|
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Can SDDS be revived through D-Cinema?
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 01-08-2012 12:55 PM
quote: Mike Blakesley
You can't predict what will be big. When you're talking an original or new title, big movies happen totally by accident, whereas sequels, remakes, etc have a built-in audience and a better chance at success.
That would be true if movie releases were competing on an even field of play with only so many screens going to a given movie. During the summer movie season the major studios hog all the available screens to platform out all their big tent-pole sequels. The studios blow most of their production and marketing budgets on those movies. So there's little room or marketing push for anything new and different to have a place to be seen. Customers have little choice besides more sequels. The only way they can vote their disapproval is by staying away from the theater.
quote: Mike Blakesley
The problem -- again and as usual -- is money. If I was a Hollywood suit, what am I going to do with my $200 million? Put it into an unknown title, plug some A-list star and into it, and hope it goes through the roof? Or hire Michael Bay to do another Transformers sequel and guarantee to keep my job?
The Hollywood suits aren't just doing this with major movies. They're doing it with movies all over the map in terms of genre and market reach. Look at horror movies for instance. An original release like The Final Destination can be badly silly yet still spawn half a dozen sequels regardless.
The only time Hollywood studios make a serious attempt at marketing and releasing mostly new, original movies is during the fall push for awards from critics circles and ceremonies like the Golden Globes and Academy Awards. During this period independent studio releases gain more attention and often most of the awards. Some of those movies never find their way to suburban theaters or they play at there so briefly many customers don't realize it until after they have left. So most people end up seeing such movies via home video rental or premium cable.
| IP: Logged
|
|
James Westbrook
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1133
From: Lubbock, Texas, Usa
Registered: Mar 2006
|
posted 01-08-2012 01:59 PM
Mike,
I agree with you.
IF the sequel is well made, in that the story is sound - maybe like the original, maybe better than the original (I'm thinking of the 1986 Aliens) then I have no problems with sequels.
The two more recent James Bond films were good, in my opinion. Light years better than A View To A Kill.
But the problem, as I see it, is the "cart before the horse", or the franchise or effects or popular actor or actress or comedy writing team ahead of the story.
The story must be sound before the movie is made.
This is seldom the case.
Unfortunately, you are correct about patrons not attending original stories, but if a few more of them were made a year, maybe - MAYBE - they might get more people who won't watch just "anything" to go to the cinema.
I recall the "We need more family films" bruhaha of the 70s. The only one that was well attended was Benji. Most of the others were unwatchable.
There has always been a psychological disconnect between what we "need" and what we actually "do."
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 01-09-2012 09:36 AM
quote: Victor Liorentas
The vast majority of the movie going public should be WOWED when they go to the movies.They should be shown the magic with the latest and greatest from the filmmaker and theater.
If those theaters and filmmakers did this they would have happy return business.When they enjoy the experience,it don't matter if they understand the technical reasons.The technical job is up to us.If it's bland they may not articulate why but they know they were not WOWED or taken care of so they go less and less.
Victor,
Thank you for articulating my position in much less text than I ever seem to be able to manage. I completely agree that the moviegoing experience should be magical and theaters have a responsibility to deliver that magic.
Perhaps it is because of the fact that most dialog is mixed to the mono center channel (no panned dialog), but I've never found myself wishing for more screen channels, even when going to a theater with a 70+ foot wide screen.
Maybe it's because I've not experienced five screen channels since right after SDDS came out and the only theater in the Milwaukee Metro area had the capability. I simply don't know what I'm missing. Maybe having those extra screen channels would give sound mixers the confidence to do a little more panned dialog. However since home theaters don't have those channels available, it may be seen as an unnecessary expense.
If movie theaters were to have a height channel, I think that would have a greater impact when it was used properly. I would think that Pixar would have a great time with it, as they seem to be the best when it comes to sound mixing. Several years ago, I read an article in Widescreen Review where they were playing with a height channel by using a ProLogic decoder on the front center and the rear center (Surround Back) channel, to extract some sound information for the space above the viewer's head.
If the sound channel(s) are reserved for a height channel in Digital Cinema, why not use them? Yeah, I get that theaters don't want to spend money, and it makes sense that studios don't take the time to do sound mixes right, but the last I checked, magicians don't keep using the same old tricks all the time. They keep trying to find something new to entertain their audiences.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 01-09-2012 11:14 AM
quote: Scott Jentsch
Maybe having those extra screen channels would give sound mixers the confidence to do a little more panned dialog. However since home theaters don't have those channels available, it may be seen as an unnecessary expense.
I think home theater audio, which at the time was at best 5.1 channels, was a factor in why not so many movies had sound mixes in SDDS with 5 stage channels. SDDS was the only format at the time trying to support the channel layout. Even 70mm mag prints from the late 1970's up through the early 1990's rarely ever supported the 5 up front layout. It was mostly Formats 42 and 43 with 3 stage channels. So if a movie production created a mix with 5 stage channels that mix was only going to be heard in theaters for just several weeks. If they did a 5.1 mix then it would play on for years after the theatrical release in the home theater venue.
I'll go even farther to say if Blu-ray disc didn't already support 7.1 channel audio with four surround tracks it would not have been added to movie theaters. For the past decade home theater has been doing more to drive improvements to movie audio than developments in commercial theaters.
quote: Scott Jentsch
If movie theaters were to have a height channel, I think that would have a greater impact when it was used properly. I would think that Pixar would have a great time with it, as they seem to be the best when it comes to sound mixing.
Animated movies have more time to mess with audio since a good amount of the mix must be recorded before the sequences can be animated (lip sync digital characters with voice tracks).
quote: Scott Jentsch
If the sound channel(s) are reserved for a height channel in Digital Cinema, why not use them?
I'm having a little trouble figuring out how a height channel can be added to the ceiling in a practical manner. It sure wouldn't be good if a mere speaker or two was installed up in the center of the ceiling. It would call attention to itself whenever sound came out of it. The ceiling surround would really need some kind of array of at least half a dozen or more speakers in order to blend in with the surround channels on the side walls.
Most commercial movie theaters have those flimsy drop ceilings. And then all the HVAC ducts are running around above it. It might be tricky fitting several speaker enclosures into what might be a mess of other stuff up there. Then again AMC was real big on sticking surround speakers up in the ceiling. But those speakers were close to the side walls. A ceiling surround array would need to be evenly spread across the ceiling in some manner.
quote: Scott Jentsch
I get that theaters don't want to spend money, and it makes sense that studios don't take the time to do sound mixes right, but the last I checked, magicians don't keep using the same old tricks all the time. They keep trying to find something new to entertain their audiences.
The movie business doesn't seem to be working that way anymore. With the Wall Street stock trader mentality dominating the movie studios they want to do as little as possible to inflate costs while generating ever more profit to the share holder. Unfortunately that means playing things safe, conservative, status-quo and trying to sell the customer the same old thing while expecting to charge more and more money for it.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jonathan Goeldner
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1360
From: Washington, District of Columbia
Registered: Jun 2008
|
posted 01-09-2012 01:28 PM
quote: Scott Jentsch
Victor,
Thank you for articulating my position in much less text than I ever seem to be able to manage. I completely agree that the moviegoing experience should be magical and theaters have a responsibility to deliver that magic.
Perhaps it is because of the fact that most dialog is mixed to the mono center channel (no panned dialog), but I've never found myself wishing for more screen channels, even when going to a theater with a 70+ foot wide screen.
Maybe it's because I've not experienced five screen channels since right after SDDS came out and the only theater in the Milwaukee Metro area had the capability. I simply don't know what I'm missing. Maybe having those extra screen channels would give sound mixers the confidence to do a little more panned dialog. However since home theaters don't have those channels available, it may be seen as an unnecessary expense.
If movie theaters were to have a height channel, I think that would have a greater impact when it was used properly. I would think that Pixar would have a great time with it, as they seem to be the best when it comes to sound mixing. Several years ago, I read an article in Widescreen Review where they were playing with a height channel by using a ProLogic decoder on the front center and the rear center (Surround Back) channel, to extract some sound information for the space above the viewer's head.
If the sound channel(s) are reserved for a height channel in Digital Cinema, why not use them? Yeah, I get that theaters don't want to spend money, and it makes sense that studios don't take the time to do sound mixes right, but the last I checked, magicians don't keep using the same old tricks all the time. They keep trying to find something new to entertain their audiences.
Ugh – that should be the point of getting people into the cinema – having something that IS NOT replicable on their home theater systems – this isn’t rocket science folks - the cinema experience should always supercede what can be done at home. I’ve been lucky to really enjoy and love five front channel sound via 70mm and SDDS – that’s what got me to enjoy those films more because of the time and attention to creating and implementing the aspect of sound to its fullest – unfortunately every one is being swept up into the 3D craze and is downplaying the art of sound design – the exhibitors with their premium screens want to feature state of the art of sound, but the studios are locked into 5.1 to the point that any additional channels of sound into the mix is just an excuse to ignore it.
The film that experimented with the height channel that Widescreen Review mentioned was ‘We Were Soldiers’
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
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
Printer-friendly view of this topic