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

[HalS]

In the vast majority of cases, we simply cannot experience a movie in a theater the way Robert was lucky enough to.

No doubt. As I said earlier in this thread, it's very fortunate to see 99% of the films I see in the best theaters in the country. I also noted that in travelling around the States, I have been shocked by the levels of theaters in places outside major cities like NY, Chicago, and especially LA. I'm from Long Island and even there, I find many of the theaters sub-par.
But again, nobody has stated that home theater is not an exciting, worthy development. It's just that home theater is supposed to be secondary to the primary experience at the theater. The collective experience is something that cannot be overrated and makes even a decent theater worth attending. When you examine the history of American film, it's always been something that brought people together, sort of a congregation that shared entertainment. You just don't get that sitting at home.

 

[Brian Kleinke]

For some of us who live in the middle of nowhere (southern Minnesota) and all the theaters around us stink so bad a good home theater is a godsend. I love all this talk about how movies are so much better with large crowds of people. Hmmmm on a good night a local theater around here will be full, but I've never heard people laugh out loud. Granted I try to go to afternoon showings to avoid lines and crowds, but I've been in a few theaters packed with people (SW TPM, Austin Powers) but the crowd reaction has been down right boring. It doesn't help that the nearest decent theaters are located in the Twin Cities, and as much as I prefer quality I refuse to drive for an hour and a half to pay more to get slightly better sound and picture. Down here we have theaters that are falling apart and small. Or the new ones where focusing a picture seems to be too difficult to do.
My HT although small with a 57" screen and decent speakers sounds far better then any theater for my friends and I to go to. And I'm not the only one that thinks so, many people visit and love the movie quality and sound.
I guess my point is that I'd agree that Film is better then HT, but ONLY if you live someplace where good film is available. Heck there is only one Store with 70 mins that sells decent audio equipment and they don't carry anything higher then the Denon 3802 receiver. So for all you who have the option of paying $12 to see a movie in a good quality theater with Stadium seating (no we don't even get that) count yourself lucky, in the backwater places of the US we'll continue to enjoy our home theaters. Besides invite some friends over and you get all the fun of ppl @ the movies, with out the babies and cell phones
Cheers,
Brian

 

[RAF]

I wasn't going to reply to this thread any more because, as others have noted, the theme has turned away from the original posting and the discussion, at some points, has turned a bit ugly. (For the record, I don't disagree with the original premise of this thread - nothing beats pristine film presentations - but, as a rule, this is something that I don't often see even though I live in a major metropolitan area.) However, a few remarks caught my eye and I can't let them go by without commenting.
quote: I guess nobody knows about this anymore, but when it comes to film there is such a thing as "flow". A film is an experience, and when you see it (at least at first), it's not something to be dissected, paused, backed up, yelled at, etc. You sit, you watch, you leave. That's it. As for all the distractions that the majority of people around here whine about, I just don't see it. At most I've experienced minor annoyances at a theater, notably at a recent screening of Rush Hour 2 where a certain young man kept yelling in ecstasy every time Zhang Ziyi appeared on the screen. But there's a thing called coping, and patience. The film experience will always beat home theater, hands down.[/quote]
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.
quote: IMHO, seeing a film in a theater not only offers an unequaled immersive experience, due to the size of the screen, but also, many times the collectively shared emotional and visual experience that occurs when you are with so many other people can be an exciting component and can't be equaled at home. (I know others will disagree, but being around other people isn't always disturbing or distracting.)[/quote]
Jeff,
You make a valid point about the collectively shared emotional and visual experience and I agree with you that this is one of the few aspects of the theatrical experience that can be hard to duplicate at home on a daily basis (although I have experienced this on several occasions since my HT can hold over 15 people.) Also, my 110" screen duplicates the immersive aspect of a commercial theater as well which is one reason why I believe that a projection unit is the best way to go if conditions permit for your HT.
Ironically, it is also this "collective sharing" by inconsiderate people that detracts from the theater experience, but I fully understand your point about the possible benefits of such an experience.
quote: That's fine. But generally those are not people who love film. They love their home theaters. It's more about the technology than appreciating the art of film. [/quote]
[HalS,
Speak for yourself, not for others. I consider myself a film buff and this was the prime motivation for constructing my home theater. You can't possibly know what people here are thinking and in my case (and I suspect many others) you are way off the mark. I don't appreciate being told I'm interested in technology and not film. Why can't people be concerned with both??
In fact, Hal, the tone of many of your replies in this thread is bordering on the confrontational and this attitude doesn't win you any points with me. And that's too bad, because you have some very good opinions to offer. We may differ on some issues, but we both have a right to express ourselves here as long as we don't denegrate others and proclaim that our particular views are gospel.
quote: The ScootPlex2000 is the ONLY theater I screen films for review in![/quote]
Scooter,
Good to see you posting here once more! Keep the faith, bro. I'll see you soon!
Take care, all.
------------------
RAF
[Demented Video Dude since 1997]
[Computer Maven since 1956]
["PITA" since 1942]
Link Removed

 

[RAF]

Note to Sean Oneil,
I've edited your post to remove the lines above and below your quote here in this thread. Your use of "hard" lines (instead of using the "quote" feature of the bulletin board) made the width of the second page of this thread much greater than a normal 640 x 480 or even an 800 x 600 viewing screen. The horizontal scrolling thus introduced makes it inconvenient for others to read this thread without resorting to 1024x768 or greater modes.
Thank you.
------------------
RAF
[Demented Video Dude since 1997]
[Computer Maven since 1956]
["PITA" since 1942]
Link Removed

 

[Todd Hochard]

It's just that home theater is supposed to be secondary to the primary experience at the theater.

Too bad the average multiplex is not concerned enough with making this true. With few exceptions, my HT has become my personal point of reference.
Perhaps digital projection will raise the level of quality for the average movie house.
Todd

 

[Seth Paxton]

Well, I'm coming into this thing on Hal and Robert's side I guess.
I see the Home Theater as a SUPPLEMENT to film viewing, a new extra that allows for things like Walter mentioned.
But God help me if we ever lose film theaters.
The collective experience is real and can infinitely expand the viewing experience, just as much as it can ruin it. It's obvious to all of us that you can't control the viewing situation, but when it's right it's REALLY right. That's why it's worth it.
Film visual is so far ahead of what digital cinema visual is that it's not funny.
Home Theater is safe and comfortable, but it can't reach the heights of a strong film experience. Of course, that means it also avoids those lousy experiences too.
And for the record, it's not just LA/NY that have good film scenes. Houston has a decent scene. Seattle's situation is freakin awesome. Go see a film on opening weekend at the Cinerama and it will be a good experience. Tons of arthouses (seems like all new small/art/foreign films go straight there after NY/LA the week before)
Also, sneaks can often be good. I saw a sneak of T2 and the audiance was terrific (along with sound and pix). Cheering, laughing, gasps...all at the right times, it really enhanced the film.
And more recently Indy had a Friday the 13th 3-D showing for Friday the 13th and the following weekend. A packed house in the LOBBY on that Friday was an eccletic group of people from young skater types to 30 something yuppies and a few other types thrown in for spicing. That experience was more like Mystery Science Theater but it was FUN. Everyone giggled on the really good 3-D effects and also laughed at the really dumb parts (of which there are many in that film). That was a really good time that I could not get at home either.
All of that being said, I wouldn't give up my home theater either as it's a wonderful complement to movie theaters (especially in Indiana as Tom mentioned).
And I was watching the Pearl Jam DVD and have to say that while it's not a live replacement, it's a very effective capturing of that live experience on video, and I saw this tour as well. And no drunken idiot sitting behind me...and no cute alternative girl sitting next to me. Again, trade-offs.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Perhaps digital projection will raise the level of quality for the average movie house.

Not unless it improves beyond the current DLP technology, which is basically SVGA blown up enough to look fairly grainy. Right now, digital projection's only benefit to the audience is that it doesn't degrade over time.
I've chimed in in favor of the theatrical experience every time the question has been asked. Not only is a high-quality theatrical presentation better than a high-quality home presentation (even if it is harder to ensure), but good crowds improve the experience. And, perhaps most important of all, you're free from the doorbell, the phone, the dog, or any of the other distractions or interruptions that go along with doing anything inside your home.

 

[Brian Kleinke]

One of these days I'll make it to a real theater, I'm sure I'll be blown away by how good it will be. However I guess I wasn't saying that only NY/LA have big films scenes but that unless you live in a major metropolitan area you're out of luck. Granted that may only be 20% of the US population At least we don't pay as much ;-)
Brian

 

[Ben_S]

Well I guess the root of this discussion is that there are two differing perspectives on what film is about.
Some people prefer experiencing the film with an audience, and others want to appreciate the film alone, not unlike appreciating a painting.
I would place myself in the second group. IMO, watching films in a quiet room or theater alone allows me to appreciate the film and better connect with the filmmakers. I mean, come on, can you imagine watching The Big Blue or 2001 with an audience? It just won't be the same. A.I. is another movie that is best watched alone. This is the perfect movie to watch on a nice dark Saturday afternoon.
I guess I just don't get people who say that having an audience is vital to appreciating the film. What is really happening is that you're appreciating the atmosphere of being and laughing with a bunch of people, but not directly the film itself...

 

[David Rogers]

I mostly go to the movies for two main reasons:
1) For a film I've been anticipating, its hard to wait when I know I can show up and they'll let me watch it. I'm an avid movie fan, avid. I live for great flicks and have a blast enjoying myself with a movie I really get into. All types, everything from comedy to action to drama to romance to period, as long as there's good acting and good scripts.
2) For a film I want to see, I want to see it with the 'energy' of the crowd around me. When you're in a "good crowd", the experience is so immeasurably better than watching it isolated at home, or even with a few friends/family over. Examples:
- Contact in a *packed* theater opening night, and the audience being utterly spellbound the entire length, start to finish. To be in a room with 500-800 (or however many) people not rustling their popcorn bags, rattling ice in their cups, talking, listening to cell phones ring ... was something that really helped underscore the impact of the film for me tremendously. Especially at the end when the scene pans and then settles, and the words "For Carl" appear, and NO ONE starts getting up to leave or stretch. Was an amazing theatrical movie experience.
- Titanic, same way, packed theater opening night. To hear the audience exclaim around me as the ship sinks, as the action heats up. Then they go suddenly shocked silent as the camera pans over the frozen dead bodies floating in the Atlantic as the crew boat finally comes back looking for survivors. To hear the understanding and emotional murmers rise as Rose lists herself on the survivor's manifest as "Rose Dawson" ... wow.
- Star Wars Episode, opening day (Wednesday), packed theater, feeling the energy as the battle anthem roars forth from the speakers during the opening crawl, oohing and aahing as Darth Maul makes his appearances, etc... I couldn't imagine watching Star Wars and not having the audience to make it better.
A good audience adds so much to the enjoyment of a performance that its startling.
A *bad* audience takes so much away its hard sometimes to really enjoy a film properly. Examples:
- Saving Private Ryan, opening night. Packed theater. Couple shows up *right* as the camera drops us into the surviving James Ryan's eyes and asks me to move one seat so they can sit together. Ok fine. Then as the invasion starts and the scenes begins to measure off impact, the guy starts boasting to his girl how silly this is, silly that is, he's more macho than that, etc.. And had the nerve to be offended when, after five minutes of this, I leaned over and politely asked him if he planned to talk throughout the entire movie, because if so I was going to ask the manager for my money back.
- Scream 3, opening night. The kids behind me were quite popular, as their phones and pagers went off repeatedly, *repeatedly*, throughout the movie. As the third act (in Hendrickson's house) starts to get underway, another phone rings behind me. I hear voices next to it complaining that they're trying to watch the movie, and then there's a voice RIGHT in my ear as the phone's owner *leans forward* away from his friends, so as to not disturb their movie more than he as to with his important social schedule, and talks into his phone about two inches from my head. My response was decidedly graphic and less than pleased.
I think what we can all agree on is we want more good audiences and are *all* sick of BAD AUDIENCES.
------------------
-----

Dave's World
-No matter where you go, there you are-

 

[John A. Gordon]

This has been some fun reading, so now it's my turn to chime in.
Many good things were said for both sides on the debate of "film" vs. "video." So where do I start, hmmmm?
First and foremost, I enjoy "motion pictures." I make it a goal to try and see at least 100 movies a year in a theater (I'm a little behind this year, only seen 57 so far). I also enjoy my home theater system--of which is better than most people will ever have, if I may say so. So, what's the point?
Getting back to Robert's original statement, film is better than video (DVD, laser, etc.), bar none, when it comes to film based motion pictures. I've heard many many complaints from people, including this thread, about the problems you encounter at a movie theater: dark image, bad sound, noisy audience members. Well, you can also have the same "bad" experiences with video. Just look at the threads where people are constantly complaining about how bad an image looks, or where the sound is not right, and on and on and on.
How about if we just enjoy the medium at hand? If there is a problem, how many of you actually make complaints rather than just tell others how horrible the theater or video was? When people at a theater are talking right behind you do you just get irritated by it or do you ask them to be quite (and you do not have to be mean when you complain, you will get much better results if you do not piss someone off with a complaint). I will ask people to be quite, I will also complain about soft focus, or "bad sound." If you do not complain to a theater, then they will not try to do something about it. Walk out and ask for you money back if you have, but complain. Write letters to the corporate office and tell them you will attend another theater chain if they do not fix their problems. Just do not be silent about it. I've walked out of theaters (premiere theaters as well), complained of problems, but upon returning the problems were fixed. If they were not, I would ask why, if they do not care, then I go somewhere else. And, just like Robert, I know what real film can look like when seeing a motion picture. I've been to the best commercial and studio theaters. I have also been to the local multi-plex that puts on a good show as well--it's not just LA and NY.
You can also do this with video, rather than just complain (just look at the thread of about the upcoming Wonka DVD) about a bad video, do something.
As for the issue of watching alone or with a crowd, to each his own. But I can tell you I go to the theater with my wife, friends, and I go alone. I enjoy being with people. I've been to a 1,000 seat theater and I was the only one in attendance. And let me tell you, it did not feel right. As for the being alone at home to keep the noise level down. How many people actually have a room that is absolutely quiet? Not many. There is outside noise's, refridgerator, family, etc. etc. etc. I've been over to people's houses many many times to watch video and someone will always say something. People will talk whether you are at theater or at home. It just happens.
One of my biggest complaints, which have been mentioned in this thread--as well as many many other threads--has to do with, the bass was that great at the theater, or the surrounds were not very active, etc. Well, many people at home have their system improperly set. Rather, they are set to personal tastes, which is fine. But as mentioned above, just because you do not like the bass, or surrounds, does that mean you should boost them? I think not. Has it ever occured that maybe there isn't supposed to be any? As in The Score, sorry, but there is that much bass in the movie, period. As for the bass shakers, I won't even go there. But, hey, if that is what you want at home, then by all means.
Well, I've probably said enough to upset a few and please others. But what it comes down to, if you want to go see motion pictures for the big screen experience that can never be duplicated at home, then by all means, go to the movie theater. And if you want a good video presentation, then by all means, enjoy your system at home. And, if to add a little bit of stir, the issue of great home systems sounding better than movie theaters, not so. Given equal, a great home system vs. a great movie theater showing the same motion picture, the movie theater will always win hands down. If you spend lots of money on a home system, a great movie theater can do the same with the same results. The theater is different than home theater, yet they are the same. Think about it. Enjoy

 

[Jay Mitchosky]

No one questions the resolution of Film vs. Video...

What is the resolution of film?
------------------
--Jay
"No one can hear when you're screaming in digital."
My Home Theatre Pictures...
"You're no messiah. You're, you're a movie of the week. You're a ... t-shirt, at best."

 

[David Tallen]

After three pages of posts, there is really no disagreement in this thread. Everyone acknowledges that film can look better than digital video, but often doesn't due to, amongst other reasons, the carelessness of the folks presenting it. Most people also agree that for many films, if not all, watching with a "good" audience can greatly enhance the experience over watching alone or with a few people. The problem, of course, is finding a "good" audience. The last time I watched a movie in a theater with a good audience was when I saw Fargo on opening night in Minneapolis.
Life is a series of compromises, and most people on this forum have a more enjoyable time watching movies at home, all things considered. On the other hand, a large number of members here still go to see first run movies in theaters. It helps us determine if we should buy the DVD.
------------------
"If you set aside Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, the safety record of nuclear is really very good." Paul O'Neill, Treasury Secretary.

 

[HalS]

I don't appreciate being told I'm interested in technology and not film. Why can't people be concerned with both??

You can. But I remain steadfast in saying that if you are someone who does not go to a theater to watch films, then you are not getting the experience the director intended.
Now considering the common talk here about the director's intent and OAR (which of course I agree with), anyone who suggests that the PRIMARY mode of film viewing should be in a home theater is then violating that basic rule.

 

[HalS]

quote: Some people prefer experiencing the film with an audience, and others want to appreciate the film alone, not unlike appreciating a painting.[/quote]
Well, the second group is not viewing the film as it was intended to be watched. No filmmaker you speak to will say that they think the best option for viewing film is in the home.
That's not to say that home theater cannot have many positives, as we've already pointed out, esp when it comes to seeing older films that you would not otherwise be able to see. That's why it's a secondary experience, it complements going to a theater. Nobody in their right mind would say the best way to watch Lawrence of Arabia is on a home theater, no matter how good a system you have, but DVD and home theater offers a viable alternative to see such a great film that is not often played in theaters anymore.
Look at how many people flocked to the re-releases of Star Wars. Even with everyone owning them on video, there is no comparison to seeing it in a theater. And the chance to take kids into the theater and experience the wonder of seeing it on the big screen, well that's just priceless and something you don't get at home.

I mean, come on, can you imagine watching The Big Blue or 2001 with an audience?

You wouldn't want to say that to Tom Hanks, whose life changed by going into a theater and watching 2001. I've heard him talk about that day in person and I just don't think it's possible for a person to experience the same thing he describes sitting at home alone.
Film was never meant to be a solo experience. It's an art form that is intended to be shared. Take any film history course or talk to filmmakers and you'll see what I mean. To this day, people take that very seriously. Many critics and historians, including Roger Ebert I believe, have written passionately about the fear that one day theaters could become something less than the primary mode of viewing films and how that would distort the art form and experience.
[Edited last by HalS on August 13, 2001 at 04:22 PM]
[Edited last by HalS on August 13, 2001 at 04:24 PM]

 

[Wil_J]

quote:
I think what we can all agree on is we want more good audiences and are *all* sick of BAD AUDIENCES.
[/quote]
Amen to that!
With the right audience, and a decent quality theater, it really is no contest as to wheather HT or the cinema is better. But if things just don't measure up, I'd rather watch it at home. Just my $.02........Wil
------------------
"The rose petal floats on water,
the kingfisher flashes above the pond.
Life and beauty swirl in the midst of death."
al'Lan Mandragoran,
*******The Wheel of Time
[Edited last by Wil_J on August 13, 2001 at 04:49 PM]

 

[John A. Gordon]

Jay,
For information on film resolution, check out this site:
< A HREF="http://www.cinesite.com/CineonTech/resoultions/ResChart.html">Cinesite< /A >
(http://www.cinesite.com/CineonTech/r.../ResChart.html)
As a reference, for the full frame negative area of one frame of 35mm film, which is .735 X .980 (about 3/4" X 1"), you can get 4,000 lines of resolution. And it has been tested to be even higher yet. Even 16mm has 1700 lines of resolution. Now compare that to the 525 line NTSC standard.

 

[James D S]

Well, the second group is not viewing the film as it was intended to be watched. No filmmaker you speak to will say that they think the best option for viewing film is in the home.

Do you have any documentaion for this. You keep saying, yet I have a hard time believing. Especially considering the many accomodations filmmakers make to the home viewing crowd.
The only thing I can imagine you are referring to is sound levels on the original theatrical mix. Those levels are adjusted to convey 'proper' sound in a large room. That is, as far as I know, the only allowances filmmakers make that diferentiates HT and the theater. (We seem to have done a decent job of getting widesreen movies released in OAR, so that difference is no more.)
When a filmmaker and his corp of producers screen a movie in a theater to gauge whether or not a movie works with a crowd is not the point. They are checking to see that the movie works period. Not just with many people.
Again, do you have any quotes from any, much less all, directors (filmmakers) where they agree that the film gets lost in an HT?
I doubt it.

 

[frank manrique]

Umm...I do not pretend to know what is in RobertR's head, but I think what he tried to convey was not so much about the cinema going experience perse as much as how film remains an ultra-high resolution image storage medium, one that NO video format extant even begins to approach.
The "dumbing down" in all areas of life is also knocking at the doors of film's existence, so God helps us all if we ever lose that! Film MUST remain the absolute reference by which all video formats are judged against. There is no way around this!
For the record, I too greatly enjoy the Home Theater experience, thus have spent a great deal of money purchasing equipment like a Dukane ImagePro 9015 D-ILA display device (professionally calibrated to exact NTSC standards -a costly affair), HT-PCs, standalone DVD players (Sony 7000 and a really cheap but extremely versatile machine from the Far East -it outputs RGB in addition to wideband component video, is NTSC/PAL compatible, etc.), custom built 12 foot wide scope ratioed screen, Lexicon pre/pro, eight SVS 46/16 subwoofers, 6 pairs of surround sound speakers, double center channel transducers (yes...I know), and a host of other peripheral video and audio gear. Additionally, nearly 800 DVDs (more are coming yet!) and many laserdiscs comprise the main video signal sources.
The rather large HT venue is dedicated to this one reason, has full control of stray light, treated for sound control, with a sort of "hi-tech" looks about it...altough it is one that won't be featured in A/V Interiors anytime soon...
Yet I don't pretend this set up is the real thing, not matter how good it looks -and boy, does it appear terrifically film-like at times!
So for that reason -and to keep an absolute reference handy nearby- a Norelco Todd-AO AII 35/70mm projector was purchased (much, much cheaper than the digital projector too!) to run 35mm and 70mm film prints when rented or borrowed, or view odd reels and movie trailers when able to be obtained. An Elmo GS-1200 Super-8mm film projector also provides film referencing occasionally.
I realize that the many problems we can encounter when attending the modern cinema can be very hard to take but as Robert says (well, more or less), it is a night and day difference between film and video, more so when the film presentation is performed properly. Let us not lose sight of this fact...
-THTS
[Edited last by frank manrique on August 13, 2001 at 05:23 PM]

 

[HalS]

quote: Do you have any documentaion for this. You keep saying, yet I have a hard time believing. Especially considering the many accomodations filmmakers make to the home viewing crowd. [/quote]
You just answered your own question. Filmmakers make ACCOMODATIONS for the home viewing crowd. Your very use of the word proves me right.
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. Therefore, I imagine you are arguing that because the filmmaker makes that accomodation that's how they intend the film to be seen? Oops.
There's an article in today's LA Times about Curtis Hanson and the Wonder Boys DVD. He talks about how he supervises the Pan and Scan versions of his film to make them as good as possible. Needless to say, he is not recommending that one watch the Pan and Scan version as the definitive version of the film, he is just making an accomodation and providing something that the studio (and market) demands.
Home viewing is now a reality, particularly from a business end. Filmmakers have no choice but to make such ACCOMODATIONS. And in fact, now are glad to have a medium such as DVD where you're getting to show films much closer as to how they were intended to be seen with Digital Sound, OAR, etc. Nobody is saying DVD is anything other than fantastic...because it is truly amazing. That still doesn't mean it should replace the primary experience of going to a theater.
quote: Again, do you have any quotes from any, much less all, directors (filmmakers) where they agree that the film gets lost in an HT?
I doubt it.[/quote]
LOL. You mean I was supposed to be documenting my conversations just in the event someone in the HTF challenges my recollections? Fortunately, since I'm not the President, you're out of luck.
And I'm also not a library. There are plenty of such quotes and discussions. If you're so interested in finding them, may I suggest doing a little research on your own. As it is, it just happened to be luck the Hanson article ran in today's paper.
BTW, I never said that the film gets lost in a Home Theater. I said it is not the primary way as to how a film is intended to be watched. Really, how is that even open for debate?
quote: When a filmmaker and his corp of producers screen a movie in a theater to gauge whether or not a movie works with a crowd is not the point. They are checking to see that the movie works period. Not just with many people.[/quote]
Crowd size is important for a comedy screening. You can't just have 2 or 3 people there and get an accurate read. Comedy, especially, is a collective experience. Why do you think most sitcoms cheat by filming before a studio audience and providing a laugh track? There's a certain energy that's lost by viewing alone.
[Edited last by HalS on August 13, 2001 at 05:26 PM]