Re: Spider-Man 3's $59 Million Opening Day in the USA

On May 9, 9:04 am, trotsky <gmsi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
moviePig wrote:
On May 6, 9:13 pm, trotsky <gmsi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


A) Bigger picture in a movie theater, i.e. larger than life.

30 times larger, more or less. BUT... if you sit close enough to your
(high-def) tv, you can watch a picture bigger than Imax. (And, often,
I do.)

Then you're not getting the picture quality you paid for. There are
recommended viewing distances for a reason--the picture looks grainy
otherwise.

It's a tradeoff, just like deciding how far back to sit in a movie-
theater. And I can see the point of even extremists of either camp.


B) Continuous playback of movie, i.e. no ability to pause movie.

Actually, I think this one's a wash...

No, I think watching the movie continuously gives you no time to take
your mind off it. When watching at home you eventually start looking
for "a good time to pause." Your reaction, especially when suspense or
atmosphere is being built, will certainly be different.

Certainly. But, on the other side, you have to assign *some* value to
being able to pause when you really want to.


E) The attraction of being able to get out of your house, and be in a
different venue other than your TV room.

...another wash...

Bull***. One of Woody Allen's best movies, "The Purple Rose of Cairo"
was about exactly this. You'll have to come up with some substantive
reasons how this one is a "wash."

....merely that a frequent reason that people don't get out more is
that they'd rather stay in.


F) The availability of concessions that you might not otherwise have at
home and the opportunity to pay through the nose for them.

Yes. But I want to watch more movies than my junk-food quota can
stomach.

I have no idea what that means.

Means that a trip to the theater *can* become an unpleasant exercise
in self-denial as I suppress my Pavlovian urge to stock up at the crap-
eteria.


Now I contend that A, B, C, and E above can and do make the movie
theater experience more interesting and more enjoyable than the home
theater experience. I also contend that a good director has the movie
theater experience in mind when he makes the movie. For example, how
many movies have you seen that have scenes that are just too dark to
view properly at home? Many. Funny parts and suspenseful parts and
scary parts have more impact when seen with responsive group of people.

I don't have much trouble with that, in principle. However, I suspect
I'm more of a snob than you are.

You have got to be kidding me. I'm the most elitist *** I've ever
met.

(Hmm... 'more elitist *** than thou'. A refreshingly different
competition...)


However, as I've got older, I've found it best for my blood
pressure to make some attempt to coexist with the unwashed masses. YMMV.

But obviously you've personally experienced the mindset that, e.g.,
sometimes leaves us amazed and grateful to to have found an
unexpectedly well-behaved audience. One could rhetorically ask: how
pathetic is that?...


I.e., everybody seems to laugh more
frequently raucously than I... and to squeal when scenes are only
*beginning* to get suspenseful... (Meanwhile, as for those too-dark
scenes, just wait till this winter, when the new FED/SED sets come
out...)

Well, I have no idea how being south of the Mason Dixon line factors in.

I don't get your pun. But, just in case you also don't get my
reference:

http://gear.ign.com/articles/679/679235p1.html

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com


.

Quantcast