Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Christopher Nolan and Sofia Coppola Urge Fans To Watch Films in Cinemas, Not On Netflix (theguardian.com)

Posted by msmash on from the where-to-watch-a-movie dept.

Christopher Nolan and Sofia Coppola have urged audiences to see their films in the cinema at a time when the movie industry is reckoning with the growing popularity of video on demand and streaming platforms such as Netflix and Amazon. From a report: Presenting their forthcoming films at CinemaCon, the annual convention organised by the National Association of Theatre Owners, the directors said that they hoped fans opted to watch them at movie theatres, where they were "meant to be seen." Nolan made his comments during a presentation of his second world war drama Dunkirk, at which he previewed footage from the film. "This is a story that needs to carry you through the suspenseful situation, and make you feel like you are there, and the only way to do that is through theatrical distribution," Nolan told the audience. "I am depending and relying on all of you to try to present this film in the best way possible." Coppola echoed Nolan's comments during a Focus Features presentation for The Beguiled, a remake of the Clint Eastwood civil war drama starring Colin Farrell and Nicole Kidman.

14 of 360 comments (clear)

  1. okay... by slashmydots · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Then tell the annoying teenagers behind me to shut the hell up if you want me to go to a theater.

    1. Re:okay... by nedlohs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They are speaking at something run by the "National Association of Theatre Owners". They don't actually mean what they say, it's just playing to the audience.

      For example, I'm going out on a limb and assuming that neither of them will refuse to have their copies of their movies sent to academy award voters since they should go and see it at the cinema to get the real experience...

    2. Re: okay... by cyber-vandal · · Score: 5, Funny

      Trump's not a fan of NATO, he'll deal with them.

    3. Re: okay... by JustNiz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > It's called "being a kid." If you can't handle that, I'd say the problem lies with you,

      I agree the kid is just being a kid, but kids do not have life experience or awareness of risks. Thats what good parents teach them, but people that think like you (that its OK for their kid to be everyone elses problem, and those people should just put up with some strangers out-of-control kid) aren't ever good parents.

      if kids are allowed to annoy others, such as by running around in a movie theater, then the fault is definitely with the clueless parents. Not least bcause they are encouraging them to be inconsiderate little brats.

    4. Re:okay... by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It sounds like a good idea to me, seriously. The problem is that if I do that, I'll surely go to jail for assault.

      So I have a solution which will keep me from both getting angry and going to jail: I just won't go to the theater. As a bonus, I'll save a bunch of money, which I can use instead for going out to eat at a nice, quiet upscale restaurant with my girlfriend. If the theaters go out of business, then so be it. The nice restaurants don't seem to have a problem keeping customers in line and tossing out rowdy people.

    5. Re: okay... by sexconker · · Score: 5, Funny

      If someone throws my kid into the ocean or picks them up or touches them, I will quickly eliminate them permanently and then go after my kids.

      No you won't, you irresponsible twat. You'll bitch and moan and demand they be arrested and try to sue. If you were someone who took action, your little fucking shits wouldn't be running around to the point where someone decided they needed to be punted away.

  2. I'd love to by dlleigh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd love to. I enjoy seeing movies in a real theater.

    But I have small children, so there is little opportunity to go out. Netflix and other online providers are my best hope for seeing any movies at all, and even then I see them only long after they've left the theaters.

  3. Going To The Cinema Is Great But... by dryriver · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... different people have different preferences. One person may love to see Nolan's "Dunkirk" on a huge cinema screen, where the experience is probably quite overpowering. Another may prefer to pop the Dunkirk Bluray into his living room Bluray player and experience the film on a smaller screen in the comfort of his home. Also, some people - like working adults with children - simply don't have the time for a 3+ hour trip to the local multiplex. I used to love going to the cinema when I was 13 - 25 years old. I wanted to watch everything on the big screen. These days I like watching Bluray's or streaming movies at home - some even on a laptop screen with headphones on. The films still work. After the first 3 minutes, you forget what kind of screen you are watching on. You cannot expect everybody, in this day and age, to prefer cinema over home viewing options.

    --
    Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
    1. Re:Going To The Cinema Is Great But... by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ... different people have different preferences. One person may love to see Nolan's "Dunkirk" on a huge cinema screen, where the experience is probably quite overpowering.

      I don't think that the experience is that overpowering, relatively speaking. The power of the big screen made sense decades ago, when at home you had a 23' screen with a modest resolution. These days, Saving Private Ryan is overpowering at the theater, and also at home, on a 60' screen. You can get an experience at home almost as overpowering as that at the theater. A huge screen and a very loud sound are not worth the price of admission any more.

  4. Reconfigure the Theaters by turp182 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I take my kids to movies in theaters and we always do 3D which is fun.

    Otherwise, they need to update the configuration of theaters to enhance the experience.

    I suggest they use the Oatmeal's suggestions:
    http://theoatmeal.com/comics/m...

    "Into the Dome Motherfucker!"

    --
    BlameBillCosby.com
  5. How about. . . no. . . by Salgak1 · · Score: 5, Informative

    . . . does that work for you ? Because it works for me. No crying babies, chatty teens, or rude patrons playing with their smartphones. Better bathroom, and I can pause the movie while I take care of that. And no highly overpriced "refreshments". . .

    . . . and besides, afterwards, I can re-watch scenes, and even MST3K them if warranted. . .

    1. Re:How about. . . no. . . by mellon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also, am I the only one who just feels insulted when I pay >$10 for a movie ticket and then when I get into the theater, there's a dozen ads? I never see ads on Netflix. FFS, if you want people to use your service, stop insulting us!

  6. Very Strongly Disagree by MpVpRb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Theaters suck, I will never go to a theater again

    Drive across town, pay to park, drive around looking for a spot, walk to the theater, wait in line, try to find a good seat, wait until the movie starts while being forced to watch commercials

    Once it starts, it can't be stopped, paused or rewound

    Worst of all..no subtitles. I'm old with bad ears (too many years in the rock band). Without subtitles it's almost impossible to make out what the actors are saying, especially when the music and FX are mixed loud

    At home, I can have a beer and a reasonable priced snack, while being in control

  7. Re:$100+ for a family by Baron_Yam · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually, if the tickets were tiered (some movies definitely don't earn their ticket price), if the concession prices weren't obscene, and if there were ushers who would actually remove patrons disturbing everyone else...

    But that means charging less for distribution so the theatres don't have to rape you on popcorn and soda to turn a profit, and that might in turn mean paying actors less than tens of millions for a movie.

    I hope the existing system crashes and burns, it is ridiculous. It needs to normalize so the economics make sense for all the players. If that mean wages move towards the mean, I think everyone but the very top will be OK with that. If that means budgets drop a bit, we'll survive. If it means investors have to invest in more movies to make the same amount of money, lawyers will take a slightly larger cut for the extra paperwork.

    It'll all work out, and the average moviegoer, actor, and crew will be happier for it. But first Hollywood needs to burn.