Slashdot Mirror
Nolan's Cinematic Vision in 'Dunkirk' is Hollywood's Best Defense Against Netflix (marketwatch.com)
There's nothing quite like filming a movie on film, according to the director Christopher Nolan. His new WWII film, Dunkirk, was shot entirely on epic 65mm, as opposed to digital. And it's receiving the widest release of that film format in recent history. But Nolan's views on doing things the way "they're meant to be done," isn't limited to just making a film. He also wants you watch the movie in the theatre, and not on streaming service Netflix, which he says he rarely uses. From a report: "Dunkirk," director Christopher Nolan's big budget war epic, is a filmmaker's film and a movie buff's dream with its wide, high-resolution 70mm format. It's like an expressionist painting, said ComScore media analyst Paul Dergarabedian. The Hollywood Reporter even said "Dunkirk" could launch a 70mm film renaissance. "I would always prefer and really recommend that everyone see it on Imax 70mm," Dergarabedian said. "People talk about 'they don't make movies like that anymore.' Well, this is that movie." Dunkirk, which opens across the U.S. this weekend, is a film that everyone will tell you has to be seen on the big screen. And that has rekindled the debate about the pros and cons of films opening in a theater versus being streamed by Netflix. In an interview with Indiewire ahead of the film's premiere, Nolan criticized Netflix for its "bizarre aversion to supporting theatrical films." Netflix, despite doubling down on its film business and looking to make inroads in the industry, has continued its controversial stance against Hollywood's theatrical window model. To the film industry's dismay, Netflix is still adopting a day and date release model -- dropping a movie on the streaming service the same day it hits theaters. Hollywood relies on the money moviegoers spend at the box office, and the industry is reluctant to give up the exclusive window of time that films are only in theaters, fearing it would cripple that income stream. "Dunkirk" is an impressive $150 million argument on behalf of cinema.
In an interview, Nolan said he will not work with Netflix because their film strategy is "pointless." He said, "They have this mindless policy of everything having to be simultaneously streamed and released, which is obviously an untenable model for theatrical presentation. So they're not even getting in the game, and I think they're missing a huge opportunity. [...] You can see that Amazon is very clearly happy to not make that same mistake," he said. "The theaters have a 90-day window. It's a perfectly usable model. It's terrific."
Critics have found Dunkirk one of the best movies -- and perhaps the best war movie -- ever made. The Guardian said it's the best Nolan movie, while the New York Times found it "both sweeping and intimate."
In an interview, Nolan said he will not work with Netflix because their film strategy is "pointless." He said, "They have this mindless policy of everything having to be simultaneously streamed and released, which is obviously an untenable model for theatrical presentation. So they're not even getting in the game, and I think they're missing a huge opportunity. [...] You can see that Amazon is very clearly happy to not make that same mistake," he said. "The theaters have a 90-day window. It's a perfectly usable model. It's terrific."
Critics have found Dunkirk one of the best movies -- and perhaps the best war movie -- ever made. The Guardian said it's the best Nolan movie, while the New York Times found it "both sweeping and intimate."
In one way they are right: there are some movies which really are better to watch on a big scren. Even the 52" in my living room does not do them justice.
So the watching experience could be better in the theater... but it's not! It's not because:
* There are anymore 15 or 20 commercials and previews before the main film. This can take in excess of 30 minutes, sometimes 40. It has become ridiculous.
* The audio is played so loud I need earplugs to avoid pain.
You want me to attend showings in the theater? Fine. I would be inclined to do just that, if you didn't make the experience so bloody terrible. As it stands, you drove me back into my living room. You had choices to make. You made them in a way inconsistent with retaining me as a customer.
If you ever revisit those choices, i will revisit my choice to avoid your theater.
Well, it's not just cost.
I don't care to eat or drink when I go to the movies, so I don't factor the cost of popcorn or soda into a trip to the movies. The ticket prices at the place I usually go to are $6.50 for an adult ticket. It'd be peanuts to go a few times a week.
That said - i go to the theater MAYBE 3 times a year, and that's simply because it's a movie that I really want to see NOW and not in a few months.
While I can understand their passion, for me (and I think a large number of people), a trip to the theater isn't some holy cathartic experience. It's not magical. It's just a dark room with a big screen and decent speakers - which I've got at home.
Put it this way: if I could pay the same price of a movie ticket, and could watch the movie once on release day BUT I had my choice to watch it in a theater or at home, I can guarantee I'd never step foot in a theater again.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Well, you have it very cheap, here in the UK my local cinema is £9.50 for an adult ticket, which is approximately $12.35 US at today's exchange rate. Oh and the pound has been going down for the last couple of years, so £9.50 two year ago was worth a hell of a lot more at approximately $14.80 US.
And then I have a darkened room with a full sound system and a nice screen to use at home without popcorn in the carpet and others talking over it or flashing their phones.
It's really sad because if this movie flops with audiences, some will claim that it's because it wasn't seen on the right format, when the real problem is that it's just a weak movie.
I saw this on a standard screen in Seattle, but one I'd normally consider as good as digital gets. I know my history, so the overall story is not new to me.
The movie itself is dry with very little character development. It's all about sweeping shots, but you don't care about any of the boys being killed on the beach.
It's constantly switching between day and night, with virtually no continuity, so you can't tell if the fighter scenes are during the first day or the last day.