I don't personally enjoy watching anything on my phone, but from an objective point of view, I am capable of realizing that the display quality on my little iPhone is so good that a lot of these concerns about things not being visible on them seem way overblown. My phone has better resolution than my projector. It's an incredibly high quality display miniaturized to an extent I would have never imagined possible as a child in the 1980s. And again, while it's not my first choice of ways to view something - it sure is nice to have the option to watch something of my choosing on it when I'm commuting or on a flight somewhere. And putting Paul Feig's quote back in the context of the article, it was in a discussion on how the knowledge that some people would view their work on phones following the conclusion of a theatrical run meant that they were looking for tighter framing for insert shots where it was vital to the plot that the audience can understand whatever important text was being read by a character. I'm not prepared to call that kind of accommodation a crime against humanity. Ava DuVernay had a great point, where she was talking about what the goal for filmmakers is, whether the goal was to have something play in a theater (regardless of whether or not people ever saw it there), or whether the goal was to have their work discovered and enjoyed by an audience. Fifty years ago, those two concepts were essentially one and the same. These days, they're not. She's not speaking from some theoretical vantage point. Her "Selma" film, while not a flop, was essentially a blip on the box office radar and didn't reach the audience she hoped it would, because that audience isn't served by the movie theater infrastructure that we have. On the other hand, her follow-up project which was a Netflix documentary about the prison system (which is certainly a less uplifting and presumably less appealing topic than MLK and a moment of historical triumph) - but it was seen by more people on Netflix than "Selma" was seen in theaters. DuVernay had a story she wanted to tell, and she met her audience where they were. Is that really such a terrible thing? That instead of trying to find theatrical funding to make a documentary which might play in a couple cities, at best might gross in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, struggle to be seen and then be forgotten after awards season, and in the process losing money for all involved and making it harder for everyone to get their next project funded, instead went to a place that already had the audience she wanted and took advantage of that? DuVernay uses the word "privilege" a lot in her interview and I had never really thought of it that way before, but her words and her points have been sticking with me. Paul Feig, interviewed separately, winds up being the perfect example of the point she's making. He made a mid-budget thriller last year called "A Simple Favor" which didn't do particularly well at the box office, which was perhaps a first for him. It was a complete mismatch between the film he wanted to make and the types of films that the general audience has deemed worthy of seeing in a theater. Because of his past success in the industry, he was able to get a theatrical release for a film that had little chance of doing well in a theatrical environment, and, as anyone could have predicted, it didn't do that well. It cost about $30 million to make, but only grossed about $16 million. Throw in advertising costs and the split between the theaters, and the funders of this film lost more than half the amount of money they put into it. And probably anyone with even a passing knowledge of box office trends could have told them that before they even began shooting. But Feig was in a position to demand a theatrical release, and the company that backed him lost a small fortune accommodating that demand. On the other hand, as Feig noted in the article, if he had gone with a streaming release on a platform like Netflix, the film would have been seen by a much wider audience and its backers wouldn't have lost money on it. [EDIT: These box office numbers are not correct; I had looked up a different film by mistake] So I guess my question is, are filmmakers like Feig and films like "A Simple Plan" entitled to a theatrical release when that is no longer a profitable or sustainable avenue? Does it make sense to release a film like "A Simple Plan" in a fashion that will cause all involved to lose money and will prevent the film from being seen by an audience that might actually appreciate it? Exactly what point is being proved by doing so? Who is benefiting from that?