Cinema vs DVD

my own food at not hyperinflated prices,beer, I can lie down, I can pause to go for a wee and I'm not surrounded by people constantly talking/crunching/coughing etc

by far more preferable

I think in a wider sense you can never get as lost in a film on DVD as you can in the cinema; it really changes things like character identification.

A lot of DVDs are up to their potential, but I never have time to go into all that anyway. Mine cost £30 quid and it plays R1!

People were tossing off when I saw 'Baise-Moi'. *That's* audience participation.

like van helsing? 8)

Besides, it's too expensive to eat there, you have to travel home afterwards, and you can't skin up.

As someone with over a terabyte of online storage here at home, I couldn't agree more. :)

I don't like the cinema either.

Anyway, in practical terms DVD over cinema -- the various price/food/idiots-around-you reasons add up all too quickly around here.

I swear, my housemate and I have a hard-drive addiction. The other day we both simultaneously opened the static bags on our new 200gb drives and deeply inhaled the lovely new-hard-drive-smell.

And I find the cinema an unpleasant way to spend an evening.

I've often done this as well, though mostly I try and separate the first watching from the commentary watching by a day or two. I'm addicted to random anecdotes.

Nail on the head.

Advantages: Shared experience w/audience. Great for comedy & horror, less so for pr0n and romance. Big screen and full sound for full esthetic effect

Disadvantages: Audience often braying, illiterate boors barely fit for turnip fertilizer. Food expensive. Smoking, drinking, carnal gymnastics, and shutting the film down while you go the head, all verboten Expensive.

DVD,

Advantages: No chatting teenagers, mumbling crazy people or socially impaired disturbances (unless it's one and one's guests). No rustling of candy wrappers. Clothing optional. Food can be whatever you want. One can conceivably sit naked, well-fed, drunk, and otherwise under the influence on one's lving room rug in an attempt to make movie experience better. This is frowned upon in theaters, especially the bringing in your living room rug part.

Disadvantages: If epic or finely shot film, you may miss out on some of the detail and power even on your bestest screen. If movie is social phenomenon, you won't be part of it 'til after it's happened.
If movie is really shite, you won't have consolation of knowing all the other people in the audience paid and suffered too.

Near empty cinema on a week day afternoon = one of the greatest things ever.

I try to replicate the experience on DVD as much as possible - I hate watching films in a room that isn't dark, and I try to interrupt the film as little as possible, turn off phones, etc..

I really think you're missing out on that last one. Samuel Delany to thread!

I'm a bit more pragmatic -- I want to watch it for the first time on the big screen, and then I don't mind watching it on the wee screen. Having the DVD or the file is awesome then. But if it's good I'll see it at the cinema every chance I get.

So even though on another thread I said something about wanting to see more Guy Maddin films, I probably won't actually see them unless they are shown in a theater first.

But I have been known to break this rule sometimes.

All that said, I don't see many films at all.

Cinema

i do love stretching out on my couch to watch a dvd, but i would like to see the film in the cinema first.

The best way to watch a film is on your own, in an almost empty cinema in the middle of the afternoon. I did this with Lost in Translation in Coventry. I think this is actually the most fun you can have in Coventry.

in chicago, this means i watch a lot of dvds (and vhs's).

in paris, this means i almost never watched dvds.

i don't have the reverance for the "cinema" that is evoked by people like godard ("you look 'up' at a screen in a cinema, and 'down' at a tv set"--whatever that is supposed to mean).

that is to say, he mistakes rhetorical likenesses for like meanings. perhaps you do look "up" at a cinema screen and "down" at a TV (in a purely physical sense) . but that does not necessarily mean you "look up" to a cinema screen, i.e. in awe; and "look down" on a TV, i.e. condescend to it.

it's likely that there are differences in the way you perceive the same film on tv and in the cinema. but i doubt it tracks with godard's overly facile formula. and there are, after all, different modes of home viewing, and different kinds of cinemas.

did you read his latest interview where he claims that the usa invaded iraq so they can steal the ancient sumerian culture?

All was.

If anything, Godard is contradicting his Brechtling ego: TV in this formulation demysitfies the image, it is the viewer's bitch. I don't think you can get as lost in film when it's on DVD, but at least you're comfortable. Apart from banning smokes, booze, grazing food, my local kino is COLD.

that doesn't surprise me at all for some reason. Even in terms of physical effects of posture, I find myself always falling asleep in the middle or twoards the end of DVD/VHS watching at home, but never do in a theater.

empty theaters are great, but that never seems to happen in chicago. in paris i sat in near-empty theaters a lot; there are simply so many movies playing so often in so many theaters, there are bound to be a few empty houses. the most commonly empty screenings were the late-night (10/11 PM) weekday ones at out-of-the-way theaters.

my point in bringing up and bashing godard was not to suggest that the experiences of watching movies on TV and in the theater are the same. just that the differences can't be---IMO--boiled down to the whole "looking up"/"looking down" formulation. i don't condescend to "ordet" when watching it on tv. i don't think i'm better than "tokyo story" when watching it on tv.

there is no platonic "DVD" and "FILM" to compare. it depends on the case. i have been to screenings where abominable prints were used, and to that i'd prefer a decent DVD transfer. of course there are mediocre DVD transfers, or worse. and of course a good-condition 35mm print, without too many splices and scractches, retaining the range and brightness of its original color or b/w, would be better than any DVD transfer (even one with low compression), but those are ideal circumstances.

Which cities have the most art-house/revival/etc. screens and theaters in the US (aside from NYC/LA, which seem obvious)?

Every movie I see in a semi-crowded theater will have at least one cellphone ringing, baby screaming, moron narrating the film or something equally annoying.

this just doesn't seem to happen to me! apart from at the prince charles, where it happens every time. i guess i tend not to go to films with a large teenage audience, or if i do then the times/cinemas i go to don't seem to attract loads of teenagers,a nd maybe that makes a difference. but i get way more involved with a film at the cinema than i can at home.

the falling asleep thing while watching dvds makes it dud for me, plus i've been lucky enough to live in cities with excellent art houses/museum screenings so just about everything old that i want to see eventually comes around. dvds are best for marginal recent stuff that might be worth a look but you can't work up any enthusiasm over

dvds are best for marginal recent stuff that might be worth a look but you can't work up any enthusiasm over

and tv shows.

wondering about this at the moment since I never got around to seeing No country for old men or There will be blood....they're either both out on DVD now or coming out soon, but still in theaters...finally have a chance to get out to see a movie...do I bother spending 10x as much for the theater experience for these? Dunno.

i've fallen asleep in cinemas... at least on dvd you can start over. i'm going to the cinema more now than in years, but it's not really an either/or given 90% of what i see is old. there are maybe three films a month i'll bother with at the cinema.

I fell asleep in the cinema watching the last Harry Potter film. I missed all but the first few minutes and the last. Er so?

you missed the orgy scene

Doesn't really matter, does it? We'll all have to get use to home viewing sooner or later.

tiickets at the curzon soho in london are now 10 pounds each

that's $20 for those of you keeping score at home

sorry, i mean 12 pounds now!!! that's $24 each, $26 if you book online

Akm - if you're going to see There Will Be Blood at all, see it in the cinema.

Doesn't really matter, does it? We'll all have to get use to home viewing sooner or later.

Why? When?

Because $26 for one ticket is beyond the reach of most people?

that is a hell of a lot. i'm a student, so it's cheaper, and the curzon -- ever since the 30s -- has relied on a sizeable student audience.

but already theatrical releases, especially of curzon-type films, are loss-leaders for the dvd. a lot of films disappear after a week in central london and can't hope to recoup in that time.

Can be difficult for new releases, I can wait to borrow the dvd from my local library for 2 quid kthx (though I wish I had seen ILX fave 'Zodiac' at the cinema). 10 quid is a scandal (I think Odeon does about 6.50 for screenings before 5pm, that's where I saw 'There Will be Blood'). Thankfully Curzon (especially Renoir) does 6.50 for 'classic' arty film screenings on sunday mornings, the Lumiere can be amazing, the Goethe Institute is also awesome (3 quid for German films).

NFT does all films for fiver on tuesdays...

Yeah, I learned about the Tuesday NFT deal by chance the other day. It was a nice surprise.

Because $26 for one ticket is beyond the reach of most people?

Most cinemas don't cost £12 (and not many think in terms of the prevailing dollar-sterling rate). I pay £12 a month to see as many films as I want at my local multiplex.

I used to like the Curzon. Perhaps I still do. I guess rich people want a place to go to watch new films away from the hoi polloi.

Alba do you mean that your local multiplex has an all-you-can-watch deal, for a monthly fee? Cause that sounds like an awesome idea!

The Curzon is an extreme example I admit. The insult to the injury is how teeninsy their screens are.

All Cineworlds have that deal. I can use any Cineworld in the country, except London West End ones. If you pay £15 instead of £12, it includes the West End ones too.

It's especially good for me, because the Glasgow Renfield St Cineworld is one of the biggest cinemas around, with 16 screens, and it's right next to my office, so I pop in after and before work a lot. I feel a bit bad, cause they screen a lot of arthouse stuff too, which must hit the GFT hard, but what can you do with that kind of deal? I see about 10 or 12 films a month with it.

Cineworld Unlimited

Looked at that deal a few years back when Cineworld was UGC, but up here they don't show enough old/good movies to make it worth the money.

Why? When?

Because DVD and internet distribution is dramatically cheaper and the decision is really in the hands of a few corporations.

I guess rich people want a place to go to watch new films away from the hoi polloi.

-- Alba, Saturday, March 22, 2008 2:20 PM (58 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

lololol u just summarized my 100,000wd thesis, boo.

In the UK at least, cinema attendance is an perfectly healthy state. I think the last couple of years have seen a small drop, but it's well up on a decade ago. I don't see any signs of it being a dying distribution model.

Why? When?
Because DVD and internet distribution is dramatically cheaper and the decision is really in the hands of a few corporations.

Yep. If it weren't for the spectre of Internet piracy, I'm fairly sure we'd see theaters unceremoniously being closed left and right.

I must remind Cineworld to change their "Love films, hate piracy" ads to "Love piracy, keep us open" ones.

DVD advantage = no other people around, no crappy projection

cinema = everything else

I like going to the movies better because it's easier to watch the movie in one sitting without getting bored and falling asleep.

Yeah, my major problem with watching films at home, on my own at least, is that I find it hard to sit and concentrate for two hours. I get distracted and go and check my email or something. Being in a cinema away from all that is just what I need.

Alba, you took the popcorn right out of my mouth.

lolololo

It must have been while I was sshhing you.

Films are completely different in the cinema and I love it, unfortunately so rarely do any films I care about seeing come a cinema even remotely close to me that I basically have to watch everything on dvd, when I can afford to buy them off amazon, which is basically the only way to get a lot of movies since I can only rely on Tesco/hmv to stock them

^^^

This is pretty much the other thing to chalk down in the "DVD advantage" category, Morbs, and it's a big one -- the ability to see stuff you want to see.

the other thing about the movies is: I like going to the movies - I like the idea of going to the movies. but the Movies themselves are not very good, are they?

this year at the movies I have seen There Will Be Blood, No Country For Old Men and Juno - all acclaimed pictures, all ... really not that great. and Margot at the Wedding: not that acclaimed, and utterly awful. and yet I persist in the idea that going to the movies is fun. I guess that for me the movies are over the rainbow, they are where the grass is greener, where the rest of the world does not quite apply, one can walk away from it and out of it and into the movies - and the fact that actual movies are really not much cop does not seem to dilute this feeling much.

I don't even remember the last thing I got to see in the cinema. It is a trek to a giant shopping centre in the middle of nowhere or nothing. Also it is like €9 a ticket which is insane, and the last thing I really wanted to see only came to dublin which is four hours by bus and the next thing is luckily coming to cork so its just two hours, which means I actually get to see it, it will take an entire day to see one movie, and cost about €30 if i don't eat and it's gotten terrible reviews, but I've been dying to see it and I so rarely get to see movies in the cinema that I will go.

wow, what's the film?

um blueberry nights, which despite having jude law in it will be worth it if it's even 1/10 as beautiful as in the mood for love/2046/happy together (whichever is the worst of these, i could never decide or anything)

The pinefox, it's a shame you didn't see I'm Not There at the movies.

I feel bad hearing I know, right's story, because I had ample chance to see My Blueberry Nights for free but didn't bother and even went to see Definitely Maybe instead.

(perhaps the pinefox's list was not exhaustive and he has seen I'm Not There)

I'm not there was the dublin exclusive btw

Alba, I think it's called "Definitely, Maybe". Otherwise, we might think that you had watched a cinematic screening of the Oasis 10th anniversary box set, which Fopp are now selling off for £3.

It was thoughtful of you, Alba, to say that about I'm Not There. My list was indeed exhaustive, I think, for 2008; certainly I didn't see the Dylan picture, it was gone too fast. It was Not There! But you're correct, surely that's just the kind of film that would have salvaged my view of film, and it is indeed a pity I didn't catch it, at the movies.