As I've stated elsewhere... I do.

Even with a half way decent projector and a progressive scan DVD player I can get results that blow away what you see at a "real theater". Never mind upscaled DVD or the future HD-DVD (or Blu-Ray).

Yeah right...and 9 inches is the average.

I love you guys and your claims. I know I live in NYC and we're a bit spoiled in that respect but I don't care WHAT you have in your living room (or in your pants), that can never compare to seeing a movie on the big screen with a good sound system.

You have a problem with the presentation, complain to the managers or go to a decent theater. Hell, even in my hometown in CT there are 4-5 GREAT theaters that I could drive to within 20 minutes. A compressed DVD or even HD will NEVER EVER compare to what you can see on a screen.

Or maybe the studios should charge the exhibitors a smaller percentage to show/rent their films, so the exhibitors could rely on not jacking up the prices at the box office and in the concession stands...

Have to agree with him. As long as you can go at a time that the theaters are mostly empty or mostly adults, then you just can't beat that experience even with the best hometheater DVD set ups.

Don't get me wrong, I love DVD. But it can't replace the theater experience IMO.

Other than YOUR house, i'd be curious to know where the other 3-4 GREAT theaters are...

Come on. 110" and 120" TV screens? That's 9-10 feet screens. I've never seen TVs that big for homes. Where are these things found and bought?

My parents set-up is crap. I wasn't including them.

In some people's dreams.

Projectors. And a compressed DVD blown up that big CERTAINLY ain't gonna look anywhere near as good as a print.

I agree with all of this. The big screen and surround sound argruments are becoming more of a moot point every year as more people get huge tvs or projectors, and surround sound systems. That leaves the "communal" movie watching experience that the Academy president mentioned (he WASN'T the MPAA president, as many are suggesting). Like JP says, with the right film, in the right setting, watching a movie with an audience can be an amazing experience (but these types of experiences seem to happen less and less for me every year). 99% of the time it is exactly opposite, just annoying and/or distracting. I'm curious about the studios' reaction to the statements last night, as they are the ones who are decreasing the theatrical windows (and a few execs want to do away with them all together) and reaping huge profits from DVD sales.

The problem is, that perfectly describes what I (and others) have: a big screen and a good sound system.

Given a good transfer it is better than the theater. Some recent examples that are much better than the theater: Attack of the Clones, Revenge of the Sith, Sin City, and The Incredibles.

I love watching films in theaters but I hate the theater environment. What i mean by this is that I like watching the films on a big screen with good lighting and good surround sound. What I hate is the endless amount of commercials, the disrespectful teenagers and adults that talk throughout the film, the cell phones, the dumb parents who bring their 7 or younger child to R movies.

The theater business would improve in profits if they change this environment and if Hollywood would stop making shitty films like Rebound, Final Destination 3, Big Momma's House 2, Ultraviolet, Annapolis, etc. People are willing to pay a high price on tickets, treats and soda if you give them some quality product. They have to remember that they have to comepete for our attention with other products and activities and if they give us crap, we will spend our money elsewhere, like on a DVD of a quality film. And by the way, I remember Roger Ebert saying on his website that the "decline" in the box-office was a non-story, since the industry was comparing 2005 to 2004 in a flawed research. He also said that 2005 was the third highest year ever in box-office profits.

Yah because an exact digital transfer is better than a theater.

Someone care to explain to awmurray how this works?

Both of your suggestions will only do one thing - increase bootlegging. They're almost as bad as the suggestion to raise the ticket prices, in that you're punishing people instead of making the theater-going experience more enjoyable.

Here's my not so humble suggestions as to what needs to be done.

1. Quality control. How is it that millions of movie-goers recognized that the movie Gigli was total shit from the onset, yet Hollywood didn't? Gigli is a great example of a movie that should have gone straight to DVD, if it got greenlit at all.

2. Ticket / concession stand pricing. As someone else (I believe in this thread) mentioned, when it's cheaper to buy the DVD than to take a family of 4 to the theater, of course people are going to wait for the DVD. Maybe if it were just a marginal increase in cost, people wouldn't mind... but when you're looking at 2 adults and 2 kids, you're already out around $30 before factoring in gas and popcorn / drinks.

3. Theater owners / employees need to have the balls to stand up to their customers. If someone is causing a distraction, they should be thrown out. Oh no, can't do that, you might offend a customer! Guess what? You're offending more customers by not taking care of the problem. Also, more theaters need to start barring children from late-night showings and PG-13 / R rated films. Sorry, parents, but you made the choice to have a child, now you have to accept the new limitations on your life because of it. If I go to see the latest Pixar film, I expect children to be there, and I expect them to be excited. I do not, however, tolerate this BS when I'm trying to watch House of 1000 Corpses, and some ignorant woman brings in her brood of 5, ages ranging from infant to 8 years old (true story).

Why don't you? I was just giving you some recent examples of good DVD transfers that defintely look better than what I saw at the local theaters.

And, you can add the original three Star Wars movies too. Are those "exact digital transfers" too? Because they look better than anything I've ever seen at a theater as well.

Basically, take any anamorphically enhanced DVD and it will be as good as what you see on the "big screen".

You're nuts. That's the most inaccurate statement I've ever heard.

There's not even any logic in it.

I went to our new theater in Knoxville to see Narnia on the big screen (biggest they have) with the top of the line sound and DLP projection and I was no more impressed with it than I am with my 57 inch HDTV and DVD. The sound at home is actually better IMHO - it is the proper level not so damn loud my eardrums are about to burst. Since I am not 35-40 feet from the screen, the size and quality of the image was pretty much the same. The only real advantage I saw was we went shopping before the movie and I bought some DVDs. More power to all of you that thing the theater is so great, but for those with high end gear, the difference just is not the huge, especially when compared to the disadvantages. I still like the theater, but only for about 2 or 3 movies each year. I used to go almost once a week (I had a 19 inch TV and VHS and the theater was a hell of a lot better).

The only time a I really enjoy going "out" to the movies is when I go to the drive-in - you get two movies for $4 a person, you can bring food and drink or get food there (fresh cooked burgers, etc - about the same price as fast food), you can have a beer (if you bring it) and if you are being annoyed by others simply role up the windows. I view the drive-in as an experience plus a movie plus friendship as it is the same people there week-in and week-out.

I guess it doesn't if you don't care to try and support your position. It's much easier to simply ignore what's being said and do this:

The bottom line is I see lots of movies on my equipment (and you haven't). And, I've seen lots of movies at many local theaters. I can tell you that by comparison, the theater loses every time on both sound and picture (given a good DVD transfer). I can't help it if my screen won't fit into your NYC apartment.

Do I give a shit if technically film will always "be better"? No because I'm not comparing the numbers, I'm comparing the results in real world settings.

For me, Hollywood isn't making anything worth seeing in a communal atmosphere. I like going to the theater to see decent action films because its kinda fun with a bunch of people watching things go boom.

Unfortunately, Hollywood isn't making anything at the moment that requires my theater attendence. All the action films they showed - Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Ben Hur, etc are long gone.

I went to see King Kong and was bored out of my brains. Out of 3 hours, I enjoyed about 20 minutes of it.

Hollywood by the Numbers

FEBRUARY 28--Faced with decreasing box office receipts, fewer blockbusters, and a reduced production roster, the motion picture industry is facing several daunting challenges as it gathers this Sunday for the 78th Academy Awards ceremony.

But, really, who wants to focus on all that negative stuff when we can celebrate the lofty salaries, outlandish perks, and assorted other benefits of being a movie star?

The Smoking Gun has obtained internal budget documents detailing where the money was allocated on an assortment of big-budget Tinseltown productions. The records provide a line-by-line account of spending on each movie up to its completion, but do not reveal what the studio paid after that point for marketing and advertising (that secondary sum usually adds tens of millions to a movie's total cost).

Since this is our first posting of such Hollywood records, TSG has decided to initially focus on a quartet of movies by the same director (M. Night Shyamalan) and which were distributed by the same studio (Disney's Touchstone). In each case, the financial documents were circulated up the ranks at Disney, where a succession of top executives had to sign off on Shyamalan's $70 million-plus budgets. One memo marked "confidential" shows that a dozen Disney officials, including the chairman and CFO of Walt Disney Studios, had to approve a film's total expenditures.

The budgets each run a minimum of 80 pages, so we've chosen to excerpt from three of the documents and reproduce one in its entirety. So cineastes, film school students, and completists can click here to plow through a line-by-line account of the $71.6 million tab for Shyamalan's most recent film, "The Village." The individual budget lines are divided into two categories: "above the line" and "below the line" expenses. In the "above," or ATL, category, you'll find costs associated with a film's cast, writer, producer, director, stunts, and story rights. The remaining expenses--set design, camera rentals, special effects, film, editing, etc.--are categorized as BTL, or below the line.

More...

<hr>

Very interesting article.

my my...what a big man you are.

*yawn*

Again, do some research and then come back to this thread.

Few questions about the comments I have seen in this thread. Didnt the film industry as a whole make a few billion $ last year? I mean even if movie attendance was down from previous years, thats still billions of dollars and instead of lowering the pay grade for industry execs and "big name" actors and actresses, they raise ticket prices - correct? I mean everyone in the industry is still getting their ludicrous salaries, right? Until I see Tom Hanks waiting tables to make ends meet, I'm not too worried about the film industry losing money. And last question - don't DVD sales world-wide most times make up a large % of a film's gross?

Now a statement. My theater experiences have been horrible over the past few years. Mainly screaming children/babies in R-rated films. Get a sitter, already...

I would definitely rather rent a DVD, sit on my comfortable couch and watch the DVD while I eat or drink whatever I want. I even have to listen to the DVD thru my dated 5.1 channel system, yet I really do enjoy it more than going to the theater.

When theaters start 21+ only auditoriums, I will go back to the theaters.

You're wrong.

Do research.
Your stance is illogical.
Somebody explain it to him.
Yawn.

...for fuck's sake, if you're so educated on the topic, enlighten us.

-JP

It doesn't take a fucking brain surgeon to know that the "resolution" of film is light years beyond the compressed 480 lines of resolution of DVD.

Jeez...you new to these parts?

Question to the projector people - I dont' have one, so I'll rely on you.

Does blowing the picture up that big lose resolution and decrease the image quality?

Of course.

For everyone but awmurray. His is the biggest and the bestest.