Thanks B. Daryle, the second link will find you safely at the article's origin.
Brent "B. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >John Scalzi is a science fiction writer and author of the Old Man's >War series. He has a couple of blogs: > >[ http://whatever.scalzi.com/ ]http://whatever.scalzi.com/ > >and his blog over at AMC. > >[ http://blogs.amctv.com/scifi-scanner/2008/11/do-scifi-movies-need- >]http://blogs.amctv.com/scifi-scanner/2008/11/do-scifi-movies-need- >theaters.php > >--- In [ mailto:scifinoir2%40yahoogroups.com [EMAIL PROTECTED], >Daryle Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Hold up. They released a DVD with a downloadable version for >portable >> video players? Disney has lost they dangone mind. I guess I'll >just >> wait on "Bolt" to hit the web in HD, then. >> >> Thanks for this, Brent! What publication did this article come from? >> >> >> On Nov 18, 2008, at 4:02 PM, brent wodehouse wrote: >> >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------ >> > From: "Dennis Fischer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > Subject: Scalzi: Do Science Fiction Movies Still Need Theaters? >> > Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 16:27:30 -0800 >> > >> > John Scalzi - Do Science Fiction Movies Still Need Theaters? >> > >> > The folks at Pixar sent me the DVD package for WALL-E last week, a >> > three-disc set which includes the movie, an extra disc of goodies, >> > and a version of the film compatible with portable viewers like >the >> > iPhone (so, presumably, you'll resist the temptation to find a >pirate >> > version online). In addition to giving my daughter something to >brag >> > about to her friends because we got the package early (it comes >out >> > Tuesday), the two separate versions of the movie -- one for the >home >> > and one to take with us wherever we go -- reminded me of how film >> > viewing really has changed, particularly since the advent of >portable >> > media players. Go to an airport these days and watch people as >they >> > wait for their flights, and you'll see a good percentage of them >> > staring down into a tiny screen, watching a movie or a TV show. >> > People love their movies; we've known for years (much to the >economic >> > joy of the studios) that they love to bring them home, and we know >> > now that we love to take them with us when we go places. But this >> > also makes me wonder if we still need the theaters that are films' >> > first homes. What do the movie theaters still offer us that we >can't >> > get at home? >> > >> > What Movie Theaters Offer >> > >> > For the studios, of course, the answer is obvious: The theater >> > represents their first revenue stream, the place where they can >make >> > back some of the outrageous cost of making and marketing a movie. >> > People like to speculate about the death of the movie theater, but >> > they've been speculating it since the birth of the television era, >> > and very likely they will continue speculating about it for >decades >> > to come. Studios keep finding new ways to draw people into the >> > theaters -- or at the very least, new spins on old ways: The >current >> > rage for IMAX and/or 3D versions of movies recalls CinemaScope >and, >> > yes, 3D films in the 1950s. >> > >> > Given what the studios do to keep bringing us to the show, you >would >> > think that the main advantage that movie theaters have over home >> > viewing is technological, but this is not entirely true. Chances >are >> > you don't have an IMAX theater in your house (and if you do, I'm >> > offended you haven't invited me over yet), but on the other hand >it's >> > not at all unlikely that you might have a large screen HDTV- >capable >> > television with a Blu-ray disc play and a 7.1 digital theater >sound >> > setup -- or will have such a setup within a couple of years, as >> > prices for all of these things drop. WALL-E or 2001 or Star Wars >or >> > Iron Man any other science fiction movie you might think of looks >> > great up there on a theater wall, and sounds great too, but for >all >> > practical purposes you can create a nearly equally stunning >cinematic >> > experience at home... and many people have. >> > >> > So what does the movie theater still offer viewers that you can't >get >> > at home? I'm going to suggest something that I think is >> > counterintuitive: It offers lack of control. >> > >> > What It's Like to Watch at Home >> > >> > Take WALL-E (again). My family sat down to watch it the other >night, >> > but we came nowhere near close to watching it interrupted all the >way >> > through. The phone rang and it was my wife's mother on the phone; >we >> > paused it so she wouldn't miss something. Then at some point we >all >> > decided a bathroom break was in order. Another pause. Later, >> > snacktime. Pause. At various points we skipped back a bit because >we >> > missed something someone was saying or because we wanted to look >at >> > something in the background (for example, the "Pizza Planet" truck >> > that's in every Pixar film). >> > >> > Contrast this with how I saw WALL-E in the movie theater. Once the >> > film started, it was out of my control: The story unfolded at the >> > pace the filmmaker chose, and the story's emotional beats came in >a >> > rhythm uninterrupted by my personal life and preferences. Short of >> > walking out of the film entirely, I had to take it on its own >terms >> > -- surrender my will to the story, as it were. As a result, the >> > emotional highs of the story were higher, the funny parts funnier, >> > and the wrenching parts (yes, there are wrenching parts in WALL-E) >> > that much more affecting. In the theater, you are able to approach >> > the movie as a complete work, and as complete experience in >itself. >> > How we know WALL-E or any other film is a really good film is by >how >> > it makes us feel -- which is to say, how much the film sweeps us >> > along and makes us a participant in its story. >> > >> > Being able to pause and rewind and such is all very cool -- >they're >> > part of the reason people like to watch movies at home, and it's >> > especially fun with science fiction films, because thanks to >special >> > effects there's usually something cool to stare at in the >background. >> > Frankly, looking at the cool stuff in the background was just >about >> > the only way to enjoy the Star Wars prequel trilogy at all, and I >> > know I had fun recently pausing the heck out ofIron Man to get a >> > gander at what was popping up on Tony Stark's helmet display. But >> > these features come at a cost: Each pause and skip degrades the >> > actual viewing experience. Each pause and rewind draws you out of >the >> > story and makes you aware of the separation between you and what's >> > going on in the movie, and that keeps you from getting everything >you >> > can -- or everything the filmmakers hope you can -- get out of it. >> > You're never more aware that you watching a movie than when you're >> > watching it at home, because you have control over how it plays. >> > The extra >> > bits and the >> > commentary tracks and everything else that comes with DVDs these >days >> > are all super cool, but they're not really "extras": They're >> > compensation for what you lose. >> > >> > And this is why science fiction movies -- and all movies -- still >> > need to be seen in theaters: Because they're the places where the >> > movie is still the most important thing, not just something else >we >> > do. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to have the WALL-E DVD package, >as >> > well as the other DVDs in my collection. But I'm even more glad I >got >> > to experience it in the theater first. >> > >> > Winner of the Hugo Award and the John W. Campbell Award for Best >New >> > Writer, John Scalzi is the author of The Rough Guide to Sci-Fi >> > Moviesand the novels Old Man's Warand Zoe's Tale. He's also the >> > editor of METAtropolis, an audiobook anthology on Audible.com. His >> > column appears every Thursday.
