Jay G.

4K digital projection should be better than any HD option at home. So HD at home is "exceeded only by" 4K digital projection and "pristine projection of a new print".

orangerunner

I tend to agree with this too, although you are comparing apples to oranges.

The definition or resolution of a 35mm film cell is better than Blu-ray but not necessarily when you're watching it in a theater and it's projected from 100+ feet away on a giant screen.

I feel the current "stadium-seat" style theatres do not do a very good job of their presentations. They're projecting 35mm prints onto concave screens that distort the edges of the image and are really too big to give a nice crisp picture. I've also heard some theatres also turn down the wattage of the projector to save electricity which makes the picture darker than it should.

With the right set-up Blu-ray looks better in some ways over a 35mm projected print as far as brightness & pristine picture quality is concerned even though factoring in screen size is not an equal comparison.

On the other hand, have you ever heard anyone criticize film grain, pops or scratches in a movie theatre the way these flaws are constantly highlighted on the DVD/Blu-ray releases? It's part of watching a film.

Movie theatres will always have that advantage of a great looking picture on a huge screen and an audience to share the experience with.

I think the ideal movie-going experience is still 70mm presentations.

Travis McClain

I was hopping through Twitter today, looking for interesting people to follow, and I found Frank Miller. He's got a new website, and while there's not much on it yet, there is an essay/editorial on his thoughts about Avatar. There are some remarks that I thought appropriate for this thread, and I've quoted them below. You can read the entire thing here.

He goes on to ruminate on different ways of presenting movies to become completely absorbing, finding faults with all of them. Ultimately, he concludes

dsa_shea

I don't go to the movies for the "theater experience" as some have stated in here but rather for the movie itself. Even if I can't recreate the exact theatrical experience for the movie at my home doesn't mean that I can't get the movie and enjoy it for what it is and not how it is viewed. There are very few movies and television shows that I think need to be viewed in 3D to increase the pleasure in watching them. Avatar is one of them as I can see how watching it without the 3D, which I never bothered going to see it in, can take away some of its major wow factor and selling point as I find it just an average movie. To miss out on seeing some of your favorite films simply because you cannot nor should be able to recreate that theatrical experience is just silly. And if that theatrical experience comes with chatty teenagers then you can keep it. As far as 3D goes there is no real reason to invest in it now unless you want to spend more than necessary and end up with a major headache after every few hours of viewing.

Travis McClain

Are there distracting people in a theater? Of course there are. But let's not act as though it's something new. After all, we get the term "peanut gallery" from the days of Vaudeville. Some people are just drawn to want to participate, rather than be a spectator, in these venues. When it goes right, though, a good audience can influence how I feel about a movie in a way that can't be recreated in isolation. Even with my own friends, to be honest, I'd rather see a movie with them in a theater than at home, because at home they feel much freer to interrupt and socialize.

For instance, when we saw Paranormal Activity last year, everyone was into it. At the slightest suggestion of creepiness, a wave of energy swept through the theater, you could hear people stifling gasps and squeals. When the payoff moment came, there was a unison response of shock; if it passed harmlessly, half the theater exhaled and the other half chuckled at the half that had been holding its breath. It was one of the most genuinely enjoyable experiences I've ever had seeing a movie--and I suspect I would have found the film far less engaging without that audience.

One of the things that amazed me about WALL-E was that we saw it with friends in a theater full of families, and despite how little dialog there is for the first section, everyone was quiet and attentive. By the end of the screening, I walked away genuinely encouraged that an audience of that many kids had paid sincere attention to an entire feature and absorbed its message about taking responsibility for our environment (on whatever level their individual minds were capable of processing that theme).

My third and final example is that there is a local theater that shows cult favorite movies every other Saturday night at midnight. I've heard horror stories about how some crowds behave at other screenings like this in other cities, but I've never been to a showing yet where the crowd wasn't entirely attentive and buzzing with enthusiasm. There's something oddly comforting about knowing you're not the only one who thought a throwaway moment in a 17 year old movie was actually funny enough to laugh at it.

dsa_shea

I guess it goes to the fact that I don't let others determine whether or not I like something or if it should have an effect on me.

Travis McClain

I knew that would be the response. You can try to argue that you're independent minded enough to rise above being affected by your environment all you want, but I don't buy it. We're all affected by all kinds of external factors. It's okay to admit it. There's no shame in it. It's not evidence that you're a mindless drone. In fact, you've already admitted as much by saying that you avoid the theatrical experience because of how distracting teens dampen the viewing for you. Ergo, if the audience can affect you in a negative way, it stands to reason they have the power to affect you in a positive way. And it's entirely possible for this to happen even to intelligent people who don't surrender control of their minds to a mob.

dsa_shea

I fail to see how this is supposed to steer those who are avoiding the 3D phase head first into it. The reason I avoid the theaters as much as possible is because I am around teenagers all week as I am a teacher and do not need them further disturbing the things that I enjoy in my life when I'm not required to be around them. As far as 3D goes I don't need it to enjoy the content of shows and movies that I'm interested in. Thank you, drive thru.

Travis McClain

What the studios are hoping is that 3D will keep the teens coming to the theaters. And the manufacturers are hoping that 3D home theater equipment will appeal to those who, like you, hate theaters but (unlike you) are interested in 3D.

What Frank Miller said, and that I echoed, is that the communal aspect of seeing a movie in a theater with a public audience--distractions and all--is still the most attractive thing that theaters have to offer. Even if 3D could be entirely recreated at home identical to what is shown and heard in a theater, Miller argues we'd be losing something more important to allow the technology to isolate us.

I think 3D becomes a microcosm of the entire discussion, because the thinking holds that if you can properly re-create 3D at home, then theaters are done for. Miller says otherwise; that watching movies by ourselves at home might be devoid of unwanted distraction...but will be hollow.

Jay G.

Well, I always like watching movies at home with friends, and I've been in a few movie theaters that were practically empty. It's all based on degrees.

spainlinx0

I still say that a comedy is best enjoyed in a full theater. Sitting at home watching it for the first time, by yourself, is never as good.

Jay G.

It depends on the comedy though. I'd rather watch Monty Python and the Holy Grail again at home alone, than go see Disaster Movie in theaters.

Travis McClain

Does that suggest your continuum would be:

Holy Grail (theater)
Holy Grail (home)
Disaster (theater)
Disaster (home)

If so, it seems that you'd rather enjoy a movie in a theatrical setting than at home...the fact that you'd much rather see Holy Grail than Disaster Movie regardless of venue notwithstanding.

Jay G.

Under ideal circumstances, yes. However, I'd put about a thousand other movies (at home or theater), as well as reading a book, above watching Disaster Movie.

Of course, I'm much more likely to watch Holy Grail at home than a theater because I already own it, I don't have to travel anywhere to view it at home, I can pause it if I need to get up for some reason, and my experience isn't going to be marred by bad audience members.

As another example, I recently watched The Room with some friends at one of their homes. While the midnight screen experience that has developed around this film, the home screening was nice because: it fit into my schedule, the group of friends was large enough to be a nice approximation of a theatrical audience (5 people), and we could rewind and rewatch our favorite worst scenes instantly. I'm not going to say this experience was better than any possible theatrical experience of this film, just different but very enjoyable in its own right.

Travis McClain

I think I'd rank having another bowel obstruction above seeing Disaster Movie. I haven't seen the movie, but I've been hospitalized with an obstruction twice.

Well, the "more likely" part I would think is self-evident; it's rare that on any given occasion we could literally choose between seeing a movie at home or in a theater. Could I ask you to expound on the appeal of seeing, say, Holy Grail in a theatrical setting?

Travis McClain

Roger Ebert tweeted a link to an article by Anthony Kaufman, premised by this:

Question: "When was the last time you went to an arthouse?"
Answer: "Years ago. I watch everything online. I don't have time to go to the cinema."

You can read the entire thing here, but here are a few highlights that touch on our general discussion about the context of movies at home vs. at a theater:

There are some suggestions about making screenings into events with guests, and a concluding paragraph that it's hopeless to continue wooing the younger audience because these indie films are, basically, over their heads anyway and that they'll grow into them later. What that doesn't explore, though, is what happens to theatrical screenings in the interim if older audiences continue to dwindle. Will there be arthouse cinemas left to screen those films once their audience matures enough to appreciate them?

orangerunner

The commercial success of a work of art does matter to a large extent because the money generated by a particular film will decide if more films similar to it will ever be funded and find distribution.

Travis McClain

You misunderstand me. That's the importance of commercial success to the studios. What I want to know is, how important is it to people deciding whether or not to see a given movie that it--or its kind of movie, at least--is a money-maker. Are people saying to themselves, "3D movies are making a lot of money, I should go see one?"

orangerunner

Yeah, it's an interesting subject of what dictates a "hit" and what dictates a "failure" in the public and studios mind.

For instance "Knight & Day" made $30 million with an A-list star and was considered a failure and yet "Salt" made $36 million with an A-list star and was considered a hit. There was only six million difference yet they were regarded very differently.

It would be interesting if the studio fudged the numbers and said Knight & Day made $60 million. I bet the second weeks (real) totals would be much higher because the public now feels it's a worthy hit and they need those numbers to validate their choice in what they watch regardless of the quality. It's the old saying "A crowd draws a crowd".