My first true "cinema experience" happened as a pre-teen when my mother took me and some of my siblings to the Ziegfeld Theater in Manhattan to experience the widescreen release of "2001: A Space Odyssey" (well, technically it was "Mary Poppins" several years earlier! Ha!), a film that I have viewed more times than any other over the course of my lifetime. Having seen this film in its many format incarnations over the decades, be it in theaters both large and small, on broadcast television and then cable, in its various incarnations of home video release and, now, most recently in its 4K HDR BluRay release on an LG G2 OLED TV, none of these viewing experiences have ever equaled or surpassed that original experience. A majestic screen presentation with then state-of-the-art sound surrounded by fellow viewers to share in a common experience. Film as spectacle.
And this "film as spectacle" experience has repeated itself countless times throughout the intervening years with other personally favorite (or not) movie-viewing theater showings. From "Ben-Hur" to "Bridges Of Madison County" to the numerous "Star Wars" releases and "Jaws" or "Close Encounters Of the Third Kind" or "The Shining" the entirety of Peter Jackson's Tolkien films, my list goes on and on...my point and commentary to countless friends, family and folks having been the same over these many years..."You've gotta go see this on the big screen!" And this has been true for Comedies and Rom-Coms and Thrillers and Period Pieces and Horror and Art-House films, etc. all always better on the big screen!
Anyone thinking or suggesting that home viewing of any of these films on their devices or TVs is the better experience are either being disingenuous or perhaps are simply oblivious to what they are truly experiencing while at a theater. What being siloed in my home during the pandemic has reinforced for me is the understanding that hermited media consumption is a poor substitute for getting out in the world and being with my fellow humans while we all take in a shared experience...be it a sporting event, concert, parade, play and, yes, motion picture film.
Bravo on the Academy, if it was not made for theatrical release, no Oscar. Simple. Otherwise there's the Emmy Awards for streamers.
It’s a good idea. A movIe should play in theaters. That’s what separates it from a tv show.
Nope. Theaters are pointless now that we've got giant screens and surround sound systems at home. I haven't been in a movie theater in years, and I doubt I'll ever go to one again. Why would I when I've got a FAR more pleasant experience at home with a comfy couch, no stench of popcorn, no sticky floor, no overpriced drinks, the movie pauses if I need to take a restroom break, nobody talks over it, and I've got the volume control so I'm not risking my eardrums.
(The only exception is RHPS, but that's because you're not going for the movie, you're going for the floor show.)
When theaters die streaming will be the only option. Not sure that's so good, paying for 5 or more streaming services each month is not something I would do. And don't think that when streaming is the only game in town that hopping on and off a service each month will be possible. Yearly subscriptions or limited monthly renewals will become the norm.
I'm confused by this logic...does the Academy Awards represent movies or movie theaters? If Godfather had been distributed on Amazon or Titanic on Netflix, that means these are unworthy as a movie?
I'm confused by this logic...does the Academy Awards represent movies or movie theaters? If Godfather had been distributed on Amazon or Titanic on Netflix, that means these are unworthy as a movie?
I like your point about what the Academy Awards (AA) represents (or should represent). I do see an argument for them representing cinematic releases if they so desire to present themselves that way, but I think they should try to focus on the core of their purpose, which is to "offer awards for artistic and technical merit for the film industry."
Anything else and they're just going to drive themselves out of business or make the inevitable change long after no one cares. There are plenty of examples of this. Blockbuster (BB) is probably the most apropos example since both AA and BB are film industry adjacent. BB didn't allow themselves to get into streaming because it would hurt their high revenue from late fees, which I think made up 16% of their incomes. Instead they let technology and viewing habits force them into bankruptcy and effective nonexistence.
This is just the media awards version of mediaeval sumptuary laws. The old power structures in that industry are fighting a losing battle to maintain their prestige.
I have a feeling we are getting this close🫸🫷to having a Streaming Service Awards show start that slowly draws interest away from the Academy. Imagine the SSA Awards show that handed out the Sallys every year. Stranger things have happened. I remember when nobody had heard of this thing called The Golden Globes.
Yeah, IMDb.com should do that awards. Though they are biased - owned by Amazon
It’s a good idea. A movIe should play in theaters. That’s what separates it from a tv show.
Nope. Theaters are pointless now that we've got giant screens and surround sound systems at home. I haven't been in a movie theater in years, and I doubt I'll ever go to one again. Why would I when I've got a FAR more pleasant experience at home with a comfy couch, no stench of popcorn, no sticky floor, no overpriced drinks, the movie pauses if I need to take a restroom break, nobody talks over it, and I've got the volume control so I'm not risking my eardrums.
(The only exception is RHPS, but that's because you're not going for the movie, you're going for the floor show.)
Theatres are pointless because Darkvader of the AppleInsider forums has set himself up with a cheap projector and a 5.1 system. You heard it here folks!
It’s a good idea. A movIe should play in theaters. That’s what separates it from a tv show.
Nope. Theaters are pointless now that we've got giant screens and surround sound systems at home. I haven't been in a movie theater in years, and I doubt I'll ever go to one again. Why would I when I've got a FAR more pleasant experience at home with a comfy couch, no stench of popcorn, no sticky floor, no overpriced drinks, the movie pauses if I need to take a restroom break, nobody talks over it, and I've got the volume control so I'm not risking my eardrums.
(The only exception is RHPS, but that's because you're not going for the movie, you're going for the floor show.)
Theatres are pointless because Darkvader of the AppleInsider forums has set himself up with a cheap projector and a 5.1 system. You heard it here folks!
I bet he doesn't understand why people go to concerts when they can simply listen at home, in their car, or while walking around.
The Academy is less supporting movies than movie theaters. Where's the money going to be?
Imagine if the music awards were only given to artists whose music is on CD. Sounds stupid, doesn't it?
So supporting 30 day old popcorn is the Academy's ultimate goal?
The goal, I'm sure you'll agree, is for movie studios to make money. Without them, there's no academy, and no large-scale industry making movies for showing in multiplexes in this country.
Much as I've enjoyed movies in theaters across my lifetime, this sounds to me like a message from the 20th century (and not Fox). With major movie chains folding because people have not been returning in sufficient numbers to keep their weakest complexes out of the red, the industry is clearly looking at future that features more streaming and fewer in-theater viewers over the years to come.
It’s a good idea. A movIe should play in theaters. That’s what separates it from a tv show.
Overall I agree. People who think a movie is better seen in the home are indeed disingenuous or clueless. There are many practical and economical reasons to stream instead of going to the movies but that short changes the viewing experience. If someone is ok with that or not able to appreciate the theater experience then by all means, stay at home.
Very few people have the kit at home to provide an excellent and immersive experience. That's why I go to the show. Not every theater has well maintained gear. That's why I'm picky about theaters. I've found one that has it all dialed in, making the trip well worth the price of admission. Visiting the concession stand is where most theaters make most of their money. I don't visit every time and don't spend much money when I do. Besides, eating takes me out of the immersion bubble and that's cross purpose to going to the show in the first place.
There are some disadvantages. Mainly people who have no business being at the movies and thoughtlessly act as though they're at home. I've seen the mentioned before and like the idea — a sign on the doors telling customers to abandon all hope of using your phone in this Faraday Caged Theater.
Most of my movie viewing is streamed because of the expense and now COVID. But many movies were not just made, but truly crafted for the big screen and much is lost when that's ignored for streaming only. Theaters aren't for everybody, but I'm glad it's an option.
Comments
And don't think that when streaming is the only game in town that hopping on and off a service each month will be possible. Yearly subscriptions or limited monthly renewals will become the norm.
Anything else and they're just going to drive themselves out of business or make the inevitable change long after no one cares. There are plenty of examples of this. Blockbuster (BB) is probably the most apropos example since both AA and BB are film industry adjacent. BB didn't allow themselves to get into streaming because it would hurt their high revenue from late fees, which I think made up 16% of their incomes. Instead they let technology and viewing habits force them into bankruptcy and effective nonexistence.
Much as I've enjoyed movies in theaters across my lifetime, this sounds to me like a message from the 20th century (and not Fox). With major movie chains folding because people have not been returning in sufficient numbers to keep their weakest complexes out of the red, the industry is clearly looking at future that features more streaming and fewer in-theater viewers over the years to come.
Very few people have the kit at home to provide an excellent and immersive experience. That's why I go to the show. Not every theater has well maintained gear. That's why I'm picky about theaters. I've found one that has it all dialed in, making the trip well worth the price of admission. Visiting the concession stand is where most theaters make most of their money. I don't visit every time and don't spend much money when I do. Besides, eating takes me out of the immersion bubble and that's cross purpose to going to the show in the first place.
There are some disadvantages. Mainly people who have no business being at the movies and thoughtlessly act as though they're at home. I've seen the mentioned before and like the idea — a sign on the doors telling customers to abandon all hope of using your phone in this Faraday Caged Theater.
Most of my movie viewing is streamed because of the expense and now COVID. But many movies were not just made, but truly crafted for the big screen and much is lost when that's ignored for streaming only. Theaters aren't for everybody, but I'm glad it's an option.