7 ms·

Hollywood Should Pay Attention to Christopher Nolan's 'Dunkirk'

25 points by kposehn 9y ago

morley 9y ago
70mm has already long-since proved itself to be a lucrative mass-market format: it's called IMAX.
- smacktoward 9y ago
  Most "IMAX" screens are not what most people think of when they think of IMAX. Rather than 70mm film projected onto multi-story screens, they're just using an IMAX-developed digital projection system and a slightly-larger-than-standard screen. The result can be disappointing if you go in expecting real IMAX and get the inferior mass-market alternative instead. IMAX deliberately lumps their 70mm system and their digital system together under the "IMAX" brand, without any additional information to help people distinguish between the two. It's hard not to think that this is done intentionally, to use the brand value their large-format system has built up over the years to sell tickets for the comparatively more lackluster digital system.
  - justin66 9y ago
    You're right that people should set their expectations properly, but IMAX Digital is still pretty great, visually and aurally. I saw Inception on an IMAX Digital screen and it really was just about perfect. The somewhat over the top audio production that Nolan does really comes alive on a system like that, and the film looked beautiful. In a situation like that I don't know what the utility of the larger system would have been. I saw Avatar in 3D on such a system, and it was of course completely amazing, but that's not for everything.
woofyman 9y ago
I saw Aliens in 70mm when it was first released in a huge theater. It was awesome.
- chiph 9y ago
  Empire Strikes Back for me. Amazing. > Despite an increase in 3-D releases, the box-office market for that particular upcharge is falling as 3-D has gone from being a special experience to a perfunctory feature for every blockbuster. The problem is the directors using 3D just couldn't resist the overused trope of having an arrow (or spears, in the case of Star Trek: Out of Darkness) fly out of the screen at the audience. I dunno, maybe it was intended as an homage to the old Anaglyph 3-D movies, but it fell flat.
  - michaelchisari 9y ago
    The only movies I've seen that do 3-D "right" have been Avatar and Dredd. The former because the technology was built around the film, and it was presented in this subtle way that created an extraordinary depth without feeling cheesy or tacked on. The latter because they really did some cool effects with the "Slo-Mo" drug that didn't have the same impact in 2-D. But aside from those, it just feels like a way to charge more for a less-enjoyable experience (films that are too dark, potential headaches, uncomfortable glasses).
- vidanay 9y ago
  I saw all three Star Wars, all three Raiders, ET, Close Encounters, Burton's Batman, Ghostbusters, etc, etc at the HUGE theater at Woodfield Mall in Schaumburg, IL. I swear the screen was the size of a football field and there were seats for 2k people. It was glorious.
berberous 9y ago
I saw The Hateful Eight in 70mm, but it was projected on a normal-sized movie theater screen, and frankly, if anything, it looked worse than a normal film. I suspect the staff was inadequately trained in how to operate a real film projector, as the focus looked a touch soft. On the other hand, seeing Interstellar in 70mm IMAX was _incredible_. Even with the recent IMAX Laser projectors, 70mm IMAX prints contain much more resolution and it was the best looking movie experience I have ever had. I highly recommend seeing Dunkirk in 70mm IMAX if it's playing near you.
- arethuza 9y ago
  Seeing The Dark Knight on an IMAX screen was particularly impressive because of the cuts from "normal" screen size to full IMAX - they really were breathtaking.
jsmthrowaway 9y ago
Large format film is the domain of the auteur because they're the only ones who can get away with it. 70mm is ridiculously expensive, and the logistics of moving it around doubly so -- a typical thousand-foot reel of 1570 IMAX 70mm will give you about three minutes of shooting before a reel change is necessary. You get one good take, then your camera assistants spend 10-15 minutes changing the reel while your cast stands around smoking. 35mm, on the other hand, buys you about 10 minutes of shooting on a typical reel and a much faster turnaround. When Christopher Nolan says sure, I'll cook you a billion dollar movie but here are my requirements, he'll get away with it. When Judd Apatow tries the same, he won't. Blockbuster superhero movies, given their returns, should be shooting on whatever they want but those are made for quantity.
- JoshTriplett 9y ago
  I've seen analyses that suggest that 70mm is roughly equivalent to 8K resolution, once digitized. Given that 8K cameras exist, and would presumably allow as much shooting as you can attach auxiliary storage capacity, what's the advantage to shooting in analog 70mm instead, especially if you're going to end up digitizing anyway?
  - snicky 9y ago
    Maybe it has something to do with the film being able to capture a larger spectrum of colors, the "analog feel" in general or the ability to scan it to higher resolutions in the future when technology advances? None of these seem to justify the costs though. There are probably some other reasons, I'm just guessing.
  - objclxt 9y ago
    Despite being in tech industry I went to film school back when it was still very common to be taught to shoot film so I'll have a go: > I've seen analyses that suggest that 70mm is roughly equivalent to 8K resolution, once digitized. It's tricky to give an exact number because it's an analog format, but in most cases it will be higher than that. You can get a good 4K transfer off 35mm, and 70mm is four times the area - so 8K would be very conservative. Of course, the big advantage of film is you get the grain, as well as what some people consider to be a better look (although that's subjective). > Given that 8K cameras exist, and would presumably allow as much shooting as you can attach auxiliary storage capacity, When shooting digitally your ratio would usually be 10:1, even 20:1 (as in, you shoot 10 times more material than you end up using). You're right that lots of directors see that as a great benefit. But when shooting with film - and especially 70mm - you have to be really conservative. A ratio of 3:1 would be much more common because you just can't afford any more. And that means you have to be very careful in layout your shots up, getting your actors prepared, etc. There's a minority of directors who appreciate this.
stcredzero 9y ago
One nightmarishly synergistic strategy is a pivot to toys, recently announced by Warner Bros., which will try to further capitalize on the marketing potential of all its family films. A dream to some... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuTviZDhXEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuTviZDhXEE
unethical_ban 9y ago
http://imgur.com/MgSGL1G http://imgur.com/MgSGL1G This is one example of just how impressive "real" IMAX is. I saw Interstellar twice in IMAX and was blown away both times. And as an aside, to continue my rage against trailers: If you didn't know about the tidal planet from the trailers, it was absolutely skin-crawling in its wonder when you see it for the first time in IMAX. To heck with over-revealing trailers!
- arielweisberg 9y ago
  I live next to one of like 8 laser projection IMAX theaters. If I can't watch an eye candy movie at that theatre I prefer to watch at home since my home theatre on average out performs most screens. How you can walk into a theatre and have it be out of focus I can't even begin to imagine. Even the sound is worse. This is an industry that needs some weeding.
- jstanley 9y ago
  What is the image supposed to demonstrate?
  - arielweisberg 9y ago
    The difference in resolution and framing. The framing isn't inherently better. The difference in resolution is.
    - e40 9y ago
      And frame rate. IMAX HD is 48 frames/sec compared to 24 for regular film and IMAX.
      - arielweisberg 9y ago
        I don't think I've ever managed to see a 48 fps movie. The only one worth watching was The Hobbit and the showing I caught wasn't 48 fps. Wikipedia makes it seem like IMAX HD died way back in 92 as soon as it was introduced?
CamperBob2 9y ago
I've gotta say, I'm not crazy about sanitizing realistic war movies for a PG-13 rating, as Nolan has reportedly done. Would Saving Private Ryan have the same impact with less violent imagery?
- JBReefer 9y ago
  Anything that "blunts" war or portrays it as anything besides "the worst living nightmare possible" is a lie. There of course is wonderful art to be made that acknowledges that fact - Guernica, Saving Private Ryan, The Hurt Locker - but to me, it's critical to acknowledge this. The extras who are casually shot in action scenes aren't extras in the real world, it's an act of actual murder that is abhorrent in the real world. One of humanities great moments happened after WW2, or maybe Vietnam: the realization that war is not noble, that "pro patria mori" is bullshit, and that no one really wins. Our media must reflect this fact, even if it seems to have lost touch with reality everywhere else. It's critical to the discourse and to our continued survival.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  Well, let's flip it around. Would Bridge on the River Kwai have been a better movie if it depicted gruesome carnage?
maldusiecle 9y ago
I don't agree that choosing a new format and upping ticket prices again is going to get people going to the movies again. Hollywood (and Hollywood commentators) are obsessed with the idea that films should be these huge spectacles, but is that all that audiences want? A lot of people I know are bored with movies. Spending $30 to go to another remake or superhero movie just isn't very attractive. I don't know anyone, other than boring film critics, who thinks the problem is a lack of spectacle. If anything, the problem is _too much_ spectacle--the kinds of movies made are limited to these goofy would-be epics. Everything has to go up to 11. It's really limiting when every movie has to appeal to the sensibility of a 14-year-old boy.
- ashark 9y ago
  In general there's an increasing problem of a glut of excellent entertainment. Movies are in a bit of a slump, but there are still several good films a year. TV's probably the best it's ever been—it's nuts how good it is. Video games are excellent and relatively cheap. There's an ongoing board gaming renaissance. Good or great music for almost every taste comes out every year. Then there's the fact that it's all hyper-available, including much of the back catalogue for all of human recorded/written entertainment. Almost no wait. Just press a button or three and enjoy. You can find a credible top-ten (or top-1000...) for almost any kind of thing you care to and the only impediment to experiencing at least 80-90% of them will be time. The hard part now isn't identifying and gaining access to great entertainment, it's figuring out which great entertainment you skip in favor of other great entertainment. If you remember what the world was like pre-Internet, this is a really weird situation. That film isn't exactly having a golden age right now makes it easy (nearly necessary, given how good everything else is) to largely avoid it, even if it isn't terrible, especially since cinema-going is one of the more expensive options for mass entertainment. Of course they continue to sell plenty of tickets, so maybe this post is just a bunch of crap.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    I mean, what's the appeal of going to the theater at this point, unless you're a teenager going on a date? I'd rather watch a movie in the comfort of my own home.
khazhoux 9y ago
I saw Interstellar on a beautiful IMAX screen. There were a couple of teenage boys laughing and cracking jokes behind me most of the movie. Not loud enough you'd kick them out, but still obnoxious, especially in the quiet scenes. They apologized when I said something, but then they started again after 10 minutes. During Rogue One, the guy sitting next to me waited until the end of the opening crawl to unwrap his steaming jalapeño cheese hotdog, which he then slowly ate over the next 15 minutes, relishing every bite and every chug of soda. Add to the fact that the acoustics in theaters are still never quite right (it's often LOUD but doesn't envelop you)... I just don't know why I would ever enjoy the theater experience again, when it's just so damn difficult to enjoy a good film.
- ThrustVectoring 9y ago
  I'd recommend trying an Alamo Drafthouse - they're super gung-ho about enforcing the rules that lead to an enjoyable movie-watching environment.
  - SomeHacker44 9y ago
    This is literally the only cinema I like going to (in NYC) anymore. I sit in the front row, where the seats are big recliners with foot rests that go up. The food is acceptable, the popcorn huge and in a big metal bowl and the beer list extensive. Not exactly cheap but entirely worth it for those few movies I want to see a year.
- justin66 9y ago
  > Add to the fact that the acoustics in theaters are still never quite right (it's often LOUD but doesn't envelop you)... It's a pet peeve of mine as well - the acoustics tend to be awful. I believe if you're at an IMAX theater they're supposed to meet some important minimum standards. No idea how true that really is, but I know none of the IMAX theaters I've been to had bad audio.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  It probably makes me sound incredibly crotchety to say so but one of the things I dislike about going to the theaters is that the audio volume is often too high for my liking.
Shivetya 9y ago
does anyone know if this format transfers better with 4k or is the effect not able to scale to it?
zitterbewegung 9y ago
I hate 3D movies because it causes eye strain. I hope they pay attention but in all seriousness the market should already do this. I will watch movies in large format if I can and the movie is good .
- emodendroket 9y ago
  > I hate 3D movies because it causes eye strain. The days for this crap have to be numbered, don't they? Nobody manufactures 3D TVs anymore and the latest 3DS comes without the 3D capability. The fad seems to be on its way out, finally.
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago
  3D movies are mostly just irritating to me, because I have strabismus and only process input from one eye at a time, so I can't see stereoscopic 3D. With the glasses on, it just looks like a normal movie to me. Everyone gasps when something flies at the camera, and I don't get it. Though I am glad they upgraded to polarized 3D glasses from the old red/blue kind. I couldn't watch movies at all with those--I either saw just the red or just the blue.
Overtonwindow 9y ago
I see maybe one movie in the theaters a year. High ticket, food, and drink prices, along with bad seats, people using their smartphones in full brightness, and other bad behavior, have made it not worth it.
skywhopper 9y ago
I enjoying seeing movies in the theater. Digital projection is mostly fine, and I don't think your normal audience is going to be wowed in a meaningful way by 70mm film. What's driven _me_ to see fewer movies is the constant bombardment with repetitive ads. From the moment I walk in the theater, there are ads blaring that you can't ignore. Then when the movie does "start", there are a good 20 minutes of trailers and often additional ads. The first time I see a batch of trailers, I'm okay with it. But if I go to the movies more often than once a month, I see so many trailers repeated that I rapidly get tired of the exercise. Maybe hold it to 2-3 trailers and one or two ads and let us have a little quiet time before the movie starts. The constant sensory overload is unpleasant even if the ads themselves weren't annoying. I'm sure the movie industry believes all the ads are worthwhile, and the media conglomerates certainly don't want to pass up a chance to overload a captive audience with the latest musical artist or TV show they're pushing, whether it's counterproductive or not. But for me, it makes it a lot less appealing to go back to the theater unless I'm sure I'm going to enjoy the movie. So much for taking a risk on a film I'm not sure about. I'd rather stay home, where I can do the same, but without all the desperate advertising.

25 points by kposehn 9y ago

morley 9y ago

70mm has already long-since proved itself to be a lucrative mass-market format: it's called IMAX.

smacktoward 9y ago
Most "IMAX" screens are not what most people think of when they think of IMAX. Rather than 70mm film projected onto multi-story screens, they're just using an IMAX-developed digital projection system and a slightly-larger-than-standard screen. The result can be disappointing if you go in expecting real IMAX and get the inferior mass-market alternative instead. IMAX deliberately lumps their 70mm system and their digital system together under the "IMAX" brand, without any additional information to help people distinguish between the two. It's hard not to think that this is done intentionally, to use the brand value their large-format system has built up over the years to sell tickets for the comparatively more lackluster digital system.
- justin66 9y ago
  You're right that people should set their expectations properly, but IMAX Digital is still pretty great, visually and aurally. I saw Inception on an IMAX Digital screen and it really was just about perfect. The somewhat over the top audio production that Nolan does really comes alive on a system like that, and the film looked beautiful. In a situation like that I don't know what the utility of the larger system would have been. I saw Avatar in 3D on such a system, and it was of course completely amazing, but that's not for everything.

woofyman 9y ago

I saw Aliens in 70mm when it was first released in a huge theater. It was awesome.

chiph 9y ago
Empire Strikes Back for me. Amazing. > Despite an increase in 3-D releases, the box-office market for that particular upcharge is falling as 3-D has gone from being a special experience to a perfunctory feature for every blockbuster. The problem is the directors using 3D just couldn't resist the overused trope of having an arrow (or spears, in the case of Star Trek: Out of Darkness) fly out of the screen at the audience. I dunno, maybe it was intended as an homage to the old Anaglyph 3-D movies, but it fell flat.
- michaelchisari 9y ago
  The only movies I've seen that do 3-D "right" have been Avatar and Dredd. The former because the technology was built around the film, and it was presented in this subtle way that created an extraordinary depth without feeling cheesy or tacked on. The latter because they really did some cool effects with the "Slo-Mo" drug that didn't have the same impact in 2-D. But aside from those, it just feels like a way to charge more for a less-enjoyable experience (films that are too dark, potential headaches, uncomfortable glasses).
vidanay 9y ago
I saw all three Star Wars, all three Raiders, ET, Close Encounters, Burton's Batman, Ghostbusters, etc, etc at the HUGE theater at Woodfield Mall in Schaumburg, IL. I swear the screen was the size of a football field and there were seats for 2k people. It was glorious.

berberous 9y ago

I saw The Hateful Eight in 70mm, but it was projected on a normal-sized movie theater screen, and frankly, if anything, it looked worse than a normal film. I suspect the staff was inadequately trained in how to operate a real film projector, as the focus looked a touch soft. On the other hand, seeing Interstellar in 70mm IMAX was _incredible_. Even with the recent IMAX Laser projectors, 70mm IMAX prints contain much more resolution and it was the best looking movie experience I have ever had. I highly recommend seeing Dunkirk in 70mm IMAX if it's playing near you.

arethuza 9y ago
Seeing The Dark Knight on an IMAX screen was particularly impressive because of the cuts from "normal" screen size to full IMAX - they really were breathtaking.

jsmthrowaway 9y ago

Large format film is the domain of the auteur because they're the only ones who can get away with it. 70mm is ridiculously expensive, and the logistics of moving it around doubly so -- a typical thousand-foot reel of 1570 IMAX 70mm will give you about three minutes of shooting before a reel change is necessary. You get one good take, then your camera assistants spend 10-15 minutes changing the reel while your cast stands around smoking. 35mm, on the other hand, buys you about 10 minutes of shooting on a typical reel and a much faster turnaround. When Christopher Nolan says sure, I'll cook you a billion dollar movie but here are my requirements, he'll get away with it. When Judd Apatow tries the same, he won't. Blockbuster superhero movies, given their returns, should be shooting on whatever they want but those are made for quantity.

JoshTriplett 9y ago
I've seen analyses that suggest that 70mm is roughly equivalent to 8K resolution, once digitized. Given that 8K cameras exist, and would presumably allow as much shooting as you can attach auxiliary storage capacity, what's the advantage to shooting in analog 70mm instead, especially if you're going to end up digitizing anyway?
- snicky 9y ago
  Maybe it has something to do with the film being able to capture a larger spectrum of colors, the "analog feel" in general or the ability to scan it to higher resolutions in the future when technology advances? None of these seem to justify the costs though. There are probably some other reasons, I'm just guessing.
- objclxt 9y ago
  Despite being in tech industry I went to film school back when it was still very common to be taught to shoot film so I'll have a go: > I've seen analyses that suggest that 70mm is roughly equivalent to 8K resolution, once digitized. It's tricky to give an exact number because it's an analog format, but in most cases it will be higher than that. You can get a good 4K transfer off 35mm, and 70mm is four times the area - so 8K would be very conservative. Of course, the big advantage of film is you get the grain, as well as what some people consider to be a better look (although that's subjective). > Given that 8K cameras exist, and would presumably allow as much shooting as you can attach auxiliary storage capacity, When shooting digitally your ratio would usually be 10:1, even 20:1 (as in, you shoot 10 times more material than you end up using). You're right that lots of directors see that as a great benefit. But when shooting with film - and especially 70mm - you have to be really conservative. A ratio of 3:1 would be much more common because you just can't afford any more. And that means you have to be very careful in layout your shots up, getting your actors prepared, etc. There's a minority of directors who appreciate this.

stcredzero 9y ago

One nightmarishly synergistic strategy is a pivot to toys, recently announced by Warner Bros., which will try to further capitalize on the marketing potential of all its family films. A dream to some... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuTviZDhXEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuTviZDhXEE

unethical_ban 9y ago

http://imgur.com/MgSGL1G http://imgur.com/MgSGL1G This is one example of just how impressive "real" IMAX is. I saw Interstellar twice in IMAX and was blown away both times. And as an aside, to continue my rage against trailers: If you didn't know about the tidal planet from the trailers, it was absolutely skin-crawling in its wonder when you see it for the first time in IMAX. To heck with over-revealing trailers!

arielweisberg 9y ago
I live next to one of like 8 laser projection IMAX theaters. If I can't watch an eye candy movie at that theatre I prefer to watch at home since my home theatre on average out performs most screens. How you can walk into a theatre and have it be out of focus I can't even begin to imagine. Even the sound is worse. This is an industry that needs some weeding.
jstanley 9y ago
What is the image supposed to demonstrate?
- arielweisberg 9y ago
  The difference in resolution and framing. The framing isn't inherently better. The difference in resolution is.
  - e40 9y ago
    And frame rate. IMAX HD is 48 frames/sec compared to 24 for regular film and IMAX.
    - arielweisberg 9y ago
      I don't think I've ever managed to see a 48 fps movie. The only one worth watching was The Hobbit and the showing I caught wasn't 48 fps. Wikipedia makes it seem like IMAX HD died way back in 92 as soon as it was introduced?

CamperBob2 9y ago

I've gotta say, I'm not crazy about sanitizing realistic war movies for a PG-13 rating, as Nolan has reportedly done. Would Saving Private Ryan have the same impact with less violent imagery?

JBReefer 9y ago
Anything that "blunts" war or portrays it as anything besides "the worst living nightmare possible" is a lie. There of course is wonderful art to be made that acknowledges that fact - Guernica, Saving Private Ryan, The Hurt Locker - but to me, it's critical to acknowledge this. The extras who are casually shot in action scenes aren't extras in the real world, it's an act of actual murder that is abhorrent in the real world. One of humanities great moments happened after WW2, or maybe Vietnam: the realization that war is not noble, that "pro patria mori" is bullshit, and that no one really wins. Our media must reflect this fact, even if it seems to have lost touch with reality everywhere else. It's critical to the discourse and to our continued survival.
emodendroket 9y ago
Well, let's flip it around. Would Bridge on the River Kwai have been a better movie if it depicted gruesome carnage?

maldusiecle 9y ago

I don't agree that choosing a new format and upping ticket prices again is going to get people going to the movies again. Hollywood (and Hollywood commentators) are obsessed with the idea that films should be these huge spectacles, but is that all that audiences want? A lot of people I know are bored with movies. Spending $30 to go to another remake or superhero movie just isn't very attractive. I don't know anyone, other than boring film critics, who thinks the problem is a lack of spectacle. If anything, the problem is _too much_ spectacle--the kinds of movies made are limited to these goofy would-be epics. Everything has to go up to 11. It's really limiting when every movie has to appeal to the sensibility of a 14-year-old boy.

ashark 9y ago
In general there's an increasing problem of a glut of excellent entertainment. Movies are in a bit of a slump, but there are still several good films a year. TV's probably the best it's ever been—it's nuts how good it is. Video games are excellent and relatively cheap. There's an ongoing board gaming renaissance. Good or great music for almost every taste comes out every year. Then there's the fact that it's all hyper-available, including much of the back catalogue for all of human recorded/written entertainment. Almost no wait. Just press a button or three and enjoy. You can find a credible top-ten (or top-1000...) for almost any kind of thing you care to and the only impediment to experiencing at least 80-90% of them will be time. The hard part now isn't identifying and gaining access to great entertainment, it's figuring out which great entertainment you skip in favor of other great entertainment. If you remember what the world was like pre-Internet, this is a really weird situation. That film isn't exactly having a golden age right now makes it easy (nearly necessary, given how good everything else is) to largely avoid it, even if it isn't terrible, especially since cinema-going is one of the more expensive options for mass entertainment. Of course they continue to sell plenty of tickets, so maybe this post is just a bunch of crap.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  I mean, what's the appeal of going to the theater at this point, unless you're a teenager going on a date? I'd rather watch a movie in the comfort of my own home.

khazhoux 9y ago

I saw Interstellar on a beautiful IMAX screen. There were a couple of teenage boys laughing and cracking jokes behind me most of the movie. Not loud enough you'd kick them out, but still obnoxious, especially in the quiet scenes. They apologized when I said something, but then they started again after 10 minutes. During Rogue One, the guy sitting next to me waited until the end of the opening crawl to unwrap his steaming jalapeño cheese hotdog, which he then slowly ate over the next 15 minutes, relishing every bite and every chug of soda. Add to the fact that the acoustics in theaters are still never quite right (it's often LOUD but doesn't envelop you)... I just don't know why I would ever enjoy the theater experience again, when it's just so damn difficult to enjoy a good film.

ThrustVectoring 9y ago
I'd recommend trying an Alamo Drafthouse - they're super gung-ho about enforcing the rules that lead to an enjoyable movie-watching environment.
- SomeHacker44 9y ago
  This is literally the only cinema I like going to (in NYC) anymore. I sit in the front row, where the seats are big recliners with foot rests that go up. The food is acceptable, the popcorn huge and in a big metal bowl and the beer list extensive. Not exactly cheap but entirely worth it for those few movies I want to see a year.
justin66 9y ago
> Add to the fact that the acoustics in theaters are still never quite right (it's often LOUD but doesn't envelop you)... It's a pet peeve of mine as well - the acoustics tend to be awful. I believe if you're at an IMAX theater they're supposed to meet some important minimum standards. No idea how true that really is, but I know none of the IMAX theaters I've been to had bad audio.
emodendroket 9y ago
It probably makes me sound incredibly crotchety to say so but one of the things I dislike about going to the theaters is that the audio volume is often too high for my liking.

Shivetya 9y ago

does anyone know if this format transfers better with 4k or is the effect not able to scale to it?

zitterbewegung 9y ago

I hate 3D movies because it causes eye strain. I hope they pay attention but in all seriousness the market should already do this. I will watch movies in large format if I can and the movie is good .

emodendroket 9y ago
> I hate 3D movies because it causes eye strain. The days for this crap have to be numbered, don't they? Nobody manufactures 3D TVs anymore and the latest 3DS comes without the 3D capability. The fad seems to be on its way out, finally.
PhasmaFelis 9y ago
3D movies are mostly just irritating to me, because I have strabismus and only process input from one eye at a time, so I can't see stereoscopic 3D. With the glasses on, it just looks like a normal movie to me. Everyone gasps when something flies at the camera, and I don't get it. Though I am glad they upgraded to polarized 3D glasses from the old red/blue kind. I couldn't watch movies at all with those--I either saw just the red or just the blue.

Overtonwindow 9y ago

I see maybe one movie in the theaters a year. High ticket, food, and drink prices, along with bad seats, people using their smartphones in full brightness, and other bad behavior, have made it not worth it.

skywhopper 9y ago

I enjoying seeing movies in the theater. Digital projection is mostly fine, and I don't think your normal audience is going to be wowed in a meaningful way by 70mm film. What's driven _me_ to see fewer movies is the constant bombardment with repetitive ads. From the moment I walk in the theater, there are ads blaring that you can't ignore. Then when the movie does "start", there are a good 20 minutes of trailers and often additional ads. The first time I see a batch of trailers, I'm okay with it. But if I go to the movies more often than once a month, I see so many trailers repeated that I rapidly get tired of the exercise. Maybe hold it to 2-3 trailers and one or two ads and let us have a little quiet time before the movie starts. The constant sensory overload is unpleasant even if the ads themselves weren't annoying. I'm sure the movie industry believes all the ads are worthwhile, and the media conglomerates certainly don't want to pass up a chance to overload a captive audience with the latest musical artist or TV show they're pushing, whether it's counterproductive or not. But for me, it makes it a lot less appealing to go back to the theater unless I'm sure I'm going to enjoy the movie. So much for taking a risk on a film I'm not sure about. I'd rather stay home, where I can do the same, but without all the desperate advertising.