Why go to theaters anymore?
SonySddS1
want to see right away when they hit the theaters, but recently, since I've
purchased a DVD player, I've cut back by about 25% the amount I've gone to
theaters.
Why:
1. Theater prices for a matinee just went up from 5.00 to 5.25. I know it's
just a quarter, but it's the principle of the thing. I'm already only
"somewhat" satisfied with the theaters I go to in terms of the quality of
presentation and that 25 cents just makes it less tempting.
2.For the amount it costs me to take a trip to the movies, I could buy one of
my favorite films to enjoy on DVD. With the sales lately, I could probably buy
2. Figure cost of a ticket, food, transit, etc.
3.The quality of theaters lately is getting worse; recently I saw "I Still Know
What You Did Last Summer"(terrible flick), and the sound went out. 10 minutes
went by, 15 minutes went by.... a little over 20 minutes later it was fixed.
Why did it take so long? Because they had one projectionist for the 3 floor
theater(9 total screens) and no one bothered to go look for the guy. I've had
other irritating problems lately as well, especially over the Summer. Saw
"Can't Hardly Wait" and the film was put in backwards once, then they started
it up and....it was backwards again, "Perfect Murder", which had the front
left(i think) speaker turning on and off, "Saving Private Ryan"(the print was
apparently so messed up when it got there they had to cancel the next show and
ship our show into it and, of course, that print was no better.)..
And now that I have DVD, where I can watch movies with beautiful sound and
picture at home, it's getting a lot more tempting to just buy discs than spend
an ever increasing amount of money to go to the theater to see a movie I may or
may not like, and recently, there have been only a couple of films that I've
considered worth the trip(What Dreams May Come, Rounders, Pleasantville, Enemy
Of The State).
Thoughts?
A Guide To Current Film:
DVD News, Release Dates/Upcoming Special Edition Feature Lists, Box Office,
Movie Reviews, Links, Much More.
http://members.aol.com/sonysdds1
TomRipley
wrote:
>2.For the amount it costs me to take a trip to the movies, I could buy one of
>my favorite films to enjoy on DVD. With the sales lately, I could probably buy
>2. Figure cost of a ticket, food, transit, etc.
Wipe out the "food" and you're saving half the price; no one's forcing
you to eat that four dollar tub of popcorn.
>3.The quality of theaters lately is getting worse; recently I saw "I Still Know
>What You Did Last Summer"(terrible flick), and the sound went out. 10 minutes
>went by, 15 minutes went by.... a little over 20 minutes later it was fixed.
So... you sat there, watching but not hearing a movie, for 20 minutes?
A maximum of two and I'm out the door to find a manager and get a
refund. Maybe it's just that the major theater chain around here
spoils us, but I don't generally encounter problems like that, and on
the rare occasions I do, I don't just sit there. The quality of the
theaters is only as bad as you and your fellow movie-goers allow it to
be; mass walkouts, refund demands, complaints mailed or called in to
their corporate offices, etc., will make a difference.
And there's just no way I'll ever side with the opinion that "home
theaters" can replace real theaters. This week alone, I've seen six
movies -- American History X, Home Fries, Very Bad Things (twice), and
A Bug's Life (also twice) -- and paid a grand total of $21 for them.
X & Fries were kinda deserted, but it was really nice seeing Very Bad
Things with a crowd.
And both showings of Bug's were on a 60 foot stadium screen; try
*that* at home.
Tom
--
"Has anything you've done made your life better?"
- David McKenna, "American History X"
SonySddS1
>So... you sat there, watching but not hearing a movie, for 20 minutes?
I looked for a manager, who in turn, went looking for a projectionist. I left
after 3 minutes.
>Maybe it's just that the major theater chain around here
>spoils us, but I don't generally encounter problems like tha
Well, Cineplex Odeon in Chicago isn't so great.
> and on
>the rare occasions I do, I don't just sit there.
Neither do I, but I couldn't exactly have gone up there and fixed the problem
myself although I do have some knowledge of projection.
>American History X, Home Fries, Very Bad Things (twice), and
>A Bug's Life (also twice) -- and paid a grand total of $21 for them.
That would have cost a little more than 10 dollars more here in Chicago.
>And both showings of Bug's were on a 60 foot stadium screen; try
>*that* at home.
>And both showings of Bug's were on a 60 foot stadium screen; try
>*that* at home.
Try finding a 60 ft Stadium Screen in Chicago. The only thing that comes close
to that is McClurg Ct. downtown( those who've been there know about auditorium
1).
I guess the theaters in Chicago just aren't as good as theaters elsewhere...
definitely not as cheap.
Alex Crouvier
>
> This week alone, I've seen six
> movies -- [snip] Very Bad Things (twice),
[snip]
> it was really nice seeing Very Bad
> Things with a crowd.
I don't get some people
Mark Holtz
>want to see right away when they hit the theaters, but recently, since I've
>purchased a DVD player, I've cut back by about 25% the amount I've gone to
>theaters.
Well, I have gone to less movies in '98 than in '97, partially because there
were more good flicks to go to last year than this year.
>1. Theater prices for a matinee just went up from 5.00 to 5.25.
$4.50 for bargain showing, $7.75 for a regular showing.
>2.For the amount it costs me to take a trip to the movies, I could buy one of
>my favorite films to enjoy on DVD. With the sales lately, I could probably buy
>2. Figure cost of a ticket, food, transit, etc.
And, in some cases, you get additional material not shown as part of the movie
experience. How many people would watch "Tomorrow Never Dies" with just the
audio soundtrack or the director's (mumbling) commentary? How about 3 versions
of the trailers? Or the documentary.
>3.The quality of theaters lately is getting worse; recently I saw "I Still Know
>What You Did Last Summer"(terrible flick), and the sound went out. 10 minutes
>went by, 15 minutes went by....
My worse theater experiences:
1a. I went with a group (me, my friend, his girlfriend, and her daughter) a
few years ago to see "Toy Story" at an Placerville, CA theater. One of my
friends is a paraplegic, and therefore in a wheelchair. Because of the crowd,
we asked if we could go in slightly early (less than 5 minutes) in order to
find a good seat to sit in and get her wheelchair out of the way. (She can
"hop" from seat to seat, and, if worse comes to worse, I can lift her.) Nope,
sorry, and by the time we got it, all the seats were taken, and she ended up
sitting in the worst part of the theater in her wheelchair during the entire
showing.
1b. Near the climax of Toy Story, the film snaps. Everyone is sitting there
for 10-15 minutes waiting for the film to restart. When the film restarted, a
significant portion of the film was skipped.
1c. The theater was old and in terrible shape, with paint peeling off the
ceiling. It was closed permamently several months later.
2. A few months ago, I went to see "Mulan" at a brand new theater in
Roseville. The "Stadium" seating is great, but the first showing was terrible.
First, (and briefly) during the Dolby Digital "trailer", someone accidentally
flipped in (and out) the anamorphic lens on the projector. THEN, 15 minutes
into the film, the emergency lights went on for 10 minutes, washing out the
picture. After about 5 minutes, I went to the manager, who said they were
working on the problem. Five minutes later, I asked for (and received) another
ticket for a later showing because of the lights.
But, I have yet to see a film in "excellent condition". Most films I have seen
has significant scratches at the beginning of the film, and random scratches
throughout the film, not to mention dirt spots, cuts, etc.
What is the theater supposed to do? Godshitza (1998) demanded 80% cut of the
ticket prices for opening weekend. (They got 75-80%). The theaters have to
make the money through the overpriced snack bar. (See:
http://us.imdb.com/StudioBrief/1998/19980401.html#3,
http://us.imdb.com/StudioBrief/1998/19980402.html#1,
http://us.imdb.com/StudioBrief/1998/19980508.html#1 and
http://us.imdb.com/StudioBrief/1998/19980609.html#1 )
>And now that I have DVD, where I can watch movies with beautiful sound and
>picture at home, it's getting a lot more tempting to just buy discs than spend
>an ever increasing amount of money to go to the theater to see a movie I may or
>may not like, and recently, there have been only a couple of films that I've
>considered worth the trip(What Dreams May Come, Rounders, Pleasantville, Enemy
>Of The State).
Want another reason? If a group of friends and I purchased a film just
released on video, the per-person cost goes down, we can stop the film, back
it up, watch it three times, etc. etc. etc.
--
Are you a SPAMmer? Do you like to send unsolicited commercial e-mail?
If so, be sure not to send it to me.
Blue Tao
a movie 3 days after it's realeased and the print already looks horrible. Am i
just too picky or have others had this problem?
SonySddS1
>just too picky or have others had this problem?
Film Prints have looked terrible or just fair lately. The main problem I have
is that they all seem to be very washed out in color. "X-Files" and "Saving
Private Ryan" had a whole lot of trouble(especially "Ryan"!) this past year as
I think the amount of prints being made is causing the people doing this job to
not be as careful.
"Saving Private Ryan", as most know, had a horrible problem on it's opening
weekend when prints either were poorly done or simply didn't arrive at all.
Cheng-Jih Chen
SonySddS1 <sony...@aol.comNoSpam> wrote:
>And now that I have DVD, where I can watch movies with beautiful sound and
>picture at home, it's getting a lot more tempting to just buy discs than spend
>an ever increasing amount of money to go to the theater to see a movie I may or
>may not like, and recently, there have been only a couple of films that I've
>considered worth the trip(What Dreams May Come, Rounders, Pleasantville, Enemy
>Of The State).
>
>Thoughts?
Theaters exist to show Star Wars: Episode 1 on Memorial Day, 1999.
bob
wrote:
>I know there are always going to be the films that come out that we're going to
>want to see right away when they hit the theaters, but recently, since I've
>purchased a DVD player, I've cut back by about 25% the amount I've gone to
>theaters.
>
>Why:
>1. Theater prices for a matinee just went up from 5.00 to 5.25. I know it's
>just a quarter, but it's the principle of the thing. I'm already only
>"somewhat" satisfied with the theaters I go to in terms of the quality of
>presentation and that 25 cents just makes it less tempting.
>
>2.For the amount it costs me to take a trip to the movies, I could buy one of
>my favorite films to enjoy on DVD. With the sales lately, I could probably buy
>2. Figure cost of a ticket, food, transit, etc.
>
>3.The quality of theaters lately is getting worse; recently I saw "I Still Know
>What You Did Last Summer"(terrible flick), and the sound went out. 10 minutes
>went by, 15 minutes went by.... a little over 20 minutes later it was fixed.
>Why did it take so long? Because they had one projectionist for the 3 floor
>theater(9 total screens) and no one bothered to go look for the guy. I've had
>other irritating problems lately as well, especially over the Summer. Saw
>"Can't Hardly Wait" and the film was put in backwards once, then they started
>it up and....it was backwards again, "Perfect Murder", which had the front
>left(i think) speaker turning on and off, "Saving Private Ryan"(the print was
>apparently so messed up when it got there they had to cancel the next show and
>ship our show into it and, of course, that print was no better.)..
>
>And now that I have DVD, where I can watch movies with beautiful sound and
>picture at home, it's getting a lot more tempting to just buy discs than spend
>an ever increasing amount of money to go to the theater to see a movie I may or
>may not like, and recently, there have been only a couple of films that I've
>considered worth the trip(What Dreams May Come, Rounders, Pleasantville, Enemy
>Of The State).
>
>Thoughts?
>
>
>A Guide To Current Film:
>DVD News, Release Dates/Upcoming Special Edition Feature Lists, Box Office,
>Movie Reviews, Links, Much More.
>http://members.aol.com/sonysdds1
>
Maybe you've been going to the wrong theatres... stay away from the
ghetto area theatres... they're usually the noisiest and stickiest..
I've been to 4 movies last week and all of them were good
experiences.. except for one where I had a somewhat unusual encouter
at their restroom.. but thats another story.
Sean Winterberg
realize that there is actually a profit in this and have been building their newer
theaters in a much more lavish way(bucket cushion reclining seats, stadium seating,
stereo sound, and very large curved screens). Its starting to become a very good
business for them, so in turn they are starting to treat their customers right.
Sean W
SonySddS1 wrote:
--
The Official Titanic Scale Model Page
http://titanic-model.com/
The Official Lusitania Scale Model Page
http://titanic-model.com/lusitania/
World of Groove
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/8501/index.html
Mr DWheels™
Ra -the sun god-
"They say rulers make bad lovers..you'd better put your kingdom up for sale."
SonySddS1
>Stick to the newer built theaters in the good part of town. Most theater
>companies
>realize that there is actually a profit in this and have been building their
>newer
>theaters in a much more lavish way(bucket cushion reclining seats,
I am sticking to the theaters in the good part of town. Chicago, for being such
a big market, has a horrid set of theaters in it's downtown and north michigan
avenue areas.
CanonElan2
>I am sticking to the theaters in the good part of town. Chicago, for being
>such
>a big market, has a horrid set of theaters in it's downtown and north
>michigan
>avenue areas.
>
Take a drive up North to Lincolnshire and check out the new Regal Cinemas.
Nice, Nice, Nice!
Craig.
Cas
>3.The quality of theaters lately is getting worse; recently I saw "I Still Know
>What You Did Last Summer"(terrible flick), and the sound went out. 10 minutes
>went by, 15 minutes went by.... a little over 20 minutes later it was fixed.
>Why did it take so long? Because they had one projectionist for the 3 floor
>theater(9 total screens) and no one bothered to go look for the guy. I've had
>other irritating problems lately as well, especially over the Summer. Saw
>"Can't Hardly Wait" and the film was put in backwards once, then they started
>it up and....it was backwards again, "Perfect Murder", which had the front
>left(i think) speaker turning on and off, "Saving Private Ryan"(the print was
>apparently so messed up when it got there they had to cancel the next show and
>ship our show into it and, of course, that print was no better.)..
I rememeber seeing "12 Monkeys" and the sound went out for a mere 30
seconds. We all got a free pass after the movie ended.
Mike Reber
you like to give $7.50 away to corperations.
you like a stuffy atmosphere.
you like crying babies
you like people talking over the soundtrack
you like to sit in unconfortable seats
you like to be extorted for snack foods (popcorn, soda) ect.
you like waiting in line for your tickets in the freezing cold
you like poor sound and picture quality.
you like dirty bathrooms
you like to fight for parking
you like to try to see past that tall person who sits in front of you
you like the helpful intelligent employees
thats all the reasons I could come up with !
--
Mike Reber
Dont forget laserdiscs and dvds make great christmas presents!!
Cas <un...@sprint.ca> wrote in article <36621ff5...@news.sprint.ca>...
MtheManiac
I have to agree with you especially on the sound quality or lack there of.
The very best theater sound is marginal at best. Even relatively inexpensive
equipment can surpass it at home. There is nothing like having that giant
screen though. True, the picture quality could be a little better and that
improvement is coming. Last year at CES I got to see a "micro-mirror"
projector which may someday replace film projectors in theaters. No more
scratches, no more washed out color... It was truely amazing! It was not
available at that time but should be by now. I'm going to look for it at CES
again this year. They said the target price was around a little over
$100,000. which really isn't that bad compared with current cost of film
projectors. No more reel changes! Also, the cost of the D1 digital video
tape transfer would be much cheaper than film print. I want one!! Would
make a hell of a home theater! You get that projector before theaters get it
and there won't be a theater in town which can hold a candle to you!
mk.
Ultra-hi-fi: Your stereo cost more than your house.
Hi-fi: More than your car.
Mid-fi: More than your living room furniture.
Low-fi: Less than your computer.
Junk-fi: Less than a soda.
Shit-fi: NA
Bose: Your stereo is worth less than shit.
Richard Hopkins
SonySddS1 wrote in message <19981129153950...@ng-fu1.aol.com>...
>Film Prints have looked terrible or just fair lately. The main problem I
have
>is that they all seem to be very washed out in color. "X-Files" and "Saving
>Private Ryan" had a whole lot of trouble(especially "Ryan"!) this past year
as
Doh!
Saving Private Ryan was *supposed* to look grainy, washed out and
desaturated - just read any Spielberg/Kaminski interviews on the film. It
was supposed to echo the look of WW2 news footage - hence the choice of film
stock and aspect ratio...
Richard Hopkins,
(replace .nospam with .com in reply address)
Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
Send all my spam to: r...@totally.buggered.org
Jeff Williams
>1. Theater prices for a matinee just went up from 5.00 to 5.25. I know it's
>just a quarter, but it's the principle of the thing.
Consider yourself lucky that you don't live in NYC, where movies cost $9.25
and there is NO matinee. Anywhere (in Manhattan, anyway).
>2.For the amount it costs me to take a trip to the movies, I could buy one
of
>my favorite films to enjoy on DVD. With the sales lately, I could probably
buy
>2. Figure cost of a ticket, food, transit, etc.
True, and you could say the same for going out dancing, or going out to the
theater (in fact, you could probably buy 4 DVD's for that price), or going
out to eat at a nice, romantic French restaurant, or whatever. You can
always use cost as an excuse for staying indoors. But, if you're going to
do that, I mean I hate to be blunt but what's the point of living?? You
could save all your money for the whole year that you'd have spent going out
and buy 1,000 DVD's with it and stay inside 24 hours a day watching them.
Would you really consider that kind of life richer than the way you're
living now? We don't (or at least I don't) go to the movies just to SEE THE
MOVIE, we go to the movies to be around other people, to be outside, to
socialize, to feel like we're part of our community, to vary our lives.
Seeing the movie itself is really a small part of it.
>
>3.The quality of theaters lately is getting worse; recently I saw "I Still
Know
>What You Did Last Summer"(terrible flick), and the sound went out. 10
minutes
>went by, 15 minutes went by.... a little over 20 minutes later it was
fixed.
I would suggest frequenting another theater. I am sure wherever you live
has theaters more technically up to date and better maintained than that
one. Me and my friends actually pick movies now partially based on the
theaters they're playing at - we're more likely to say "What's playing at
Chelsea West?" than we are to say "Where's Armageddon playing?" In NYC
we're lucky enough to have some great theaters, and at those theaters we
frequent I have never experienced a problem. There are still some bad
theaters around, but we just don't go to those. I mean, if you're paying
$9.25 regardless, you may as well get the best experience possible.
>And now that I have DVD, where I can watch movies with beautiful sound and
>picture at home, it's getting a lot more tempting to just buy discs than
spend
>an ever increasing amount of money to go to the theater to see a movie I
may or
>may not like, and recently, there have been only a couple of films that
I've
>considered worth the trip(What Dreams May Come, Rounders, Pleasantville,
Enemy
>Of The State).
It's up to you if you want to be a recluse. That's not the way I choose to
live.
There have always been movies that many people (myself included) have seen
the ad or trailer for and thought "that's a rental." Some movies are just
marginal enough that you sort of want to see them but they're not worth
paying $9.25 for. So you wait until they come out on video. That was the
case even before DVD, and it hasn't changed. But the movies that ARE really
meant to be seen in a theater, I wouldn't want to see any other way. I
mean, there's nothing like going to see Independence Day on opening night at
3 AM at the Ziegfeld in New York, as I did. The packed house, the huge
screen, the booming sound, the friends all around you, the audience
participation, and just the feeling of COOLNESS seeing that movie the first
night at 3 in the morning at one of the most famous theaters in the country.
That's an experience you can't get watching a DVD in your house.
// Jeff Williams
// jeff-w...@bigfoot.com
// http://www.geocities.com/soho/2024
// Remove NOSPAM to reply via email.
SonySddS1
>nothing like that has ever happened to me. Have you tried Ford City? I
>heard that they are pretty good, with DD, DTS and THX certified.
>
>Howard Pearson
I'll try Ford City, but as far as I'm conserned, Chicago really has a
lackluster bunch of theaters for such a big market. The only really truely
*Great* theater I've been to is McClurg Court. Nothing more incredible than
watching Independence Day at 7am with a Sold Out crowd on opening day.
Thankfully,downtown Chicago will reportedly have a 25-30 screen theater in it's
future.
JimSpotlt
"Can't Hardly Wait">>
(snip)
<<<Thoughts?>>>
I'm sorry you felt the need to see that movie, it was the worst film of 1998,
IMO.
JimS...@aol.com
JimSpotlt
And $1 theaters exist to show it 5 weeks later, when it tanks.
DHowie
In article <19981129230033...@ng53.aol.com>, mthem...@aol.com
(MtheManiac) writes:
>Ultra-hi-fi: Your stereo cost more than your house.
>Hi-fi: More than your car.
>Mid-fi: More than your living room furniture.
>Low-fi: Less than your computer.
>Junk-fi: Less than a soda.
>Shit-fi: NA
>Bose: Your stereo is worth less than shit.
>
Hey! My rear speakers are Bose and they work just fine. Be fair!
Don
Stephen Cuthbertson
Are you deaf? Or do you have more money than sense? ;-)
--
Stephen
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
E-mail: stephen dot cuthbertson at gecm dot com
Steve Matty
> you like to give $7.50 away to corperations.
> you like a stuffy atmosphere.
> you like crying babies
> you like people talking over the soundtrack
> you like to sit in unconfortable seats
> you like to be extorted for snack foods (popcorn, soda) ect.
> you like waiting in line for your tickets in the freezing cold
> you like to fight for parking
> you like to try to see past that tall person who sits in front of you
> you like the helpful intelligent employees
Maybe where you come from, all but the first don't apply to my local
cinema...
Parking can be a bitch at times, but is usually not impossible.. :-)
Oh well, just thought I'd add my worthless nonsense....
Dang, gotta pad this msg out before the newsserver will accept it.
Steve.
Stephen Cuthbertson
>
> Good reasons to go to the theatre;
> you like a stuffy atmosphere.
> you like crying babies
> you like people talking over the soundtrack
> you like to sit in unconfortable seats
> you like to be extorted for snack foods (popcorn, soda) ect.
> you like waiting in line for your tickets in the freezing cold
> you like poor sound and picture quality.
> you like dirty bathrooms
> you like to fight for parking
> you like to try to see past that tall person who sits in front of you
> you like the helpful intelligent employees
>
Oh to live in the good ol' US of A.
Meanwhile back in Blighty,
Average film price around 4ukp (6.60USD)
Full air con
No babies (or moblie phones) allowed
Any noise and your out - it's ony good manners after all
Really comfy seats 50pence extra.
Food well that isn't any better - it is "American" after all.
Phone for your tickets in advance avoiding, disappointment and queues
Dolby Digital sound and huge screens.
Very clean toilets - some thing they do well over here!
loads of free parking with security guards
Seats suitably tiered so you can see over people
Employees in the UK generally have degrees 'cos there are no other jobs.
Consul de Designers
((snipped all his very unfortunate experiences.))
Well, yes, they happen ever now and then, though pretty infrequently for me. But
one of the big reasons why I go to the theatres still is to see other people
react, to get a pulse on what they like and don't like. It's weird, I usually
see a theatre release film maybe 2 or 3 times. I like looking around, seeing
what the kids laugh at, the adults laugh at, the old folks laugh at (or cry,
scream, gasp, etc.)
--
Consul de Designers,
Anyone from Africa, Finland, India, or somewhere near there, please email me if
you can help me make the best Christmas for a good friend of mine. I want to
send her postcards from oversees, to the US.
SenorDVD
<<The quality of theaters lately is getting worse; recently I saw "I Still Know
What You Did Last Summer"(terrible flick), and the sound went out. 10 minutes
went by, 15 minutes went by.... a little over 20 minutes later it was fixed.
theater(9 total screens) and no one bothered to go look for the guy>>
Hey, at least you walked out with your ears intact!
A problem I've run into occasionally is EXTREMELY LOUD movie theaters. I'm not
a "noise sensitive" person; I could care less how loud my neighbors play their
stereo ( or DVD's :-) how loud the dog next door barks, etc., etc. In fact, I
usually play my own TV louder than most people's preference so I can still hear
every word of dialogue if we're talking or eating.
But some theaters play their movies so LOUD it hurts. Its not even typically a
big special effects banger like Armageddon or Godzilla. The LOUDEST movie I've
ever been to was 101 Dalmations- it ruined the film for me and may have left
some poor kids hard of hearing.
I wish the projectionists would realize that LOUD sound does not necessarily
equal GOOD sound. All these DTS equipped theaters sound great without cranking
the volume up to painful levels. The whole point of DD etc is REALISM, not
LOUDNESS (with the exception of bass you can feel). You can crank up ANY
theater speakers to loud and uncomfortable levels, regardless of technology.
Anyone else experience this problem?
Shane Crowe
>
>I wish the projectionists would realize that LOUD sound does not necessarily
>equal GOOD sound. All these DTS equipped theaters sound great without cranking
>the volume up to painful levels. The whole point of DD etc is REALISM, not
>LOUDNESS (with the exception of bass you can feel). You can crank up ANY
>theater speakers to loud and uncomfortable levels, regardless of technology.
>
>Anyone else experience this problem?
Yeah, two movies come to mind:
X-Files was way too loud when the alien was first shown and it
attacked a guy underground. That thing shrieked so loud, I had to
cover my ears even though I'm normally a "crank it up" kinda guy. It
went beyond realistic - not that I'd know what an angry alien sounds
like anyway.
Saving Private Ryan was loud and rightly so. Still, that 20 minute
opening scene with bombs going off all the time began to make my ears
ache. I think the prolonged base got to me. Maybe the audio in that
scene was a little too real as I'm quite certain being on the beach
during D-day would have also hurt my ears (assuming I lived through
it).
I saw both movies at a THX theater in the Dallas area (Galaxy 9 to be
exact).
Jason Steiner
>
> We don't (or at least I don't) go to the movies just to SEE THE
> MOVIE, we go to the movies to be around other people, to be outside, to
> socialize, to feel like we're part of our community, to vary our lives.
> Seeing the movie itself is really a small part of it.
When I go to a theater it *is* just to see the movie.
And it's not because I'm anti-social or any of that rot. Quite the
opposite. Sitting silently in a dark room with hundreds of strangers
isn't my definition of a social activity. If I want to get out, meet
people, be part of my community and all that, I'll go to a bar
or a club. Some place where you not only can talk, you are encouraged
to talk, and can do it face to face over a game of darts or a pitcher
of beer. That's why such places exist.
Movie theaters exist to show movies. When I want to see a movie,
that's where I go. And I expect to view that movie in relative peace
and quiet, without being disturbed by a bunch of idiots who can't
tell the difference between a theater and karaoke night down at the
Vine. Which is also enjoyable, just not the same thing.
Unfortunately, that's a distinction that a lot of movie goers can't
or won't make any more, and a lot of movie houses aren't doing
anything to reinforce. So I'm making my own theater where I can watch
movies for the sake of watching movies, and if the theaters want to
compete with the bars as a place to socialize, I'll have to pick the
one where I can buy a shot and a beer.
jason
--
"You know it's a quality review when they differentiate between
profanity and obscenity." - Rev. Sean O'Hara, referring to
http://movieguide.crosswalk.com/ccn/movieguide.nsf/main/Blade
ja...@gaydeceiver.com http://www.gaydeceiver.com
Joseph Kaufman
sony...@aol.comNoSpam (SonySddS1) wrote:
> Film Prints have looked terrible or just fair lately. The main problem I have
> is that they all seem to be very washed out in color. "X-Files" and "Saving
> Private Ryan" had a whole lot of trouble(especially "Ryan"!) this past year as
> I think the amount of prints being made is causing the people doing this
job to
> not be as careful.
THE X-FILES was shot in the horrid Super35 process, which accounts for the
prints looking so washed out.
--
- Joseph Kaufman
SonySddS1
>LOUDNESS (with the exception of bass you can feel). You can crank up ANY
>theater speakers to loud and uncomfortable levels, regardless of technology.
>
>
>Anyone else experience this problem?
>
>
Yep. I definitely think "Godzilla" was played FAR too loud; maybe it was just
the SDDS sound mix, I don't know, but it was not only loud, but very sharp.
GivenRandy
>desaturated - just read any Spielberg/Kaminski interviews on the film. It
>was supposed to echo the look of WW2 news footage - hence the choice of film
>stock and aspect ratio...
I guess the next one will have to be 8mm, with loud murmurs from
the photographer so that it catches the "spirit" of home videos?
When I see a war movie (e.g., "Platoon", "Saving Private Ryan"), I want
to see what the SOLDIER sees, not what some news cameraman sees.
In other words, crisp!
Randy Given
Given...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/GivenRandy
public key at http://members.aol.com/GivenRandy/pgpkey.asc
GivenRandy
Alas, this may be more right than wrong. I hope not, but it
is looking that way. However, I am dying to see the original
"Star Wars" on DVD -- patiently.
ZapPowBam
>I guess the next one will have to be 8mm, with loud murmurs from
>the photographer so that it catches the "spirit" of home videos?
No, actually, it will just be Joel Schumacher pretending to be David
Fincher.
>When I see a war movie (e.g., "Platoon", "Saving Private Ryan"), I want
>to see what the SOLDIER sees, not what some news cameraman sees.
>In other words, crisp!
So you want all war movies to look the same?
----------------------------------
Remove "CLEAR" to respond via e-mail
TomRipley
>When I see a war movie (e.g., "Platoon", "Saving Private Ryan"), I want
>to see what the SOLDIER sees, not what some news cameraman sees.
>In other words, crisp!
Okay, when you see The Thin Red Line, have the theater turn the
sprinklers on to simulate rain, and have friends throw body parts and
blood at you. Then you'll need someone to keep up a constant barrage
of machine gun fire... ;-)
Tom
--
"Has anything you've done made your life better?"
- David McKenna, "American History X"
Bryant Frazer
: When I see a war movie (e.g., "Platoon", "Saving Private Ryan"), I want
: to see what the SOLDIER sees, not what some news cameraman sees.
: In other words, crisp!
Realism is overrated. What the soldier sees may not give you the
information you need to fully understand the scenario. There's a reason
why movies aren't told in long, naturalistic sequences from the
first-person point of view -- it gets dull. Some degree of stylization is
necesary, and I'd argue that the aesthetics of the war sequences in SAVING
PRIVATE RYAN are far more effective than any "crisp," more allegedly
"realistic," portrayal would be.
Or, in other words, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN isn't "realistic" because it shows
you what the soldier saw. It's realistic because it uses all the tricks of
the director, cinematographer, editor, and performers to show what the
soldier might have *felt*. Big difference. (In echoing the newsreel-style
flicker, it also expresses Spielberg's only experience of the war, which
was probably through documentary footage. I find this sort of
expressionism more enthralling, and more effective, than straight-up
"realism.")
-bf-
DEEP FOCUS (Movie Reviews)
http://www.panix.com/~bfrazer/flicker/
"We can't stop here -- this is bat country!"
Joseph Kaufman
> On Mon, 30 Nov 1998 22:00:56 -0800, jo...@pacificnet.net (Joseph
> Kaufman) wrote:
>
> >THE X-FILES was shot in the horrid Super35 process, which accounts for the
> >prints looking so washed out.
>
> So were Titanic, True Lies and T2: Judgement Day. Cameron only uses
> Super35. And his movies *never* look "washed out".
>
> Tom
Careful quality control can ameliorate, but never completely eliminate,
the effects of having an entire film go through extra optical steps in the
blow-up process that Super35 requires. I have yet to see a Super35 film
look nearly as good as a film shot in anamorphic Panavision, even one from
Cameron.
--
- Joseph Kaufman
GivenRandy
> because it shows you what the soldier saw. It's realistic because
> it uses all the tricks of the director, cinematographer, editor
Agreed.
> Big difference.
Sort of. The screen doesn't have to be only blurred purple haze
in order to get a point across. Even if it is mud all over the soldiers
eyeballs, it can show the sand and grass in the mud (i.e., details)
instead of just putting a black frame on the screen (both would
make me "feel" like I can't see, but the more "crisp" one would
portray it more accurately).
GivenRandy
>sprinklers on to simulate rain, and have friends throw body parts and
>blood at you. Then you'll need someone to keep up a constant barrage
>of machine gun fire... ;-)
Actually, ;-), that would be great. Kinda like the Holo-deck on Star Trek.
Virtual Reality, but not to the point of getting yourself killed.
TomRipley
Kaufman) wrote:
>THE X-FILES was shot in the horrid Super35 process, which accounts for the
>prints looking so washed out.
So were Titanic, True Lies and T2: Judgement Day. Cameron only uses
Super35. And his movies *never* look "washed out".
Tom
Todd Jones
> : When I see a war movie (e.g., "Platoon", "Saving Private Ryan"), I want
> : to see what the SOLDIER sees, not what some news cameraman sees.
> : In other words, crisp!
>
> Realism is overrated. What the soldier sees may not give you the
> information you need to fully understand the scenario. There's a reason
> why movies aren't told in long, naturalistic sequences from the
> first-person point of view -- it gets dull. Some degree of stylization is
> necesary, and I'd argue that the aesthetics of the war sequences in SAVING
> PRIVATE RYAN are far more effective than any "crisp," more allegedly
> "realistic," portrayal would be.
> Or, in other words, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN isn't "realistic" because it shows
> you what the soldier saw. It's realistic because it uses all the tricks of
> the director, cinematographer, editor, and performers to show what the
> soldier might have *felt*. Big difference. (In echoing the newsreel-style
> flicker, it also expresses Spielberg's only experience of the war, which
> was probably through documentary footage. I find this sort of
> expressionism more enthralling, and more effective, than straight-up
> "realism.")
If Spielberg wasn't concerned about realism and wanted to duplicate the
style of newsreel footage, why did he use modern sound technology? The
immersive, state-of-art surround sound used in SPR is at odds with the
visual style Spielberg chose.
Jason Brian Chapa
No, that would be Armageddon.
Jason Brian Chapa
**remove NOSPAM from address to reply**
--------------------------------------
Fight DIVX! Support Open DVD!
Fight pan&scan! Support widescreen!
Jason Brian Chapa
far, far away, jims...@aol.com (JimSpotlt) wrote:
><<Theaters exist to show Star Wars: Episode 1 on Memorial Day, 1999.>>
>
>
>And $1 theaters exist to show it 5 weeks later, when it tanks.
>
And psychologists exist to help you overcome your mental problems.
Jason Brian Chapa
far, far away, "Mike Reber" <mike...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Good reasons to go to the theatre;
Let's see,
>you like to give $7.50 away to corperations.
Well, I don't pay a single cent when I go to the movies. I've worked
with and know all the managers of all the local theaters. So I get
free movies when ever and where ever I want. (BTW, it's
corporations.)
>you like a stuffy atmosphere.
Theaters I go to are nice and cool. No stuffiness there...
>you like crying babies
Not too many babies at the late shows 9-10pm.
>you like people talking over the soundtrack
Move somewhere else, or have the management kick them out.
>you like to sit in unconfortable seats
Theaters I go to have just fine seats.
>you like to be extorted for snack foods (popcorn, soda) ect.
Well, no one FORCES you to buy snacks there. You could always smuggle
in your own snacks. I don't condone that, but it's hard to stop.
Besides, I get free popcorn & sodas, so I don't care...
>you like waiting in line for your tickets in the freezing cold
No freezing lines here. Since I don't have to buy tickets, I don't
have to wait in line. Even if I did, most of the theaters here have
the line waiting area indoors (one in a mall, one in a shopping
center). Even if they all were outdoors, it doesn't really get cold
here. I wore shorts and a t-shirt today.
>you like poor sound and picture quality.
I make sure the sound and picture is perfect by talking to the
managers and whoever's running the projection booth at the time.
>you like dirty bathrooms
Who cares what the bathrooms are like? You piss, wash your hands and
get out. What more do you need?
>you like to fight for parking
Never had a problem parking.
>you like to try to see past that tall person who sits in front of you
That's what stadium seating, raised screens ,and other such ideas are
for. And if all else fails, MOVE!
>you like the helpful intelligent employees
I ignore the idiots and talk to the intelligent ones.
> thats all the reasons I could come up with !
Sorry, you have it so bad. But it really is nice to be able see any
movie any time.
jef...@rhythm.com
blu...@aol.com (Blue Tao) wrote:
> Has anyone else noticed that film prints seem to be shittier lately? i'll go
to
> a movie 3 days after it's realeased and the print already looks horrible. Am i
> just too picky or have others had this problem?
>
Absolutely! I saw both "Enemy of The State" and "Celebrity" days after they
were released and they both had horrible scratches throughout the film.
Perhaps video has caused some to forget what a "gate" is and how to clean it!
Still, nothing compares to a properly projected film in a good theater.
We're a long way from abandoning them.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Stephen Veneruso
pointing a laser dot at the screen just doesn't provide that full theater
experience!
Watching your 5th Element DVD at ear bleeding 5.1 levels while drinking your
favorite brew, snuggled next to your sig-other on your big comfy couch with
your pooch at your feet... It just doesn't compare to a 15 year old moron in
a crowd of three hundred.
Hell, I guess I'll have to sport the $9.98 for a laser pointer and teach the
cat to point it at the screen at the good parts.
Mark my words, some lil' bastard is going to be mob-beaten May 21, 1999 for
pointing a laser dot at Yoda at the premier. From the temperament here in
Houston, I'd bet it'll be a 72 year old biddy who clocks 'im too.
Laze the punks till their retinas detach!
Stephen
Blue Tao
pointers. I was at rush hour and this fat redneck was pointing it at the
screen for 30 straight minutes until somone went over there and threatened to
beat his ass and took his pointer away from him.
theatres should keep an usher in the theatre at all times to throw those
people out and the oens who bring their cell phones! When i went to see apt.
pupil(horribly boring film BTW) some bitch got her phone out and called to see
if anyone wanted her to bring home food!
going to the theatre is now reserved for special films like episode 1.
Coddington, Paul
Shane Crowe wrote in message <3662e56e.11839434@rchnews0>...
|On 30 Nov 1998 17:56:57 GMT, seno...@aol.com (SenorDVD) wrote:
|
|>
|>I wish the projectionists would realize that LOUD sound does not
necessarily
|>equal GOOD sound. All these DTS equipped theaters sound great without
cranking
not
|>LOUDNESS (with the exception of bass you can feel). You can crank up ANY
|>theater speakers to loud and uncomfortable levels, regardless of
technology.
Yep - our local theatres crank up the sound so loud my ears start to clip...
PAUL CODDINGTON
pa...@mail.act.apana.org.au
http://www.geocities.com/athens/2488
PEC Pink Axolotl is a non-sensical disorganisation...
Minesh
>>The whole point of DD etc is REALISM, not
>>LOUDNESS (with the exception of bass you can feel). You can crank up ANY
>>theater speakers to loud and uncomfortable levels, regardless of technology.
>>
>>
>>Anyone else experience this problem?
>>
>>
>
Yeah, Lethal Weapon 4 was so loud and harsh my ears were ringing
afterwards. That, combined with very high prices and poor print
quality has kept me from the theaters ever since. (But
ST:Insurrection is opening soon, so looks like I'll be back).
Jason Richard Edgecombe
> In article <19981129153950...@ng-fu1.aol.com>,
> sony...@aol.comNoSpam (SonySddS1) wrote:
>
> > Film Prints have looked terrible or just fair lately. The main problem I have
> > is that they all seem to be very washed out in color. "X-Files" and "Saving
> > Private Ryan" had a whole lot of trouble(especially "Ryan"!) this past year as
> > I think the amount of prints being made is causing the people doing this
> job to
> > not be as careful.
RYAN was SUPPOSED to look washed out like that; it was an aesthetic
decision on the part of the director and the DP.
And the 2 prints that I saw of X-Files looked fine, save the extra grain
from super35.
jason.
Cheng-Jih Chen
Jason Brian Chapa <jch...@NOSPAMwf.quik.com> wrote:
>>
>>I'm sorry you felt the need to see that movie, it was the worst film of 1998,
>>IMO.
>>JimS...@aol.com
>
>No, that would be Armageddon.
1998! So many candidates this year! Godzilla, The Avengers, etc.
Maagic
GivenRandy wrote:
>
> >Careful quality control can ameliorate, but never completely eliminate,
> >the effects of having an entire film go through extra optical steps in the
> >blow-up process that Super35 requires. I have yet to see a Super35 film
> >look nearly as good as a film shot in anamorphic Panavision, even one from
> >Cameron.
>
> Everything should be at the iMax quality level. We should support
> a widescreen adaptation of it as well.
>
> Randy Given
> Given...@aol.com
> http://members.aol.com/GivenRandy
> public key at http://members.aol.com/GivenRandy/pgpkey.asc
--
Maagic
aka Bryan Foster
Webmaster of the
Rick and Bubba Audio Page
http://www.cybrtyme.com/personal/bfoster/bubba.htm
Mark Holtz
> theatres should keep an usher in the theatre at all times to throw those
>people out and the oens who bring their cell phones!
Now, wait a sec. Those of us who have the "electronic leash" usually need it
for a reason.
>When i went to see apt.
>pupil(horribly boring film BTW) some bitch got her phone out and called to see
>if anyone wanted her to bring home food!
Grab an usher and get her kicked out if it occurred during the movie
presentation (or the trailers).
A few years ago, I went to the first showing of "Star Trek: First Contact".
Now, I had an hour to kill in the theater, and I didn't want to lose my good
seat. (It was opening weekend.) So, I called and chatted with a friend.
The person sitting next to me was wondering if I would be chatting on the
phone during the movie. I replied, "No, the phone gets turned off during the
movie."
As promised, when the trailers began, the phone was shut off.
--
Are you a SPAMmer? Do you like to send unsolicited commercial e-mail?
If so, be sure not to send it to me.
GivenRandy
GivenRandy
>pointing a laser dot at Yoda at the premier. From the temperament here in
>Houston, I'd bet it'll be a 72 year old biddy who clocks 'im too.
If I see one, it will end up looking worse than if a light saber got
a hold on it. Someone was using one at the last movie -- fortunately,
the person quit using before I found out who it was (maybe someone
else got there first). I'm probably "preaching to the choir", because
I doubt that those punks read anything worth giving a thought to....
Darren Garrison
>>Mark my words, some lil' bastard is going to be mob-beaten May 21, 1999 for
>>pointing a laser dot at Yoda at the premier. From the temperament here in
>>Houston, I'd bet it'll be a 72 year old biddy who clocks 'im too.
>
>If I see one, it will end up looking worse than if a light saber got
>a hold on it. Someone was using one at the last movie -- fortunately,
>the person quit using before I found out who it was (maybe someone
>else got there first). I'm probably "preaching to the choir", because
>I doubt that those punks read anything worth giving a thought to....
So, is laser pointer usage common in movies now? The last time I went
to the theater (opening of Interview With the Vampire) was before the
main laser craze hit, when the least expensive of lasers was in the
$50.00 range and they weren't yet to "keychain" size. Now, I had been
buying laser pointers since maybe around 1992 (I just like the
things-- my first was about 7 inches long and an inch and a quarter
thick, and cost maybe $60.00. I had wanted one since they were the
size of a paperback book and sold for $500 or more) and I was suprised
to see someone shining the beam on the screen then. I thought it to
be an interesting coincidence that there happened to be two people in
the room that owned a laser. Now I here complaints all of the time
about people using them in theaters, at concerts, at beaches, and
such. (Of course, the fad has one advantage-- the economy of scale--
I bought my latest laser this weekend, one with 25 heads for 17
bucks).
Maagic
night...and then I just thought it was made up for the show.
--
DHowie
In article <3662BD...@gecm.com>, Stephen Cuthbertson <nos...@gecm.com>
writes:
>Are you deaf? Or do you have more money than sense? ;-)
>
>--
>Stephen
You haven't heard my system personally, have you? I had an expert tech (a
friend of a friend) over at my house who told me, quite frankly, for the price,
I have a very nice system! And he has a reputation of telling exactly what he
thinks! And he is a guy who sells high end stereo equipment which I can't
presently afford. He told me that Bose is a good start, better than many
speakers out there, not the best you can buy (of course not), but certainly
deliver quite acceptable sound. So, enjoy what you have! I certainly do
mine!
And, no, I'm not deaf, my hearing is perfect! Thanks for asking.
Don
DHowie
In article <73usaj$mpr$3...@nnrp02.primenet.com>, Jason Steiner
<ja...@gaydeceiver.com> writes:
>Unfortunately, that's a distinction that a lot of movie goers can't
>or won't make any more, and a lot of movie houses aren't doing
>anything to reinforce. So I'm making my own theater where I can watch
>movies for the sake of watching movies, and if the theaters want to
>compete with the bars as a place to socialize, I'll have to pick the
>one where I can buy a shot and a beer.
I very much believe that we have a talk-over-the-movie mentality that comes
from the advent of home video. People get up, talk with other people (across
the room), during the playing of a movie at home. It's just this mentality
that exists in the movie theater these days. It's a shame.
Last night, I went to hear the Symphony. Different atmosphere. You could hear
a pin drop from the audience perspective. Last night the singer cracked a few
witticisms concerning the music, the audience responded with appropriate
laughter but was absolutely silent (albeit some coughing) during the actual
performance of the music. Why can't we bring this type of respect back to the
movie theaters like we used to? It's fun to go to the movies when the audience
responds and acts appropriately. It's great fun to see a good movie, presented
beautifully, to have a good laugh, or a good fright, with an adoring,
appreciative and RESPECTFUL crowd!
I do have to say, though, that the people who enjoy the Symphony, by and large,
do not go to the movies. And why? Because either the movie contains
inappropriate dialogue, or the audience does!
That's my opinion, of course.
Don (621 DVD)
Sharif Shahwan
DHowie wrote:
>>if the theaters want to compete with the bars as a place to socialize,
>>I'll have to pick the one where I can buy a shot and a beer.
Our local Cinema (The Commodore in Aberystwyth, Wales) has a bar and has
always allowed drinks to be taken into the cinema. I never realised that
this wasn't a common practice until a couple of years ago! Some say that it
might have something to do with the high student population, but surely
they're all too busy studying to go out watching films and drinking, aren't
they? :)
Sharif
Fame finds those who do not seek it
(Remove 'NO_SPAM' from my address to reply)