Been meaning to ask you (and folks like you) this, Martin: What about the $2 theaters? Is it just price that's frustrating you about the theaters? If the ticket and snacks were cheaper, would you PREFER a larger screen?
On Nov 18, 2008, at 5:37 PM, Martin Baxter wrote: > 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. > > > > > > ---------[ 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. >
