Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Sun Sep 21, 2014 11:12 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
"Is it worth seeing on the big screen?" 
Author Message
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post "Is it worth seeing on the big screen?"
Or, "The Novel Experience vs. The Artbook Experience".

"Is it worth seeing on the big screen?" It's a common question we hear. Maybe we even ask it amongst ourselves. The underlying assumption is this: if a movie is bigger-scale, more spectacular, more expensive, we're supposed to feel more justified in making the trip and plunking down the cash to see it on the big screen. For movies that are more visually down-to-earth and less of a thrill ride, we'd just as soon watch it at home. The big screen visual splendor doesn't apply.

Personally, I think that assumption is bullshit. I don't think visual spectacle determines whether we watch a certain movie in the theater or at home. The assumption relies on a facile idea of visual spectacle anyway. It's one of those things that seems logical if you don't spend too much time thinking about it.

But I also wonder if there's still a good reason why we ask that question, albeit one we haven't considered as much. Maybe it's all the movie industry punditry that gets us thinking about special effects movies as inherently more theatrical. Maybe it's just because we've made hasty conclusions in our analysis of theatrical viewing versus home viewing.

I think the real difference isn't determined by visual splendor, though it might be related in a tangential way. I think the real difference is more due to what I've dubbed the novel experience vs. the artbook experience.

Artbooks are communal. They have large, wide pages that you can leave open on your coffee table. They're big enough that multiple people can sit around them and look at them at the same time. Looking at an artbook (or looking at art in a museum, if you prefer) is a shared experience. It's something over which you commune with other people, even if it's not on a verbal level.

Novels, on the other hand, are a one-on-one experience. There's a reason for that smaller page size. It's personal, private, for your eyes only. You hold it in your hand, you look at it by yourself, and if anyone else shoulders their way in, they're intruding. It's offensive, almost embarrassing to have someone else in on the moment. You can commune with people about novels, but not while you're reading them.

It has nothing to do with content. Novels can be as big-scale and spectacular as anything, whereas artbooks can be delicate and touching. But the delivery of the content--the novelistic package vs. the artbook package--is what determines its communal nature. They weave their spells over you in different ways.

So that's my analogy. We "read" movies, in the sense that we interpret visual information in order to make meaning, just like we read books. I suggest that some movies read more like artbooks and some movies read more like novels. Some movies, we want to watch by ourselves, with a screen that's there just for us. That means watching at home. Some movies are a communal experience. We're more comfortable sharing the vibes with others--looking over each other's shoulders, in a way.

That communal experience doesn't necessarily have to be Snakes On A Plane, where everybody's there to hoot and holler and throw shit at the screen. It can just be something where we're acutely conscious of the presence of other viewers, when we don't mind and maybe even prefer the camaraderie.

Some movies are better when there are many like-minded souls in the house. Some movies are more private. That's what I think we're really asking when we say "Is it worth seeing on the big screen?"

What do you guys think? Is there some truth to this idea? Or has ol' Ken just had too much to drink again?

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Fri Feb 21, 2014 6:54 am
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1715
Post Re: "Is it worth seeing on the big screen?"
Yeah there's a lot of truth it to, and it's REALLY deceptive as to which movies are which. For instance, I think Godard is undoubtedly a communal experience. Especially Godard-novices, who don't know when they're supposed to laugh. Seeing a Godard film on the big screen, with an audience, is a very rewarding experience. But another art-house guy, Antonioni, is for me more private and novel-ish.

The Hitchcock communal experience is transformative, like Godard. Lawrence of Arabia too, but not because of it's wide images; rather, because the priceless audience reactions are quite fun and add something to the film. Sometimes a film simply requires an audience to truly bring it to life. Renoir is the one who said that, and it's certainly true of his movies. I think it's true of Spielberg for sure. I imagine it's true of De Palma, though I have yet to see any of his films in a public screening yet. I imagine that someone like Altman is more novelistic.

But I would restate your theory as Novelistic vs. Showmanship. For many great directors, it's all in the show. They put on a show for the audience, the audience reacts accordingly. That's as true for Godard as it is for Spielberg (well, 60s Godard at least). I find some strange distinctions thinking of the action directors I like. Anderson's Resident Evil films are as communal as they come. Skyfall is more novelistic, and Man of Steel perhaps even more. It's as introverted an action film as I've ever seen.


Fri Feb 21, 2014 7:29 am
Profile
Cinematographer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:21 pm
Posts: 602
Location: Milwaukee, WI (USA)
Post Re: "Is it worth seeing on the big screen?"
I'll see character pieces in the theater and at home, and I'll watch blockbuster spectacles in the theater and at home. There is the "experience" versus the "economics" when talking about families, though. To take me and 2 of my kids to see "The Lego Movie" (which we did) on a matinee cost me about $21 out of pocket. In 6 months I can probably get the the Blu-Ray for $21 and then I could've watched it at home and thrown in my wife and other 2 kids on my 55" TV. Would the experience be better at home than in the theater? No. But if it's a choice of dropping close to 50 bucks to take the whole family to a movie (plus snacks) versus spending 1/2 on the disc (and then having that disc forever), the "worth seeing on the big screen" starts to take on a different meaning.

I probably couldn't afford to take the whole family to a movie more than once a month, so I would need to choose those movies that are indeed "worth seeing on the big screen" versus those we can wait for disc or Netflix.


Fri Feb 21, 2014 11:24 am
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3609
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: "Is it worth seeing on the big screen?"
I disagree that the assumption is "bullshit". A lot of the time for me it actually does determine whether I will see a film in a theater or not. I feel more intimate films play better at home since there I don't have to worry about the mood being potentially ruined by obnoxious theater patrons.

Regarding Snakes On A Plane, I saw it about a week after release and they're were only two other people in the theater. I enjoyed the film but I was dissapointed at first by the small audience because I had heard from the others how audience participation was an essential part of the film, but then on the other hand I thought, would audiences members hooting and throwing shit at the screen have lessed my enjoyment of the film?


Fri Feb 21, 2014 1:38 pm
Profile
Cinematographer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 9:35 pm
Posts: 747
Location: Puerto Rico
Post Re: "Is it worth seeing on the big screen?"
I don't think the premise is bullshit. I think that films, like any art, can be suited to fit a certain environment for their utmost enjoyment. Avatar might be a common example. One of the best experiences I've had in a theater, but one that I really haven't cared to revisit in the small screen. I'm not saying the latter won't work, but I think it's obvious that the intentions were to design a film that would get the most out of the big-screen, dark theater experience. I've heard Gravity is a similar case, even though I didn't see it. As a matter of fact, now that I missed it, I'm not sure if I want to see it on a small screen just because I don't want to take anything away from what I've heard is a great theater experience.

_________________
"Get busy living, or get busy dying"

Visit my site: Thief12 profile


Fri Feb 21, 2014 1:55 pm
Profile WWW
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:37 am
Posts: 1054
Location: Laurel, MD
Post Re: "Is it worth seeing on the big screen?"
The only time I feel a theater really adds to the experience with a "spectacle" film is when 3D is used effectively, like AVATAR, PROMETHEUS, and GRAVITY. Comedies also play better because laughter is contagious. Other than that, I've found that most films, even superhero flicks with lots of special effects, lose next to nothing from shrinking from a big screen to my living room.

_________________
https://www.facebook.com/ken.rossman.5


Fri Feb 21, 2014 3:27 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: "Is it worth seeing on the big screen?"
Vexer wrote:
I disagree that the assumption is "bullshit". A lot of the time for me it actually does determine whether I will see a film in a theater or not. I feel more intimate films play better at home since there I don't have to worry about the mood being potentially ruined by obnoxious theater patrons.

This doesn't disagree with anything I said. In fact, it's basically the gist of my argument.

Thief12 wrote:
I don't think the premise is bullshit. I think that films, like any art, can be suited to fit a certain environment for their utmost enjoyment. Avatar might be a common example. One of the best experiences I've had in a theater, but one that I really haven't cared to revisit in the small screen. I'm not saying the latter won't work, but I think it's obvious that the intentions were to design a film that would get the most out of the big-screen, dark theater experience. I've heard Gravity is a similar case, even though I didn't see it. As a matter of fact, now that I missed it, I'm not sure if I want to see it on a small screen just because I don't want to take anything away from what I've heard is a great theater experience.

Gravity, as a spectacle film, is probably the one legitimate example mentioned so far that supports what I view to be an otherwise unsupported assumption. It is a film that, in a purely visual sense, is 100% made for its native medium of IMAX 3D. Avatar, on the other hand...

In theory, I grant you that cinematic visuals can be calculated specifically for the big screen. But in practice, such a thing is a rarity since the 1960s and the advent of the televised movie.

This is probably enough topic for its own thread, but ever since movie studios realized that their movies would have a second life after the theatrical run, movies have been optimized for television viewing rather than theatrical viewing. And, while it seems counterintuitive, that includes the big-budget special effects spectacles. Especially them.

Following the first 10 years or so of television's existence, you start seeing movies with shallower and more basic compositions, faster cutting, the minimization of non-dialogue passages, lots of "talking heads" sequences, and so on. These are all in response to the unique demands of television viewing, which doesn't tolerate dense compositions and demands a faster refresh of information to hold the viewer's eye. You also start seeing the "beats" of the movie spaced out more regularly, at intervals of around 7 to 10 minutes--and guess which intervals commercial breaks tend to fall into. At this point, these practices have been the dominant trend much longer than they've not been.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Fri Feb 21, 2014 4:13 pm
Profile
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2012 5:43 pm
Posts: 773
Post Re: "Is it worth seeing on the big screen?"
Ken wrote:

Some movies are better when there are many like-minded souls in the house. Some movies are more private. That's what I think we're really asking when we say "Is it worth seeing on the big screen?"



That's exactly it, isn't it? My recent example of Harold Lloyd's Safety Last is the most recently I felt that the film needed an audience, one I may only even be consciously aware of, in order to appreciate more than I did. Impossible to guess what cues I would have picked up and, consequently, what more than the movie alone I would have taken away. Or, a movie is never just a movie. Like live theater, it's dynamic even if one argues that the frames never change.

Forgive the blanket statement, it may not apply to you the reader, but I've long considered -- completely inadvertently -- the critical mass to be members of the audience, a process by which I re-experience a movie through the eyes of The New Yorker, Ebert, Berardinelli, and so on. Treating these strangers, people with whom I did not experience the movie, as my specific audience is poor substitute for an audience proper. No matter the critic, there is always going to be something academic brought to a film's reading and, even then, I'm going off of their memory and notes of the experience. Still, confusing them for my audience is unavoidable on at least a subtle level: we saw the same thing, we did or did not note the same qualities. I know we didn't sit together and, when I spend a second thinking about it, it's not entirely possible we saw the same movie. Not exactly.

There are 'right ways' and 'wrong ways' to experience any movie but it doesn't seem to depend on the movie and, for any particular movie, the process of consuming it is elastic. There is no movie wrongly experienced by watching it on the big screen just as there is no movie correctly experienced watching it on an iPhone. Using the novels/artbook analogy is a good one. It doesn't necessarily come down to preference (for me): the experience of any movie is always chock full of little unconscious experiences (screen on iPhone too small, person on iPhone next to me in theater) that wrap around conscious experience, the balance never exactly perfect. Not that perfect is knowable.

We've all had experiences where we catch something in a theater and get a feel for what the movie is only to see it later on home video and find the experience as either less or more, certainly different. It's not the same movie were watching.

Art is tricky like this. Lighting, coughing up at the front, the narrowness of the aisles, the cost, the lack of stadium seating, the length of the previews, the knowledge that the car has to be driven home, maybe a babysitter... on the other side, the lighting, pausing for the restroom, the degree of attention paid when you know you're going to write about it on a forum, the glare coming off the fireplace. There are no conditions that might be met so that the movie may be seen twice the same way.

Sure, the infamous 'gestalt' concept applies here. You get the basic idea of the movie's shape whether at home or in a crowd. Even then, anticipation of sharing the experience (this when alone) shapes many things. I can't watch a movie without wondering what others would consider great or terrible, another factor in the experience.

In the end, I tend to watch most movies alone or with just one other. Being a social animal, it's very difficult to see anything purely. This is why I like novels better though they are subject to much of what I've written about, anyway.

_________________
Which are you drinking? The water or the wave?


Fri Feb 21, 2014 4:14 pm
Profile
Cinematographer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 9:35 pm
Posts: 747
Location: Puerto Rico
Post Re: "Is it worth seeing on the big screen?"
Ken wrote:
Thief12 wrote:
I don't think the premise is bullshit. I think that films, like any art, can be suited to fit a certain environment for their utmost enjoyment. Avatar might be a common example. One of the best experiences I've had in a theater, but one that I really haven't cared to revisit in the small screen. I'm not saying the latter won't work, but I think it's obvious that the intentions were to design a film that would get the most out of the big-screen, dark theater experience. I've heard Gravity is a similar case, even though I didn't see it. As a matter of fact, now that I missed it, I'm not sure if I want to see it on a small screen just because I don't want to take anything away from what I've heard is a great theater experience.

Gravity, as a spectacle film, is probably the one legitimate example mentioned so far that supports what I view to be an otherwise unsupported assumption. It is a film that, in a purely visual sense, is 100% made for its native medium of IMAX 3D. Avatar, on the other hand...

In theory, I grant you that cinematic visuals can be calculated specifically for the big screen. But in practice, such a thing is a rarity since the 1960s and the advent of the televised movie.

This is probably enough topic for its own thread, but ever since movie studios realized that their movies would have a second life after the theatrical run, movies have been optimized for television viewing rather than theatrical viewing. And, while it seems counterintuitive, that includes the big-budget special effects spectacles. Especially them.

Following the first 10 years or so of television's existence, you start seeing movies with shallower and more basic compositions, faster cutting, the minimization of non-dialogue passages, lots of "talking heads" sequences, and so on. These are all in response to the unique demands of television viewing, which doesn't tolerate dense compositions and demands a faster refresh of information to hold the viewer's eye. You also start seeing the "beats" of the movie spaced out more regularly, at intervals of around 7 to 10 minutes--and guess which intervals commercial breaks tend to fall into. At this point, these practices have been the dominant trend much longer than they've not been.


I don't think Avatar is much different to Gravity, in terms of how it was made AND marketed for a theater-viewing experience. From the beginning, Avatar was promoted as an experience to see in theaters, and the word-of-mouth carried it all the way "You gotta see it in theater!". Plus, most people that have seen it on TV afterwards have said that seeing it in the small screen pretty much deflates the overall experience, which is the argument you are presenting in the OT that some movies are better on the big screen.

You might be right about how studios don't encourage too much these practices because then they would make less money in the rentals, but that doesn't mean that the occasional exception, like these two, won't pop up every now and then.

_________________
"Get busy living, or get busy dying"

Visit my site: Thief12 profile


Fri Feb 21, 2014 9:05 pm
Profile WWW
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1715
Post Re: "Is it worth seeing on the big screen?"
KWRoss wrote:
The only time I feel a theater really adds to the experience with a "spectacle" film is when 3D is used effectively, like AVATAR, PROMETHEUS, and GRAVITY. Comedies also play better because laughter is contagious. Other than that, I've found that most films, even superhero flicks with lots of special effects, lose next to nothing from shrinking from a big screen to my living room.


For me, 3D is a big detriment. I prefer the 2D Imax type thing, especially in ultra wide-screen. In a few days, I'm gonna go see 2001 in Imax DOME for the first time just to see if there's anything in that. I like a lot of the Imax releases in recent years: Resident Evil, Skyfall, Fast Furious, Man of Steel. But all in 2D. It would be cool if Imax could do a thing where it releases some of the 60s gems.


Fri Feb 21, 2014 9:43 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: "Is it worth seeing on the big screen?"
In the case of Gravity, I'm not speaking of the marketing--purely of my own experience. There are many "You gotta see it on the big screen in 3D!" movies--Gravity, Avatar, Hugo, etc. We're always assured that this time, this one actually justifies it. In my experience, Gravity is the only case in which it turned out to be true--a film that genuinely takes advantage of the differences. No other hyped-up 3D special effects movie has merited it.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Fri Feb 21, 2014 9:44 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3609
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: "Is it worth seeing on the big screen?"
See the problem I have with Avatar is that a film shouldn't require you to see it on the big screen in order to enjoy it, a truly good film dosen't need to hide behind flashy in-your-face 3-D. For me Avatar's story simply isn't good enough to make it worthwhile, it was OK once but I have no urge to see it again, even if I had saw it in 3-D I doubt that would've made the flaws less noticeable. If it wasn't for the 3-D, I doubt the film's box-office take would've even been half as high as it was.

I'm not particularly bummed about not seeing Gravity in theaters, despite having two great actors in it, I was just not interested enough in the premise to bother paying full-price plus a surcharge to see it, and after seeing it on VOD i'm convinced I made the right decision. Clooney and Bullock do the best they can, but no amount of 3-D could make me not notice the glaring scientific flaws and idiotic decisions the characters made.


Fri Feb 21, 2014 11:42 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:42 pm
Posts: 1419
Location: Bangkok
Post Re: "Is it worth seeing on the big screen?"
Avatar and Hugo fall into good, but not necessary, 3D for me. Big screen factors more in Avatar's favor than 3D. While Hugo does some effective and interesting things with 3D (I'm thinking specifically of train arriving at the station and Sacha Baron Cohen's looming face), it doesn't accumulate significantly much in the end.

The only two movies where I feel the 3D finally exceeds the hype are Life of Pi and Gravity.

I could see Prometheus falling in the latter category, looking from Scott's beautiful compositions. Even though it's not the same, one of these days I'm gonna rewatch that on 3D TV.


Sat Feb 22, 2014 12:02 am
Profile
Cinematographer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 9:35 pm
Posts: 747
Location: Puerto Rico
Post Re: "Is it worth seeing on the big screen?"
Vexer wrote:
See the problem I have with Avatar is that a film shouldn't require you to see it on the big screen in order to enjoy it, a truly good film dosen't need to hide behind flashy in-your-face 3-D. For me Avatar's story simply isn't good enough to make it worthwhile, it was OK once but I have no urge to see it again, even if I had saw it in 3-D I doubt that would've made the flaws less noticeable. If it wasn't for the 3-D, I doubt the film's box-office take would've even been half as high as it was.

I'm not particularly bummed about not seeing Gravity in theaters, despite having two great actors in it, I was just not interested enough in the premise to bother paying full-price plus a surcharge to see it, and after seeing it on VOD i'm convinced I made the right decision. Clooney and Bullock do the best they can, but no amount of 3-D could make me not notice the glaring scientific flaws and idiotic decisions the characters made.


I tend to agree with you, at least as far as my personal opinion about the film goes. But I do think it's valid for certain films to require, or take overt advantage of a certain medium like 3-D. Consider other art fields, there are certain paintings or sculptures where the artist demands a certain lighting environment for it to be fully appreciated. This is more evident in contemporary art where some expositions require the interaction with the public for it to be fully appreciated... and relying on a certain environment doesn't make them any less talented, or any less artful. So, although I understand your point and might even agree with you to a certain extent, I do think that Avatar played its cards in a different way than most films, turning itself into more of a visual/sensory experience than just a film. I'm with you in that I haven't had the urge to see it again after theaters, which I mentioned a couple of posts ago, but that doesn't take away from the initial experience, which I still label as one of my most memorable theater experiences.

Plus it paid off greatly for the studio and Cameron, which ultimately is what matters in terms of the business. Made tons of money, enough for it to still be the highest grossing film ever, was nominated to a lot of awards (including 9 Oscars), paved the way for the rebirth of 3-D films (regardless of how much we like it or not), plus opened the door to a bunch of upcoming sequels.

_________________
"Get busy living, or get busy dying"

Visit my site: Thief12 profile


Sat Feb 22, 2014 8:45 am
Profile WWW
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:07 pm
Posts: 377
Post Re: "Is it worth seeing on the big screen?"
Vexer wrote:
Clooney and Bullock do the best they can, but no amount of 3-D could make me not notice the glaring scientific flaws and idiotic decisions the characters made.


It's funny you don't notice the glaring flaws (scientific and everything else) in the movies you do like: ecks vs dogshit, ride along dogshit, resident dogshit...etc

All movies were made to be seen on the big screen, but I certainly believe certain ones are better on the big screen than my 50" TV (until I buy a house and have a dedicated theater room with a 150" screen, 4k projector, and such), and others don't lose anything in the transition to my couch viewing. I agree 100% on Gravity: that is a spectacle that deserves to be seen on the biggest screen possible. Three of my other favorite movies from last year: Wolf of Wall Street, Prisoners, and Mud, didn't lose anything from big screen to my living room, however.

Also, while I haven't gotten to yet, I think I will have a new appreciation of 2001 and Lawrence of Arabia whenever I get to see them in 65mm.


Sat Feb 22, 2014 12:32 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:04 pm
Posts: 1717
Location: New Hampshire
Post Re: "Is it worth seeing on the big screen?"
Vexer wrote:
See the problem I have with Avatar is that a film shouldn't require you to see it on the big screen in order to enjoy it, a truly good film dosen't need to hide behind flashy in-your-face 3-D. For me Avatar's story simply isn't good enough to make it worthwhile, it was OK once but I have no urge to see it again, even if I had saw it in 3-D I doubt that would've made the flaws less noticeable. If it wasn't for the 3-D, I doubt the film's box-office take would've even been half as high as it was.

I'm not particularly bummed about not seeing Gravity in theaters, despite having two great actors in it, I was just not interested enough in the premise to bother paying full-price plus a surcharge to see it, and after seeing it on VOD i'm convinced I made the right decision.


I'm generally inclined to agree. I see 3D mostly as a gimmick. However, Gravity is the exception. It's the only 3D film I've seen where the use of 3D enhances the film. I felt that it made the film more visually immersive.

_________________
Death is pretty final
I'm collecting vinyl
I'm gonna DJ at the end of the world.


Sat Feb 22, 2014 12:53 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 5:51 pm
Posts: 489
Post Re: "Is it worth seeing on the big screen?"
Mark III wrote:
Ken wrote:

Some movies are better when there are many like-minded souls in the house. Some movies are more private. That's what I think we're really asking when we say "Is it worth seeing on the big screen?"



That's exactly it, isn't it? My recent example of Harold Lloyd's Safety Last is the most recently I felt that the film needed an audience, one I may only even be consciously aware of, in order to appreciate more than I did. Impossible to guess what cues I would have picked up and, consequently, what more than the movie alone I would have taken away. Or, a movie is never just a movie. Like live theater, it's dynamic even if one argues that the frames never change.

Indeed, when I saw Safety Last on the big screen in a theater full of people, it felt just as good as any Chaplin's ever done. I suppose "felt" is the keyword there because the environment of a theater full of film students changed the dynamic of the viewing entirely. People were laughing, crying, gasping... people were augmenting my viewing experience entirely. That doesn't change the quality of a movie, because if I go to a viewing of something like Identity Thief, no matter how much fun the people around me are having the film will never, ever, ever, ever, ever enter the pantheon of great, good, or even quasi-acceptable cinema. Sometimes people enjoy shit stains, and that's okay.

I tend to lean toward the argument that everything should be seen on the big screen, because why wouldn't you want to go to the movies? I love going to the movies, texting teenagers and overpriced popcorn and rising ticket prices be damned. It's the movies! You get to go to a nice, air-conditioned room for a few hours and watch a thing! The thing might even be good!

That being said, home viewing can replicate theater-quality these days. I try to do the best I can in that department, though unfortunately I use the television's speakers instead of hooking up external ones.

If I had limitless cash, I'd try to watch everything I want to see on the big screen. Failing that, I'd set up my home to try and duplicate the experience. (I'd add a mini-bar, though, fitted with weed and whiskey.)

_________________
I no longer have an image here! I got away with it for so long...


Sat Feb 22, 2014 12:57 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3609
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: "Is it worth seeing on the big screen?"
roastbeef_ajus wrote:
Vexer wrote:
Clooney and Bullock do the best they can, but no amount of 3-D could make me not notice the glaring scientific flaws and idiotic decisions the characters made.


It's funny you don't notice the glaring flaws (scientific and everything else) in the movies you do like: ecks vs dogshit, ride along dogshit, resident dogshit...etc

All movies were made to be seen on the big screen, but I certainly believe certain ones are better on the big screen than my 50" TV (until I buy a house and have a dedicated theater room with a 150" screen, 4k projector, and such), and others don't lose anything in the transition to my couch viewing. I agree 100% on Gravity: that is a spectacle that deserves to be seen on the biggest screen possible. Three of my other favorite movies from last year: Wolf of Wall Street, Prisoners, and Mud, didn't lose anything from big screen to my living room, however.

Also, while I haven't gotten to yet, I think I will have a new appreciation of 2001 and Lawrence of Arabia whenever I get to see them in 65mm.

Well it depends on the film, if a film is enjoyable enough I can overlook some flaws, but if i'm not enjoying it then the flaws stick out that much more, and I really don't know why you care so much about what films I like or don't like.

I don't think all films were necessarily made for the big screen.


Sat Feb 22, 2014 2:33 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:37 am
Posts: 1054
Location: Laurel, MD
Post Re: "Is it worth seeing on the big screen?"
Pedro wrote:
I'd set up my home to try and duplicate the experience. (I'd add a mini-bar, though, fitted with weed and whiskey.)


I find this to be a far superior experience than any movie theater can offer.

_________________
https://www.facebook.com/ken.rossman.5


Sat Feb 22, 2014 5:07 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:35 am
Posts: 2091
Post Re: "Is it worth seeing on the big screen?"
Vexer wrote:
roastbeef_ajus wrote:
Vexer wrote:
Clooney and Bullock do the best they can, but no amount of 3-D could make me not notice the glaring scientific flaws and idiotic decisions the characters made.


It's funny you don't notice the glaring flaws (scientific and everything else) in the movies you do like: ecks vs dogshit, ride along dogshit, resident dogshit...etc

All movies were made to be seen on the big screen, but I certainly believe certain ones are better on the big screen than my 50" TV (until I buy a house and have a dedicated theater room with a 150" screen, 4k projector, and such), and others don't lose anything in the transition to my couch viewing. I agree 100% on Gravity: that is a spectacle that deserves to be seen on the biggest screen possible. Three of my other favorite movies from last year: Wolf of Wall Street, Prisoners, and Mud, didn't lose anything from big screen to my living room, however.

Also, while I haven't gotten to yet, I think I will have a new appreciation of 2001 and Lawrence of Arabia whenever I get to see them in 65mm.

Well it depends on the film, if a film is enjoyable enough I can overlook some flaws, but if i'm not enjoying it then the flaws stick out that much more, and I really don't know why you care so much about what films I like or don't like.

I don't think all films were necessarily made for the big screen.


Sharknado for instance. I'd think seeing Attack of the Gila Monster, Santa Claus vs. The Martians or The Terror of Tiny Town on the big screen would probably make the experience even worse. [Although, I confess, I have a sneaking fondness for the first one. I need to get control of a film room at an sf con someday. The fen will never recover.]

_________________
Evil does not wear a bonnet!--Mr. Tinkles


Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:45 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr