|
|
This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Another Christopher Nolan anti-digital rant
|
Ari Leedsw
Film Handler
Posts: 53
From: Stoughton, MA
Registered: Feb 2016
|
posted 02-21-2016 12:43 PM
>>> The people who read and write on this site are a self-selecting group. Most theatergoers don't care how the image is put on the screen. Market research has shown time and time again that they do care about things like, how easy it is to park at the venue, what the ticket price is, does the movie have a big name star in it, etc. etc. Occasionally, Hollywood has used technology as way to promote and sell its films, but hardly ever in isolation.
<<< Well, no this is a prokectionist forum. I'm not suggesting
moviegoers and like filmhandlers. But they know when they're paying
more to see the movie once than to own it three mos. later, know when
the theatre is doing the work with half the staff they did five years
ago, all the windows, registers, shut down, automated, know when their
"film" is out of focus, know when there's no one to correct it,
because everyone but one manager is sent home already.
As to the non-movie related things customers care about, I agree. . .
to a point. I have heard about cup holders and stadium seating, sure,
kinda like how women supposedly pick out cars based on the number of
cupholders (which may or may not be sexist propaganda, but I digress).
Unless it is a parking lot where cars are stolen or put up on blocks,
or with ten spaces to seat 500 people, no I don't buy people pick a
theatre based on parking spaces.
Sure stars have brand power, which is why they're paid like NFL quarterbacks.
But you're minimizing "see it in 70mm" and "IMAX," as selling points.
People who go and see a Bluray ![[dlp]](graemlins/dlp.gif) and have to shell out $25 don't
TAKE the surveys, and they also don't come back. They take their
hundred dollars for the family of five, and buy 5 BluRays or go to the
RedBox.
Why ELSE do you think theatre numbers are nosediving. Also, in terms
of entertainment, there are plenty of competing options: Golf,
bowling, sports, amusement parks, etc. This stuff hardly exists in a
vacuum, with cost as no object, and ticket prices have steadily
outpaced inflation for many years, because theatres can't fill seats.
>>> Do you think the Weinsteins would have bankrolled The Hateful Eight if it didn't have three A-listers heading the cast? Do you think they would have agreed to a film-only release with no DCP version at all? They tolerated Tarantino's obsession with UP70 because they believed that the movie would still make them a big profit, despite the extra overheads.
<<<A loss leader, I agree, but the film portion WAS profitable, that's
paying us $500/day, and putting us up in hotels and flying us around
the country to run it, and individually install 70/5s just for this
one show.
No names could have been successful, as Tarantino himself is a brand,
just like Spielburg. Don't forget Titanic in '97.
Tarantino doesn't have a 70/5 obsession, he wants to show his movies
on film. It's the damned studios and cocksuckers at
AMC/Cinemark/Regal who made 35 impossible, behaving as a cabal instead
of as "competition.". Someone should hit them with a massive
anti-trust lawsuit.
>>> So yes, theaters will get away with charging customers $25 to see a 2K DCP, if they are providing what most of those customers want most of all - easy parking, comfortable seats, welcoming staff, and a well-written and directed movie with big names in it. And personally, I'd prefer a well made 2K DCP to around 90% of the typical 35mm prints (made on high speed panel printers with an unstable picture, color balance all over the place, etc. etc.) seen in multiplexes during the medium's final decade as a mainstream release format.
<<< Not sure what specific timeframe you're referring to. Could you
please clarify? 2K *DIs* became predominent in 2006 or 2007, so, of
course, a 3rd or 4th generation film copy of the SAME FILE SHOWN IN EK
will look like shit on film.
Prior to the George-Lucasization of movies, however, tests indicated
that contact prints that came from the camera negative (barring
special effects, that went through the 2K DI chain) got 2500 lines,
2.4-2.5 K. Also, far bigger dynamic range (black to white contrast),
more colors, not 10 bit. A 4K DI (done since 1994) showprint (2nd
generation) beats 2K DLP in almost every way except steadiness or a
print run by non-Union, teenaged candy striper.
Obviously a print run by one of these film "handlers" will look worse
than even a 720P file, but I just saw a 26-yo print on acetate that
has managed to not get scratched up for a quarter century. Does that
beat ? Absolutely, and this has doubtless been allowed to fade
at room temp. All these years.
>>> The minority of theatergoers who care about the image and audio quality will seek out the minority of theaters that pride themselves on providing it. But they'll always be a minority, in both cases.
<<< Again, it's subtle, but consistently seeing out of focus $25
shows, with shrinking windows people won't keep coming back. The
employees have been cut, that's a con, I saw Star Wars, as is my
habit, from an ideal seat, 4 rows back, looks like a giant Goddamn
screen, that's a con. Out of focus is a con. No one to even go
upstairs to fix the focus is a con, no one left in. The theatre
besides a hiding, money-counting, candy striping manager and a cop
($35-45/hr cash, paid nightly) is a con.
I ran into a lot of people who went out of their way to see "H8ful
Eight" driving to its one location from far away, packed house for the
final two showings. Not the average viewer, no, but boy did people go
out of their way to see Interstellar and the two Dark Knights in IMAX.
They don't know what tor do they particularly car why/how, but unless
it's Stevie Wonder, you'd better believe they can tell the difference
between 15/70 and 2K! Thinking "big screen!" and "bright bulb!" will
serve as a substitute for any actual quality improvement over what
they can own, for less 90 days (?!) later is, respectfully, in my
learned opinion, kind of insulting even to the average filmgoer, just
as all women being painted into the "cupholder" car purchase crowd.
They have no idea why the hell it looks better or its worth it, but
they do know that there's a difference.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 02-21-2016 01:12 PM
What theater was charging $25 to see Star Wars?
I know ticket price inflation has been pretty noticeable the past few years, but most theaters were charging about half that $25 claim or even less if they were showing the movie in 2D.
Our new Carmike theater here has a $10.50 adult evening admission price. Add $4 to that for the IMAX-branded house. Add $3 for 3D. They were charging $17.50 for Star Wars, which is pretty high but also fairly average for IMAX style pricing. IIRC it's $1.50 more than Warren's IMAX-branded house up in Moore, OK.
Some luxury screening rooms do charge over $20 per ticket, but typically offer huge, plush seats, better decor, no one under age 21, food & drink service, etc.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ari Leedsw
Film Handler
Posts: 53
From: Stoughton, MA
Registered: Feb 2016
|
posted 02-21-2016 01:36 PM
No that was H8ful Eight 70mm, I think (I bought a matinee ticket to another film).
Were it not at a Cinemark, I would have paid it.
That aside, all that "Reald" "XD" "3D" ![[bs]](graemlins/bs.gif) is worth maybe an extra 10% (assuming it's not just a big screen, as in LieMax.
2K on a *really big screen* isn't worth a dull penny extra.
As to Star Wars in 2K, I sneaked in, on the same ticket as two showings of H8ful Eight by the way, and it was a 2K screening. Why see a film-shot 2 D movie in 3D???
Maybe the faster film doesn't quite make it to 4K, even in scope, but it's closer to 4K than 2K. 2K release, what a joke.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 02-21-2016 02:06 PM
Looks like Ari is either person who unfortunately has no access to any really good theaters, or the latest troll to come out of the woodwork with all of his ranting.
I don't have time right now to respond to all of his points, but the tired old crap about movie ticket prices outpacing inflation makes no sense when you consider all the extra things you get with a ticket now that you didn't get 20 years ago. (Much cushier seats, cupholders, better sound, clearer/steadier/more dependable picture, more screens to pick from, etc.) The fact is that the typical best multiplex presentation in about 1980 would pale miserably next to the typical best presentation today. Even in my own modest little theater we are presenting miles better sound and way nicer seats than we were then.
If you look at the average prices over the years, theater ticket prices have about kept pace with inflation and have been much lower than inflation in some years.
Also attendance is not exactly "nosediving." It's gone down in some years, up in others, and will always do that based on how good the movies are. Considering all the other options people have today that they didn't have even 10 years ago, this is no surprise. If a town has 1 really good restaurant and then 10 more restaurants are built, naturally the original one is going to suffer a decline in business. Why is this a big surprise/news event to people?
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ari Leedsw
Film Handler
Posts: 53
From: Stoughton, MA
Registered: Feb 2016
|
posted 02-21-2016 02:15 PM
Thanks for the ad hominem attack Mike. You've made a great first impression on me.
There isn't a single Goddamned film screen here besides IMAX and arthouse. So yeah, it really is that bad.
I have a BluRay player, so that essentially eliminates any possible reason for me to venture out of my house to see a movie, save for H8ful Eight, Interstellar, or a Dark Knight film.
Think I am trolling, do you? How is the current situation any different than if, twenty years ago, theatres had all adopted the porno model and chosen to project VHS tapes that were available at home?
I can't think of any substantial differences in that analogy.
Not sure how many 4K screens there are, couldn't care less about 3D. But after Star Wars, I won't be going back. And that movie was shot on 35mm with an IMAX scene. What a joke!
EDIT: As to sound? I go to SEE a movie, not to hear one. I'm not a blind man, and I liked "The Artist" just fine. As most movies record audio with a single boom mike, mono would be fine for me. Couldn't care less how many more speakers Dolby has added.
The losers were bragging about how digital could use seven (wow!!!) speakers in stead of five with film. So I guess you go to a theatre that projects digital because they take mono sound and artificially mix it onto two more speakers, instead of five.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Manny Montes
Master Film Handler
Posts: 270
From: United States
Registered: Feb 2010
|
posted 02-21-2016 02:42 PM
quote:
I paid to see "Star Wars" at matinee prices, as I will be Goddamned if I pay Cinemark $25. Did not pay a cent for concessions from those WalMart-outdoing BASTARDS. And I would have sneaked in the back door had I had more time.
I was with a group of filmmakers, in the two shows I stole, and cinephiles, who went out of their way to go to a premium experience. This in the same theatre that is still showing 2K "projection" of Star Wars (shot on film, by the way)! [dlp]
Charging premium prices for a gigantic screen that plays what is, in effect, the same thing as an uncompressed Bluray, and slapping brand names and logos on the same is going to bite these guys in the asses eventually, pardon my French.
People like Nolan, Tarantino, Pfister, Spielburg are doing their best to SAVE film, SAVE the cinema experience, and they are fighting what may be a losing battle against short-sighted accountants who want to maximize profit and don't care if, in so doing, they kill off the theatre industry.
First off, take a breath and relax. The amount of profanity in your posts is just childish and either reads as a film purist who is off their rocker or someone that lost their job due to digital.
1st: the average moviegoer doesn't notice these things, in fact I'd say that the majority of the moviegoing public has benefited from digital as they aren't watching scratched presentations or having constant brain wraps, damaged/dirty prints, etc.... While I loved film and a film presentation done right is great, we have to be realistic and realize that 95% of presentations and theatres in the country did not have a great film presentation. Now with digital we have a lot better presentations with no dirt, scratches or gate weave.
2nd: If you don't like it, don't go, acting like a child and thinking that you're amazing for sneaking into a movie is just silly and really does nothing to further your point. Cheering about how you didn't buy concessions and snuck in isn't really a great thing considering you're admitting to theft of services as well as not supporting a theatre, if you don't want to support it that's fine, wait for the DVD and don't go, but don't justify stealing with that (you're no better than people who justify pirating movies with the same logic).
3rd: your understanding of sound as well as the benefits of object based sound are severely lacking, just your comment about how mono sound to you is just as good as having "7 speakers" really shows just how uneducated you are about the subject.
4th: Hateful8 had a great marketing program for 70mm, but ask most of the audience members the difference between a 4k DCP and the 70mm and I guarantee you many wouldn't even be able to tell. It's all marketing, it was hyped that you HAD to see it in 70mm, people ate that up and went out to see it, just like people can get hyped up about RPX, XD, BigD, Digital IMAX, etc.....
All of your posts read like you're a rabid dog that is going to hate on anything digital. If you actually read through the forum you will find some great members here like Mike and Bobby who admit that there are issues with the digital rollout (like most of us feel) however there are also benefits and expecting a "revival" of film is just silly considering how the rollout is completed. Film will be used for one offs and archival uses, that is it, it will never again be used as a mainstream projection technology for the general public.
Constructive criticism is much more helpful than mindless ranting about the past.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 02-22-2016 12:00 AM
A simple question for Ari: what does the experience of going to see a movie actually mean for you? Why do you want to do it? What do you come away with after having done it?
For almost everyone who goes to a theater to see a movie, the technical characteristics of the image and sound are simply not something they ever think about. Even stripping out the logistical stuff, it's the lights going down, you're no longer in any sort of control of what's going on around you, what happens on the screen is what matters. My first memory of being taken to a cinema by my mother was aged probably 7 or 8, to see the 1970s cartoon Lord of the Rings. I was probably around 5 at the time. I don't remember much about the film, but I certainly do about the experience of going into screen 1 at the (now demolished) Odeon, Wimbledon, and the curtains opening to reveal the screen and the first projected image (and wanting to rename our cat Gollum, too, of which more below).
They could have been projecting VHS through an Eidophor, and I'd still remember it just as vividly.
Fast forward 35 years or so, and movie technology is something I care very much about, and make my living with. I wouldn't normally bring this up, but to prove my geek credentials, I've written two books on the subject: put my name into Amazon and you'll find 'em.
Even so, I can think of circumstances in which poor technical presentation would not prevent me from paying a decent admission price to see a movie. A big teens or '20s silent feature with Marty Marks or Stephen Horne playing a live accompaniment? I wouldn't care how it was projected - I'd want to be there to hear them.
If someone pointed a gun at my head and told me to name my favorite movie ever, it would probably be The Private Life of a Cat; shot on a 16mm Bolex in natural light in an apartment, on 1940s stock. So, judged by most cinematographic and technical standards, it looks horrid. No-one is ever going to try to remaster it in Imax; that's for sure. If they did, it would probably blow up the scanner. But if the technically "poor" image quality will drive you away from understanding what the movie is trying to tell you, there's something you're fundamentally not getting and likely never will.
Our line of work is as technicians supporting artists and their audiences. There is often a difference between what we feel is best, based on what the numbers, our eyes and ears tell us, and what they want, based on what inspires them, aesthetically. What differentiates the really good technicians from the so-so ones is being able to juggle that mismatch, and in doing so, teach both artists and audiences a thing or two in the process.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic