Does anyone here enjoy the films themselves? (1 Viewer)

[Thomas T]

At the risk of being flamed by some of the regulars, for me, it's alway 100% about the movie. If a movie stinks: a DVD could have a retail price of $4.99, be loaded with a second disc of extras, deleted scenes, commentaries etc. and I still wouldn't touch it!

However, if a film I truly loved and wanted was put out on DVD and they charged me $99.99 for a pan and scan average transfer, yes, I would purchase it.

But hey, that's just me, others will follow their own needs and desires ... as they should. If they prefer a two disc special edition of junk like Spiderman 2 to show off their wide screen TV and surround system, go for it ... I'd prefer watching, say, Criterion's DVD of Rene Clair's charming 1931 B&W mono full screen Le Million but, of course, that's not going to impress anyone when showing off a home theatre, is it?

 

[Jon Martin]

I agree.

For me, the film is most important. It is like some of the threads that are out there with people complaining "My favorite movie is _____ but I won't buy this DVD because it is full frame!!!". That isn't me. If my favorite movie is released, I'd buy it no matter what the transfer is.

But, I grew up pre-cable, pre-VCR where you were lucky if a film turned up on TV, cut up, with commercials, full frame etc. Then, the VHS years and now DVD.

You can see how DVDs have, in a way I guess you can say, spoiled some newer film fans who only expect the best.

 

[Anthony Neilson]

We also, I think, have to distinguish between films that we don't like, and films that we have no interest in.

To be honest, I didn't much like RETURN OF THE KING, but I bought it. I bought it to complete a trilogy that I think is over-rated but that is also significant in cinema-history. I bought it because I wanted to see the documentaries about its making ; because, logistically if nothing else, the trilogy is a huge achievement and because the documentaries on the extended editions are excellent. And, indeed, the doc on RETURN is very good, and far more interesting (and moving, imo) than the film itself.

So I didn't think the film was very good but it's within a genre that I like, and I feel I can learn something about film-making by assessing where it works and where it doesn't work, and figuring out why ( it's Tolkein's fault, if you ask me - good at detail, bad on plot).

However - I can't really think of any kind of extra that will ever get me to buy a film like WHITE CHICKS, say, or POLICE ACADEMY WHATEVER, because I simply have no interest in any element of those films. Although I suppose if they released WHITE CHICKS with a truly brilliant, feature-length documentary about racial politics in Hollywood through the ages, then I might. But that's not going to happen, is it ?

I still have a lot of VHS tapes. I've resisted buying DOG DAY AFTERNOON on DVD all these years in the hope that a special edition might turn up, and that's proved to be a good move.
So am I a lesser movie-lover because I didn't want to buy it on DVD until a really good edition came out ? Or am I a purer movie lover because I love the movie SO MUCH that I don't care that I only have it on VHS ? After all, it's not the picture quality that counts, just the movie.

Obviously, I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. If a movie I LOVE ( hey, even just one I LIKE) comes out on a vanilla edition and I think that's the best I'm going to get, of course I'll buy it - my collection is full of such discs. But I get mildly pissed off by threads that somehow insinuate that those of us who like and value GOOD extra features are somehow philistine. Go tell that to David Prior or Van Ling or Laurent Bouzereau or the folks at Warners. Whilst you're at it, send some letters of praise to Paramount and MGM for all their bare-bones, "scene selection is a special feature", non-anamorphic releases. I'm sure they'll be pleased to know that their lack of effort is appreciated.

 

[george kaplan]

What educational purpose do you see in my DVD collection?

I certainly see it as having educational value in that I use it to expose my son to films. But I will admit that if when he gets older he is serious about films, then there are ones he needs to at least see once, such as Gone With the Wind, which are not part of my collection. I'm not going to buy a film I don't like or ever want to watch again just so my son can see it once. I'll teach him about renting, and he can watch it and judge for himself. I consider that exposing him to the hundreds and hundreds of great films in my collection is education enough.

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

OK... so the questions asked by the author of the thread appear to have been answered, but lets be sure and go through them again just in case he missed them:Yes you did, and if it is a guess I think you realize it is a very good guess.

I may be going out on a limb, but I am assuming the original author did not realize there is a dedicated part of the forum for discussing films, and now that he does and Joseph was kind enough to provide him with a link perhaps he can share his thoughts on the quality of various films with that forum.

This actually could be a very interesting topic if it were not for the way this thread started - which in my opinion did come off as condescending, insulting or both.

Tracking DVD sales, I've certainly seen a trend where sales improve dramatically when a film of lower quality gets a "Special DVD Treatment" and will often sell far more than a film widely praised that comes out on DVD with a sub par presentation.

As the DVD buying public become more aware of what is possible, they will be less likely to put up with even an average quality presentation. After all, the market has already shown that if you are patient, a new better edition will be released eventually - at least with higher profile films.

As someone who was buying DVDs back in '97 I can tell you that the pickings were slim so we pretty much had to put up with whatever the studios were willing to release. Now that DVD sales have skyrocketed, more attention has been made towards the quality of the releases.

There will always be a part of the market that can get lured into buying a DVD of a film that even they might not like because of the presentation and special features, but this is hardly a phenomena exclusive to DVD, and represents a small segment of consumers.

 

[Anthony Neilson]

That's fair enough, George. I respect a man with strong point of view.

I think you're missing out, though. I blind buy every now and then ( mostly during sales or promotions ) and there's something very satisfying about stumbling over a great movie and knowing you already own it.

So what fuels this strictness ? Is it money, space or principle ? And how do you see new movies ? Do you rent mainly or do you go to the movies ? Here in London, it's often about as cheap to buy a DVD as it is to go and see a movie, especially if you order it from the US, where DVDs are considerably cheaper.

I would've found it difficult to see a lot of old movies, certainly before the advent of online rental services. I don't know what it's like in the US but here our rental shops generally only stock new movies, not re-releases of old ones. In the case of a film that I felt I SHOULD see, such as THE RULES OF THE GAME, I'd have to either wait for it to turn up on TV (a long wait, these days) or buy it on DVD anyway - a vanilla version, for more than it cost me to buy Criterion's superb edition.

So you see my problem. But here's another question : don't you think that maybe a film you didn't like twenty years ago, you might like now ? I know that films have grown on me over the years and changed as I've changed. What about that ?

BTW Anyone who's showing their 4 year old son THOSE movies is all right with me. Which was his favourite ?

 

[Cees Alons]

Quod erat demonstrandum ("which is what was asked to be proven")!


Cees

 

[Thomas T]

Well, Mr. Kaplan, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

For example, hypothetically speaking. Let's say Paramount home video put out a pan and scan DVD of Summer And Smoke. Now, I think Geraldine Page's performance in S&S is a brilliant piece of acting, a performance to savor. Am I to deny myself the pleasure of such a great performance because Paramount has decided to issue a pan and scan DVD? I think not. Yes, the visuals are compromised but I'm not going to wait 5 or 6 or 10 years until a proper OAR transfer is issued by Paramount. I want Summer And Smoke available to me tonight if I want to partake in the greatness of Ms. Page's craft. Yeah, perhaps Laurence Harvey will be out of frame in some shots. It's a compromise I am NOT happy about but I can live with.

So, assuming, let's say you admired Ms. Page's performance equally as much as I, on principle, you would deny yourself access to that performance. Cool ... I won't.

This is all hypothetical, of course, as Paramount to the best of my knowledge has never issued a P&S version of a 2.35 scope film. If and when, Summer And Smoke is released I'm sure it will be in its proper ratio.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Crawdaddy

 

[Chris Cheese]

Anthony said:


I don't want to get into the main discussion here, since it's pretty well-covered already, but I do want to address this statement a little bit. I do blind buys somewhat regularly when it comes to classic films. But my purchases are never completely blind. I know what genres I enjoy, what actors I enjoy, what directors I enjoy, etc. Film noir is my favorite, so if a new film noir comes out, chances are I'll buy it. But I don't think that indicates that the quality of the film isn't the most important thing to me. It's just that I have no other way of seeing something like Call Northside 777 other than purchasing the recently-released DVD of it. I love film noir, enjoy James Stewart, and thus figured there was a good chance that I would enjoy the film, which I did. But for me, the quality of the film is absolutely the most important. If I blind buy something that I don't think holds up in terms of quality, I sell it.

 

[Anthony Neilson]

It's a fair point, but then not many blind buys are TOTALLY blind. They're educated guesses. The worst I've ever done is I bought DEEP BLUE SEA blind ; it's got sharks in it, I thought - how bad can it be ? Conveniently forgetting JAWS 2,3,4 and TINTORERA.

Nonetheless, I've made my guesses based on exactly the same criteria as you, Chris, and I've often ended up with a movie - even a supposed classic - that I didn't particularly like. I don't necessarily regret it either. I can find something of interest in most films ; but I suppose that's because I have something of a professional interest in them.

I still just don't get this hardline attitude. My main argument is that I buy DVDs for many different reasons ; 99% of the time because I like the movie but also sometimes for the extras, for reasons of self-education, for reasons of nostalgia etc
I find a well-designed DVD a thing of aesthetic beauty. I don't know why, I just do. And I might even buy a non-OAR DVD of a film I really like - IF, and only IF, I really held out no hope that it would be released in a better edition and I had no other way of obtaining it (though perhaps not if the film was originally in 2.35 : 1 - that'd be too much to bear).

Before the tar and feathers comes out, I should just say that I can't recall having done that since the bad old days of VHS. But it's possible.

 

[Lars Vermundsberget]

What's a "blind buy"? If it means a movie that you haven't seen before, I'd say the majority of my DVDs are "blind buys". But I try to learn something about the movie before I buy. Is it "blind" then?

 

[george kaplan]

Well his favorite changes all the time. Currently it's Mon Oncle, at least the scene where the dog traps them in the garage. But films he tends to rewatch a lot include Dumbo, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, Meet Me in St. Louis, Hatari!, Fantasia and the Great Locomotive Chase.

 

[Sean A]

While of course the quality of the film is what matters most to me, the presentation is important. Not more important (no matter how good they say the Lord of the Rings films are, and how great the DVDS are supposed to be , it's not my thing so I won't bother), but it is a factor.
I saw most of my favorite films first on television, and when I later learned how much was lost to pan and scanning for widescreen films, and how much was lost when the films were edited, either for time or content, it was always a dream of mine to be able to see such films as Bridge on the river Kwai or East of Eden exactly how audiences first experienced them in the theater when they were initially released .
DVD brings me as close to that experience as possible, allowing me to see all of the Jets and Sharks in West Side Story , or being able to study Brando's nuances in Last Tango in Paris , or hearing the Band and company in Surround in The Last Waltz

 

[Anthony Neilson]

Lars - I'd take a blind buy to be a film you hadn't seen before. But buy anyway.

George : One thing strikes me as funny (peculiar). I know this is the HOME Theater Forum but, for someone who has such strict rules on seeing films as they were intended, isn't it a bit ironic that you hardly ever go to the cinema ?

Just a thought.

 

[george kaplan]

The reason I rarely go to the theater is a practical one - my son. Before he was born, my wife and I went once a week. Now, we only go when there's a movie he can see, or when someone is around to watch him, such as her parents visiting. The idea of a babysitter is out for various reasons, not least of which is that it would make the cost of going ridiculous.

As far as "the way films were intended to be seen", well that's a very fuzzy area in some regards. It's easy to say, it was intended to be seen on the big screen, but where? Front row? Back row? And how many theaters appropriately screen films with proper bulbs, sound, etc.?

To me, seeing a film in a cinema vs. at home is irrelevant as far as intended presentation. OAR on the other hand is the most relevant factor as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Nick Martin]

Well...I guess I have to say I'm sorry. Some posts provided several answers- all true in some form- to my questions, and at the same time seemed to imply some real stupidity on my part.

The last thing I wanted was to be insulting, but I ended up doing that anyway.

I can contimue to post here, I hope...without provoking any anger :b :wink:

 

[andrew markworthy]

I think that by definition everyone here likes film. And the contributions from the administrators and others have made it clear that first and foremost this is the aim of HTF. Likewise, we should be concerned with quality. All other things being equal, nobody in their right mind is going to buy a shabby DVD of a movie if a better one is available. The question, as usual, is one of balance.

I think there is a very small element within HTF that worship their equipment and are more concerned with showing off how much money they've spent than enjoying the content of the films themselves. This shouldn't be remotely surprising - the same types exist in any hobby or activity. Their spiritual brethren are the wine snobs who put people off enjoying cheap wine, or the know-it-all staff in some specialist hi-fi stores who make you feel like a mediaeval serf if you don't take out a second mortgage to buy extortionately expensive equipment.

But these folks are more than offset by many more people in HTF with equally good (or better) equipment who correctly see their systems as a means to an end and who don't spend their time obsessing about the technical aspects. Sure, a great picture with good sound is wonderful, but at the end of the day it's what's being shown and listened to that matters.

 

[Simon Howson]

My problem with this is that I feel that cinematic performance is in part produced by cinematic staging - where actors are placed with relation to each other, and the camera. For example in East of Eden, scenes where James Dean is isolated on one side of the frame silently watching his father to me are just as important as scenes showing him talking or moving - they are part of the whole performance which is simply not communicated in a pan and scan version of the film, there for I wouldn't ever consider analysing a "performance" unless I can see all of the film, and that by definition means original aspect ratio, and good quality sound.

Regarding this thread generally, I am interested in widescreen technologies and aesthetics, so sometimes I will watch a film with zero regard for the story. I just switch my brain to take in things like camera positioning, lighting, staging, editing rate, camera movement. Sometimes I need to watch a film more than once, and even without sound.

Other times a film has been made so well that the style and composition become very closely aligned For example Otto Preminger introduces narrative elements in the extremes of the widescreen frame, in some ways his style is about using widescreen to allow the audience to notice certain elements only if they pay close attention... a very challenging use of film style which requires the viewer to analyse the whole frame - quite different to films today which concern themselves almost completely with actor's faces.

 

[BarryR]

I recently bought FINIAN'S RAINBOW, a film I have only a mild (to say the least) interest in, though I bought it mainly for the Coppola commentary, which gives a fascinating look at a troubled production and era in which it was made. If it did not have the commentary, I would have passed.