"Martin Baxter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Brent, this speaks directly to something that either rave or Daryle said >here sometime back, that the model for movie viewing has changed >drastically during our lives. It's easier to market a movie to someone >with a Mac or a PC than it is to toss it into a theater, looking to clear >money after ad revenues et cetera ad nauseum. And, for folks like me >who've really become disenfranchised with the entire movie-going >experience, to say nothing of the Concessions Issue, it's nirvana. Yes, Martin, I am, too, somewhat disillusioned with the whole of the film affair (not exluding the 'Concessions Issue' :-). I appreciate all of the alternative outlets for viewing entertainments (both online and home theatre-wise). Yet, you know, in all honesty, I still enjoy a good outing to the local megaplex. Something about the smells, the crowds, the feeling of a Celluloid Event gone through collectively. All of that shared experience. Still, we may one day soon find that, to our liking or not, movie-viewing may bear almost no resemblance to today's passive cinema or home experience. Holography anyone? Brent >---------[ Received Mail Content ]---------- >Subject : [scifinoir2] FW: Scalzi: Do Science Fiction Movies Still Need >Theaters? >Date : Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:02:13 -0500 >From : "brent wodehouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com > > >------------------------------------------------------ >From: "Dennis Fischer" >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.
