I've been to the cinema about 4 times in the past ten years. One time I took my kid and we did the whole cinema experience - buying food and drinks at the cinema. It cost something like £40 which...
I've been to the cinema about 4 times in the past ten years.
One time I took my kid and we did the whole cinema experience - buying food and drinks at the cinema. It cost something like £40 which is just ludicrous. The next time I took him we smuggled the food and drink in which cut the cost a lot. There was a queue of parents and kids, and everyone is rustling and crinkling as they walk past the ushers, showing their tickets and trying not to make it too obvious that their pockets were stuffed with candy. But it's an open secret - the rules seem to be "don't bring food in, but you can bring in as much food as you like and we'll pretend not to notice it if you pretend not to have it".
The last time I went alone and it was deafening. Just bizarrely loud.
So, cinemas seem to be desperate to get people in, but also seem to be clueless about why people don't turn up (it's too expensive in the UK, and it's not a good experience). I've got a big nice tv, good sound, and nice snacks at home. I can pirate anything, and I can buy a lot of stuff on streaming for reasonable prices. Why would I go to the cinema?
Avatar is a weird film. It's an okay movie that works if you watch it in the cinema in 3d. I saw it on a big, good, cinema screen in 3d and it was good. But it's not, for me, good enough to get me back in the cinema. I've already seen it, I have no interest in seeing it again (it wasn't that good) and I have no interest in seeing the follow up in the cinema.
I don't think remastered Avatar and Avatar 2 are going to be enough to get people into cinemas.
Like you, I am not a big fan of the cinema experience. It's expensive, uncomfortable, and wastes time. However, I still regularly go to see films on the big screen because I'm not sure how much...
Exemplary
Why would I go to the cinema?
Like you, I am not a big fan of the cinema experience. It's expensive, uncomfortable, and wastes time. However, I still regularly go to see films on the big screen because I'm not sure how much longer that version of the art form will exist.
Let me explain.
During its little over a hundred years of existence, cinema has gone through a number of changes. Silent film gave way to talkies. The academy aspect ratio was replaced by the widescreen size. Black and white film was displaced by colour film. Physical film lost to digital filmmaking. And so on.
There is a similar change happening at the moment. Films were previously made for cinemas: big screens, communal experiences, spaces that are a little removed from reality, release schedules that were anchored to a specific time. Although home video releases have been a thing for a long time now, up until recently, the big screen was the target to which films were made and everything else was an afterthought.
But now streaming services have become the target for distribution, not only for the services themselves that finance the making of films, but also for independent filmmakers, whose main opportunity for distribution those services now are.
And why is this a problem? Well, it is not. Things change. But it does mean that as the distribution target switches from the big screen to the small screen, it affects the art form. You no longer frame your shots knowing that the visuals will be projected on a huge canvas that towers over the viewer. The way you use space and play with details has to change to accommodate the small screen. You no longer mix the sound knowing that the film will be shown in a controlled environment. Your sounds now have to work under a much wider range of conditions. You no longer edit your film knowing that the viewer is stuck in a dark room. Your pacing has to change or the viewer will quickly switch to something else. You no longer write your piece for a group experience. Your audience is now watching alone, or in very small groups.
This fundamentally changes how film works and what it does. It will still be cinema, but it will be different than what it was before.
I grew up with the big screen. I love the way the old masters painted their moving paintings on that enormous flickering canvas. Most younger filmmakers, understandably, don't do that as they work increasingly with the smaller screen in mind. But that also means that the skillset needed for making a big screen film is disappearing. While we'll probably still have cinemas, in a not so distant future, we'll no longer have filmmakers able to make films for those big screens. Just like we no longer have filmmakers with the skills (and experience) of making great black and white films, or ones that could put together a great silent film.
The cinema experience that I grew up with will be lost. So, I go to the cinemas to experience it while we still have creators who know how to make use of the big screen. And perhaps also because the fewer people that go to the cinemas, the sooner that change will happen. Vote with your wallets, and all that.
Not that my participation or lack of participation on its own will really make a difference. But maybe it will if we both go?
This is true....but this one seems different that the ones of the past. Namely, that the changes of the past largely resulted in more advancement ffor fidelity. Wheras this is more of a step back....
And why is this a problem? Well, it is not. Things change.
This is true....but this one seems different that the ones of the past. Namely, that the changes of the past largely resulted in more advancement ffor fidelity.
Wheras this is more of a step back. Almost everything you listed isn't really a positive aspect...it describes a watering down. Optimizing for a more diverse, uncontrolled environment also screams 'eliminate all diversity from performance.' Because why put in lots of subtle soundwork when 95% of your audience won't hear it?
We know what happens, because it happened with records: Once the physical resrictions of a vinyl pressing were lifted, a substantial amount of dynamic range was just dropped from the equation, everything becoming 'max loud' as everything began to optimize for the quickest hook. Quality mixing became optional. I wager that small-screen cinima will likewise heavily cut the highs and lows, and it'll all just be muddled in the middle. Especially as 'smartphone + headphones' becomes a more-optimized target.
There is also a big problem with streaming-first: There is a financial incentive to produce garbage that's just good enough to keep people from clicking that 'cancel subscription' button. The hypothetical "most profitable streaming platform" keeps users engaged just enough to come back once a month, consuming like 5 hours of a show, then not log on for another month. (Which for TV, might actually be a good thing if it actually drives screen time down).
Then finally there's the algorithms. We see what they do to Youtube: Optimize for the clickbait garbage cause your competing for the eyeballs over hundreds/thousands of other producers..
The '99% of everything is shit' is going to go full 5-9's (99.999%), and it'll be harder than ever to wade through it... mark my words.
I definitely share your worry and predictions. That said, I don't really see this change as fundamentally different from the earlier major changes. And it gives me hope. Sound for instance...
I definitely share your worry and predictions.
That said, I don't really see this change as fundamentally different from the earlier major changes. And it gives me hope.
Sound for instance definitely extended the possibilities of the art form, but the change from silent films to talkies also drastically affected things like acting styles and arguably lessened the importance of the visuals. Sound also made films more language dependent, and therefore made it more difficult for films from smaller language areas to be successful globally. There certainly were complaints at the time that cinema was losing its soul and being made cheap and commercial.
Colour film was a similarly revolutionary addition, but it too changed film making dramatically. Early color film in particular was of quite poor quality, and many filmmakers refused to make the switch because of how cheap it looked when contrasted with properly lit black and white films. A lot was again lost in that change. If you watch modern black and white films, lighting in particular is always the part that makes it clear that it is a modern film trying to look old. We just no longer seem to know how to light black and white properly.
Meanwhile, the switch from 1.33:1 to the widescreen aspect ratio was driven not so much by artistic vision as by marketing needs: widescreen had existed for decades but my understanding is that it was only pushed in when televisions became available to home consumers, threatening ticket sales. Widescreen was a way for cinemas to distinguish themselves from television.
A lot could also be written about the switch to digital filmmaking. Early digital was a downright horrible experience. And by making CGI and digital editing so much easier to pull off, suddenly everything became fixable after the shoot. Which, like the other changes, has led to both good and bad outcomes.
What I'm trying to say is that change is complex. We will lose a lot about cinema in this current process. And if we evaluate the new type of cinema that develops with what we have come to expect from earlier films and how we watch them, I think it's like criticising modern films because they don't conform to what would have made a film good during the black and white era, or the silent film era.
Whatever the next era of cinema will look like, there will be new, innovative filmmakers who will push the new style of cinema to its limits, and in doing so creating something that has never been seen before. And then, a couple of decades from now, as film is making its transition from the small screens to holograms or whatever, there will again be posts like ours worrying about what will be lost that made these small screen films so great.
None of this means that I won't miss what is going to be lost during the current transition. And none of it invalidates your concerns either.
But I don't think all of it will be bad. I think it will mainly just be different.
I concur. Without 3D, it's a very generic 'look colonialism!' kind of movie. And even then....the awe I felt there has been felt more intensely by videogames and movies before and since. It was a...
It's an okay movie that works if you watch it in the cinema in 3d
I concur. Without 3D, it's a very generic 'look colonialism!' kind of movie.
And even then....the awe I felt there has been felt more intensely by videogames and movies before and since. It was a refinement of a niche that....doesn't really add much to the moviewatching experience. It's nowhere near the step from 2D games to 3D games, in part because at the end of the day, it's still a passive experience and you need to look where the director is guiding your eye or the whole thing looks off.
If Avatar (or this sequel) is the absolute pinnacle of 3D movies....eh. It's gone to show that it takes an absolute fuckton more work for a moderate increase in fidelity.
IMAX 3D documentaries of Earth and space make a lot more sense than trying to work it into a plot, where theres so many other areas of potential improvement for a lower cost.
One reason is to experience the movie as a part of a large, diverse group. There is something, for me, about experiencing common consciousness in physical proximity. Cinema does this for me,...
Why would I go to the cinema?
One reason is to experience the movie as a part of a large, diverse group. There is something, for me, about experiencing common consciousness in physical proximity. Cinema does this for me, sports and church do it for a lot of people.
I saw one of the fast and furious opening night in a packed theater. Filled with a diverse crowd, some of whom were very liberated about vocalizing their reactions to what was going on, it was one of the best movie experiences I’ve ever had. Note, a number of folks showed up in costume!
I have maintained for a number of years that the 2 best ways to see a movie are on opening night, with all of the other people who are super-enthused about it, sharing that collective energy in an...
There is something, for me, about experiencing common consciousness in physical proximity
I have maintained for a number of years that the 2 best ways to see a movie are
on opening night, with all of the other people who are super-enthused about it, sharing that collective energy
in an empty theater on a Sunday morning many weeks after release, when there is literally nobody else there except people you brought with you
@DanBC $40 is a hefty cost, which I would also balk at. I'm fortunate to have a local theater chain that is absolute top-notch. They have reclining heated leather seats, assigned seating, and a ticket is $5 before 5pm. I rarely buy concessions, but I will buy a $10 beer from them because I appreciate their setup. I can book online, walk in early on a weekend without speaking to anyone, have my ideal seat, and enjoy a movie for about the cost of streaming it via Apple
I dunno about that. I went and saw one of the newer Star Wars films in a fancy 'bar/restaurant theater', and I pulled out a dB meter on my phone. Even the quietest parts of the dialog were pegging...
I dunno about that. I went and saw one of the newer Star Wars films in a fancy 'bar/restaurant theater', and I pulled out a dB meter on my phone. Even the quietest parts of the dialog were pegging 90. The only time I ever demanded my money back when leaving a movie.
Had been to many other movies before and since (including watching said movie at different theater), and not had anywhere that problem. Maybe I just got unlucky and this place was applying bar tactics to movies.
I watched Avatar in the theater, in 3D, and it was an unforgettable experience. To this day, it's the only movie I saw that IMHO did 3D right. Like never before, I felt transported to a wonderful...
I watched Avatar in the theater, in 3D, and it was an unforgettable experience. To this day, it's the only movie I saw that IMHO did 3D right. Like never before, I felt transported to a wonderful universe, and I didn't want to return.
I agree with Cameron that this movie should be seen in 3D in a film theater. Outside that context, it simply does not translate.
I've been to the cinema about 4 times in the past ten years.
One time I took my kid and we did the whole cinema experience - buying food and drinks at the cinema. It cost something like £40 which is just ludicrous. The next time I took him we smuggled the food and drink in which cut the cost a lot. There was a queue of parents and kids, and everyone is rustling and crinkling as they walk past the ushers, showing their tickets and trying not to make it too obvious that their pockets were stuffed with candy. But it's an open secret - the rules seem to be "don't bring food in, but you can bring in as much food as you like and we'll pretend not to notice it if you pretend not to have it".
The last time I went alone and it was deafening. Just bizarrely loud.
So, cinemas seem to be desperate to get people in, but also seem to be clueless about why people don't turn up (it's too expensive in the UK, and it's not a good experience). I've got a big nice tv, good sound, and nice snacks at home. I can pirate anything, and I can buy a lot of stuff on streaming for reasonable prices. Why would I go to the cinema?
Avatar is a weird film. It's an okay movie that works if you watch it in the cinema in 3d. I saw it on a big, good, cinema screen in 3d and it was good. But it's not, for me, good enough to get me back in the cinema. I've already seen it, I have no interest in seeing it again (it wasn't that good) and I have no interest in seeing the follow up in the cinema.
I don't think remastered Avatar and Avatar 2 are going to be enough to get people into cinemas.
Like you, I am not a big fan of the cinema experience. It's expensive, uncomfortable, and wastes time. However, I still regularly go to see films on the big screen because I'm not sure how much longer that version of the art form will exist.
Let me explain.
During its little over a hundred years of existence, cinema has gone through a number of changes. Silent film gave way to talkies. The academy aspect ratio was replaced by the widescreen size. Black and white film was displaced by colour film. Physical film lost to digital filmmaking. And so on.
There is a similar change happening at the moment. Films were previously made for cinemas: big screens, communal experiences, spaces that are a little removed from reality, release schedules that were anchored to a specific time. Although home video releases have been a thing for a long time now, up until recently, the big screen was the target to which films were made and everything else was an afterthought.
But now streaming services have become the target for distribution, not only for the services themselves that finance the making of films, but also for independent filmmakers, whose main opportunity for distribution those services now are.
And why is this a problem? Well, it is not. Things change. But it does mean that as the distribution target switches from the big screen to the small screen, it affects the art form. You no longer frame your shots knowing that the visuals will be projected on a huge canvas that towers over the viewer. The way you use space and play with details has to change to accommodate the small screen. You no longer mix the sound knowing that the film will be shown in a controlled environment. Your sounds now have to work under a much wider range of conditions. You no longer edit your film knowing that the viewer is stuck in a dark room. Your pacing has to change or the viewer will quickly switch to something else. You no longer write your piece for a group experience. Your audience is now watching alone, or in very small groups.
This fundamentally changes how film works and what it does. It will still be cinema, but it will be different than what it was before.
I grew up with the big screen. I love the way the old masters painted their moving paintings on that enormous flickering canvas. Most younger filmmakers, understandably, don't do that as they work increasingly with the smaller screen in mind. But that also means that the skillset needed for making a big screen film is disappearing. While we'll probably still have cinemas, in a not so distant future, we'll no longer have filmmakers able to make films for those big screens. Just like we no longer have filmmakers with the skills (and experience) of making great black and white films, or ones that could put together a great silent film.
The cinema experience that I grew up with will be lost. So, I go to the cinemas to experience it while we still have creators who know how to make use of the big screen. And perhaps also because the fewer people that go to the cinemas, the sooner that change will happen. Vote with your wallets, and all that.
Not that my participation or lack of participation on its own will really make a difference. But maybe it will if we both go?
This is true....but this one seems different that the ones of the past. Namely, that the changes of the past largely resulted in more advancement ffor fidelity.
Wheras this is more of a step back. Almost everything you listed isn't really a positive aspect...it describes a watering down. Optimizing for a more diverse, uncontrolled environment also screams 'eliminate all diversity from performance.' Because why put in lots of subtle soundwork when 95% of your audience won't hear it?
We know what happens, because it happened with records: Once the physical resrictions of a vinyl pressing were lifted, a substantial amount of dynamic range was just dropped from the equation, everything becoming 'max loud' as everything began to optimize for the quickest hook. Quality mixing became optional. I wager that small-screen cinima will likewise heavily cut the highs and lows, and it'll all just be muddled in the middle. Especially as 'smartphone + headphones' becomes a more-optimized target.
There is also a big problem with streaming-first: There is a financial incentive to produce garbage that's just good enough to keep people from clicking that 'cancel subscription' button. The hypothetical "most profitable streaming platform" keeps users engaged just enough to come back once a month, consuming like 5 hours of a show, then not log on for another month. (Which for TV, might actually be a good thing if it actually drives screen time down).
Then finally there's the algorithms. We see what they do to Youtube: Optimize for the clickbait garbage cause your competing for the eyeballs over hundreds/thousands of other producers..
The '99% of everything is shit' is going to go full 5-9's (99.999%), and it'll be harder than ever to wade through it... mark my words.
I definitely share your worry and predictions.
That said, I don't really see this change as fundamentally different from the earlier major changes. And it gives me hope.
Sound for instance definitely extended the possibilities of the art form, but the change from silent films to talkies also drastically affected things like acting styles and arguably lessened the importance of the visuals. Sound also made films more language dependent, and therefore made it more difficult for films from smaller language areas to be successful globally. There certainly were complaints at the time that cinema was losing its soul and being made cheap and commercial.
Colour film was a similarly revolutionary addition, but it too changed film making dramatically. Early color film in particular was of quite poor quality, and many filmmakers refused to make the switch because of how cheap it looked when contrasted with properly lit black and white films. A lot was again lost in that change. If you watch modern black and white films, lighting in particular is always the part that makes it clear that it is a modern film trying to look old. We just no longer seem to know how to light black and white properly.
Meanwhile, the switch from 1.33:1 to the widescreen aspect ratio was driven not so much by artistic vision as by marketing needs: widescreen had existed for decades but my understanding is that it was only pushed in when televisions became available to home consumers, threatening ticket sales. Widescreen was a way for cinemas to distinguish themselves from television.
A lot could also be written about the switch to digital filmmaking. Early digital was a downright horrible experience. And by making CGI and digital editing so much easier to pull off, suddenly everything became fixable after the shoot. Which, like the other changes, has led to both good and bad outcomes.
What I'm trying to say is that change is complex. We will lose a lot about cinema in this current process. And if we evaluate the new type of cinema that develops with what we have come to expect from earlier films and how we watch them, I think it's like criticising modern films because they don't conform to what would have made a film good during the black and white era, or the silent film era.
Whatever the next era of cinema will look like, there will be new, innovative filmmakers who will push the new style of cinema to its limits, and in doing so creating something that has never been seen before. And then, a couple of decades from now, as film is making its transition from the small screens to holograms or whatever, there will again be posts like ours worrying about what will be lost that made these small screen films so great.
None of this means that I won't miss what is going to be lost during the current transition. And none of it invalidates your concerns either.
But I don't think all of it will be bad. I think it will mainly just be different.
I concur. Without 3D, it's a very generic 'look colonialism!' kind of movie.
And even then....the awe I felt there has been felt more intensely by videogames and movies before and since. It was a refinement of a niche that....doesn't really add much to the moviewatching experience. It's nowhere near the step from 2D games to 3D games, in part because at the end of the day, it's still a passive experience and you need to look where the director is guiding your eye or the whole thing looks off.
If Avatar (or this sequel) is the absolute pinnacle of 3D movies....eh. It's gone to show that it takes an absolute fuckton more work for a moderate increase in fidelity.
IMAX 3D documentaries of Earth and space make a lot more sense than trying to work it into a plot, where theres so many other areas of potential improvement for a lower cost.
One reason is to experience the movie as a part of a large, diverse group. There is something, for me, about experiencing common consciousness in physical proximity. Cinema does this for me, sports and church do it for a lot of people.
I saw one of the fast and furious opening night in a packed theater. Filled with a diverse crowd, some of whom were very liberated about vocalizing their reactions to what was going on, it was one of the best movie experiences I’ve ever had. Note, a number of folks showed up in costume!
I have maintained for a number of years that the 2 best ways to see a movie are
@DanBC $40 is a hefty cost, which I would also balk at. I'm fortunate to have a local theater chain that is absolute top-notch. They have reclining heated leather seats, assigned seating, and a ticket is $5 before 5pm. I rarely buy concessions, but I will buy a $10 beer from them because I appreciate their setup. I can book online, walk in early on a weekend without speaking to anyone, have my ideal seat, and enjoy a movie for about the cost of streaming it via Apple
That’s probably an age thing
I dunno about that. I went and saw one of the newer Star Wars films in a fancy 'bar/restaurant theater', and I pulled out a dB meter on my phone. Even the quietest parts of the dialog were pegging 90. The only time I ever demanded my money back when leaving a movie.
Had been to many other movies before and since (including watching said movie at different theater), and not had anywhere that problem. Maybe I just got unlucky and this place was applying bar tactics to movies.
Edit: Not sure if joke now.
I watched Avatar in the theater, in 3D, and it was an unforgettable experience. To this day, it's the only movie I saw that IMHO did 3D right. Like never before, I felt transported to a wonderful universe, and I didn't want to return.
I agree with Cameron that this movie should be seen in 3D in a film theater. Outside that context, it simply does not translate.
The first time I watched Avatar was on a bootleg DVD, on a portable DVD player on a road trip.
I still really liked it as a kid.
Awesome;)
Archived.