Have to agree with Radical Moderate. I saw Avatar in 3D and it was cool, but it didn't do anything for me other than go "Hey! Neat!". Since then, the number of 3D movies I've seen has been zero. I avoid them because it was cool once and definitely didn't strike me as being worth the extra ticket money for the whole family. Going to the movies is already expensive enough and I don't think your car analogy works here either. A car with a bunch of added safety features and creature comforts is worth more money to me to protect myself and my family. I will also get 5+ (hopefully) years of use out of it. Comparably, a movie with a bunch of superfluous and sometimes annoying bells and whistles that costs a lot more to see in a theater means I'll be seeing it in my home theater (if at all) when it hits the rental shelf or cable.
There really aren't that many good movies being made, especially not "arthouse" ones. The best filmic work being done today is on HBO with long-form dramatic TV series. They beat the hell out of anything the cinema has to offer today.
The fact that you use the word "arthouse" as a substitute for "good films" is kind of funny. Among cinephiles and film critics, the term has been used derisively for years now. If a film is labeled "arthouse" then you can predict with almost 100% certainty that it's not a good film. It's most likely a film that has been shot pretentiously to appear profound and arty, but doesn't actually have a lot of substance. It's pretty much the flip-side of the shallow effects-driven film, where the "indie" aesthetic and posturing is more important than making a good film.
Slashdot Mirror
Have to agree with Radical Moderate. I saw Avatar in 3D and it was cool, but it didn't do anything for me other than go "Hey! Neat!". Since then, the number of 3D movies I've seen has been zero. I avoid them because it was cool once and definitely didn't strike me as being worth the extra ticket money for the whole family. Going to the movies is already expensive enough and I don't think your car analogy works here either. A car with a bunch of added safety features and creature comforts is worth more money to me to protect myself and my family. I will also get 5+ (hopefully) years of use out of it. Comparably, a movie with a bunch of superfluous and sometimes annoying bells and whistles that costs a lot more to see in a theater means I'll be seeing it in my home theater (if at all) when it hits the rental shelf or cable.
There really aren't that many good movies being made, especially not "arthouse" ones. The best filmic work being done today is on HBO with long-form dramatic TV series. They beat the hell out of anything the cinema has to offer today.
The fact that you use the word "arthouse" as a substitute for "good films" is kind of funny. Among cinephiles and film critics, the term has been used derisively for years now. If a film is labeled "arthouse" then you can predict with almost 100% certainty that it's not a good film. It's most likely a film that has been shot pretentiously to appear profound and arty, but doesn't actually have a lot of substance. It's pretty much the flip-side of the shallow effects-driven film, where the "indie" aesthetic and posturing is more important than making a good film.
That's hilariously accurate in my opinion.