Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Movies Entertainment Technology

Nolan's Cinematic Vision in 'Dunkirk' is Hollywood's Best Defense Against Netflix (marketwatch.com) 196

Posted by msmash from the fighting-for-what's-right dept.
There's nothing quite like filming a movie on film, according to the director Christopher Nolan. His new WWII film, Dunkirk, was shot entirely on epic 65mm, as opposed to digital. And it's receiving the widest release of that film format in recent history. But Nolan's views on doing things the way "they're meant to be done," isn't limited to just making a film. He also wants you watch the movie in the theatre, and not on streaming service Netflix, which he says he rarely uses. From a report: "Dunkirk," director Christopher Nolan's big budget war epic, is a filmmaker's film and a movie buff's dream with its wide, high-resolution 70mm format. It's like an expressionist painting, said ComScore media analyst Paul Dergarabedian. The Hollywood Reporter even said "Dunkirk" could launch a 70mm film renaissance. "I would always prefer and really recommend that everyone see it on Imax 70mm," Dergarabedian said. "People talk about 'they don't make movies like that anymore.' Well, this is that movie." Dunkirk, which opens across the U.S. this weekend, is a film that everyone will tell you has to be seen on the big screen. And that has rekindled the debate about the pros and cons of films opening in a theater versus being streamed by Netflix. In an interview with Indiewire ahead of the film's premiere, Nolan criticized Netflix for its "bizarre aversion to supporting theatrical films." Netflix, despite doubling down on its film business and looking to make inroads in the industry, has continued its controversial stance against Hollywood's theatrical window model. To the film industry's dismay, Netflix is still adopting a day and date release model -- dropping a movie on the streaming service the same day it hits theaters. Hollywood relies on the money moviegoers spend at the box office, and the industry is reluctant to give up the exclusive window of time that films are only in theaters, fearing it would cripple that income stream. "Dunkirk" is an impressive $150 million argument on behalf of cinema.
In an interview, Nolan said he will not work with Netflix because their film strategy is "pointless." He said, "They have this mindless policy of everything having to be simultaneously streamed and released, which is obviously an untenable model for theatrical presentation. So they're not even getting in the game, and I think they're missing a huge opportunity. [...] You can see that Amazon is very clearly happy to not make that same mistake," he said. "The theaters have a 90-day window. It's a perfectly usable model. It's terrific."

Critics have found Dunkirk one of the best movies -- and perhaps the best war movie -- ever made. The Guardian said it's the best Nolan movie, while the New York Times found it "both sweeping and intimate."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nolan's Cinematic Vision in 'Dunkirk' is Hollywood's Best Defense Against Netflix More

Nolan's Cinematic Vision in 'Dunkirk' is Hollywood's Best Defense Against Netflix

Comments Filter:

  • Not affordable (Score:3)

    by OffTheLip ( 636691 ) on Saturday July 22, 2017 @08:23AM (#54857441)
    It's really that simple for most people seeing films in theaters is too costly. Most are not "must see" immediately good anyway.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Osgeld ( 1900440 )

      that and the quality of experience is usually poor

      you got random people with phones and mouths popping up all the time
      the picture is typically fuzzy
      the sound is almost ALL BASSSSSSSS
      and to watch a 90 min movie takes over 2 hours by the time they actually get started

      • Definitely, compared to large HDR screen, 11.3 surround, dirt cheap popcorn and a comfy couch. I'll watch 'er at home, yeppers.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by elrous0 ( 869638 )

        And I love how the summary cites 70mm presentations as the redeeming quality of theaters, when the vast majority of theaters can't even play 70mm films. Shit, most theaters have gone digital and most can only play movies in 2K resolution. I don't think I've even seen a 70mm projector since my last visit to one of the very few *REAL* Imax theaters in the country (not that shit passing itself off as "Imax" today, I mean the real 70mm gigantic screen kind).

      • Are you a time traveller?
        I haven't had an experience like that since the 80's.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by MBGMorden ( 803437 )

      Well, it's not just cost.

      I don't care to eat or drink when I go to the movies, so I don't factor the cost of popcorn or soda into a trip to the movies. The ticket prices at the place I usually go to are $6.50 for an adult ticket. It'd be peanuts to go a few times a week.

      That said - i go to the theater MAYBE 3 times a year, and that's simply because it's a movie that I really want to see NOW and not in a few months.

      While I can understand their passion, for me (and I think a large number of people), a trip

      • Re:Not affordable (Score:5, Informative)

        by ewanm89 ( 1052822 ) on Saturday July 22, 2017 @09:08AM (#54857623) Homepage

        Well, you have it very cheap, here in the UK my local cinema is £9.50 for an adult ticket, which is approximately $12.35 US at today's exchange rate. Oh and the pound has been going down for the last couple of years, so £9.50 two year ago was worth a hell of a lot more at approximately $14.80 US.

        And then I have a darkened room with a full sound system and a nice screen to use at home without popcorn in the carpet and others talking over it or flashing their phones.

    • My chief problem is that I would have to drive a helluva long way to enjoy a 70mm film in all its glory. The multiplex theaters near me simply wouldn't show such a film 'in all its glory".

    • It's really that simple for most people seeing films in theaters is too costly.

      But is it really? Most cinemas are cheaper than Chinese takeout. My local IMAX is cheaper than most restaurants.

      Sure for *some* people it's expensive, but in terms of entertainment factor, at about $5-10 per hour going to a movie is an incredibly cheap activity. Cheaper than eating, doing any kind of sport where you need to hire equipment or fields, cheaper than going to a football game, definitely cheaper than going to a pub if you're anything other than the designated driver, and even then depending on wh

    • To me it's affordable, but not worth the risk. If a movie on Netflix sucks, I can quit watching or go mst3k on it for entertainment. I have been burned by suck ass films too much in theaters that I don't go unless it's great and the theater size adds something to it (like saving private Ryan). I might go see Dunkirk.

    • Not sure where you live but I'm looking at Valerian tickets now and they are $9 each for 3D.

  • The Hateful Eight was shot in 70 mm. So if there is a 70mm film renaissance it may have already been started by Quentin Tarantino and cinematographer Robert Richardson in 2015.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

    • Perhaps 70mm film is a bit like 3D: it only adds something when it's done right, in the right kind of movie. Jaws 3D vs. Avatar. Did shooting on 70mm add something to the Hateful Eight, or might it as well have been digital?

      • Perhaps 70mm film is a bit like 3D: it only adds something when it's done right,

        The only thing 3D adds is a few dollars to the ticket price and a migraine after an hour of watching it. All I can see film adding is the occasional speck of dust or scratch to the picture. If that's so important I'm sure there is some digital algorithm which can add similar imperfections. This sort of thing strikes me as nothing more than audiophiles becoming videophiles.

        • The best 3D movie I've ever seen wasn't even shot in 3D, it was postprocessed to add it afterwards: Titanic.

          Go figure.

      • It's worse than 3D. 3D at least has a tangeable difference in the product - some scenes will have a stereoscopic 3D effect that part of the audienct that includes me likes very much (when used to help build scale), other parts of the audience don't care for or can't see, and another group that may or may not be in the audience has an irrational hatred of.

        Since Distribution is all digital now, the only thing shooting in 70mm adds is film grain and color gamut that you could reproduce more accurately or in a

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dwywit ( 1109409 )

          What's the equivalent resolution figure for 70mm film, say, in 100ISO? AFAIK, a frame of 100ISO 35mm film is good for a bit over 4K, so a 70mm frame, ~4x the size of a 35mm frame, should be good for 16K, yes?

          Grain is not the issue. Artificial grain has been an option in digital post-processing for years. Filmmakers choose film for aesthetic reasons (and because they have enough clout to demand the budget for it. Film stock ain't cheap.)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mikael ( 484 )

        CinemaScope and other widescreen formats were designed for the viewers to see panoramic scenes like mountains and wide open country. True quality color was another obvious improvement, along with stereo sound. 70mm film has the advantage of having a higher dynamic range, resolution and colour gamut that the digital systems.

        Films that used 70mm in the past [rogerebert.com] include: “Star Wars” trilogy, ”Tron” (1982) and “Who Framed Roger Rabbit” [1988]) but during that period, it was emplo

      • I think that's sort of true. The Room will still be The Room even on 70 mm. You might enjoy the amazing quality footage but still be slapped in the face by the plot. So in the end one will override the other in the casual viewers mind.

    • Tarantino makes entertaining films but I don't think his choice of film stock has anything to do with it. Hateful Eight did not need to be shot on 70mm. It took place almost entirely in a single interior location which does not take advantage of the format.

  • Obvious Hollywood shill is obvious (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 22, 2017 @08:32AM (#54857469)

    Which would you rather have:

    1. A nice, relaxing watch on your own time, own schedule, with the people of your choosing, with affordable snacks and great seats
    2. A dingy, overpriced, cramped, uncomfortable, smelly struggle to enjoy a film played on poorly maintained projectors in a theater rocking with the sounds of cellphones and conversation, while the usher stands idly by and fails to enforce any order, while you munch stale $20 popcorn.

    Option 1 will cost you a Netflix subscription. #2 will cost you $30 a head for one viewing. Little surprise I, like thousands of others, never go to a theater!

    If Hollywood wants to defend their vision of how films "should" be seen, they have to regulate themselves and beat the alternative options. So far, all they really want to do is whine about it.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:Obvious Hollywood shill is obvious (Score:5, Insightful)

        by UnknownSoldier ( 67820 ) on Saturday July 22, 2017 @10:20AM (#54857829)

        > but they're seriously doing a lot to address your concerns, with large, comfortable, reclining seats, cup holders, and digital projection if they can't support 70mm or IMAX.

        I've been in some of the newer theaters around Denver. Doing one thing to address the movie experience is NOT a lot -- it is ONE thing.

        The movie theater experience SUCKS [slashdot.org] compared to home theater. I literally had a kid snoring next to me when I saw The Jungle Book. WTF.

        Lastly, there are no fucking 20 minutes of ads at home -- we can skip them on BluRay, or don't even see them in the first place with NetFlix.

        Hollywood = CLUELESS about the user experience.

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • > Sorry to hear that. Sounds like Denver is seriously behind the curve.

            Well, the seats ARE getting better. I've noticed more theaters are becoming "short" depth but with extra wide, cushion, and leg rests even! So I'd given B for effort. The problem is all the other issues are still unresolved -- and never will be.

            > Out of interest, am I the the only one who doesn't care that much about the trailers?

            Probably. =P

            When there was only 1 or trailers I didn't mind it -- you knew the movie was starting SO

            • Comment removed based on user account deletion

            • I don't have a problem with any number of trailers. I'm interested in upcoming movies. It's the non-movie adverts that annoy me.

              Sarcasm on the popcorn noted, but anyway, I have a hard a fast rule that I don't start on the popcorn till the movie has started!

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by dwywit ( 1109409 )

              That's a good idea, but two minutes should be enough to generate interest. Five minutes of cut scenes will spoil the anticipation, because editors will put the biggest, baddest, most awsome action scenes in the trailer.

              Also, ads generate revenue for the cinema, ditto snack prices, otherwise your ticket price would be higher. Cinemas have to hand over most of the ticket revenue for the first two weeks of a run, and they won't make a profit otherwise. Perhaps cinemas could charge a premium for some ad-free se

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Osgeld ( 1900440 )

        I forget what movie it was, but it started off with like a 20 hour god damned commecial about all its digital flickering mirrors state of the art bullshit, and the first scene of the movie was a slow flyover with a very fast pan, and I had to close my eyes the studder and framerate actually made me feel a little sick

    • 2. A dingy, overpriced, cramped, uncomfortable, smelly struggle to enjoy a film played on poorly maintained projectors in a theater rocking with the sounds of cellphones and conversation, while the usher stands idly by and fails to enforce any order, while you munch stale $20 popcorn.

      Try moving out of Dis to a city on this realm. You'll find the cinemas substantially better.

  • So pompous (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 22, 2017 @08:34AM (#54857477)

    I'll be sure to watch it on an airplane in-seat system out of spite.

  • Hey guess what? We can walk AND chew gum

  • they're right and they're wrong (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    In one way they are right: there are some movies which really are better to watch on a big scren. Even the 52" in my living room does not do them justice.

    So the watching experience could be better in the theater... but it's not! It's not because:

    * There are anymore 15 or 20 commercials and previews before the main film. This can take in excess of 30 minutes, sometimes 40. It has become ridiculous.

    * The audio is played so loud I need earplugs to avoid pain.

    You want me to attend showings in the theater?

    • Long IMAX (flim) movies have no ad's

    • So the watching experience could be better in the theater...

      The thing is - for me, anyway - convenience is king. While the theater (sans the drawbacks you spelled out) might indeed be better than watching at home, it doesn't matter because - my experience at home is good enough. Plus:

      - I have a wider choice of snacks and drinks available
      - I have more flexibility regarding start time
      - I can have friends over to watch, without increasing the cost
      - I have a pause button

      (not necessarily in that order)

  • He's right (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DontBeAMoran ( 4843879 ) on Saturday July 22, 2017 @09:00AM (#54857589)

    "The theaters have a 90-day window. It's a perfectly usable model. It's terrific."

    It's terrific indeed. Wait for the movie release in theaters, wait 90 days then stream at home without having to bother with the sub-par theatre quality of overpaying for the ticket, the snacks and drinks, the sticky floors, the crappy and probably dirty seats, having to endure idiots around you pushing on your seat, talking, using their damn phones with the brightness at maximum, watching a blurry image and enduring extreme audio loudness with so much bass that you don't even hear anything else.

    He's right when he says streaming is a perfectly usable model, all you have to do is wait 90 days!

    tl;dr Hollywood does not control the theater experience and it's expensive. When we watch at home we control our viewing experience and the price is low.

  • can you get dolby atmos or dts-x on 70MM or is it still DTS 5.1 only with 70MM?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dknj ( 441802 )

      What would an audio format have anything to do with a video format? You can't capture audio on film, bruh

      -dk

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mikael ( 484 )

        Audio for movies is actually stored as barcode type data on each frame of the film. This saved the hassle factor of having to synchronize two reels of film and audio - it was enough grief and aggro trying to synchronize two separate reels of the same movie. The size of the film frame dictates the size of the amount of audio information that can be stored. They actually use a laser and CCD sensor to read the audio tracks.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

  • Things disappear when those who support them die. That is what will happen to film, within two decades or so. As for Nolan, I enjoyed Interstellar enormously, but I am going to miss Dunkirk - not only am I a bit fed up with pretentious war movies but, in addition, I do not want to contribute to supporting this pompous ass and his old-fashioned ways.

  • The Germans lose the war.

  • Dead medium. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Chris Katko ( 2923353 ) on Saturday July 22, 2017 @09:38AM (#54857707)

    1 - Home theaters cost less and less every day. 4K resolutions dwarf many local theaters, and you can bring any food you want, with any friends you want.

    2 - Film vs digital has nothing to do with home vs theater.

    3 - Netflix and YouTube allows independent content you'd never see in a theater. Google 4K drone, or 4K outdoors (you can even get 6 and 8K already IIRC on YouTube.) At an age when Hollywood produces the same shit every year, theaters are already a boring medium.

    4 - DVD, BluRay, and Netflix prove that people don't care about the "benefits" touted in this article. People's recreational spending habits don't lie. People just want to relax with their familes and friends... not have to stand in line to watch, and stand in line to piss, and pay $8 for a fuckin soda.

    • 2 - Film vs digital has nothing to do with home vs theater.

      Right. I don't get all this "but it's 70mm film!" stuff. Sure, if you want it to look a certain way... but then you're only doing so because of a certain convention that's become ingrained in us that if something is marred in a certain way with a certain kind of noise that it's somehow more "cinematic."

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dwywit ( 1109409 )

        You know what you'll see if you stand next to a screen observing a film being projected? Grain. Sometimes more, sometimes less, depending on what the film-makers have decided, but limited by the state of the technology.

        You know what you'll see if you stand next to a screen observing a digital file being projected? Pixels. Sometimes more, sometimes less, depending on what the film-makers have decided, but limited by the state of the technology.

        The "cinematic experience" means different things to different pe

    • 4K resolutions dwarf many local theaters

      Yep because a high resolution with zero benefit from across the room is totally the same as the recommendation to go see it in IMAX format. Exactly the same thing. Yesssirreee.

  • I am guessing that movie makers don't get out to the public theaters that often and may not realize what the entire "movie going" experience is like these days: 30 minutes of adds, the garbage food that was there 30 years ago (and sometime in the same bag), overblown sound system, Sometimes swept out, in new theaters the seating is good (but not always), people in the theater who don't understand basic etiquette.

    Maybe have the movie makers watch a couple of films in public theaters each year so they reme

  • If Hollywood wasn't losing badly, you wouldn't see articles like this. Hollywood will still be around, but they're transitioning into being a minor player.

  • The theater going experience sucks and it doesn't appear to be changing in the audience's favor anytime soon. I appreciate that Nolan made a beautiful film, but I'm still not going. Lamenting about "the true movie-going experience" is forgetting that the ideal Nolan strives for was a blip in history to start with. Storytelling is a constantly changing beast with no "right" way of doing it. I don't go to see "films." I go to be told a story. The medium is only part of that experience.

  • Hollywood = Idiots. Home = Bathroom & Food (Score:5, Insightful)

    by UnknownSoldier ( 67820 ) on Saturday July 22, 2017 @10:10AM (#54857805)

    I like to watch movies on my home theatre setup because I can

    * Pause the movie
    * Go to the bathroom
    * Raid the fridge for snacks instead of over-paying for snacks
    * Turn on/off CC
    * Adjust the volume to MY liking
    * Don't have to listen to any idiots beside me constantly talking / snoring throughout the entire movie.

    Hollywood is completely out of touch with reality these days.

    i.e. How many fucking re-cashgrabs of Robin Hood [wikipedia.org] do we need? Eleven?!?!?!

    • I prefer watching at my own pace. I have health issues. I can't sit and watch the whole thing in one sitting. I have to take (time out/break)s to stretch, move, (pe/urinat)e, etc. Also, I like to be in the control!

    • * Pause the movie
      * Go to the bathroom

      As I get older, the importance of these two items becomes more apparent to me. And, when my daughter was younger, I would've added

      * Be able to rewind the movie

      * Don't have to listen to any idiots beside me constantly talking / snoring throughout the entire movie.

      You've obviously never watched a movie with my wife...

  • Nolan's Cinematic Vision in 'Dunkirk' is Hollywood's Best Defense Against Netflix

    Just because he wants this particular film viewed in a certain way, doesn't mean there's something wrong about Netflix.

    Netflix can just as easily argue that Stranger Things is best viewed on a nice, fairly big TV in your living room.

    There's nothing fundamentally, objectively, "better" about going to a cinema and watching something projected through real film.

  • There's one that I know of about 15 miles from me. Everything else has gone digital. Or shut down.

    I didn't mind the theater release first model. In fact, reviews of movies that have bombed on the big screen have saved me from putting them in my Netflix queue. On the other hand, delay the official streaming release for more than a few weeks and the studio might as well hand a copy to the torrent sites.

  • None of the comments I've seen so far address the cost of making big movies (almost any movie these days) and the mechanism for recuperating those costs. The only model that supports those budgets, so far, is going to the theater. I see someone posted that they'd be happy paying the same amount as a movie ticket to stream it in HD at home, and that sounds like it would work, but that's not Netflix's current model.

    Releasing it same day into the $9/month subscription crowd won't pay the bills. If that bec

    • Are you kidding?

      Hollywood wastes money remaking Hitchcock (obviously worse than the original). Wouldn't know a new story if it bit them on the ass (would just wonder if ass biting was an 'included service', try and remember to ask the staff 'pussy coordinator').

      For any chance of a good movie these days, look to the indys. Otherwise it's Disney to the horizon. Movies are just game cutscenes, with titles.

    • If that becomes the dominant model, it is clear that movie budgets will have to go down, and the quality of those movies will have to suffer, which is clearly the start of a death spiral.

      I don't grant your premise. In fact, I'm going to claim it's just the opposite. The bigger the budget, the worse the movie. If you look back at the history of film (and incidentally, pretty much every other art form bar architecture), the best work gets done on the tiniest budgets. Having a smaller budget tends to concentrate the attention of the artist. An artist with an enormous budget can pretty much do whatever, and so that's just what happens, whereas an artist with limited resources thinks hard b

  • entertainment. Mr. Nolan is a little bit full of himself.

  • It's full of quirks like lense flares and red lines that we associate with movies because we grew up with them and expect them. If the next gen grows up without those quirks they'll find them strange and off-putting. Film's only an advantage for old folks.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dwywit ( 1109409 )

      Tell me, how do you make a movie (film or digital), without lenses?

      Hint, it's in the name - "lens flare". It's got nothing to do with the capture medium, and everything to do with the Director's aesthetics (or the DoP).

  • Non-Linear Storytelling and boring characters... (Score:4, Informative)

    by WimBo ( 124634 ) on Saturday July 22, 2017 @11:14AM (#54858043) Homepage

    It's really sad because if this movie flops with audiences, some will claim that it's because it wasn't seen on the right format, when the real problem is that it's just a weak movie.

    I saw this on a standard screen in Seattle, but one I'd normally consider as good as digital gets. I know my history, so the overall story is not new to me.

    The movie itself is dry with very little character development. It's all about sweeping shots, but you don't care about any of the boys being killed on the beach.

    It's constantly switching between day and night, with virtually no continuity, so you can't tell if the fighter scenes are during the first day or the last day.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Evtim ( 1022085 )

      I was hoping that the part of the story dedicated to the common sailors helping by will be about Lightoller with his family boat saving 130 soldiers under the endless attacks from above. " Don't worry" - one of the soldiers remarks - " the skipper of this boat survived Titanic, he can pull this one out".

      In some way I agree with the director - he is a man that does not go for gimmicks [3D]. The Dark Knight for instance was real pleasure to watch on IMAX.

      However, as so many /.-ers remarked the whole cinema ex

  • Analog film nostalgia != actual quality (Score:3)

    by ffkom ( 3519199 ) on Saturday July 22, 2017 @11:45AM (#54858147)
    Every 65mm or 70mm analog film I have ever seen was in terms of resolution and signal/noise ratio _way_ below the quality of modern digital cameras, even below the decade old "3.4k" Arri cameras.

    I wonder what others pretend to have seen, but movies like "The hateful eight", if anything, proved that analog film is outdated and bad. The whole indoor lighting they had to apply in "the hateful eight" to make the analog film catch a usable picture was terrible, it looked completely unrealistic (I mean seriously: A dark hut in a snow-storm, and magically bright lights shine from the ceiling all the time... WTF?!?)

    I do not know whether "Dunkirk" is a movie worth watching, but I am absolutely sure if it is, it is certainly not because of image quality. And sure as hell it will hardly stretch the limits of a Bluray disc in terms of quality - certainly no reason to buy an UHD Bluray of it.

  • Movie Theaters are a Relic (Score:4, Insightful)

    by LeftCoastThinker ( 4697521 ) on Saturday July 22, 2017 @12:13PM (#54858229)

    Movie theaters are an antiquated, expensive relic of the past that are beyond sub optimal for watching movies today. Anyone who says otherwise is a shill for the movie industry. The movie theater used to be the only way to watch moving pictures, but then came TV, but TV sets were small for decades (20" was standard, 32" was a major luxury and the aspect ratio was wrong for watching movies). This is no longer the case. Then sound systems (Dolby Surround, DTS) were better in theaters, but that too faded. "But you can watch with your friends; its an experience." they argue. However, my living room couches seat 5 with fold down arm rests and reclining seats.

    So in summary, the benefits of movie theaters used to be:

    1. Bigger screen (Now my 65" 4k $900 flat screen from 10' away is a much better and immersive viewing experience).
    2. Better sound (My 7.1 system sounds just as good, with added benefit that I can avoid ruptured eardrums and hearing damage).
    3. More immersive (at home I don't have to put up with all the jackholes texting and receiving phone calls or just talking to the person next to them in the middle of the movie, plus I can pause the movie to use the bathroom).
    4. Cost (This was never better with the theater, but clearly even worse these days. Taking the family to the theater sets me back $70 just for the tickets for a family of 4, then add drinks, candy and popcorn and you are over $150, or my entire home theater cost me about $1600 once and I can buy the UHD multi-format for $30. That pays for it'self in less than 20 movies)...

    Every single reason to go to the movie theater is gone, except for their exclusivity window prior to disc release. As far as I can tell, the only reason that movie theaters exist is people with poor self control that can't wait for the Bluray release and teenagers who want a place away from their parents to make out. If you take away the first category and the theaters close, the teens will just go back to parking at make-out point...

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by dwywit ( 1109409 )

      OK. I run the projection system for a local film society. It has a 2K projector, a 6.1 sound system, and it's done in a renovated community hall, so less than optimum audio, it's uncomfortably warm in summer, and needs heaters in winter. We show a film every 2 weeks on a Saturday night, and sometimes a children's matinee.

      Features and shorts are chosen by a committee of movie-lovers, but it's generally "world cinema", sometimes straying into Hollywood territory. IME 7 out 10 films shown are good entertainmen

      • And what you have going on is a pretty cool community event, and I wouldn't knock it. However, what you are describing is not really the movie theater business, it is a community get together that also happens to involve watching a movie. 99.9% of movie theaters are owned/run by mega corps that want to push the masses into/out of the theater as fast as possible and don't really care that much beyond making money and avoiding public scandal or negative online reviews.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dwywit ( 1109409 )

          Yep, pretty far away from the movie theater business, and we'll keep it that way. There's suggestions from time to time of funding a dedicated cinema, but no-one wants to lose the "dinner and a show" vibe. Maybe we should send a delegation to the Alamo Drafthouse on a fact-finding mission. :-)

          Just pointing out that alternatives to the mainstream exist, and it's possible to make a profit by running a cinema, you just can't do it while you're stuck on the Hollywood bandwagon.

  • I think Nolan does make good films but i wonder if Memento his first mainstream film would get a cinema distribution deal if he was starting now.

    Nolan might not make standard Hollywood films but they are very different in idea to your average cinema goer these days gets.

  • Bill Bryson, NOT a big lover of gadgetry or cinema, brings pretty much an "average guy" sensibility to his travel writing, gushed for two pages after seeing a demo-show of what 70mm looked like at high frame rates.

    HFR was recently tried a few times, but only in conjunction with 3D, which was likely a big negative to it. The killer app may be the combination of 70mm and 48fps. (And some say, 60 fps...)

  • With few exceptions, the movie theater is just too sub-par to be worth going. Dunkirk may very well be one of those exceptions. But the fact is, that unless the movie involves Jedi Knights, the USS Enterprise, or Kaiju, home TVs and sound systems are fine for the vast majority of films. Nolan claim otherwise reeks of stuck-up pretentiousness.

    And it's mostly the theater chains' faults. The ticket price is ever-increasing with no corresponding improvement in value. $20 for a soda and bag of semi-stale po

    • Agree. I won't pay for a theater ticket unless there is a Kirk, Spock, Janeway (I can hope, right?), or Picard. The most recent installment of the "Jedi" part was so disappointing that I will wait for the Blu-Ray and watch from my comfy couch.
  • It is more than 100 miles to the nearest IMAX for me. Thanks, but I'll just wait for it to come out on Blu-Ray. This Luddite garbage coming from Hollywood is laughable at best. They LOVE them some technology until they don't.

  • If cinemas would do something about other people talking during movies then we'd go again. But they won't, so now we never go. The last 3 or 4 films we saw, we had to walk out partway through and get a refund. So we just don't bother anymore.

  • "They have this mindless policy of everything having to be simultaneously streamed and released, which is obviously an untenable model for theatrical presentation.

    If people really wanted to see movies in theaters, theaters would have no problem competing when movies are released simultaneously on streaming and in theaters. If this is an untenable model for theaters, and the only way they can survive is by prohibiting competition for 90 days, then he's admitting that theaters are obsolete and should be all

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • "We think movies are best seen in theaters, but unfortunately some viewers disagree. That's why we need an exclusive period to compel them to go to the theater anyway. We can't take the risk that some ignorant customers will choose to watch it the way they prefer instead of the way we want them to."

  • "Man wants everybody to do the same as him because it helps his bottom line" - not quite as good a headline is it? Contains 100% more truthiness, though.

Slashdot Top Deals

Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce

Close