Will COVID-19 end theatrical movies

[Jim Kelly]

Not having been to a movie theatre in ten months, I wouldn't know, but I thought some theatres had slashed their ticket prices to lure people back to screenings.

[WebLurker]

Not having been to a movie theatre in ten months, I wouldn't know, but I thought some theatres had slashed their ticket prices to lure people back to screenings.

Local theater in my town, when it can be open, has been reshowing older films on discount to fill up the screens. Actually got to see some stuff I would never have had the chance to see on the big screen otherwise.

[Amadeus Arkham]

Movie theater CEO expects up to 25% permanent decline in attendance due to Covid

[Gaastra]

Wonder woman 2 hits $100m ww.

https://deadline.com/2020/12/wonder-...ce-1234663766/

Also soul doing well in china.

AMC update.

[Kirby101]

As I watch Lawrence of Arabia in full 70 mm on TCM, as expansive and visually stunning movie as ever made, there are some films that are just not the same when not on the big screen. I have seen it a couple of times in the theater, and it is diminished at home, no matter the size and resolution of your set.

[Jim Kelly]

As I watch Lawrence of Arabia in full 70 mm on TCM, as expansive and visually stunning movie as ever made, there are some films that are just not the same when not on the big screen. I have seen it a couple of times in the theater, and it is diminished at home, no matter the size and resolution of your set.

But if you saw it on Turner Classic Movies--which I gather is a streaming service--then you didn't see it in full 70 millimetre. They would have used the print to do a digital transfer--but what you saw was not the actual print, because that can't be streamed.

LAWRENCE OF ARABIA is one of those examples where seeing the movie on video can never be as good. But I think this has less to do with the film stock--it's the movie. There are probably lots of 70 millimetre films which would be just as good on a high resolution video screen. It's how David Lean shot certain scenes--and one in particular--that makes it necessary to see it with the film print.

And there are movies that were shot on lesser film stock that still can't transfer well to video screens. One of my favourite directors is Eric Rohmer and one of my favourite movies of his is LE RAYON VERT (which was released in North America as SUMMER). When I watched it in the movie theatre (several times), I always saw the green ray. When I watched it on home video, I never saw the green ray. I think Rohmer only shot that on 16 millimetre (maybe 35 millimetre). But the aspect ratio for all Rohmer's movies was 1:33--although some theatres would change this--he didn't believe in wide screen for his movies. Because to him 1:33 was the human level. He was centred on his actors and their faces--all that extra space on either side of the screen is just a distraction from the characters who are the most important part of the visual. So you would think that his movies could more easily be transferred to video--and it really isn't an issue most of the time--but for LE RAYON VERT it is.

By and large, I'm not a purist. Most movies are just as good seen on a smaller screen. And that's something one of my film profs talked about--she said that a director has to make a movie that holds up even when it's shown under the worst conditions, because most audiences don't see movies under the optimum conditions. But there are those few movies that need to be seen at their best to appreciate some important detail.

[Kirby101]

That is my point Jim. Most movies can be seen on at home, but there are those that need a theater screen. Recently watching some of 1917 on Showtime, it loses a bit from when I saw it last year at the cinema. If we lose movie theaters because of COVID, we lose something special about this artform.

[Jim Kelly]

I think there will always be physical spaces that can be used as theatres; the more serious problem for analogue film is whether the physical film will still exist and whether there will be the right projectors to show them. As more and more cinemas convert to digital, the less call there will be for analogue film and those projectors. As I understand it, with digital you don't even need a projectionist to be in the booth--it's all automatic--so if all the modern movies become digital (with Nolan and Tarantino losing the argument), it won't be cost effective for cinemas to keep skilled projectionists and the equipment necessary for showing analogue film. The best hope is that film preservation societies will keep copies of the analogue prints.

[Kirby101]

Yes, but I think technology will catch up and digital will be able to rival the 70mm film experience. Avatar was pretty spectacular on the big screen, and shot digitally.
So I am saying there will always be movies that need the big screen to fully experience. Now there may not be enough of them to save the theaters, or not enough people who care about the cinema experience (like the person I talked to who didn't like 2001, I stopped the conversation when I found out they watched it on their phone). Two different questions really. Are their movies that demand to be sen in a movie theater? Yes, unquestionably. Will that be enough to save the movie theaters? Probably not, but who knbows.

[Joker]

Sadly, very few films demand the best possible viewing experience. Most are probably not even made with that in mind. But this is all things.

Most people don't care that spotify trashes the audio when it's uploaded and turns the hard work of talented and experienced people to garbage. They can't tell. They really can't hear the difference. And when that's the only way you listen to music, your ears just get used to that environment.

It was nice seeing the Batman movies on real Imax screens. Those few scenes were great. Interstellar was where he really used it, though. Going full screen was used in an emotional way, not just as spectacle. It was very powerful, to me. That one stuck with me. I like that movie more than most people seem to, and I can't help but wonder if it's because I saw it how it was intended. In an optimal setting. It was certainly an experience I have not recaptured at home any of the times I've rewatched it.

[Kirby101]

I think that is the answer Joker. Are there movies that you can't really experience without seeing them on a big theater screen? Yes. Do most people care? No.

There is a comic book analogy. I want good art in every comic, Story is very important, but if the art isn't good, it doesn't work for me. There are comic readers who don't care if the art is barely serviceable or even sucks if the writing is good.

[Joker]

I've read enough comics to safely say most people don't even care if the writing is good. Some may not even know what "good" writing is.

But it's true that for most, quality isn't the big concern. Or, the measure of quality is wildly different. At least from mine. I will totally watch stupid garbage, but I'm not going to pretend it wasn't that, and I carve out spaces for the things that are of a certain quality. Be that music, or film or literature.

[Amadeus Arkham]

[Havok83]

Oh well. He's overrated anyway

[Kirby101]

Oh well. He's overrated anyway

Compared to who, Zack Snyder.