Home theater "as good as" film? No way! (1 Viewer)

[Tom Ryan]

Tom,
I don't appreciate it when you start lecturing people and tell them to stop whining and start coping. You are entitled to your opinion about theater vs. home theater, but people as knowledgeable as you are entitled to differ. I do agree with the concept of film "flow" but where is it written that you can't watch a movie from start to finish in your home theater without stopping it? I often take the phone off the hook for that very reason (without worrying about cell phone "important people"). Just because you can stop a film in your HT doesn't mean you have to. The fact of the matter is that you have a choice at home.
And I guess you've been very, very lucky in your theater experiences. I can't remember the last time that there wasn't at least something about the theatrical experience that didn't bother me, and I don't consider myself to be a whiner by any means.
We obviously have different opinions about the comparison of theater and home theater. I don't agree that the theater wins "hands down" in all cases. In fact, I think it's usually the other way around.

Robert:
When I refer to whining, I am talking about just that. There is a difference between complaining and whining. Complaining can be rational and evenhanded, whining is just annoying. When people post a long list of ten different things that they just HATE and how they shouldn't have to endure them, that's whining. When someone states that the theater experience can have a downside and states examples, that's different.
In reference to the concept of flow, I mentioned that because someone was foisting the home theater experience as superior because you could rewind, pause, get the director's thoughts on a particular scene, etc. This hackneyed way of viewing is fine for in the home, but I doubt anyone would want to do that the first time they see a film, which is in theaters for most people.
Let me state that I think home theater is best for repeat viewings of a film you've already seen, but buying a new DVD sight unseen will never beat seeing that film in a theater.
Maybe I just live in a city with nice people (Spokane, WA), or maybe my outlook on theaters just lets everything gloss over, but 99% of the things people whine/complain about do not happen in our local theaters. I've been to almost every big movie this summer, the ones that attract all the "problem people" that shouldn't be allowed in theaters or even to buy DVDs

. I've been to Tomb Raider, Pearl Harbor, Final Fantasy, Planet Of The Apes, Rush Hour 2, etc. Every experience was great, except for the fact that most of the films were terrible .
-Tom
P.S. You might notice a little sarcasm concerning most forumgoers' attitudes towards the average person. I find the elitism that permeates this board to be a little disgusting, and while I'm all for the enlightenment of society and the quest for true artistic integrity, it's not necessary to be so condescending.

 

[DaveF]

Film was never meant to be a solo experience.

I agree with this strongly. And contrary to others' experiences, I find it difficult to find an audience at local theaters.
I'm not sure why, but usually when I see a movie at the theater, it is very sparse. While it's nice to not have to worry about getting good seats, it's a lot more fun to have have a larger audience.
Perhaps I've been lucky, but well-behaved audiences have been the norm for me.
SOmething else not commented on is the after-movie experience. I find that the exit process: watching credits roll for a bit, then leaving, and driving home, affords a time to think and talk about the movie in a way that is different from watching it at home.
Nonetheless, it's great to watch a movie at home, when I want, lounging in the couch, bowl of ice-cream in hand. Or to invite friends over, and have

 

[David Tallen]

... most forumgoers' attitudes towards the average person. I find the elitism that permeates this board to be a little disgusting ...

I think you are being incredibly unfair to forum members. No one is saying that the "average" movie goer is a jerk. What they are saying is that very, very often (except in Spokane) one or two people in the theater are rude enough and thoughtless enough to have a negative impact on the experience of everyone else. Since everyone in Spokane is thoughtful, you may have trouble believing this, but I assure you it is true.
------------------
"If you set aside Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, the safety record of nuclear is really very good." Paul O'Neill, Treasury Secretary.

 

[Carlo_M]

For me as well, a great theatrical exhibition cannot be rivaled by even the best (sorry WSR) home theater viewing. But still, the annoyances that can occur at the theater (and I agree with the above post, it's not a lot of jerks, but one or two in a theater can spoil the whole experience) really can detract from the experience. And I have noticed my fair share of theatrical display and sound problems, reported them, only to find that nothing has been done about them on the following visit. Also, going to a different theater is no better, as they tend to have the same problems and the same blase attitude about complaints. If it's good enough for 98%+ of the people out there, why should they give a rat's ass about me? Especially if the other moviehouses don't, where's a guy like me supposed to go?
Bottom line, if I hear or read good things about a movie, I will make every effort to see it in the theater. But when I want to dissect a movie, or repeatedly enjoy it with minimal/no distractions, I'll buy it on DVD.

 

[Tom Ryan]

I think you are being incredibly unfair to forum members. No one is saying that the "average" movie goer is a jerk. What they are saying is that very, very often (except in Spokane) one or two people in the theater are rude enough and thoughtless enough to have a negative impact on the experience of everyone else. Since everyone in Spokane is thoughtful, you may have trouble believing this, but I assure you it is true.

I wasn't referring simply to the complaints about moviegoers, but the attitude towards "Joe Six Pack" in general. And it's funny how great the people are in my town, even though we have a serial killer, gangs, meth labs all over the place, etc......
-Tom

 

[David-alexander]

Cinema and home theater can coexist. Most of the time, I try to see a film in a state of the art theaters in order to decide wheter or not I want to own on dvd. Some movies I purchased right away and discovered at home like BREAVEHEART.
FILM RESOLUTION:
Yes, it's indeed something like 3500x2000 or so but scaled on a 80ft screen, it clearly does not look as sharp as on a 40ft screen ( ideal size I think ) or as sharp as a scaled dvd on a 120" screen with CRT and HTPC at 1600x1200 or 1280x720 for instance. it's mathematically evident (resolution of the image components per square meter), even if the film source is much better defined than the dvd source.
Therefore, to me, Home theater with a CRT and HTPC and something around 120-140" is truely awsome. Contrast and depth is also generally greater than in theaters.
One area where theaters still have the edge is for pictures where dinosaurs, planets, very large views or space ships are displayed: there, a 40 or 80ft impresses by its size of course.
THEATER SOUND
This is really one area where the sound pressure and the low frequencies at high SPL can't match those of high end/powerful home theaters. Personally, I went a particular route: using cinema gear for my home theater though being large, 9,500cbic feet, I had to go for the large stuff ( which is not necessarily expensive), JBL to name it.
I imagine a lot here also have some mighty sound equipment which delivers SPL pressure that many theaters would kill to have! Theaters have cost issue and very few follow the dolby and dts, thx recommendations for the equipment, for instance, going for 400w per subs, 4 subs instead of 8subs with 1000w or going one serie under for front speakers instead of one model higher, which would give the theater more headroom and more sensitivity. Or its the wire gauge that is really too thin, especially since they have to run sometimes up to 120ft or 150ft of wires between the amp and the speakers: the damping factor is crushed!!!!!
THEATER AMBIENCE
if not spoiled by gsm or people talking, peeing every 30minutes etc, it's sure is nice to go watch a movie with your mate or friends, it's still a very socializing moment.
Though more, I found myself inviting friends or family and they bring food or I do some cool stuff to eat and then we watch a movie, sometimes up to 10people.
I still like to go to a theater and bring a lady, especially if she dresses sexy ! eh eh

HOME THEATER IMMERSION:
if the home theater is designed to make you forget about it, ie, once the show is on, you feel immersed right away, this immersion is very hard to obtain in theaters. but it requires many conditions, like total black decoration, lots of power, lots of resolution etc etc. Once these are reached, it's fabulous, you are IN THERE.

 

[HalS]

What they are saying is that very, very often (except in Spokane) one or two people in the theater are rude enough and thoughtless enough to have a negative impact on the experience of everyone else.

Nobody doubts every once in a while you go to the movies and someone disturbs the audience. There's also no doubt you could go out to a fine restaurant and be disturbed, etc. What is the solution to never go out again because of the fear someone might cause a disruption? It is certainly not a reason to give up going to the movies altogether, which as I said earlier in the thread, to me is just hiding out and letting the a-holes win.
And I'll say this, in the major theaters in LA, audiences tend to be very well behaved. Take the Village, which draws some of the most raucous and enthusiastic crowds you'll ever see, once the film starts you don't hear a peep.
PS. I agree with Tom's comments about the sometimes sheer venom that is directed at the so-called Joe Six Pack.

 

[Reginald Trent]

This thread has taken many twist and turns so here's my take on things. If this is simply about clarity and detail of video I would side with the HT. I have yet to experience a commercial theater that looks as good as my Sony 36XBR400.
Many times the movies are not adjusted and displayed properly which can be anything from being slightly but nevertheless out of focus to some of the image bleeding off the side of the screen to the color looking washed out and lackluster. HT is the ultimate personalized movie experience. You can talk to the screen, scream obcenities and do any number of things at home that might get you kivked out of a commercial theater.
However, theoretically a commerical theater hold most of the cards. Huge screen, seating capacity and sound system. But those are some of the things that work against commercial theaters. Most simply are not calibrated properly both video and audio. When combined with a bad audience that equals a poor movie experience. IMHO

 

[HalS]

If this is simply about clarity and detail of video I would side with the HT. I have yet to experience a commercial theater that looks as good as my Sony 36XBR400.

I also have an XBR, perfectly calibrated. It looks fantastic, I'm sure you get the same reaction when people see your TV, they are wowed. That said, it still doesn't hold a candle to film.
Take for example, the dye transfer prints of Apocalypse Now. Nobody's home system can recreate that, it can't even come close.
I'm sure the release of Apocalypse Now Redux will look great on DVD. But it will never in a million years look as vibrant and stunning as the dye transfer print (and in general, AN fits the perfect example of a film that has toi be seen in a theater to be completely appreciated).

 

[James D S]

Therefore, I imagine you are arguing that because the filmmaker makes that accomodation that's how they intend the film to be seen?

I'll play along: (using strictly your example) Sure. That is, when the movie is intended to be viewed on a 4:3 set. I'll go with that. Back to thread reality...
But, when a film is framed in widescreen (or any ratio for that matter), there is no 'standard' filmscreen size they intend to shoot for. Be it 100" or 100', it does not matter, so long as the image is conveyed unobstructed as it was intended. No filmmaker I know has said that his movie only works if the screen is such-and-such big. No one.
So we are left debating the merit of the added resolution film allows. But aren't we back to arguing movies for technology's sake? Seems we would.
That being said, there is, apart from supposed crowd interaction (which some seem to believe a comedy's impact, at least, hinges on), no real difference screening a movie at home vs. at the 40 screen omniplex.
So the problem becomes one of the effect of a crowd on the movie going experience. Since I can't seem to find any evidence that a filmmaker, who does not have a current movie playing and would thus argue this point for the sake of feeding his movie's box office take, requires his movie be viewed in a crowd (which isn't even speaking to what size crowd is optimal) for its purpose and impact to fealt to the fullest extent.
Of course, then we would have to establish how many people are required for cinematic nirvana. Is 30 not enough? Is 300 too many? Where is the crowd size drop-off where Dumb and Dumber ceases to be funny? At 23 or fewer people?
I wonder...

 

[cafink]

I also have an XBR, perfectly calibrated. It looks fantastic, I'm sure you get the same reaction when people see your TV, they are wowed. That said, it still doesn't hold a candle to film.

It doesn't hold a candle to film under ideal circumstances — no one is denying that. But again, rarely are any of us fortenate enough to have such an experience. For me, and for a good many of my fellow HTF members, watching a movie on our own home theater is a much more likely to yeild superior results.

 

[James D S]

Another ongoing http://www.hometheaterforum.com/uub/Forum2/HTML/004684.html
[Edited last by James D S on August 14, 2001 at 03:04 AM]

 

[HalS]

quote: quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, let's see...what is the ultimate accomodation that has been made over the years for people viewing at home? Answer...PAN AND SCAN.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When was the last time you saw a movie in the theater that was shot wide but is displayed 4:3? [/quote]
Say what? You said quite specifically "Especially considering the many accomodations filmmakers make to the home viewing crowd" as proof that those accomodations are being made with the idea that home theater provides the optimum way to watch a movie. Well, you were proven wrong since the major accomodation made by filmmakers for home viewers is pan and scan, which is clearly not anyone's idea of the best way to watch a film. Rather, it's a necessary evil, one filmmakers must accept for reasons to do mostly with business and not art.
quote: No filmmaker I know has said that his movie only works if the screen is such-and-such big. No one.[/quote]
And who said that anyone mentioned a specific screen size? All along, I've referenced the collective experience of attending a film. That is how a film is intended to be seen. It's a social experience, always has been. Why do you think so many people wax poetically about wishing that one classic or another could be seen in theaters again? Why do you think so many people lined up to go see Star Wars in a theater and pay $8 even though they all had it at home on VHS and LD where they could watch it for free?
Now obviously, part of the theater experience is seeing a film on a great big screen with the resolution an actual film print provides. Nobody would deny that is the optimum way to see a film, one that cannot be matched in the home. Even the people here who prefer home theater acknowledge that there's no competition in such a comparison, they just can't find theaters to go to that will give them the experience they want.
quote: But, when a film is framed in widescreen (or any ratio for that matter), there is no 'standard' filmscreen size they intend to shoot for. [/quote]
Jeez, I'm glad you told me that.
quote: requires his movie be viewed in a crowd (which isn't even speaking to what size crowd is optimal) for its purpose and impact to fealt to the fullest extent. [/quote]
Who used the word "requires"? Very few filmmakers are in a position to "require" anything.
I'm talking about the optimum experience. And filmmakers do feel that the optimum experience is to see the film in a theater. That's the first choice, bar none. Obviously because of business considerations everyone involved with the filmmaking process understands that accomodations have to be made and while it would be great if every viewer could see the film under the just perfect conditions, that's just not possible.
Which is exactly the point of the article about Curtis Hanson in the Times, when he puts out a pan and scan version of Wonder Boys, he's not telling anyone that's the definitive version of seeing the film. Rather, he's accepting that the market forces him to put out a pan and scan version.
Again, nobody is saying DVD is anything other than great. But just like DVD is better than VHS, watching a film in a theater is better than DVD. This is not a controversial statement, nor should it be hard to believe that the director's first choice is for the film to be seen in a theater.
What's really farcical is that you'd never argue if I said that with the advent of DVD, because of the increased resolution over VHS and other benefits, filmmakers greatly prefer DVD as the optimum experience in the home. Which happens to be true.
[Edited last by HalS on August 14, 2001 at 03:15 AM]
[Edited last by HalS on August 14, 2001 at 03:17 AM]

 

[LARUE]

I'm not sure we can make the sweeping generalization that all filmmakers prefer the "collective experience" of their work. Filmmakers seem to make movies to elicit a response. They want to entertain you, frighten you, cause you to cry, or maybe even make you think. If they can get you to watch their movie and feel the desired effect, I doubt if they care if you're alone or at one of Sun Myung Moon's weddings.
There are many first rate directors that work in the television medium (David Lynch did Twin Peaks). They know that work will never be viewed in a theater, but I'm sure they still trust the audience to understand and appreciate it.
People flocked to the theaters when Star Wars was re-released because the film had been reworked (no more black matte boxes around the spaceships!), the hype machine was
rolling, and indeed the film was designed for communal viewing.
Tom Hanks saw 2001 for the first time in a theater 'cause where else (in 1968) was he gonna go?
I agree that many films are enhanced when viewed with a large audience. A good comedy benefits from the "contact high" of a jovial crowd.
But to my mind the theaters are blowing it. There are great movie palaces to be found, but what's available to the masses are woefully inadequate and overpriced. The stripmall multiplexes can't compete with the intimacy and ever increasing quality of the home theater.
Filmmakers may soon not be filmmakers. Isn't Lucas shooting (and posting) Star Wars:Episode II on HD and then bumping to film for theaters? Imagine when that original master is cloned for home HD playback!
I promise to have you all over to watch it. For that will indeed be an occasion for viewing with my large congregation (and I promise no $3 buckets of stale popcorn!).
LARUE #:^>
not that lucas will release it in a timely manner, but that's another post.
[Edited last by LARUE on August 14, 2001 at 03:38 AM]

 

[Sean Oneil]

Thanks for fixing that Robert. quote: I'll use the quote feature from now on[/quote]
Just something to add to what LARUE posted,
Some on this thread have stated that film makers shoot films with the intent that they be watched and enjoyed by a large group of people to get the full effect.
But that really depends on the film makers involved. Truthfully, since audiences and people in general are so different from one another, it seems impossible to engineer a film which will work better when viewed 'by a large audience' because the director has no way of knowing what the make-up of any given audience will be.
I find that generally, a good movie is a good movie -in the cinema or in the HT room.
True, some do work better than others in a crowd, but that is all dependant upon the attitude of the crowd. Movies also play better in one environment than in another environment:
For example, a film like 'Scary Movie' opens -and on opening night at 8:00 and 10:00pm the theater is loud and fun, and rolling with contagious laughter which can really add to the experience of the film. But the same movie in the same theater on Sunday afternoon is seating a few scattered senior citizens and perhaps some couples with they're children, and the place is dead.
Put a movie like 'Amadeus' up on the same screens at the same times, and the situation is reversed to where now the younger crowd is deflated and distracted ...looking for other ways to entertain themselves -thus detracting from the film rather than adding to it. So going to the cinema can enhance a movie, but it is a totally random occurence -luck of the draw if you will, and you never know what kind of crowd will show up on any given day.
I don't believe that any film makers can make a film which will appeal to all audiences as there are too mane variables. If any film makers make a statement like "this movie was meant to be seen with an audience" then they have not thought that idea through very carefully. No director or producer knows exactly who will show up to each and every showing of a film, so they can not make that kind of a statement. I suspect that if they do make that kind of a statement, it would be in response to those who did not like the film. Kind of like saying, "well...you did not see the film the way it was intended" when a film is not strong enough to stand on it's own simply as a piece of pure art. A film should not need the help of a rabid audience to be great.
BTW, concerts are completely different. They are LIVE (good ones without pre-recorded music anyway)in every sense of the word. Anything can and does happen. The musicians can not yell "Cut" and do another take. They just have to keep going weather they screw up or not, and sometimes they will find a groove which can never be duplicated. Plus, the musicians can feed off of a crowd by gauging the mood and reactions of an audience. A film can not do this. If a movie is bombing ...It Bombs. If a band is bombing, they can pick up or slow down the tempo, or change the style of the music to fit what the crowd wants because the crowd is right there in front of them giving them instant feedback.
People yell at the musicians (common practice) and the musicians react and give them what they want. People yell at the movie screen, and nothing happens.
If you are just interested in the music, then go ahead and watch a concert at home. Just do not expect the same interactive experience. I for one prefer Movies at home, and concerts done live -but if you like it the other way around ,then More Power To Ya'

[Edited last by Sean Oneil on August 14, 2001 at 03:55 AM]

 

[HalS]

I agree that many films are enhanced when viewed with a large audience. A good comedy benefits from the "contact high" of a jovial crowd.
But to my mind the theaters are blowing it.

Well, that's a different discussion. One that I don't necessarily disagree with, as I noted earlier in the thread.

 

[HalS]

quote: I don't believe that any film makers can make a film which will appeal to all audiences as there are too mane variables. [/quote]
One word...Titanic. LOL
Anyway, who said anything about appealing to all audiences? Most films in Hollywood today are made going in knowing that there's a specific target audience. Would it be great to expand beyond that audience? Sure, but if you're making American Pie or Scary Movie, you're probably not thinking you're going to be getting too much of the 50 and over crowd.
quote: No director or producer knows exactly who will show up to each and every showing of a film [/quote]
Nor do they have to. We're talking about optimum circumstances. As noted, Star Wars is a communal viewing experience. That doesn't mean if there's only 20 people in the crowd you're going to dislike the film, it just means there will be less energy in the theater.
quote: and I suspect they may have made that statement as a retort to those who did not like the film. Kind of like saying, "well...you did not see the film the way it was intended" when a film is not strong enough to stand on it's own in any environment. [/quote]
Not at all. Again, you are misconstruing what has been said. Nobody is saying that if you hate a film on DVD, you'd be more likely to have liked it had you seen it in a theater. What's being said is that the theater provides an aspect of the viewing experience that you don't get at home.
I mean, we all agree that DVD is better than VHS for a multitude of reasons, right? But is there anyone here who thinks if they watch a film on VHS and hate it, that they're going to like it any better on DVD? But if you like a film, your experience watching a widescreen DVD with digital sound is going to better than watching a VHS tape.
I can't find the thread anymore because the HTF's problems have eliminated the older threads but I'm almost positive Robert Harris said something similar in the thread when Lawrence of Arabia came out about how it may be great in the home, but to get the full experience it's best to see it in a theater.
It's like when you go to see a horror film and the moment is constructed for the entire audience to recoil and scream, when that moment works, you get something extra in a crowded theater.
[Edited last by HalS on August 14, 2001 at 04:01 AM]
[Edited last by HalS on August 14, 2001 at 04:05 AM]

 

[James D S]

Jeez, I'm glad you told me that.

No problemo. You seemed to be needing a refresher. And as always, I am here to help.
quote: Well, you were proven wrong since the major accommodation made by filmmakers for home viewers is pan and scan, which is clearly not anyone's idea of the best way to watch a film.

Remember, that is your conclusion drawn for that which has nothing to do with my initial statement. I never included Pan and scan as evidence, you did. In fact, I tried to nix that example in my first post on the subject. You have disregarded that. Don't look to me to explain away that which has nothing to do with the point I made. That's your job. With this point, you are arguing with yourself.
The accommodations I had in mind, as if they need to be listed (or so I thought) were video supplements, aids kept and recorded during production, to help the home connoisseur, not the theater viewer. Commentary tracks, etc. All made available to enhance the viewing of a movie at home to a degree that will always surpass anything that can be done, in a practical manner, in a theater. If there is one lesson that the movie industry is learning, it is that critical, and I do mean critical, viewing is now done at home.
(Aside: If you mean to diminish the 'visceral' quality of home viewing, then whatever floats your boat. But my seat at home rocks plenty hard. More than in any theater I have been to. But that's not the point, I just feel that's the next turn the arguement is going to go given the previous paragraph. Trust me, it will be a hard sell to convince several, and I mean several, people on this forum that their properly calibrated set-ups can't spank the living bejesus out any theater, when it comes to sound. And quite possibly when it comes to visuals as well, given the compromises they must make elsewhere to watch a movie in a theater. End Aside)
More before the fact, many cinematographers, Robert Elswit for instance (the first that comes to mind), are moving away from broad scenic scapes for shots of less breadth. Why? Because such shots do not translate to the 'small' screen. That is an accommodation that further emphasizes the critical role home viewing plays in modern cinema production. It is no longer an after thought in the creative mind. It is now a creative force in its own right.
quote: But just like DVD is better than VHS, watching a film in a theater is better than DVD.

So you say. But the difference in the two examples is that DVD's superiority was self-evident. It does not require pristine circumstances nor does it need the planets to align. Theater-going, however, does.
If we can associate merit to average, i.e. the experience that is superior on average more than the other, I think the resulting claim could stand up in court, as such. On average, and a high average at that, HT will yield the best movie watching experience, from both an entertainment and critical aspect, than can anything from the chaotic world of today's modern cineplexes.
Bar none.
[Edited last by James D S on August 14, 2001 at 04:07 AM]
[Edited last by James D S on August 14, 2001 at 04:09 AM]

 

[HalS]

quote: Commentary tracks, etc. All made available to enhance the viewing of a movie at home to a degree that will always surpass anything that can be done, in a practical manner, in a theater. If there is one lesson that the movie industry is learning, it is that critical, and I do mean critical, viewing is now done at home. [/quote]
Commentary tracks have nothing to do with the experience of watching a film for the first time.
Nobody doubts that DVD accords the average home viewer to go deeper into the world of film production than they ever possibly imagined and that's great. But it's a totally different topic. People are doing commentaries for all sorts of reasons....they want to be informative, they think it will help sell the disc, they like talking about themselves...and so on.
quote: More before the fact, many cinematographers, Robert Elswit for instance (the first that comes to mind), are moving away from broad scenic scapes for shots of less breadth. Why? Because such shots do not translate to the 'small' screen. That is an accommodation that further emphasizes the critical role home viewing plays in modern cinema production. It is no longer an after thought in the creative mind. It is now a creative force in its own right.[/quote]
This basic point makes no sense, as directors and DPs have been making such accomodations for home viewing since long before DVD existed. You've got the entire thing backwards...big time backwards as a matter of fact. When you say it's no longer an after thought, you're talking like that's something DVD caused. But it's not. It's a concession that has existed for years and one that exists because of VHS. And those decisions are not made because directors really want to make them, but they had to sacrifice because of market forces. They know pan and scan is an unfortunate reality. So the choice is to alter the shot so that the vista isn't as broad or leave it broad and turn on the TV one day to see your carefully composed film squeezed into an ungodly mess.
So again, you are using considerations that are directly due to the existence of pan and scan VHS and using that erroneously to support your argument. In fact, if pan and scan VHS were wiped off the planet tomorrow and there was only widescreen DVD, then nobody would ever have to change a shot again.
quote: On average, and a high average at that, HT will yield the best movie watching experience, from both an entertainment and critical aspect, than can anything from the chaotic world of today's modern cineplexes. [/quote]
Again, you are turning this discussion into something about the poor state of theaters outside the major cities. From the start, I agreed that there are problems out there that can affect the movie going experience. That's does not change the fact that the preferred way to see a film is in a theater. If you live in a place where people routinely act like animals and you have to hide out in your home to avoid that, it's cool with me. Personally, I find it hard to believe that is the average filmgoers experience at a multi-plex. There's a lot of room for improvement but as we've seen here, plenty of people are not encountering those problems. Fortunately, I know I'm not and I'm able to attend theaters all the time where crowds are well behaved and the theaters are top notch, first class.
[Edited last by HalS on August 14, 2001 at 04:40 AM]

 

[James D S]

BTW

Why do you think so many people lined up to go see Star Wars in a theater and pay $8 even though they all had it at home on VHS and LD where they could watch it for free?

To be accurate, no one (legally ) had the 'Special Editions' at home for viewing for free. If they wanted to watch the SE's, which you will recall were the versions that made it to the theater recently, they HAD to watch them in a theater.
Back to thread reality...