And with his release schedule, you can only imagine watching a new James Cameron film for the first time in the theater.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Christopher Nolan criticizes Netflix's digital distribution model for movies
- Thread starter inm8num2
- Start date
And with his release schedule, you can only imagine watching a new James Cameron film for the first time in the theater.
Giolon
Member
No, I have a fantastic HDTV and a great sound system at home. I get a great experience when watching movies here, and the concessions are way better and cheaper. Plus, booze.
The only reason I go to the movie theater is because they have the movies sooner
Caddywompus
Member
There is something in the build up that Netflix movies lack. That instant release model still has this direct to dvd stigma in my mind.
It's difficult to commit 2 hrs to a film with no reputation whether that comes from reactions to trailers, or word of mouth or movie reviews.
It's difficult to commit 2 hrs to a film with no reputation whether that comes from reactions to trailers, or word of mouth or movie reviews.
Digital-Hero
Member
You may have a fantastic TV but it pales in comparison to even a tiny theater screen. I really doubt you have a 12,000 watt system. You're not even in the same hemisphere on any level.
EDIT: The same goes about food and eating out too. You go out because of the atmosphere and the experience. More than likely they are making food you don't have in your fridge.
Ploid 3.0
Member
Though people already have their own cars. They may be slower than those horses on average, but they get you to the same place in good time. "Screens in our jeans," as a great poet once said.
"In a world where our brains are becoming machines, the only screens we're watching are the screens in our jeans. Screens in our jeans, screens in our jeans. THE ONLY SCREENS WE'RE WATCHING ARE THE SCREE..." https://youtu.be/OSF-3C3KkvQ?t=215
Quite frankly theaters have become too expensive for me to invest the time and energy required to go to them to see a film. Ticket prices are one thing, but concession costs are insanity when you can spend less anywhere else and get higher quality or larger portions.
If theaters die I don't see how anyone could argue that's it's not a direct fault of the way they are run and prices being high enough that people choose to stay home and wait for movies to be available to stream. In general the only movies I'd bother to go the movies for are big budget blockbusters, if it's drama, oscar bait, comedy etc then I'd rather do it without obnoxious jackasses around.
If theaters die I don't see how anyone could argue that's it's not a direct fault of the way they are run and prices being high enough that people choose to stay home and wait for movies to be available to stream. In general the only movies I'd bother to go the movies for are big budget blockbusters, if it's drama, oscar bait, comedy etc then I'd rather do it without obnoxious jackasses around.
Giolon
Member
It's still not the same as watching in a tiny tablet or phone, and I really don't consider the theater to have much advantage other than timeliness. I only need the picture so big and the sound so loud. I don't like IMAX. As soon as I have the option to forgoe the theater at a reasonable price and time, I'm out for nearly all movies.
Hari Seldon
Member
The theater experience to me is negative, i.e. it makes whatever movie I'm seeing worse to see it in a theater. The last movie I saw was a kids movie with my kids. 30 motherufucking minutes of commercials after the posted starting time. I'm on team burn down the theaters after that shit.
Marty Chinn
Member
I have the best HDTV ever created and it still doesn't come close to a good theater projector.
Reserved seating has made this a non issue. Show up 20 min after the start time and you'll bypass the commercials.
But does that make someone's movie opinion lesser because they didn't see it in the theatre? The movie is still the movie, regardless of place and time.
Seeing The Last Airbender in the theatre didn't make the experience any better. It was still a bad movie.
Digital-Hero
Member
Too much man.
Where did I fucking say that or even imply? Show me the post.
Marty Chinn
Member
I'd say someone who saw Gravity on their iPad compared to Gravity in 3D on an IMAX screen does have a lesser opinion on the movie.
This is how I see it too. Can the theater model be sustained without the exclusivity period propping it up? Is it the experience most people are paying for, or just the ability to see a film asap while it's culturally relevant?
In this post:
Maybe I'm misreading or extrapolating, and I apologize if I am, but it does feel a tad like elitism. The movie is the movie, at the end of the day, regardless of how it's watched. I'd never watch a movie on an iPad, personally, but it's totally fine if people do, that's their decision. I'm 50/50 on theatre and TV. I go to the theatre not entirely for the sights and the sounds, but because I want to see the movie 90 days before at home.
For the implication, I meant that it came off as those that watch a great film on a smaller screen aren't getting the full effects of the movie, which I disagree with. The images and the sounds will still be the same, just not as big and potentially not as loud. That doesn't make the impact any lesser, I feel.
iPad, I would agree with. Phones, absolutely. But TV's are different. They don't compare to theatres, but based on distance and home lighting, I don't see it being as massive a detriment as some have said in here.
RBelong2Us
Member
Man, some people need to look around for legit theaters.
I have so many different theaters around me that offer different amenities. Whether it's great beer and food or different ways to experience a film (DBOX)...I agree that there are plenty of theaters that are shoddy and aren't developing but there are also a lot that are experimenting with different things that make the experience better.
I have so many different theaters around me that offer different amenities. Whether it's great beer and food or different ways to experience a film (DBOX)...I agree that there are plenty of theaters that are shoddy and aren't developing but there are also a lot that are experimenting with different things that make the experience better.
Eh, TVs these days do not pale in comparison to cinema screens. A good TV has fantastic image quality - a sharp picture, good contrast ratios, good black levels; in fact, I'd say a good Blu-Ray on my TV offers better colours than I'll often see at my local cinema.
Resolution is also comparable. I'm pretty sure all standard digital cinema screens in my area are 2k resolution, which is effectively the same as your standard 1920x1080 HD TV screen. So if you own a 4k TV, you're probably consuming content at a higher resolution than you'd often see at a cinema. Add HDR into the mix, and it's another perk over cinema. Sure, the screen itself is much larger, but if I sit at the appropriate distance from my TV, there's really no difference in terms of detail lost.
Sound, yeah probably. It's an expensive endeavour and often unrealistic to try to match sound quality with a cinema, so you've got a point there, but I am more than happy consuming films with a great pair of headphones at home. It may not be surround, but all the fine clarity of the soundscape is there.
Nothing's going to reach IMAX experience any time soon, but the "tiny cinema screen" experience is certainly comparable to a good home TV setup.
Zelenogorsk
Banned
For me there are maybe 5 movies a year that I'll actually go to the theater to see (usually big budget blockbuster stuff like the Marvel movies). For everything else I'd rather just watch it on my couch.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
Yeah that is the main problem. All of the Netflix movie releases so far have felt like an afterthought. I don't get to the movie theater more than once or twice a year, so I should want instantaneous streaming release, but it turns I need a bit of hype to get me interested enough to watch a movie.
Plus I don't see how this benefits Netflix. Having a bunch of movies with no buzz on your service doesn't make it any more attractive to people. Having Oscar nominated movies, or movies that were commercial hits does.
Giolon
Member
It's still dishonest to say that the people who prefer watching movies at home are those satisfied by watching a movie on a phone or tablet.
I think he has a point. Watching a movie in a theatre is a different experience. It's hard to replicate the same feeling of sensory immersion at home unless you spend a shit ton on a cinema room.
I know some people get annoyed seeing films when people are talking or fiddling with their phones the entire time, so do what I do and go at random times, alone, when no one's there. Tickets are cheaper too! Sunday morning is the best time for films.
Also most places around me now offer booze which rules. Going to probably have two beers during Dunkirk on Friday!
I know some people get annoyed seeing films when people are talking or fiddling with their phones the entire time, so do what I do and go at random times, alone, when no one's there. Tickets are cheaper too! Sunday morning is the best time for films.
Also most places around me now offer booze which rules. Going to probably have two beers during Dunkirk on Friday!
The Illiterati
Member
Despite despising Interstellar in 70mm IMAX I will be seeing Dunkirk this weekend(on a regular screen). I see movies every weekend at the theater. I love that Netflix brings just as many smaller films to my door. I've loved Bong Joo-ho for years. Ain't nodoby going to see Okja in a theater. If theatres die it will not be because of Netflix, it will be because of Bay and every other blockbuster director who are not delivering the spectacle. If Dunkirk ends up like DKR or Interstellar I'll add your sainted Nolan to that list.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
This is either free of expected DM sarcasm, over my head or I'm incredibly slow today.
texhnolyze
Banned
But how about the other expenses?
You'll still ned to pay for the transportation and snacks.
Food is much cheaper at home and you can also save time.
excelsiorlef
Member
Biggest problem with theatres these days is they are locking more and more of their showtimes behind premium price points, and unlike actual IMAX I am unconvinced these premium types provide any real enhanced viewing experience that justify the pricing.
This is my local theatre.
Look at this shit. It can go up to 24$ and 19$ on "cheap day"
And now given we're talking about Nolan let's look at Dunkirk for this opening weekend there
There is not a single showtime in a "normal" theatre. Every showtime is in a premium theatre.
So the minimum cost to see Dunkirk during opening week is $15.99 and goes all the way up to $24.99. On Tuesdays it's $10.99, all of a dollar less than a normal theatre price point on a regular price point day, to $18.99.
This is my local theatre.
Look at this shit. It can go up to 24$ and 19$ on "cheap day"
And now given we're talking about Nolan let's look at Dunkirk for this opening weekend there
There is not a single showtime in a "normal" theatre. Every showtime is in a premium theatre.
So the minimum cost to see Dunkirk during opening week is $15.99 and goes all the way up to $24.99. On Tuesdays it's $10.99, all of a dollar less than a normal theatre price point on a regular price point day, to $18.99.
Marty Chinn
Member
I disagree with this. I don't think 99.9% of the home theater setups out there can replicate the experience for the movie Gravity. It's one movie where I feel it had to be experienced in a theater to get the full effect. Anything else was a lesser impact. Now I admit, this is highly movie dependent where some movies will have a bigger impact, while others less, but there is a case to be made that there is a difference that can impact the experience.
Why are they different though? We're talking screen size at this point. Saying they are different means you admit there's a difference based on screen size. So just like iPad or phone to TV you can say there's a difference between TV and projector screen. See my example above with Gravity.
A good projector and theater setup still outclasses a TV and Blu ray.
Dunkirk in 70mm IMAX is going to blow away anything I get at home.
Projectors around here are 4K, maybe your local theaters being substandard is why we differ on this.
Except theaters do have HDR projectors. Why do people think HDR doesn't exist in the theater? I watched Rogue One in HDR.
It's fine to prefer watching at home and for various reasons and that you think it's good enough while at the same time still acknowledge that the theater experience is still superior. It's just like being fine with digital streaming while still not disputing that a Blu ray is better.
metalslimer
Member
The vast majority of theatres are awful money sinks where even the sound and picture aren't worth the hassle.
The only recent good theatre experience I had was the hateful 8 70mm showing
The only recent good theatre experience I had was the hateful 8 70mm showing
Netflix is really try-harding with their production line. I don't know why, but everytime i see that new movie of the month advertised on their front page, i just can't generate any interest to see them. And i love movies (seen well over 200 this year), so this is kind of weird. And yes, movie theater is and always will be the best place to watch a movie.
RBelong2Us
Member
DBOX is a reserved chair that moves and rumbles with the action on screen.
Kinda hit and miss depending on the movie. I have dug it with movies that involve car chase sequences , it was pretty awesome with Mad Max
Okay so if we take all this into account, TV is still comparable in terms of resolution and features if you own a 4k HDR television to the cinemas you go to. And sitting close enough to a 50+ inch screen, you'd be getting a comparable size relative to our FOV to a cinema screen. I'm not saying a TV is better or even equivalent to a theatre experience. I enjoy going to the cinema. I was responding to a post that claimed TV pales in comparison to even a tiny cinema screen, which just isn't true.
All the visual clarity you get from a cinema experience is there when you watch a film at home. No, it doesn't quite replicate the atmosphere of a cinema screen, but it's certainly not in a different hemisphere.
Yes that's why I said "nothing's going to reach IMAX any time soon." I don't think anyone's going to argue that IMAX isn't the benchmark for visual fidelity, but considering, as also mentioned in this thread, the entry price for my IMAX screen is $38, I'm not rushing out for that experience.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
All of my earlier posts should also be read with the idea in mind that I'm addicted to the theater experience; I go almost every week. But what Nolan wants to push (and is pissy about) is that theater experience not everyone can get.
For me, the nearest IMAX is 3 hours away. So that's not happening. If a movie gets one of those limited runs for indie flicks? Further most of the time (usually 6 hours away in Atlanta). So that's out. So if Netflix does what he wants and gives theaters exclusivity on a movie that's already finished, then I (as a Netflix subscriber) am being forced to wait an artificial amount of time to see a movie just so theaters that Nolan likes can get propped up. I'd sooner cancel my subscription (I mean, doing this would literally just be sending Netflix back to 2012 where it was just a dumping ground for old stuff. Netflix saw a noticeable uptick in subs when they started getting new content because people like to talk about things as they air, not weeks or months later).
For me, the nearest IMAX is 3 hours away. So that's not happening. If a movie gets one of those limited runs for indie flicks? Further most of the time (usually 6 hours away in Atlanta). So that's out. So if Netflix does what he wants and gives theaters exclusivity on a movie that's already finished, then I (as a Netflix subscriber) am being forced to wait an artificial amount of time to see a movie just so theaters that Nolan likes can get propped up. I'd sooner cancel my subscription (I mean, doing this would literally just be sending Netflix back to 2012 where it was just a dumping ground for old stuff. Netflix saw a noticeable uptick in subs when they started getting new content because people like to talk about things as they air, not weeks or months later).
excelsiorlef
Member
I'm aware still not worth $24 dollars
Having seen Gravity in IMAX and seen it at home, I do feel like the bigger screen and (in the IMAX theatre I go to) floor-rattling sound was a fantastic way to enjoy the movie, but watching it at home, it's still the same film. To answer the second part, as well, I think maybe it's just the case that I sit five or six feet from my 55" TV, and watch almost everything with headphones, and so I don't really feel like I'm losing anything. The distance from the screen in IMAX and the distance between myself and the TV are enough that I don't feel at a loss. I guess that comes down to my personal experience, though, and not how most do it.
I definitely do agree that screen size can be an issue when you're getting down to tablets and phones, though. Some films have wide landscape shots and wide shots that lose its quality on a 4-5" screen. But I feel like the connection between the viewer and the film is more important than the circumstance people watch things in.
mariachi507
Member
I hear you, but in my case it's a location issue. There's not an Alamo or a theater taking the Alamo approach near me. Hopefully that changes in the near future but right now I'm stuck with it. I used to love watching movies in theaters, the experience can't be replicated at home and I miss it dearly. With one exception, some asshole has brought their phone out or have done worse at every screening I've been to in the past four years. There was even one guy that read the Wikipedia summary for the film he was right in the middle of watching. I don't get it.
Zantetsuken
Member
Wouldn't movie studios charge more for their streaming content if they make less from theaters over time? I prefer the movie going experience for new movies. I also think Nolan being a big proponent of IMAX and wanting that experience for moviegoers bolsters his position.
I get what you're saying. Two hours is a lot of time to commit to something with little visible marketing.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
For those who have the space in their living situation to go front projection and screen, provided the projector purchase is made well, the light is controlled, and your seat is close enough, you can replicate the field of vision on most multiplex theater screens pretty decently.
Again - it's not the same, but it's also a lot closer to the theatrical experience than people might realize. Sitting 6-7ft away from 10ft wide screen that's got a properly calibrated home theater projector throwing a blu-ray onto it? Considering the substandard way many multiplex managers exhibit their films, chances are you're going to be seeing a picture that may not compete in sheer size, but will compete in terms of IQ (especially since a lot of theaters, even with 4k projectors installed, often still end up running 2k DCPs depending on what the studio sends them) on top of being 2x-3x bigger than the majority of flat panels in the home
And considering home video technologies are not just trying to keep pace, but to lap theatrical projection in terms of contrast & dynamic range, the gap doesn't need to be closed all the way. It just needs to be close enough that a person decides its worth the thousands up front to put that experience in their own house than it is to spread that out over a couple years going to a multiplex.
It's always going to be somewhat niche because a lot of people simply can't afford to trick out their apartment to double as a movie theater that converts a blank wall into a 8-10ft wide theater screen. But for those who do have the time, space, and the wherewithal, the home theater experience has been a serious alternative to the multiplex experience for awhile now.
Another bonus/benefit: A large amount of peak TV is being shot just as well, if not better in some cases, than features are, depending on the cinematographers getting work. It's one thing to hit your multiplex to catch Jurassic World on a 25ft screen while you sit 40ft back with a room full of strangers in a theater staffed by 8 teenagers and a beleagured college grad. It's another to take your blu-ray set of Hannibal downstairs, lean back on your couch, and put that glorious madness up on your 10ft screen mostly filling your FOV. That's a semi-theatrical experience that you can't get at the actual theater.
Even if/when (probably when) we get to a point where we occupy that ALIENS future where there's a wall of your house that is essentially dedicated to a full height/width 4k screen, I'm probably still gonna want to go to the theater, though.
Again - it's not the same, but it's also a lot closer to the theatrical experience than people might realize. Sitting 6-7ft away from 10ft wide screen that's got a properly calibrated home theater projector throwing a blu-ray onto it? Considering the substandard way many multiplex managers exhibit their films, chances are you're going to be seeing a picture that may not compete in sheer size, but will compete in terms of IQ (especially since a lot of theaters, even with 4k projectors installed, often still end up running 2k DCPs depending on what the studio sends them) on top of being 2x-3x bigger than the majority of flat panels in the home
And considering home video technologies are not just trying to keep pace, but to lap theatrical projection in terms of contrast & dynamic range, the gap doesn't need to be closed all the way. It just needs to be close enough that a person decides its worth the thousands up front to put that experience in their own house than it is to spread that out over a couple years going to a multiplex.
It's always going to be somewhat niche because a lot of people simply can't afford to trick out their apartment to double as a movie theater that converts a blank wall into a 8-10ft wide theater screen. But for those who do have the time, space, and the wherewithal, the home theater experience has been a serious alternative to the multiplex experience for awhile now.
Another bonus/benefit: A large amount of peak TV is being shot just as well, if not better in some cases, than features are, depending on the cinematographers getting work. It's one thing to hit your multiplex to catch Jurassic World on a 25ft screen while you sit 40ft back with a room full of strangers in a theater staffed by 8 teenagers and a beleagured college grad. It's another to take your blu-ray set of Hannibal downstairs, lean back on your couch, and put that glorious madness up on your 10ft screen mostly filling your FOV. That's a semi-theatrical experience that you can't get at the actual theater.
Even if/when (probably when) we get to a point where we occupy that ALIENS future where there's a wall of your house that is essentially dedicated to a full height/width 4k screen, I'm probably still gonna want to go to the theater, though.
Merchandise
Member
I don't disagree with him in this instance.
I disagree with him about how he says literal film is soooo much better than digital.
I disagree with him about how he says literal film is soooo much better than digital.
RBelong2Us
Member
Yeah it's all opinion. Some people pay the exact same price to do those moving seats where you shoot things on the screen and lasts 10min...4d shooters or whatever.
And that's also PEAK price, plenty of other times/opportunities
Jon Carter
Member
I don't know about him, but I live in LA and the theater across the street from my office has tickets at $6 all-day every Tuesday, and morning shows every day are $7.50.
What the fuck kind of cheap ass theater do some of you go to that your TV is comparable? I don't care if you have the best and newest QLED HDTV, it pales in comparison to the theater screen. I could maybe see it if you have some kind of professionally tuned projection setup etc etc but that has to be in the very small minority.
If I bring my whole family to the nearest good theater it's 100-150 dollars just for the ticket prices. A 'premium' hall is like 30 dollars per ticket. I can get a year and a half of Netflix with that, so Modern theaters, DIAF pls.
I wonder if people know that the concept of matinees doesn't even exist in many countries.
I wonder if people know that the concept of matinees doesn't even exist in many countries.
Spyder_Monkey
Banned
I give it five years before there's a "Netflix picks up Christopher Nolan project" headline.