3 ms·
That's an even bigger argument for the point I tried to make. I don't want the see the film in a theater, which (in my case) would require about an hour of driv
by thirdsun 8y ago
That's an even bigger argument for the point I tried to make. I don't want the see the film in a theater, which (in my case) would require about an hour of driving, overpriced drinks and all the other annoyances of a theater visit. Meanwhile I have a projector and good audio system at home, which is why I want to buy and download the film digitally to watch on my own terms.
And needless to say that it doesn't require a fancy projector to have a fine movie experience - most households have a big TV that comes close enough. For this kind of movie, however, audio/video equipment shouldn't be a concern at all.
What I'm trying to say is: Why screen the film at a very limited number of cinemas, which you might even have to pay when you could get paid by viewers directly?
- basementcat 8y agoScreening at a theater is a required step before a film can be considered for certain prestigious industry awards, qualify for certain production tax incentives or fulfill cast/crew contractual requirements. There exist theaters the sole purpose of which are to fulfill that specific function (they generally screen low budget indie films each for a day or so-- it is not usual for the size of the audience to be zero). Personally I don't really disagree with you; it would be great if good films were available on Amazon, Netflix, etc sooner.