And as has been touched on briefly, there are some films which really don’t “work” at home- they need to be seen on a massive screen, in the dark, with other people to get the full effect.
The Matrix, for example, would have been a quirky sci-fi film with some interesting ideas but otherwise nothing remarkable had it been a straight-to-video affair. But it wasn’t. It got a full cinema release and despite two embarrassing and frequently disregarded sequels, it entered- and became part of- popular culture in a big way.
I’d argue that this is case is fatally flawed: you have no idea what would succeed if only small screens existed and no films ever got released to big screen theaters. I personally think it’s a failure of the imagination on the parts of those who require the big screen to get the full effect. I’ve watched “gigantic blockbusters” on a tiny screen and liked some more than others. Doesn’t mean the second group would have appealed any more if I’d had a huge screen to watch them on–I have an imagination that lets me overcome such things more easily than it lets me pretend that I’m not being bombarded with distractions like people talking, texting, standing up in front of me… Doesn’t mean I get less out of a movie than you do if my imagination lets me allow for different distractions --or does it?
I’m not trying to say you’re wrong, because you aren’t. The point I’m making is that watching The Matrix on a big cinema screen and then watching it on a 32" screen in my lounge is like watching two completely different movies. And one of them isn’t nearly as enjoyable (hint: It’s not the one at the cinema).
Take something like Lawrence of Arabia. Great movie, well made, well acted, etc. Again, watching it on a 70mm screen with a good sound system is going to be far different experience to watching it at home with your old hi-fi hooked up to the TV. It’s nothing to do with “imagination” or “distractions”- it’s to do with the fact that your entire field of view is filled with movie, there’s sound all around you, other people are reacting to the things in the film, and- I think this is just as important- you’ve designated the film “an event”- ie you’ve had to get dressed, go to the theatre, get a park, buy your ticket, get your refreshments, and invest two hours or so of your time in watching the movie.
It’s a different experience to just whacking a DVD in the player, hitting play, and opening a bag of potato crisps. That doesn’t mean either experience is “right” or “wrong”, but there are films- and Avatar is definitely one of them- that just won’t have the full effect on the average person’s (not SDMB Cinephiles) TV/DVD setup.
Exactly. There is a scene where the entire screen is filled with a vista of the desert, completely void of humanity. That scene cannot work as the filmmaker intended on a home screen. It was composed for an overwhelmingly huge screen, and depends on it for the emotional impact of a tiny black dot appearing on the horizon.
But if your imagination can transport you so that the tiny screen occupies 100% of your mind, so that you completely block out the rest of the world while you’re watching it, as mine can (and yours apparently can’t, though it’s much better at blocking out the huge ass of the person in my aisle getting up every few seconds to consume more calories or to dispose of those he just consumed) then you experience the same effect as in the Cinemax theater.
Or are you saying that I’m simply totally insane and am miserable experiencing something I think I’m enjoying?
Oh please. I never saw The Matrix in a theater. (I see almost nothing in the theater.) But I can assure you that watching it was a hotly anticipated event. First there was the year or so wait for it to come to cable, then when it finally showed up on the tv schedule as a Saturday premiere (either HBO or Starz) it made my week. And I was floored by it. (The weed helped.)
Don’t tell me I didn’t get as much out of it as people who saw it in the theater, and it has nothing to do with having a fancy setup at home. (I don’t.) Some people may not be able to appreciate something as much on a small screen, I fully grant that, but I view that as a deficiency on their part. I can just fine.
Even better is I can smoke cigarettes, weed, drink booze, and go to the bathroom all I want.
The few movies I saw in the theater during the 2000s included the Star Wars prequels, the last two Pirates of the Caribbean movies, and Terminator 3. None of them were helped by the big screen and loud speakers, at least for me. In fact, I clearly remember* thinking during Revenge of the Sith that the big expansive space battles looked like a jumbled mess on the big screen. I think they look much better on my 32" CRT.
*I clearly remember the thought, not which prequel it was. Could have been any of the three.
I just remembered that I also saw the second Matrix in the theater, which totally sucked. I can appreciate it much more now on the small screen, though that’s damning with faint praise. I couldn’t have appreciated the big screen effects any less when I was actually in the theater for that trainwreck.
No, Ellis, you (and I) are simply deceiving ourselves as to what pleasure we did and didn’t experience. We just have no clue when we’re having a good time.
Just to clarify, I am a bit of a movie snob in that I will always choose letterbox over pan and scan anytime I’m offered a choice, and I can’t stand stretch mode on high def tvs. So I’m not a total Luddite.
The “Most/Least rewarding Best Picture” thread reminded me of seeing Gladiator in the theater, and again for me I think it suffered on the big screen compared to the experience of watching it on television. The first battle sequence in particular I thought didn’t translate well on the big screen.
As for the comments upthread bagging on anti-social shut-ins, I’m totally on board with the sneering disdain. That scorn is well placed. However, that’s totally out of place in this discussion because going to the movies is possibly the single least social thing you can do with people. I very much prefer going to dinner, happy hour, barhopping in general, parties, heading to the casino or jai-alai, skiing in winter, barbecues in the summer with a game of wiffle ball or horseshoes, frisbee golf, hiking, going to concerts, camping, grabbing a set at nearby tennis courts, or even just getting together at a buddy’s house for some Xbox are all way more socially fulfilling. Movies are the worst.
Imagination is what made many of the old Twilight Zones and Alfred Hitchcock Presents so enjoyable. Don’t knock the ability of the imagination to fill in the gaps of well-presented media.
Clearly large screens, excellent sound systems, and technology like 3D in it’s various forms, makes for a good viewing experience for many films. Although small screens on netbooks and laptops give a film experience, it is different, and not always the best or worst way to see a film. That said, large screen LCD monitors and TV’s, with good sound systems try to emulate the theatre experience. I think it does it successfully. I’ll see Avatar in 3D, but I’ll view most other films at home, where I have the best control of my viewing experience.
Thereabout, yeah. It’s a really crappy theater, the sort that wouldn’t survive in a place with much competition, and we have a projection tv aimed at a huge screen about 15 feet from our chairs in the media room.
Movies are certainly not important enough to us to quit our jobs, sell our house, buy a new house somewhere more expensive, pack up all our shit, and generally uproot our whole lives to have more options for watching them, no. Nor are they important enough that having the option to initially settle in a place with plenty of of options for seeing them would have been worth having to pay back his med school loans in actual money. And even without those factors, options for watching movies wouldn’t make it into the top 20, maybe not even top 50 factors for picking a place to live.
Would it be the exact same experience? No. It also wouldn’t have been the exact same experience if there had been a different audience in the theater with us, or if I’d been tired or in a bad mood or had a headache. Would it have been an equally enjoyable experience? Hell, yeah. It was a hilarious and touching movie, and there is nothing you can change about the viewing experience that would mitigate the quality of that film. It’s a movie that has an element of spectacle that adds to the experience, but the spectacle isn’t the core of the experience like it is for some movies.
That, for me, is a big chunk of the dividing line between a movie worth the hassle of going to the theater. I only go to the theater for good movies with some element of spectacle that really gain something from being seen on the big screen. Movies that suck when you remove the spectacle of the big screen are, imo, movies that just plain suck and aren’t worth my time and money. Movies that don’t have some element of spectacle don’t really lose anything significant by being seen at home, so there’s likewise no real reason to go to the theater.
So I typically go about 8 months between trips to the theater.
While there are lots of qualities of watching a movie at a theater that appeal to me might not appeal to you…I think that comedies are much funnier in a crowded theater than at home, because laughter is infectious.
Count me in as one of the viewers who would rather be at home with very few distractions (and there’s always the pause button if I really have to take the call or answer the door) than to deal with the oafs in the movie theater who take away from what was supposed to be such a great experience.
An aspect that seems missing in this discussion is that “the theater” is not well defined.
I’ve been in rural theaters that are terrible: crackly sound, wonky projectors, and rude patrons who rarely go to the local 6-screen theater. If that’s all you have near you, then you might be inclined to say that “going to the theater” is too much annoyance.
If you live where there are many theaters and where the movie-going social culture is strong, these problems may not be there. Crisp and well-adjusted sound, bright and focused image, comfortable seats (preferably with a little give in the back so you can sort of lean back a bit), stadium seating (so if people do get up, you can’t really see them anyway), and patrons who know that other people are trying to watch a movie. I can’t remember the last time I’ve had anyone stand up in front of me, walk past my legs, or get a phone call.
Anyway, just sayin’ that going to the theater may not mean the same thing to everyone here.