cinema rage (1 Viewer)

[Dean Kousoulas]

I admit the Star Wars example was bad, but do you see where I'm coming from?

I have not read the LOTR books and I have no desire them anytime soon. For the most part, what i'm hearing is that the films are pretty accurate. I would much rather watch a 3 hour movie then spend much more then that reading the complete 3 part novel. I have the extended version DVD special features to compare the movies to the books.

Dean

 

[Qui-Gon John]

Dammit Vickie, I read your spoiler tag. I didn't know that, I can't believe that. Noooooo.
Just kidding, of course!

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Dean, no. You refuse to read the books, and complain about being spoilered. The story has existed for 50 years, with 3-4 generations of fans. If you don't choose to read the books, but complain that other people do and discuss how it's changed and what's coming in anything more than a sealed room, I'm sorry, that's your problem.

 

[Tommy G]

Jeff, I would have to respectfully disagree. It is up to an individual to decide whether or not he/she wants to read the book and why should they be spoiled because people feel free to discuss these things in the open. I agree that if people are sitting in a coffee shop discussing the LOTR trilogy, someone does not have the right to be upset at those 2 having a discussion which spoils the book/movie. However, if you are in a movie theater awaiting to see a film based upon those books, you should use common sense that some people may have not read the books. My sister-in-law still has not seen Psycho, knows nothing about the movie nor who stars in it. What an incredible situation to be in. I wish I was in her spot. However, we choose to never discuss the movie around her because she will see it when she gets the time with my brother.

 

[Terry St]

For the most part, what i'm hearing is that the films are pretty accurate.

True to the spirit of the book is a better term for it. PJ takes great liberty with the details (e.g. Merry and Pippin were not just country bumpkins Frodo ran into while fleeing the shire.) and omits vast tracts of plot. (e.g. Tom Bombadil and his forest/The barrows)

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Merry and Pippin weren't his servants, they were his FRIENDS. Sam is the only servant

 

[Dean Kousoulas]

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Dean

 

[Chuck Bogie]

Heh, I like to go to an inner city theater for horror movies, chopsocky flicks, etc... There's nothing that compares for amusement value like watching the occasional patron throwing popcorn and soda, screeching, and trying to dive under her seat when the bad guy appears...

 

[Deborah*T]

Terry said:

True to the spirit of the book is a better term for it. PJ takes great liberty with the details (e.g. Merry and Pippin were not just country bumpkins Frodo ran into while fleeing the shire.) and omits vast tracts of plot. (e.g. Tom Bombadil and his forest/The barrows)

Yeah, I agree. FOTR is the only one I have read, must get round to the other 2 at some point..Anyway, PJ took liberty in a pretty good way, I would say. Although I was pretty disspointed that Tom Bombadil wasn't in the film (great character) there is only so much that can be included without ending up with a 5 hour movie. I don't know about you guys but I don't think my rear end could take 5 hour movies!! Not in the crappy cinema seats we have over here anyway. Boy, did I suffer after Two Towers.

 

[Rob Lutter]

I must admit... I committed some cinema rage tonight...
During the first 30 minutes of Chicago, this couple was talking up a storm (this was the 10:30 showing, when I usually go. Usually there are no talkers)
Now, I don't know what the hell they were doing but they were REALLY loud... they were talking at full volume down the row from me. A saw theatregoers looking at them. One lady said "please be quiet" and someone "shhh'ed" them... NOTHING happened and they continued to talk...
So, I am getting pissed, because I can't hear the movie over the talking... so naturally I stand up and I yell out "Excuse me Mrs.... could you please SHUT THE HELL UP?!"
They left the theatre and went home... and I got a standing ovation from the entire theatre :b
My excitement for the day

 

[John Thomas]

Note to self: Rob gets a :star:.

 

[Qui-Gon John]

Wed. night, 10:30 pm, surprised it wasn't empty. Was this a multiplex and maybe these people just popped in from another theater? I would think that anyone who would go to see CHICAGO would, for one, probably tend not to be young rowdy types, so I can't understand them talking and not watching.

 

[Jalil]

This is the main reason why i dont see big budget type of movies anymore.. i just wait for the dvd.

I"ve been going to a theater that plays independent movies.. and i love it.
Almost always 99% adults, people actually sit and watch the movie..

I really can't see myself going to a normal theater again, unless it's for a big movie that i must see.


Until theaters have an employee that is in each theater and enforces the no talking rule, no cell phones etc.. i'm not going back.

 

[Edwin-S]

Forgive me, but I have no sympathy. The books have been out for 50 years, if you haven't read them, it's your own fault. No one should watch a movie instead of reading the original book

Most movies are adaptations of written works. Are you now saying that before attending a movie, a person had better read the book the movie is adapting? If so, it is an unreasonable argument. I have gone to lots of movies where I had no knowledge of the original source material and, after the film, had no desire to seek out the original source. OTOH, I have watched films such as "NIGHT ON THE GALACTIC RAILROAD" which ended up intriguing me enough to hunt down and read the original book.

People who have read the original "Lord of The Ring" trilogy, and are attending the movie, should realize that there are many people whose first exposure to LoTR is the movies. They should have the common decency to keep their traps shut and not reveal spoiler material in a public venue. If they want to debate the changes made to the story, they should wait until after the movie is over and talk about it in private.

Getting back to the main topic. I find reading these threads humourous. Mostly because it never fails to amuse me how many people think that a group venue, consisting of people with multiple behavioral and personality traits, is somehow supposed to operate in accordance with ones own "rules of conduct".

A lot of the people here must attend "special" theatres because a lot of what is described here doesn't seem to resemble any theatre that I have attended in recent times. The sound in a modern movie theatre is so loud a person can hardly hear themselves think....let alone hear someone's "yapping" 2 or 3 rows back. I find it especially hard to believe that anyone is going to hear the crinkling of a candy wrapper being opened during the sonic assault that goes on in a modern theatre.

At one time, in the theatres of old, I believe that noisy patrons were a distraction because sound levels were far below what goes on in a modern theatre today. When I went to see "Die Another Day", I found "noisy" patrons to be the least of my worries, because I was too busy worrying about the "Sonic Boom" that passed for a soundtrack in that film. I'm no pansy when it comes to loud, but the sound levels in modern theatres are getting ridiculous.

 

[Michael Pakula]

I was watching Williard at this theater in Toronto
called the queensway. I got to say this theater when
it first opened up used to be a great cinema to go
to, but lately it's really lacking its qualities
as Varsity is much better. Anyways when I was watching
Williard, this teen walks into the cinema and goes to the
exit doors and out of a sudden a dozen or so teens start
running in the theater during the film!!!! so that they
wouldn't have to pay. I also every now and than here
cell phones go off, people kicking chairs or putting their
feet up on chairs that people arent sitting on (they still
do it even considering this cinema has extra leg space),
there's also people coming into films late and walking
down the aisles looking for seats. That is why I go to
the varsity now, since people who go there actualy care
about the movies.


-Mike

 

[Max Leung]

The sound in a modern movie theatre is so loud a person can hardly hear themselves think....let alone hear someone's "yapping" 2 or 3 rows back. I find it especially hard to believe that anyone is going to hear the crinkling of a candy wrapper being opened during the sonic assault that goes on in a modern theatre.

Edwin, not everyone here watches super-loud special effects blockbuster extravaganzas, where the volume goes to eleven and the decibels never go below 80!

So there you are, watching a horror movie, and during the suspenseful moment when the character is groping around in the dark because the bad guy cut the power in the house, you hear a #^$^% cell phone go off. Or the idiot behind you says, loudly, "Uh oh I bet this is the scary part". Or the giggling teenaged boys tossing popcorn at you from the back row.

The quieter movies are pretty tough to sit through with jerks like that.

I'm glad you only watch the bombastic movies. Must be nice.

Imagine trying to watch 2001 with today's crowd. I'll make like those apes in the beginning, and crush their skulls with their cell phones and strangle them with their crackling candy wrappers! Oh, and force-feed them their crinkly popcorn bags. Ah, sweet, sweet revenge, just like that convenience store clerk who murdered 8 people in his head.

 

[Edwin-S]

I'm glad you only watch the bombastic movies. Must be nice.

Well I find, at $11.00 bucks a pop, that the "bombastic" ones (as you put it) are the only films that I find really necessary to watch on a big screen.

Large screen size for suspense films,comedies and most dramas does not increase or decrease the impact for me; therefore, I do not, ordinarily, find it necessary to attend those types of films at a theatre. It does not mean I don't watch those types of films. It just means I can just as easily enjoy watching those types of films at home.

Large scale "bombastic" films are another matter. Those types of films do lose impact with reduced screen size, which makes it mandatory to see such films in a public venue. However, even if I did attend a "quieter" film at the theatre, I am going there with the expectation that there is going to be a large and varied group of people there. I fundamentally know that in such a group there is going to be someone who talks, someone who opens a candy wrapper, or someone who coughs. It is completely ricidulous to expect that a large group of strangers are going to maintain a sphinx-like silence so as not to offend the "serious cinephile". Does it excuse such behavior? Not really. However, such behavior is going to occur regardless of how badly I might wish that it didn't. I am not about to spend my entire night out at the movie fuming about a situation which I have no control over.

I cannot exactly throw stones at people for talking during a movie since I have commited that grievous sin at least one or more times in my life. I do try to hold it down to a whisper, but at times when you are at a movie with a friend you end up making a comment(s) during the film.

In fact, I doubt that there is anybody in this thread that has not made some kind of noise during a movie. Is everybody here going to try to say that they have never had a bag of popcorn or a candy bar at a movie?

 

[Seth Paxton]

Rob,
I suspect that perhaps the couple was having a squabble. It doesn't justify the action, but it would explain it. People tend to forget their manners and speak louder even when they are trying to be discreet, the quiet version of yelling if you will.
Anyway, whatever the case, you ran those bastards out of there and that's what really matters.
Operation Enduring Quiet was a rousing success.

 

[Seth Paxton]

It is completely ricidulous to expect that a large group of strangers are going to maintain a sphinx-like silence so as not to offend the "serious cinephile".

There is a fault with your logic because what you are describing is not the only other option. Certainly a cell-phone going off, half the time actually being ANSWERED in the theater is not sociably acceptable in setting in which a shared silence is expected. You wouldn't do such a thing in a library for example.
Muted noise in which an effort to maintain discretion in public and be respectful of the shared environment doesn't mean you can't whisper or eat.
As I recall, the first page or so of this thread acknowledged the difference in behavior as I recounted the tale of my dad and his girlfriend talking LOUDLY and also loudly folding up the used popcorn bag. Both were to the point that I had to shush them because of the annoyed looks they were deservedly getting from the couple in front of us.
Shaking up the ice or the last bits of your popcorn is not the same as having a drink or eating the popcorn.
And I hate to tell you, but the idea that "bombastic" films are the only ones that lose something in the HT is ridiculous. In fact, considering modern HT setups, your HT is often as well or better equipped to reproduce that jarring sound, while it is not even close to recreating the large film-like image. So the loud films can come home just fine, but if you want to see the beautiful cinematography at it's finest then the theater is the place to be.
Contrary to popular belief loud action films aren't necessarily the biggest beneficiaries of the theater experience. I would guess that a film like In the Mood for Love was more enhanced by seeing it as projected film than Attack of the Clones, simply because of the digital nature of AOTC and the reduced resolution resulting from not using 35mm film.
Don't get me started on how Lawrence of Arabia or 2001 aren't the same when not seen in their 70mm incarnations, despite having plenty of quiet moments.
You shouldn't have to hope that The Hours won't be narrated throughout the picture by the people behind you or have to listen to the loud confused conversation next to you as a couple tries to figure out Adaptation. And you shouldn't have to wait till they come to the home theater for a peaceful viewing either, nor should you want to.
Skipping the theater because of expense is understandable, but other than that it SHOULD NOT be better to see a film at home. If it is then it is a failure of the theaters, not the success of the HT (barring the guy who in fact has a 35mm projector at home ).

 

[Edwin-S]

Skipping the theater because of expense is understandable, but other than that it SHOULD NOT be better to see a film at home.

I am not one of those people who think that watching a movie is better on a HT setup because it isn't. I just find it more tolerable to skip certain types of films in the theatre and then watch them at home. It is not better....just more affordable. Sometimes, however, I do start to think it is better because theatres do not seem to be too concerned with presenting a film properly. For example yesterday I went to watch "The Core". The audio kept dropping out repeatedly and the picture always seemed to be blurred. Fine detail seemed to be missing as well. I found those problems more distracting and annoying than someone talking a bit too loud.