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

[James D S]

Personally, I find it hard to believe that is the average filmgoers experience at a multi-plex.

You caught us! We all got together and decided to screw around with someone on the HTF. Sorry Hal, your name got picked. C'est le vie.
Are you kidding. Have you seen the complaint list at a theater!?! Of the several friends (okay 3) that work at theaters around town, ALL report extreme displeasure at how crowds respond and behave themselves. They are inundated with compaint cards. Absolutely inundated. Of the screenings they participate in, better than 95%, (generous I think, but alas, not scientific) have distractions of some sort.
-------------------------
I personally saw Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon on the bigscreen 4 times. It wasn't until I watched it at home that I really saw it. Not one time was the experience without distraction. That's not what the filmmakers intended. When I saw it at home, free from cell phones and confused audience members, I saw the movie that I came to love. Every nuance exploded off the screen. I was enthralled like I should have been all along. THAT is what the filmmakers intended and that is what HT gave me.

 

[HalS]

quote: quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And those decisions are not made because directors really want to make them, but they had to sacrifice because of market forces.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you say. However, I don't think many directors and DP's will turn down the royalty checks when the movie goes to video. But that's just a hunch. I may be wrong. Perhaps you can enlighten us. [/quote]
Now you are just being silly and since I'm up working on something pretty much all night, let me get distracted and explain some the realities of the situation.
FYI, whether they change the shot or not, they're getting paid. That choice has nothing to do with royalty payments. The video will sell the same either way, whether the filmmaker has made concessions and altered the shot due to the existence of pan and scan or they say "Screw it, I'm shooting this film the way I want and if it looks like crap on TV so be it". As we all know all too well, the average member of the public has no clue how much information they're losing when watching pan and scan and could care less about how the film was shot when making their purchasing decision. It's a choice made by a director to protect the way their work looks, nothing more.
It's pick your poison time, change the shot now and keep some level of control over how the film is composed on TV or just let it go and let the thing be panned and scanned to death.
It's a reality of the business that it will eventually be shown pan and scan. That is a money issue. The director's choice is not. It's an artistic decision that is brought about by the underlying economic reality brought on by the studio.
And that's a careful balance that goes on every day, on every studio production in a myriad of areas. Budget, the need to bring in a specific rating, etc. Business factors that lead to artistic decisions. What we've cited here is just one more variation of that big game.
[Edited last by HalS on August 14, 2001 at 06:06 AM]

 

[Todd Hochard]

Hal,
I've read the vast majority of your quite-long dissertations on theater vs. home theater, and I just have to say that I disagree.
I understand what the theatrical experience CAN be, but in my neck of the woods, that's not what it IS. Until that changes (and given the direction things are going, that's not likely), I will continue to use my home as the preferred venue for viewing movies.
Todd

 

[Mike_G]

My take on it is this - NOTHING beats the theatrical days of old when people were actually quiet, nobody had beepers and cell phones, and the number of trailers were limited to 3 TOPS. Today, everyone yells and screams and brings their four-year-old to Pulp Fiction (I kid you not), the theaters play commericals (ACK!), 7 trailers (ahead of Final Fantasy), and have their cell phone on "HIGH". However, there's nothing that beats watching a movie in a theater with a GOOD group. The problem is that I've been getting so frustrated with movie crowds lately that I've been skipping theatrical runs and waiting for homve video versions. Exceptions are movies like Planet of the Apes which SCREAMS "watch me in a theater" or comedies which work MUCH better in a large group.
Going to the movies used to be an event. Now it's a cheap date (and I don't mean cheap in the $ sense). The theaters used to be large, the audience quiet, and the movies themselves were written SO much better than they are today. It's a shame.
As for the quality of the presentations - film vs. video: I went to my friend's house the last two weekends to watch films on his 35mm setup - Austin Powers 2 and Twister. I missed Back to the Future since I wasn't feeling well (but it used to be my print so I know what it looks like). The detail is above and beyond what DVD can offer, but as we were joking after Twister Sunday night, DVDs don't weigh 60 lbs. each, they don't turn to vinegar, and you get more for your money from DVD. When LD was the only game in town, I had no problem dropping $300 on a print of "The Last Starfighter", but once DVD came out, my tune changed since I got much more out of DVD then I did from film. Film gives better contrast and detail, but for me the balance shifts to DVD when you factor in Dolby Digital, DTS, isolated score, commentary, documentary, etc. Also, film's a bitch to store and maintain. Many people that I know that collect 35mm prints consistently complain about one thing - the space film takes up, let alone the MONSTEROUS projectors. This is why I'm getting out of film collecting altogether. As great as it looks, it's not a practical medium. My point to all this is that I have a feeling that we're going to see film go the way of the dodo sooner rather than later. Anyone who's had the experience of building up and tearing down film knows how much of a pain in the ass it is. Film's superior picture is the ONLY thing keeping it alive. Once digital projections meet and later surpass film, it's gone for good. Ever carry 12 cans of reels up and down 3 flights of stairs for a Star Trek Marathon? I did. I'd rather carry up 6 RAIDs for a digital presentation, trust me.
Mike
------------------
Listen to my radio station - Starman's Neverland

 

[Aaron Oppliger]

Just a thought for all the people who are saying "home theater is better," I'd have to disagree. I don't know what kind of horribly shitty theaters there are in your area, but I've very rarely had an experience in a theater that made me wish I had stayed home. When I was in living in Detroit, I almost never heard a cell phone go off, and only had one case of someone talking so loud that it took away from the movie. The cell phone was annoying, but not really any moreso than the phone ringing at home when I'm trying to watch a movie. As for the talking, it sucked, but how hard is it to just ask someone to please be quiet?
Home theater is great, but there's nothing like seeing a film on a huge screen with a room full of people who are laughing or ooohing and ahhhing as Jackie Chan gets into a fight (just thinking of a recent example). I have a nice big screen at home, and a fantastic sound system, but I still go to the theaters all the time because you just can't get that in your home.
I think the main point of this thread was to say that digital projection isn't as fantastic as everyone is making it out to be. Just read Ebert's review of Apocalypse Now Redux this week. He gushes about how great the Technicolor dye transfer looked. Once everything is done digitally, that kind of rich, wonderful color disappears. And before you say "so what," remember that the video you watch at home has to come from somewhere. I'd hate going to the theater and seeing essentially the same thing that I would at home. The resolution has to be better there, the colors should be bold, and the sound should be powerful. When it's done digitally, the resolution is "about equal" to film, the color can't even match a great Technicolor film, but the sound is good. Why not make something better than current film, instead of using digital as a replacement?

 

[Mike_G]

As for the talking, it sucked, but how hard is it to just ask someone to please be quiet?

Oh, Aaron...you have to be kidding me. Do you know how many times I've gotten yelled at for asking someone NICELY to be quiet?
Mike
------------------
Listen to my radio station - Starman's Neverland

 

[John A. Gordon]

As for film dying soon, I don't think so. Even the experts say film will be around for quite some time. And for digital projection giving the perfect show, I don't think so either. Neither format is perfect.
For as many problems and complaints you find in a theater, you can find just as many in a home theater, regardless of the set-up (high-end or just average).
As for a theater and image, the only real thing a technician can change is light level. There are no color, contrast, hue, controls on a film projector. But as for video with all the different controls (color, hue, sharpness, black level, etc.), not many people see the same image. If you want more color, then you boost it, but is that the way it is supposed to look? Who's to say this will not happen with digital projection (the controls are not there, but someone will find a way to tap into it).
What it really comes down to for theater presentation, as well as video transfers, is work ethics. If a person does not have good work ethics, then the chances of seeing a good film presentation or a good video transfer is not very good. I've seen great film presentations of motion pictures and I've seen some really good video presentations. I enjoy them both, but film experience for me will always be better than video.

 

[James D S]

FYI, whether they change the shot or not, they're getting paid. That choice has nothing to do with royalty payments.

Absolutely nothing in that post leaves undeniable proof that the theatrical experience is better. Different, I'll grant you. But better, I don't think so.
For whatever reason the changes are made is irrelevant, in any case. The fact that changes (during production) are made is enough to emphasize the importance both critically and financially of the home market.
(BTW Elswit made no mention of composing a shot specifically for pan and scan. That is, again, your conclusion to relate it to pan and scan.)
If you think movies are a communal thing, that's your right. I, however, don't think one goes hand in hand with the other. I also do not think that any director feels that watching a movie is best in a large group of people.
I can see that being with a lot of people can be a good thing, but not for the movie's sake. Where anyone a critical viewer, a party atmosphere is probably not the best way to take in, say Waking the Dead.
Comedy is not the 'be all end all' of the cinematic experience. (I'm not even suggesting that comedy is best viewed in a group either.) It may be more fun, maybe, but not for the movie's sake.

 

[Mike_G]

I enjoy them both, but film experience for me will always be better than video.

I have to say something about blanket comments like this. Ever since the dawn of digital audio and the growth of the multiplex, I have had nothing but complaints about film experiences vs. video experiences.
My history. Sorry, but you asked for it.
Jurassic Park - DTS. WAY too loud
Star Trek: Insurrection - advertized as Dolby Digital, presented in analog.
ConAir - advertized in digital, presented in analog with the stereo channels reversed.
Star Wars Special Edition - early show on Jan. 18, 1997 at the Ziegfled in NYC - perfect DD.
Star Wars Special Edition - SDDS presentation at the Menlo Park theater - audio out of sync.
Contact - advertized as Dolby Digital, presented in analog
Crimson Tide - masking for flat when the film was scope
Die Hard III - print was too light
The Nutty Professor - bulb went out several times
Independence Day - advertized as DTS, presented in analog
Final Fantasy - Perfect Dolby Digital
Star Wars Epsiode I - digital projection in Paramus, NJ - perfect video and audio
I can go on and on. Don't say that film beats home video EVERY time. My home theater is perfect because I run it, I tweak it, and I don't have incompetent booth people running the show.
Mike
------------------
Listen to my radio station - Starman's Neverland

 

[HalS]

Home theater is great, but there's nothing like seeing a film on a huge screen with a room full of people who are laughing or ooohing and ahhhing as Jackie Chan gets into a fight (just thinking of a recent example). I have a nice big screen at home, and a fantastic sound system, but I still go to the theaters all the time because you just can't get that in your home.

Exactly. This distills my point perfectly into one paragraph.

 

[HalS]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the talking, it sucked, but how hard is it to just ask someone to please be quiet?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, Aaron...you have to be kidding me. Do you know how many times I've gotten yelled at for asking someone NICELY to be quiet?

The first time you ask, being nice is the right way to go. The second time you ask, it's not...and in the few experiences I've had where I had to make a second request, generally, after that second time, they will shut up and in a hurry.

 

[HalS]

quote: (BTW Elswit made no mention of composing a shot specifically for pan and scan. That is, again, your conclusion to relate it to pan and scan.)[/quote]
My conclusion is drawn by talking to many people and participating in the process myself. I'm talking about an overview, not just one person.
In any event, obviously the need to change a shot with TV in mind is due to pan and scan. If viewers were going to see the entire composed film frame at home via widesceen, there'd be no need to change the composition of the shot, right? That's the whole battle over OAR.
quote: I also do not think that any director feels that watching a movie is best in a large group of people.[/quote]
Now there's not even one director who thinks that? Well, you would be dead wrong. And perhaps if you ever get the change to speak to a director, you'll understand that.
I mean, you're honestly going to sit there and suggest that there's no directors who think watching a film in a large auditorium with a juiced up crowd is not the best way to watch a film? Like Star Wars isn't intended as a communal experience? Your point quite frankly is assinine. It shows a complete lack of knowledge about the art form and the history of film. Sorry to be blunt, but that's just the way it is.
quote: The fact that changes (during production) are made is enough to emphasize the importance both critically and financially of the home market. [/quote]
Who ever said the home market wasn't critical? VHS was a godsend for the studios, but what you are missing is any understanding of the overall workings of the business.
Your thesis is the fact that the change is made shows that home video is a key part of the equation. Yes, but the key part of that equation is in a business sense because obviously it is fact that eventually the film is coming out on home video. Any artistic compromise is made unhappily, but in the sense that you must deal with reality. That does not mean that filmmakers view that home theater experience as the definitive experience, it just means that some filmmakers want to be able to control their art to the point of taking ancillary markets into consideration. Why you can't understand that is beyond me.
It's an acceptance of reality. There are changes made every day due to a million business factors. You are making art within the environment of one of the biggest industries in the world. A filmmaker might be contractually obligated to bring in an R rating. He or she shoots a film that goes over the line and draws an NC-17 and then is forced to make cuts. The cuts are forced by economic reasons (the need to have an R) but they result in artistic changes. Eyes Wide Shut is the perfect example of this. Are the changes made happily? No. But they have to be made. But you cannot then turn around and say because they are made that it proves that the particular business factor that fuels the change is a positive creative force. Because it's not. And that's exactly what you have been trying to do in making some sort of claim....that making a change due to the negative impact of knowing that the reality is your film is going to be seen squeezed into a TV screen somehow proves that home theater is a better experience than film.
[Edited last by HalS on August 14, 2001 at 03:11 PM]

 

[Mike_G]

The first time you ask, being nice is the right way to go. The second time you ask, it's not...and in the few experiences I've had where I had to make a second request, generally, after that second time, they will shut up and in a hurry.

Come to New Jersey and do that. See who lasts longest. I'm guessing you won't. Nothing personal, but people are VERY rude here. I'm talking Jerry-Springer-audience-type rude.
I think the inherent problem is the location of these theaters where people are having good and bad experiences. Here in northern NJ, people are just not courteous. They yell, scream, talk back, kick chairs, talk on their cell phones, etc. There's a rash of this horrible mentality that people are still watching a movie in their living room and they forget that there's a room full of 500 other people. Maybe in LA things are different, but if I'm right, and location is the big factor, then my experiences vs. people's experiences in other parts of the country are going to be MUCH different, and nobody's going to be right or wrong.
Mike
------------------
Listen to my radio station - Starman's Neverland

 

[HalS]

Come to New Jersey and do that. See who lasts longest. I'm guessing you won't. Nothing personal, but people are VERY rude here.

Well, the truth is you are wrong. I don't tolerate that sort of crap. I'm a New York boy so I'm well aware of what you're talking about.
Fortunately, in terms of film, I haven't encountered such bad audiences as I've already noted. Though I've had at least one case a couple of years ago I went to see a film while visiting NYC and when I got done recommending the people be quiet, that they promptly got up and left the theater and never returned. I got applause from the rest of the audience.
[Edited last by HalS on August 14, 2001 at 03:12 PM]

 

[David Proud]

I have three reasons why I prefer to stay at home v/s going to the movie theaters.
1 - Hands Down Better Sound. Even a cheap setup well calibrated, room treatments, correct speaker location, usually will outperform even the best theaters.
2 - More Comfortable - What theater can you goto and sit in a 1K Lazy Boy?
3 - COST. I take myself and girlfriend to the movies for the price I pay for the movie used on DVD. I only get to watch it once at the Theater, at Home I can watch it again and again.
The Theater has excellent video, and Film destroys DVD. But for the average home theater nut, he doesn't need ultra high resolutions. Film is used for a 50Foot widescreen b/c Anything less would look terrible.
I would be happy with a 10ft widescreen in my house and FAR Better sound, room treatments, and proper speaker placements than going to the theater and paying about the cost of a used DVD.
------------------
View Live streaming video of my theater room 24X7 Link Removed

 

[David Oliver]

Well, considering I don't have a home theater per se (unless a TV and DVD player only count....someday...someday...), I won't comment on what is the preferable method of watching movies. but the reason I do enjoy goin to the movies is basically having an evening out of the apartment, interacting with society. I don't mean to imply that folks with Home theaters are asocial house-bound shut-ins . But for me, on the weekend, I almost have to get together with friends for dinner, often a movie (or a concert, or whatever) and some coffee afterwards to discuss the movie. And it isn't just being with friends, but being out in general. I know this can be done without seeing a movie, but I like movies so why not?

 

[HalS]

One final note, I was talking to someone about this very topic today due to this thread and they reminded me that the Oscar race is a good way of showing how the studios and filmmakers think the theater is the best place to see a film.
Every year, widescreen screeners are sent out. Some are now on DVD. They offer an excellent presentation in the home. Even so, you always hear the Academy, the studios, and filmmakers urging the voters to catch the film in a theater if possible whether it's in a screening or attending the film in public. You constantly read articles in the press, both mainstream and the trades, lamenting the fact that the screeners don't offer up the optimal way of seeing the film and how that can affect the voting.
That has nothing to do with box office since the voters see the films for free (even in public, they have a card that admits them to the theater for nothing) and everything to do with a statement as to how the films should be seen.
The home versions are sent out because the reality (see how that word keeps popping) of the situation is they know that not all voters are going to see every film in a theater so it's the next best solution. The only other choice would be to have strict viewing requirements, which is done in some of the smaller catagories but isn't feasible in the race for Best Picture, etc. But there is no doubt as to what is the preferred method of viewing the films.

 

[AllenD]

Hi RobertR and John G!
I can't say I prefer my HT over watching a movie in it's first run at the theaters or vice versa. In my experience, some movies are meant to be seen at the theaters and some at home, quality presentations at the theaters notwithstanding. (With all the megaplexes in my area, a high quality presentation is only $8.00 away. But it only takes one rude act to waste my hard earned dollar$ and ruin the movie experience.)
Take The Sixth Day for example. I saw the working print of this movie in one of the local megaplexes theater which was filled to standing room capacity only. If not for the large, electrified crowd, and the free viewing, it would not have been enjoyable. I bought the DVD due to my experience at the screening, where the crowd clapped and cheered throughout the movie. Once I finished the DVD, I immediately wondered why I bought it. Now, I can't trade the DVD.
On the other side of the coin, I saw Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon with only 6 other people in the theater. Guess what? 2 of the 7 people in the theater talked in the first 10 mins. of the movie. Just imagine trying to watch a movie with subtitles, like CTHD, with rude movie-goers surrounding you! I politely asked them to be quiet and they obliged and left the theater. (They're probably jumpers.) In this case I wish I had waited for the DVD.
Quality wise, HT can't hold a candle to film when presented properly. But my HT experience is always a good one, even if the DVD is sub-par!
PS: When's the next screening!?!?
------------------
Signature? I don't need no stinkin' signature.

 

[frank manrique]

David Proud,
I guess I should not have any aspiration for having High Definition video sources readily available to play with and be so demanding of the DVD medium for after all, the average home theater fan doesn't need high resolution.
Man, what a concept! I could have saved thousands of Dollars by not buying all that video and audio equipment when the average TV set and a VCR would have been all that I really needed to watch movies at home!
-THTS

 

[John A. Gordon]

COST. I take myself and girlfriend to the movies for the price I pay for the movie used on DVD. I only get to watch it once at the Theater, at Home I can watch it again and again

Maybe its just me, but why does everyone seem to complain about movie ticket prices being way to high? If you consider inflation and all other entertainment ticket prices, movies have barely increased and are a bargain considering the $25, $50, or even $100 ticket prices you must pay for consorts. But so be it.
I will state again and agree with the intent of this thread, film done right will be better than video done right. I easily enjoy going to the movies (just might reach my goal of 100 this year) and I also enjoy home theater.