pilgrim@thrint.DEC (Alf Pilgrim, IOSG, REO G5-6, x3451) (09/17/84)
>What i want to know is, What are these undoubted benefits?? >How do they compare with these benefits of watching movies on cable? >less expensive - true >more comfortable - perhaps, but how much comfort do u want? >less time consuming - God help us! >one can smoke, eat, talk while watching - there is no restriction on eating and drinking in any cinemas i have frequented. Unfortunately, most cinemas also allow smoking (although usually in one half of the auditorium only). You want to *talk* while watching a film? >less distractions from other people - u mean those people who insist on talking while watching a film! >guaranteed excellent seating - true, although i've never had any problems with seating in a cinema >no standing in lines - (queues?) No u just have to wait 3 months (or whatever) before the film becomes available on video >no chance of the tickets being sold out before you reach the box office - true >you can get up and get sth to eat or drink without missing any dialogue, - what's so terrible about getting what u need to eat/drink either before/after the film or in the intermission? >with the right company, you can get romantic...and take advantage of it > immeadiately. - ??? >you have control over the temperature, sound level and lighting conditions - this is true however the TV doesn't provide dolby sound in stereo, quad or whatever nor at the quality I've come to expect >the print you are watching will typically be of high quality and will > stay in focus. [nowadays, these things are hard to find in the USA] - I suggest you emigrate to the UK then! >if the film turns out to be bad, you haven't lost any money - what about rental/electricity/heating while you watched the film >if it's not a high-interest film, you can browse thru a mag, etc. while > watching. - hardly gives the film a chance does it? >you can tape it - true providing you have a VCR >if you have kids, you don't need to get a baby-sitter - true >if you're single, and have no one to see it with, you are less lonely > seeing it at home. - perhaps The major benefits of going to the cinema as opposed to watching the film on TV (cable, tape, broadcast) are, for me, the quality of sound and the sheer largess of the screen. Admittedly, these may be more important for those films offering special effects (e.g. Alien, E.T., Star Wars, Star Trek, Superman, etc. etc.) both in sound and vision. However, all films must benefit from being shown in an environment designed exclusively for them, in the dark, and where everybodies attention is focussed in one direction...at the film showing. Lastly, there is always a sense of occasion when going to the cinema that one doesn't get from staying at home or going to a friends house. (Romance? How many love affairs have started at the pictures? Too many to count!) No, I accept that films on TV do have their advantages (especially for us parents) but largely because they enable one to see many more films than is otherwise likely, in particular, the older classics (and not so classic) that long since came off the cinema distribution circuit for good. All in all, however, give me the choice and I'd choose the cinema everytime for *any* film. cheers alf (...!decwrl!dec-rhea!decthrint!pilgrim) Mon 17-Sep-1984 11:27 GMT
moriarty@fluke.UUCP (Jeff Meyer) (09/21/84)
I think the major superiority of almost in film is that feeling of a group
experience, especially with comedies. I went to the opening night of
GHOSTBUSTERS in Baltimore, and it was like a very good concert. Also, go to
any opening night performance of any Star Trek movie... I guarentee that
you'll think the movie is 20 to 70% better than it is (I remember the first
one; in restrospect, not a great movie, but by the end of the premiere, the
audience was doing everything but tossing one another into the air).
Of course this is not true with all movies, but almost all of them give such
"group rush" in some degree, I think.
On the other hand, the worst type of psychologist is the amateur type...
"I prefer to think that God is not dead, just drunk" -- John Huston
Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer
John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc.
UUCP:
{cornell,decvax,ihnp4,sdcsvax,tektronix,utcsrgv}!uw-beaver \
{allegra,gatech!sb1,hplabs!lbl-csam,decwrl!sun,ssc-vax} -- !fluke!moriarty
ARPA:
fluke!moriarty@uw-beaver.ARPAlutton@inmet.UUCP (09/23/84)
#R:decwrl:-366100:inmet:6500052:000:249
inmet!lutton Sep 21 16:15:00 1984
()
()
Everyone has failed to mention the MOST IMPORTANT difference
between Cinema and TV:
THE PHONE DOESN'T RING AT THE CINEMA!!!!
(For those whose experience is not complete without a telephone
interruption, beepers are available.)
:-)reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (09/26/84)
As far as I'm concerned, the cinema's major advantage is picture quality. Out
here in LA the projectionists are pretty good, by and large. Thus, the image
you see on a movie screen is much clearer and sharper than TV. Also, many films
are made in wide screen format. Wide screen doesn't fit on a TV set, so,
perforce, they chop the edges off. This necessary but abominable practice,
known as scoping and scanning, can totally change the way a film is constructed,
as long two shots with the characters on either side of the screen become clumsy
montages of one shots, cutting back and forth. Then there's also the matter of
color. Color TVs aren't up to the kind of color you can get on a big
screen. Let me tell you, "The Wizard of Oz" is a very different, and much more
beautiful, film in theaters than on TV. The size of the screen itself is
important. I just don't seem to find films as important on a 19" screen as on
a 80' screen.
A totally separate point is the matter of distractions. When I'm in a movie
theater, there is nothing else to do but watch the movie (unless some
particularly interesting people are seated nearby). At home, I'm surrounded
by distractions.
The upshot is that I watch movies I don't care too much about, or missed in
the theater, or just can't see anywhere else, on cable. Anything I'm really
interested in I see in a theater.
--
Peter Reiher
reiher@ucla-cs.arpa
{...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiherstrock@fortune.UUCP (Gregory Strockbine) (09/28/84)
> I think the major superiority of almost in film is that feeling of a group > experience, especially with comedies. I went to the opening night of > GHOSTBUSTERS in Baltimore, and it was like a very good concert. Also, go to > any opening night performance of any Star Trek movie... I guarentee that > you'll think the movie is 20 to 70% better than it is (I remember the first > one; in restrospect, not a great movie, but by the end of the premiere, the > audience was doing everything but tossing one another into the air). > > Of course this is not true with all movies, but almost all of them give such > "group rush" in some degree, I think. > It also depends on what part of town the theater is in. I saw Personal Best at one theater. The place was packed and no one made a peep. A couple months later I saw it in a different part of town and the audience wasn't as serious, instead people were laughing and making comments.
wm@tekchips.UUCP (Wm Leler) (10/02/84)
Who says the phone doesn't ring in a Cinema? This may not a telephone be, but last weekend I saw a couple of plays at the Oregon Shakespearean Festival, and every hour, on the hour, a chorus of little beeps washed across the wrists of the audience like the mating calls of a flock of time birds. wm
rh@mit-eddie.UUCP (Randy Haskins) (10/03/84)
> ...and every hour, > on the hour, a chorus of little beeps washed across the wrists > of the audience like the mating calls of a flock of time birds. Yeah, that's pretty annoying in a flick, it's probably worse in a play. Here at MIT (you can just *imagine* what a problem that would be here) the LSC (which shows movies) has a slide they show from time to time. It says: NERDS: SILENCE YOUR WATCHES! It (so far) has always been met with applause. -- Randwulf (Randy Haskins); Path= genrad!mit-eddie!rh
barmar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Barry Margolin) (10/04/84)
In article <2813@mit-eddie.UUCP> rh@mit-eddie.UUCP (Randy Haskins) writes: >It says: > > NERDS: SILENCE YOUR WATCHES! > >It (so far) has always been met with applause. But not much success.... -- Barry Margolin ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar