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."
It's really that simple for most people seeing films in theaters is too costly. Most are not "must see" immediately good anyway.
Which would you rather have:
1. A nice, relaxing watch on your own time, own schedule, with the people of your choosing, with affordable snacks and great seats
2. A dingy, overpriced, cramped, uncomfortable, smelly struggle to enjoy a film played on poorly maintained projectors in a theater rocking with the sounds of cellphones and conversation, while the usher stands idly by and fails to enforce any order, while you munch stale $20 popcorn.
Option 1 will cost you a Netflix subscription. #2 will cost you $30 a head for one viewing. Little surprise I, like thousands of others, never go to a theater!
If Hollywood wants to defend their vision of how films "should" be seen, they have to regulate themselves and beat the alternative options. So far, all they really want to do is whine about it.
I'll be sure to watch it on an airplane in-seat system out of spite.
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.
It's terrific indeed. Wait for the movie release in theaters, wait 90 days then stream at home without having to bother with the sub-par theatre quality of overpaying for the ticket, the snacks and drinks, the sticky floors, the crappy and probably dirty seats, having to endure idiots around you pushing on your seat, talking, using their damn phones with the brightness at maximum, watching a blurry image and enduring extreme audio loudness with so much bass that you don't even hear anything else.
He's right when he says streaming is a perfectly usable model, all you have to do is wait 90 days!
tl;dr Hollywood does not control the theater experience and it's expensive. When we watch at home we control our viewing experience and the price is low.
#DeleteFacebook
1 - Home theaters cost less and less every day. 4K resolutions dwarf many local theaters, and you can bring any food you want, with any friends you want.
2 - Film vs digital has nothing to do with home vs theater.
3 - Netflix and YouTube allows independent content you'd never see in a theater. Google 4K drone, or 4K outdoors (you can even get 6 and 8K already IIRC on YouTube.) At an age when Hollywood produces the same shit every year, theaters are already a boring medium.
4 - DVD, BluRay, and Netflix prove that people don't care about the "benefits" touted in this article. People's recreational spending habits don't lie. People just want to relax with their familes and friends... not have to stand in line to watch, and stand in line to piss, and pay $8 for a fuckin soda.
It's worse than 3D. 3D at least has a tangeable difference in the product - some scenes will have a stereoscopic 3D effect that part of the audienct that includes me likes very much (when used to help build scale), other parts of the audience don't care for or can't see, and another group that may or may not be in the audience has an irrational hatred of.
Since Distribution is all digital now, the only thing shooting in 70mm adds is film grain and color gamut that you could reproduce more accurately or in a more controlled manner by filming in digital with the same shutter ratios and applying clever filters later on. If you shoot in 70mm film, you still need to run it over a digital camera/scanner/whatever at some point later on.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
I like to watch movies on my home theatre setup because I can
* Pause the movie
* Go to the bathroom
* Raid the fridge for snacks instead of over-paying for snacks
* Turn on/off CC
* Adjust the volume to MY liking
* Don't have to listen to any idiots beside me constantly talking / snoring throughout the entire movie.
Hollywood is completely out of touch with reality these days.
i.e. How many fucking re-cashgrabs of Robin Hood do we need? Eleven?!?!?!
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.
Every 65mm or 70mm analog film I have ever seen was in terms of resolution and signal/noise ratio _way_ below the quality of modern digital cameras, even below the decade old "3.4k" Arri cameras.
I wonder what others pretend to have seen, but movies like "The hateful eight", if anything, proved that analog film is outdated and bad. The whole indoor lighting they had to apply in "the hateful eight" to make the analog film catch a usable picture was terrible, it looked completely unrealistic (I mean seriously: A dark hut in a snow-storm, and magically bright lights shine from the ceiling all the time... WTF?!?)
I do not know whether "Dunkirk" is a movie worth watching, but I am absolutely sure if it is, it is certainly not because of image quality. And sure as hell it will hardly stretch the limits of a Bluray disc in terms of quality - certainly no reason to buy an UHD Bluray of it.
Movie theaters are an antiquated, expensive relic of the past that are beyond sub optimal for watching movies today. Anyone who says otherwise is a shill for the movie industry. The movie theater used to be the only way to watch moving pictures, but then came TV, but TV sets were small for decades (20" was standard, 32" was a major luxury and the aspect ratio was wrong for watching movies). This is no longer the case. Then sound systems (Dolby Surround, DTS) were better in theaters, but that too faded. "But you can watch with your friends; its an experience." they argue. However, my living room couches seat 5 with fold down arm rests and reclining seats.
So in summary, the benefits of movie theaters used to be:
1. Bigger screen (Now my 65" 4k $900 flat screen from 10' away is a much better and immersive viewing experience).
2. Better sound (My 7.1 system sounds just as good, with added benefit that I can avoid ruptured eardrums and hearing damage).
3. More immersive (at home I don't have to put up with all the jackholes texting and receiving phone calls or just talking to the person next to them in the middle of the movie, plus I can pause the movie to use the bathroom).
4. Cost (This was never better with the theater, but clearly even worse these days. Taking the family to the theater sets me back $70 just for the tickets for a family of 4, then add drinks, candy and popcorn and you are over $150, or my entire home theater cost me about $1600 once and I can buy the UHD multi-format for $30. That pays for it'self in less than 20 movies)...
Every single reason to go to the movie theater is gone, except for their exclusivity window prior to disc release. As far as I can tell, the only reason that movie theaters exist is people with poor self control that can't wait for the Bluray release and teenagers who want a place away from their parents to make out. If you take away the first category and the theaters close, the teens will just go back to parking at make-out point...
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
It's similar to the old "Direct to DVD" model, except Netflix pays some theaters to show their movies.
#DeleteChrome
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
Does he want us to take a horse-drawn carriage to the theatre as well? Will there be intertitles with the dialog displayed between scenes, and a live orchestra playing the sound effects?