalk” between Onion AV club film critics Noel Murry and Scott Tobias. This is the second time in a month I’ve referenced The Onion, don’t discount their credibility especially when it comes to all things zeitgeist (Yes, yes, yes! Via said zeitgeist, I’ve finally been able to reference that o-so-timely word!).
Seriously, though - this subject I believe is forefront many cineastes minds, including mine.
RARELY do I go to the movie theatres anymore. I’ll give you one reason why that trumps all others:
THE 2WENTY
Kristine and I never watch the ‘tube, er T.V. Never. We have free cable and we never turn it on. We don’t subscribe to magazines, we’re generally insulated from the morning papers, and it’s rare we listen to the radio.
When you function outside, or perhaps just to the left of “traditional media”, you’ll notice your tolerance for advertising bombardments is extremely low.
In general, I think that’s a good thing.
CUT TO: two weeks ago Kristine and I venture to the nearest Regal Cinema chain to catch CHILDREN OF MEN. Our reward for arriving promptly before showtime - a 2wenty minute in- your-face, too loud, can’t escape, it 14′ tall commercial.
Forget screaming children, ringing cellphones, or bored high school kids with nothing else to do - for my $18.50, the 2wenty is reason enough to stay at home.
Netflix doesn’t have commercials.
Thing is, CHILDREN OF MEN was fantastic on the big screen. But, had free movie tix not arrived in the mail over the holidays, I would have waited for the DVD.
Would I like to see more movies in the theatre? Sure. But only if:
1.) The projection looks BEYOND STUNNING. I also saw LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE in the theatre (a major chain), and it must have been the combination of the worst projector used and the worst print the studio released. Way too many scratches and pops, dimlly lit (bulb going out anyone?), and washed out colors - in short ugly. Bring on digital projection.
2.) For $9.50 you don’t show me any commercials OR
3.) For $3.50 you show me a two minutes worth before the previews run.
Barring that, I will stay home, I will wait for the DVD (we probably take in 10-12 movies/ month), and I will not cry for missing the theatrical experience.
If there’s a problem, a fix that needs to be made to get more people excited about a night out at the movie theatre, look no further than my list above. I feel like it’s pretty simple, really.
Nauseating 3-D glasses for summer blockbusters a la James Cameron are not going to persuade me to purchase more movie tickets.
–
Now here’s a kicker - not only am I a movie maker, enthusiast, and cinephile, but we watch movies at home on an 8 year-old, 19″ color tv hooked to an equally ancient DVD player and stero speakers.
You could also take this one step further by saying even HD-DVD players wouldn’t entice me to upgrade my home theatre - but that’s a different story in itself.
–
Concerning The Onion article, Chicagoian Scott Tobias takes the Cinema-purist route, laying claims that one cannot really “see” a film, as entertainment or as art, unless in a theatre with an audience. On the other hand, Arkansas resident Noel Murry points out the main hassles and short comings of going to the theatre as opposed to catching the DVD at home from his couch.
Both writers, make valid and or sympathetic arguements, but here’s a quote from Murry that I liked the most:
Mainly what I’d like to choke off is the self-righteous prickliness that accompanies the whole big-screen-vs.-small-screen debate. Cineastes get overprotective about “the vision of the artist” and the solemnity of the theatrical experience. And I’m sorry, that’s not the world we live in now, and arguably hasn’t been the world we’ve lived in since the invention of television…I agree that there’s an ideal for movie-watching, and that ideal is sitting in a theater with an appreciative audience and a well-lit, enormous screen. But if that ideal isn’t possible, viewers adjust, and snobby cineastes shouldn’t blame them for adjusting. Remember, all I said was that “appreciation might be enhanced” by a big-screen presentation. Not “created.” If a movie really works, it should work whether it’s seen on a TV, a laptop, or a bedsheet flapping in the breeze. You can’t micromanage the experience anymore. Let go.“
You’ll notice much of that refrain can also be applied to digital downloads, changing media formats/ landscapes, user preferences etc.
–
This is a really good read for film enthusiasts, not necessarily an argument, but essentially a crosstalk as described, complete with a whole mess of “audience” interaction (comments).
Murry and Tobias even jump in during the feedback - a model all media outlets should find inviting.
indeed! The Movies Experience(tm) has gone downhill drastically over the years, with prices going up, quality staying about the same (i.e. somewhere randomly falling between iffy and pretty good) and freaking COMMERCIALS everywhere! WTF? Next thing the MPAA will be telling us is that its all OUR faults for pirating movies… but then again pirates wouldn’t go to the movies, they just download online and don’t ever pay… so in essence we the “non-pirating” have to suffer by sitting through 20 mins of horribly loud, crappy quality commercials! I have also gone on strike against going to the movies and also just rent DVDs or borrow from my friends the latest releases. I usually have to rip them too JUST TO WATCH because here in Austria we’re a different region. My PC is euro, my laptop is US and all i want to do is pop in a freaking DVD and watch it w/o having to use 3 programs first!!!!! SCREW MPAA seriously, buncha greedy bastards! I’ve been able to convince a number of ppl to stop buying DVDs and going to theatres too in my wake for reasons listed above.. and they all tend to agree. I also can’t begin to count the number of people who’ve gone to a movie and the first thing out of their mouths was, “WHATS WITH ALL THE CRAPPY COMMERCIALS AT THE BEGINNING??”
anyways.. i think we’ve both ranted enough.. time to do something productive
Comment on February 6, 2007 @ 3:59 am
I only go to the movies during weekdays (which can happen for me from time to time as I am a stay at home dad). Yeah, the ads suck big time, but its nothing compared to the onslaught of screaming children and pubescent white suburban kids who insist they are from the “hood” in their attire, language and overall image. Funny thing is, they are not only funny to us other suburbanites, but to the people they are trying to mimic as well.
That’s what sucks about going to the movies for me. I can deal with the shitty commercials (I’m usually either reading, playing a game on my Treo or something of the like, so I’m not paying attention anyway).
Fact is I have two lovely HDTVs in my house. I have a nice Mitsubishi 55″ downstairs with surround sound and the whole works. I have a Samsung 32″ LCD upstairs that is in the main family area. We watch either movies, kids stuff (Baby Einstein and the like) or stuff we DVR and can skip through the commercials on…that’s it. I love it.
But!!! It will never live up to going to see a film projected on a screen at the theatre. Personally, it just can’t be beat, as long as there’s the least amount of humans possible present when I go.
Later,
Kyle
Comment on February 6, 2007 @ 10:19 am
I agree completely with Kyle. There’s just something about seeing a movie in the theater that tends to make the experience more enjoyable for me. Josh, I know you hate Springfield, but my favorite theater I’ve ever seen a movie in is the old Springfield 8. It has old, red, velvety chairs and it’s atmosphere was truly great.
The commercials, while both obnoxious and unnecessary, don’t really bother me too much because I just tune them out. To deal with the kids, I have implemented a rule that I will not see anything rated PG-13 or lower in a theater. Obviously this doesn’t solve everything as you still get the occasional batch of immature 17 year olds hitting up the R movies, but it helps a bit.
This is not to say I’m some theater elitist, because I have no problem sitting at home on my couch watching a movie I’ve just received via Netflix (a movie-watching parent’s best friend). If given the option though, I’ll always take the theater. And yes, I stand by that even if you wave a 60+ inch HDTV with an HD-DVD player in front of my face.
Comment on February 7, 2007 @ 9:32 am
Okay I know this debate has been going on for sometime, but me I like going to the theater. However with prices being what they are, and time being a very precious commodity I’ve become very selective of the films I see in the theater. If I have some interest in in becasue of a cinematographer I like shot it I may go see it because I enjoy seeing his or her work, but a lot of “indies” I do manage to see them on DVD. For movies it seems to be more about the quality then the quantity for me, and with faster release periods happening for movies I usually do see them on the DVD or on-demand circuit.
Comment on February 8, 2007 @ 6:03 am
[...] Josh Oakhurst has written some commentary on the issue of Home Theater vs Traditional Theater (that’s “Theatre” for all you folks across the pond). “…two weeks ago Kristine and I venture to the nearest Regal Cinema chain to catch CHILDREN OF MEN. Our reward for arriving promptly before showtime - a 2wenty minute in- your-face, too loud, can’t escape, it 14′ tall commercial. Forget screaming children, ringing cellphones, or bored high school kids with nothing else to do - for my $18.50, the 2wenty is reason enough to stay at home. [...]
Pingback on February 19, 2007 @ 10:59 pm
[...] There’s an interesting discussion going on at the Onion’s AV Club these days about the relative merits of watching movies in the theater or at home. Noel Murray and Scott Tobias began the discussion in a “Crosstalk” article, and that ingnited a nice little debate in the discussion area. Josh Oakhurst has weighed in on the issue, too (via FresHDV). [...]
Pingback on February 20, 2007 @ 8:49 pm