Couldn't you make that argument when buying a DVD of a movie you've already seen?
Repeats in the cinema?
- Thread starter wamdue
- Start date
Couldn't you make that argument when buying a DVD of a movie you've already seen?
For the experience of seeing it on the big screen. for the atmosphere of an audience who love the film seeing it and all sharing shocks, laughs, tear, etc.?
Well, it's not like anyone would go into West Side Story expecting the dancers to be replaced with CGI creature effects or something. Given that motion picture film is intrinsically high-definition, a digitally remastered print showing in the theater in its original widescreen format is going to look as good as or better than it looked in its original run 50 years ago.
*finds out George Lucas just bought the rights to West Side Story*
[Vader] Nooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!! [/Vader]
Thats why I used the quotes.
.ETA
It seems wamdue did use the word to mean something he's seen before.
"When you're Jedi, you're a Jedi all the way.
"From your first light saber to your last Death Star ray . . . "
Are these mini-revivals being shown/distributed digitally? It would seem that the advent of digital projection may have facilitated this type of re-release. I would think that it is cheaper to download the latest HD version of a catalog film to a theater for a one or two week showing than it was to strike and ship new prints.
I like movies just fine, I guess I dont like cinema, as much as some of you do.
the DVD is likely to be alot more recent, cheaper, and can be watched many times.
If there is an old movie I want to see, ill either get the DVD or watch it on TV, not go see it in the cinema.
I dont generally care for the accidence, they generally dont add anything helpful to the movie.
I was not expecting that either, but a film like say Jurassic Park whilst cutting edge for its time, is only going to looked dated on a cinema screen today. Heck it looks dated on ITV 2 today.
both me & society at large has seen before.
^Well, I think Jurassic Park still looks great, because the vast majority of its dinosaur effects are done with animatronic puppets live on the set, which still look better than even the best CGI. I also think plenty of old movies like Blade Runner and Star Trek: The Motion Picture have visual effects that still look great today. It's art, not just technology. Good art is timeless.
But, I would argue, that's part of the whole movie revival experience. Nobody goes to see, say, FORBIDDEN PLANET or REAR WINDOW on the big screen expecting to see state-of-the-art, twenty-first century effects. You just want to see the movie the way it was originally presented back in the day.
I mean, what about old black-and-white movies? Or silent films? Should they never be shown in theaters again because they look "dated"?
Anyway, I get that, personally, you're not that into seeing old movies on the big screen. Fair enough. But the point is that seeing an old classic on the big screen as a theatrical experience, complete with an audience, is not the same thing as just watching the DVD at home.
Not that there's anything wrong with that!
I was very pleased to be able to see the original Gojira on the big screen a few years back. Especially since it was the original Japanese version. It was a very different experience, and seeing it with an audience definitely adds something to it. We also got to see The Magnificent Seven at a charity screening a few years back (my first time actually) and also a charity screening of Serenity.
I'm actually even a little stoked to see all six Star Wars movies on the big screen again.
I'm actually even a little stoked to see all six Star Wars movies on the big screen again.
I may get kicked off the forum for saying this, but there is nothing good about Star Trek: The Motion Picture, there is no way im paying £8 to see that again. If its art, its long and drawn out art.
this maybe a US thing, in US TV, you often see characters go to smaller cinemas, to watch Classic movies, but in my experience cinemas are large multiplex which show new movies. That is something ive found agreeable.
Sure some city's have a art house cinema as well, and there is a place for that, in art house cinemas, not the local multiplex, which IMO could/should be showing new movies.
Its possible, I can sum this thread up by saying I dont have a love of the cinema.
^I saw TMP at the cinema last year and I actually really liked it. Used to have it on video, never really enjoyed it, the big screen made all the difference.
And it's arthouse cinemas in the US, just like the UK. Multiplexes rarely show small indie or old classics anywhere, as far as I know.
And it's arthouse cinemas in the US, just like the UK. Multiplexes rarely show small indie or old classics anywhere, as far as I know.
I guess we cant count 90s movies as "old classics" but my objection is to older movies being in the (my) local multiplex. There should be new movies, that mean that there is not enough screens to show older movies.
This thread was never so much about if you should see old movies at a cinema (I say no) more about why the lack of new movies, allowing screen space for these "modern classics"
They've been shown in the multiplex because they're either "new" releases, being remastered versions. Or anniversary showings. Or events for Halloween. They're not just randomly showing older films. and really what does it matter to you if they're using one screen out of 10 to show an old film?
George Lucas may have me delete this post, but a remastering of a movie, is not a NEW movie.
Not a new movie, but it is a new release. And what does it matter if a film is 3 months or 3 decades old, if you've not seen it it's still a new experience. The reason there's been so many lately is films getting remastered for blu-ray releases.
But is this really a problem? Have you ever not been able to get into the latest summer blockbuster because (gasp!) one screen out of seven was showing a revival of STAR WARS or THE LION KING or GREASE or whatever?
And as for seeing old movies at the cinema, some of my favorite moviegoing memories are of revivals:
The Phantom of the Opera (1925), with a tinted printed and genuine organ accompiantment.
Lawrence of Arabia, uncut and in 70MM, at Radio City Music Hall.
A double bill of Rear Window and Vertigo, in gorgeous restored prints.
A triple bill of the first three Bond movies at the Valley Drive-In outside Seattle. (We got a flat tire but it was worth it.)
A William Castle retrospective at the Film Forum, complete with "Percepto," "Emergo," and all the original 1950s gimmicks. (I think I attended almost every night.)
A college screening of Psycho in which I realized, to my amazement, that several members of the audience were actually caught offguard by the surprise ending!
Good times . . . .
the movies being shown, are not the type of movies, that people may have previously not seen, this is where I dont object to the art house cinema, but alot of people will have seen Jurassic Park even if they were not around to see it in the cinema first time around.
that was not the point of this thread, the point of the therad, was that there seems to be so few new movies, that cinemas are taking to repeats modern classics. There should be new movies in your local multiplex.
Both points are absolute bull. Plenty of people haven't seen Jurassic Park, or the Lion King, or Rocky Horror, etc. etc.
And there's plenty of films, there's often so many that they wouldn't fit all of them on one screen each in a multiplex. The problem is that the industry are more likely to bet on big films they think they can make money on instead of smaller films that will only draw a few. And in this case Lion King, Jurassic Park etc. will draw a lot of people from nostalgia or wanting to show their kids or wanting to see a film they've heard a lot about but never seen.
