|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 342 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 92 of 342:
| 
Jan 19 00:56 UTC 2006 |
re #87
I went to Syriana AND Fun with Dick and Jane on Monday.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 93 of 342:
|
Jan 19 01:01 UTC 2006 |
re #88: Apparently Stephen Soderburgh's movie "Bubble", apparently
released in September of 2005, though I hadn't heard of it until today
when I read a bit about one of the actresses in the local newspaper,
was released simultaneously in theaters, on DVD, and on cable.
|
twenex
|
|
response 94 of 342:
|
Jan 19 01:02 UTC 2006 |
What I get out of "the speakers on the walls" has little or nothing to do with
the laughs or the screams of the audience.
I mean do you go to a concert and not enjoy being in the audience with
other like minded fans of that particular musician>?
Yes, but a film is somewhat different. I suppose it might be the same if I
went to the cinema to see a film by particular directors or actors, but what
attract me to watching films (in the cinema) is the special effects. If a film
doesn't rely on SFX, then I don't bother with the cinema as film and film-food
prices these days amount to daylight robbery. So I don't get the same
experience from watching a film as I would get from, say, being in a room full
of people who are fellow fans of Black Rebel Motorcycle Club.
|
twenex
|
|
response 95 of 342:
|
Jan 19 01:03 UTC 2006 |
though I hadn't heard of it until today
when I read a bit about one of the actresses in the local newspaper,
was released simultaneously in theaters, on DVD, and on cable.
How telling re: the quality of the release.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 96 of 342:
|
Jan 19 01:08 UTC 2006 |
Speakers on the wall are used instead of earphones because a) they are a lot
cheaper, b) they won't get stolen or broken, and c) high fidelity sound is
vastly easier to attain. Nevertheless, individual speakers *were* provided
at drive in movies.
The main reasons for an audience at concerts is to a) make the event more
enjoyable for the musicians, and b) make the event affordable for the
audience. Otherwise I have no use for the audience, who sniffle, cough,
spread disease, stink, rustle, applaud at the wrong point, and create
other distractions.
|
tod
|
|
response 97 of 342:
|
Jan 19 01:10 UTC 2006 |
I like to sit in the front row and eat nachos loudly. I also laugh
inconsistently with the dialog to disrupt the audience. Its much like that
scene in Cape Fear.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 98 of 342:
|
Jan 19 01:19 UTC 2006 |
The speakers on the walls are for surround and ambience effects; for the
majority of the movie they aren't doing anything as the sound comes from
the main speakers behind the screen. If they were completely gone most
people would hardly notice the difference.
There's not much reason to go to the movies any more. More and more
people have sound systems at home rivaling that of the theater, and the
video quality will be getting into the same ballpark later this year
when HD-DVD and BD ship. Theaters have as much time dedicated to
commercials as the average TV show, and the costs have risen way out of
line with the service provided.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 99 of 342:
|
Jan 19 01:27 UTC 2006 |
re #95:
> though I hadn't heard of it until today
> when I read a bit about one of the actresses in the local newspaper,
> was released simultaneously in theaters, on DVD, and on cable.
>
> How telling re: the quality of the release.
Soderbergh is an Academy Award-winning director and critically lauded
auteur. I wouldn't assume that the release is low-quality simply
because I haven't previously heard of it (especially here in Ketchikan.)
The only assumption I think is warranted is that the film studio
responsible didn't engage in much of a promotion campaign. As I
understand it "Bubble" is an experiment by Soderbergh and Mark Cuban
to see whether an alternate distribution mechanism can compete.
I suspect they started deliberately with a small, non-mainstream film.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 100 of 342:
|
Jan 19 14:38 UTC 2006 |
Given the number of people who think it's okay to talk on cell phones
and loudly to each other- going to the theater can be an underwhelming
experience. When I go to a theater to see a movie- I like to see the
movie, and hear it and not have cell phones going off.
That said, audience reactions to movies- the gasps of surprise, the
cheers- can be fun. Plus it's more of an event to go to a movie with a
bunch of friends and then out afterwards to talk it over. It's a bit of
a different atmosphere to simply have people over to your home and do
the same.
|
slynne
|
|
response 101 of 342:
|
Jan 19 18:11 UTC 2006 |
I have to admit that at this point, if first run movies were released
on dvd at the same time they are available in the theaters, I would
hardly ever go out to the movies anymore. I would probably find some
other social thing to do with the folks I see movies with and I would
also probably invest in better video and audio equipment at home.
|
aruba
|
|
response 102 of 342:
|
Jan 19 18:17 UTC 2006 |
I like going to the movies for the reasons that Richard and Anne cite. The
problem is the expense. There just aren't that many movies I'm willing to
spend 9 bucks to see. And it really galls me that after paying that much,
I'm expected to watch ads on the screen for ten minutes, waiting for the
movie to start.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 103 of 342:
|
Jan 19 18:30 UTC 2006 |
There are still theaters that show only ten minutes of ads? Wow! Out
here it's more like a half hour, sometimes more.
|
tod
|
|
response 104 of 342:
|
Jan 19 18:58 UTC 2006 |
I didn't experience any ads at Factoria
|
marcvh
|
|
response 105 of 342:
|
Jan 19 19:39 UTC 2006 |
Note that trailers, Fandango promotionals, "let's all go to the lobby and
get some snacks" and so on count as ads. A no-ad experience would just
consist of a quick blurb saying "Welcome to Friendly Cinemas. Turn off
your cell phone and shut the hell up." and then the movie would start.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 106 of 342:
|
Jan 19 20:01 UTC 2006 |
I like to watch the movie previews. Sometimes I find out about movies
that I didn't know were coming out but look interesting.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 107 of 342:
|
Jan 19 20:04 UTC 2006 |
One audio editorial (on NPR, I think) -- or was it in print? -- suggested that
theaters publish the start time of the previews and the start time of the
actual movie.
|
tod
|
|
response 108 of 342:
|
Jan 19 20:09 UTC 2006 |
I wonder if anyone has a patent on a cup that fits in a cinema armwrest and
can be used as a tripod for a handycam? 8D
|
marcvh
|
|
response 109 of 342:
|
Jan 19 20:16 UTC 2006 |
I'm told that theater owners regard cupholders in the armrests as a key
innovation, since they facilitate multiple snacking runs. The ideal
movie is the one that sells the most popcorn, which means that an Adam
Sandler movie is way better than an engrossing epic.
I didn't mind trailers when they showed a couple of them before the
movie. When they show six of them, plus two car commercials and god
knows what else, then people simply choose to opt out of the whole
theatrical process.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 110 of 342:
|
Jan 19 20:23 UTC 2006 |
"When they show six of them, plus two car commercials and god
knows what else, then people simply choose to opt out of the whole
theatrical process."
Yeah, if by the time all the previews are over you can't remember what
the movie is that you actually came to see... there may be a problem.
I believe it was a lawmaker of some sort in Michigan who wanted it put
into law that the showtimes in the paper had to list both the preview
start time and the actual movie start time.
|
tod
|
|
response 111 of 342:
|
Jan 19 20:38 UTC 2006 |
They should have a discount for folks that show up before commercials.
|
richard
|
|
response 112 of 342:
|
Jan 19 22:08 UTC 2006 |
I liked the deluxe movie theaters in Bangkok, Thailand. There the theaters
chairs were all lazyboy recliners and they expected you to, and would consider
impolite if you didn't, to take your shoes off. Similar to a Japanese
restaurant. So you're in a movie theater watching a movie, reclined all the
way back in a lazyboy chair, with your shoes off and drinking a beer or
cocktail. Its quite nice if you can keep from falling asleep during the movie
|
richard
|
|
response 113 of 342:
|
Jan 19 22:14 UTC 2006 |
although rane's attitude concerns me in general because IMO a big problem we
are facing in societey today is the movement away from collective experiences.
Not only are people not going to movies together anymore, they aren't doing
much of anything together as a community anymore. This leads to lack of
understanding of common problems, and fosters political extremism.
|
slynne
|
|
response 114 of 342:
|
Jan 19 22:28 UTC 2006 |
So what you are saying is that, really, it is the VCR and DVD player
that are the root of...say...the 9/11 terrorist attacks? *snort*
|
tod
|
|
response 115 of 342:
|
Jan 19 22:30 UTC 2006 |
re #112
In Romania, you sit in a hard wooden seat like school desks from 1900 and
there are no refreshments allowed in the theater. You have to get there
walking uphill..both ways. The movies are in English and sometimes have
Romanian subtitles.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 116 of 342:
|
Jan 19 23:56 UTC 2006 |
Re #113: don't take my relative indifference to the rest of the audience too
far. I consider it a social evening to attend an event with a group of my
friends/relatives, and we have a good time there and afterward.
What "common problems" are going to be solved by being empathetic with the
mob sitting in the dark with you at a movie?
The types of things I do or have done in the sense of community is
participating in Red Cross disaster teams, serving on boards of
non-profits, lead field trips, etc. Is sitting in the dark with a mob for
a movie a better community activity?
|