9 ms·

I obliged you with a downvote. Almost the entire article is devoted to explaining that there is an empirical (the word I think you intended when you used "prag

I obliged you with a downvote. Almost the entire article is devoted to explaining that there is an empirical (the word I think you intended when you used "pragmatic"? not sure) degradation in film projection and why that is. He then relates that to the comments he's had on his blog and in email about how movies look better on blu-ray than at the theater, as well as other comments from professional movie critics. This doesn't seem unreasonable at all. I'd like to hear more about your contentions with the article, because I don't really see how what you wrote corresponds to what Ebert wrote.

grovulent 15y ago
How does one get downvote powers anyway? So yes - clarification is needed. I'm willing to take on faith that there is measurable degradation of film quality. Let us grant that there is plenty of empirical evidence for this claim. There is no empirical evidence presented besides blog comments that this measurably effects the greater portion of hedonic goodness in theatre goers. Worse - I see no presentation of empirical evidence whatsoever for Ebert's larger thesis that the degradation is sufficient enough to have a measurable effect on market share (as against dvds etc). Bearing in mind they were losing market share before 3d. Hence there is no pragmatic reason to be upset beyond perhaps you're own heightened sensitivities - which Ebert himself may possess - I have no idea. In any case - it's an extremely poorly argued article. But it is truly weird - People just love the Ebert.
- nonrecursive 15y ago
  Thanks for clarifying! You make a good argument that Ebert's argument isn't sufficiently scientific. Ebert also doesn't provide any data for his hypothesis that the degraded qualities of movies is going to effect box office returns. However, I think these are the wrong criteria for judging the article. I don't think Ebert's it's meant to be scientfic, nor is his article primarily about economics. I saw it as more of a love letter, which is very personal, very subjective. His last paragraph: "I despair. This is a case of Hollywood selling its birthright for a message of pottage. If as much attention were paid to exhibition as to marketing, that would be an investment in the future. People would fall back in love with the movies. Short-sighted, technically illiterate penny-pinchers are wounding a great art form." The primary purpose of the article isn't to explain the potential economic impact of the degradation in projection quality, or to provide scientific proof that the majority of people are affected. It's to say that movies look shittier, and to explain why - and to express how sad it makes him that movies are looking so shitty. I saw the remark about how people would be less likely to return to theaters as more of an expression of his unhappiness than as the central point of his article. Personally, I found the article very helpful. I saw Thor opening weekend, and I was confused about why it looked so dim. It was disappointing to me to view something so graphically rich in a way that made it look it was 50 years old and faded. I didn't know what was wrong, but now I do, and now I know how I can attempt to see movies in a way that I'll like more.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - pasbesoin 15y ago
    I think Ebert's article was written quite in line with what he was trying to accomplish, and with matching the reader's expectation of the article. As a movie viewer, I relate directly to the article's opening. Movies are no longer visually appealing. I don't know exactly why. Is the glasses I now wear? But they don't seem to affect TV. Is it my increasing age? Etc. As for the "empirical evidence", just try taking a camera -- or even a light meter, I suspect -- into a theater to gather it. At least with a light meter, once you explain things to the police, you probably won't be facing a felony charge. I did feel a bit uncomfortable that he was relying on and citing so extensively others' written comments. But there's not a lot of choice, in this case. Both because original sources are difficult to come by -- read in full the articles/blogs he quotes. And because Ebert is still recovering from a serious bout with cancer of the mouth/head and may have trouble running around digging them up and vocally interviewing them. (They may not want a written record that can be connected back to them.) My more general comment about this topic would be that this is an example of what you get with market capture. The average viewer has no ability to choose an alternative. Unless, for example, you are able to identify a theater that properly uses the cited Christie projectors and stick with it and its schedules. Otherwise, people are opting out of the theater market and turning to another, home viewing. Of course, there you have the delay until discs are released, the commercial barrage increasingly corresponding to that experienced in the theater, the outlay for equipment -- repeated for every home. The format wars. The different social aspect. (Not that I, for one, miss the talkers, the texters, the munchers, and the seat back kickers.) It's like Sony with its memory stick. It's not about aiding the consumer; it's about locking them into Sony. (And slapping arbitrary DRM onto their content -- remember that aspect of the memory stick format?) And the resulting experience is worse for said consumer.
- klbarry 15y ago
  Downvote powers come after you hit 500 karma. Upvote for your well written, thoughtful follow-up.
- cicero 15y ago
  I like Ebert not for his science, but for his understanding of the art of movies. Most other movie critics appear to me to try to show off how intelligent they are, or how refined their taste is. From Ebert, I always got the impression that here was a man that loved a good movie, and wants others to know about them. That's exactly what I see reflected in this article - a man who loves good movies, and hates the fact that the experience is being degraded.

grovulent 15y ago

How does one get downvote powers anyway? So yes - clarification is needed. I'm willing to take on faith that there is measurable degradation of film quality. Let us grant that there is plenty of empirical evidence for this claim. There is no empirical evidence presented besides blog comments that this measurably effects the greater portion of hedonic goodness in theatre goers. Worse - I see no presentation of empirical evidence whatsoever for Ebert's larger thesis that the degradation is sufficient enough to have a measurable effect on market share (as against dvds etc). Bearing in mind they were losing market share before 3d. Hence there is no pragmatic reason to be upset beyond perhaps you're own heightened sensitivities - which Ebert himself may possess - I have no idea. In any case - it's an extremely poorly argued article. But it is truly weird - People just love the Ebert.

nonrecursive 15y ago
Thanks for clarifying! You make a good argument that Ebert's argument isn't sufficiently scientific. Ebert also doesn't provide any data for his hypothesis that the degraded qualities of movies is going to effect box office returns. However, I think these are the wrong criteria for judging the article. I don't think Ebert's it's meant to be scientfic, nor is his article primarily about economics. I saw it as more of a love letter, which is very personal, very subjective. His last paragraph: "I despair. This is a case of Hollywood selling its birthright for a message of pottage. If as much attention were paid to exhibition as to marketing, that would be an investment in the future. People would fall back in love with the movies. Short-sighted, technically illiterate penny-pinchers are wounding a great art form." The primary purpose of the article isn't to explain the potential economic impact of the degradation in projection quality, or to provide scientific proof that the majority of people are affected. It's to say that movies look shittier, and to explain why - and to express how sad it makes him that movies are looking so shitty. I saw the remark about how people would be less likely to return to theaters as more of an expression of his unhappiness than as the central point of his article. Personally, I found the article very helpful. I saw Thor opening weekend, and I was confused about why it looked so dim. It was disappointing to me to view something so graphically rich in a way that made it look it was 50 years old and faded. I didn't know what was wrong, but now I do, and now I know how I can attempt to see movies in a way that I'll like more.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- pasbesoin 15y ago
  I think Ebert's article was written quite in line with what he was trying to accomplish, and with matching the reader's expectation of the article. As a movie viewer, I relate directly to the article's opening. Movies are no longer visually appealing. I don't know exactly why. Is the glasses I now wear? But they don't seem to affect TV. Is it my increasing age? Etc. As for the "empirical evidence", just try taking a camera -- or even a light meter, I suspect -- into a theater to gather it. At least with a light meter, once you explain things to the police, you probably won't be facing a felony charge. I did feel a bit uncomfortable that he was relying on and citing so extensively others' written comments. But there's not a lot of choice, in this case. Both because original sources are difficult to come by -- read in full the articles/blogs he quotes. And because Ebert is still recovering from a serious bout with cancer of the mouth/head and may have trouble running around digging them up and vocally interviewing them. (They may not want a written record that can be connected back to them.) My more general comment about this topic would be that this is an example of what you get with market capture. The average viewer has no ability to choose an alternative. Unless, for example, you are able to identify a theater that properly uses the cited Christie projectors and stick with it and its schedules. Otherwise, people are opting out of the theater market and turning to another, home viewing. Of course, there you have the delay until discs are released, the commercial barrage increasingly corresponding to that experienced in the theater, the outlay for equipment -- repeated for every home. The format wars. The different social aspect. (Not that I, for one, miss the talkers, the texters, the munchers, and the seat back kickers.) It's like Sony with its memory stick. It's not about aiding the consumer; it's about locking them into Sony. (And slapping arbitrary DRM onto their content -- remember that aspect of the memory stick format?) And the resulting experience is worse for said consumer.
klbarry 15y ago
Downvote powers come after you hit 500 karma. Upvote for your well written, thoughtful follow-up.
cicero 15y ago
I like Ebert not for his science, but for his understanding of the art of movies. Most other movie critics appear to me to try to show off how intelligent they are, or how refined their taste is. From Ebert, I always got the impression that here was a man that loved a good movie, and wants others to know about them. That's exactly what I see reflected in this article - a man who loves good movies, and hates the fact that the experience is being degraded.