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."
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.
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
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.
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.
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.