- Sep 19, 2013
- 700
- 1,383
So... the shared experience of theater-going is best done when it’s cheapest, nobody is there, and you avoid paying for the concessions that keep it open.
I love shared movie experiences too. There is nothing like hearing the room collectively gasp when the portals open at the end of Endgame or everyone laugh at a particularly funny moment in a comedy. But for something like The King's Speech a nice quite room is fine.So... the shared experience of theater-going is best done when it’s cheapest, nobody is there, and you avoid paying for the concessions that keep it open.
Yup, and they're the nerds I'm talking about -- none of what they love affects Joey Bagadonuts in the slightest, and guess which pack of dollars matters more. We're talking about commerce, not art.Those "nerds" include people like cinematographers and directors who have to decide compositions for shots, what should and not be included etc. The rule of thumb is a movie is a medium for long distance and medium closeups, while television (including streaming) is a medium to close-up shot range. A film like 'Lawrence of Arabia" was certainly never meant to be experienced on a TV screen. On the other hand, a TV show on a big screen doesn't look right either. Plus on wide-screen films on TV you have two choices - black bands or crop the picture. (The worst "pan-and-scan" of a film ever was of 'The Lion In Winter'. A scene where two of the characters are on oppsoite sides of the screen have ping-pong dialogue. Rather than panning back and forth the edit just stayed in the middle... so NO ONE was on screen during the scene!).
Some of us still consider films as an art form, and like art, we don't think the Mona Lisa is improved by blowing the image up and cutting off the sides
I mean, wouldn't you like an empty theme park with concessions you brought in yourself and no one bothering you?So... the shared experience of theater-going is best done when it’s cheapest, nobody is there, and you avoid paying for the concessions that keep it open.
Cinemark at CityWalk has recliners and so does the DS AMC. It’s hard to find a theater without recliners these days.Cost is definitely an issue, whenever I’d go between tickets, popcorn, ridiculously gigantic sodas, it’s always been around $40-$50 and, to me, I just don’t see that being worth it.
I think comfier seats would be great! The AMC in Disney Springs might as well have steel benches installed, they’re so uncomfortable.
And yet, everyone lost their collective **** when The Simpsons debuted on Disney+ without the 4:3 formatting option. People do care about the small stuff. What you want is to Walmartize the entire movie making industry.Yup, and they're the nerds I'm talking about -- none of what they love affects Joey Bagadonuts in the slightest, and guess which pack of dollars matters more. We're talking about commerce, not art.
Cinemark at CityWalk has recliners and so does the DS AMC. It’s hard to find a theater without recliners these days.
The Dine-In side actually has some of the worst chairs. From my recollection they look like recliners, but aren’t (I used to work on that side of the AMC).Are they in the regular theaters or in the Dine In section?
The Dine-In side actually has some of the worst chairs. From my recollection they look like recliners, but aren’t (I used to work on that side of the AMC).
AMC was doing a redo of the entire theater last year though, updating auditorium by auditorium and inserting recliners in the regular section. Not sure if the ever finished though.
Everyone lost their minds because jokes were being missed. I'm not talking about something egregious like full frame vs. widescreen with the Ghostbusters elevator scene. I'm talking about things the moviegoing public just. Doesn't. Care. About. In this discussion, if it doesn't noticeably move the spending needle, it's a non issue for me.Cinemark at CityWalk has recliners and so does the DS AMC. It’s hard to find a theater without recliners these days.
And yet, everyone lost their collective **** when The Simpsons debuted on Disney+ without the 4:3 formatting option. People do care about the small stuff. What you want is to Walmartize the entire movie making industry.
And yet, if a film is done poorly, commerce suffers as well. Without theaters, basically films simply become made-for-TV movies-of-the-week. They will look, and be made, mostly cheap. There's no reason to shoot a big spectacular film with wide sweeping shots when 75% of people will watch it on their phones.Yup, and they're the nerds I'm talking about -- none of what they love affects Joey Bagadonuts in the slightest, and guess which pack of dollars matters more. We're talking about commerce, not art.
And from a commercial standpoint - which again, is all that matters right now - that might not be the worst thing in the world. We're not going to come to an agreement here, so we're going to end this thread here. Be well.And yet, if a film is done poorly, commerce suffers as well. Without theaters, basically films simply become made-for-TV movies-of-the-week. They will look, and be made, mostly cheap. There's no reason to shoot a big spectacular film with wide sweeping shots when 75% of people will watch it on their phones.
This is true of most films made for streaming, but Netflix has taken some chances with Scorsese's The Irishman (which was phenomenal), 6 Underground (which as I have said isn't good), and Extraction, which had everything you want in an action movie except for a good plot/characters to care about. They tried to copy the John Wick formula with Extraction seemingly, but only got the action right. I kinda would like to see a sequel to that movie just to see if they can get it right next time. Pretty much most streaming movies you watch are low budget.And yet, if a film is done poorly, commerce suffers as well. Without theaters, basically films simply become made-for-TV movies-of-the-week. They will look, and be made, mostly cheap. There's no reason to shoot a big spectacular film with wide sweeping shots when 75% of people will watch it on their phones.
This is true of most films made for streaming, but Netflix has taken some chances with Scorsese's The Irishman (which was phenomenal), 6 Underground (which as I have said isn't good), and Extraction, which had everything you want in an action movie except for a good plot/characters to care about. They tried to copy the John Wick formula with Extraction seemingly, but only got the action right. I kinda would like to see a sequel to that movie just to see if they can get it right next time. Pretty much most streaming movies you watch are low budget.
A prime example of a big budget movie just completely feeling like it was a made-for-TV movie was the 2017 movie "Bright" with Will Smith. That thing really sucked and amazingly, it's getting a sequel. But those things happen in cinemas with big budget movies, too.
I'm hopeful that when the megachains crash and burn, i'll at least have an Alamo Drafthouse or an equivalent to one to go to for things like an Avengers 5 or something. I'm more closely with you guys who are speaking against theaters than you think, I just hope they stay around in some form so that if i'm in the mood to go, I have the option.None of Bright's problems are budget-related though - it was what, 90-100 million and every dollar of it is on the screen, well done - they were all script-related. Max Landis is an idiot manchild whose next intelligent, original thought would be his first. That doesn't change whether the budget is five million or five hundred million. When (not if, but when) the theater system crumbles, and lower budgets become more of a norm, I'm hopeful stuff like Bright won't even get a look.
I think I've said before, the movie industry's accounting system needs an amazing amount of oversight. I don't for a second believe a 200m movie legitimately costs 200m. This is an industry where a Ghostbusters can go two decades "without turning a profit."I'm hopeful that when the megachains crash and burn, i'll at least have an Alamo Drafthouse or an equivalent to one to go to for things like an Avengers 5 or something. I'm more closely with you guys who are speaking against theaters than you think, I just hope they stay around in some form so that if i'm in the mood to go, I have the option.
As for lower budgets, I outlined this yesterday, but I really think the way movies that would normally cost $200M can cut their budget way down in size to around $75M is by using the stagecraft technology that they used to film a decent part of The Mandalorian with.