Movies Are Dead?

This wank job from PC Magazine has seen it fit to declare movies dead. Why? Because he is so impressed by the picture and sound quality he can get with a home theater.

First off, he begins the article by stating that movies will die a slow painful death, only to reveal that he means theatrical movie screenings. Movies themselves will obviously be fine, as what else does he expect to watch on his sweet new LCD projector? Oh, right, naked pictures of "Battlestar Galactica" cast members...

Yeah, I think the author's another one of these techno-geek assholes. Why is it that everyone who enjoys modern home entertainment technology has to go on these ridiculous spiels about how "no one will go to movie theaters any more" and "DVD and HD eliminates the need for theatrical film experience"? Like Robert Rodriguez. He's done some incredible work with digital cinematography - particularly Sin City - but every time he's interviewed, it's constantly about how traditional 35 mm film is going to die out completely. It's just not true at all.

The biggest impact technology has had on any social institution is moviegoing. I think moviegoing is doomed to die off slowly unless Hollywood can come up with a reasonable new experience. As it now stands, I can feed an HDTV signal into a standard Toshiba LCD projector through the composite video ports and blow out a 100-inch 16:9 image on a screen and get a theater experience in the home.

Um, no. That's not called a "theater experience." It's called high quality picture and sound. In a movie theater, ideally, the screen envelops you, both your primary and your peripheral vision. Not to mention the idea of sitting in a large, darkened room surrounded by other patrons watching and experiencing the same movie as you.

I agree that DVD's make going to the theater less essential, and with my watching rented discs from Laser Blazer every night, I find myself going to less theatrical films. But am I willing to say that watching a movie on a few pixels on a PSP is going to replace the experience of cinema-going? No, not at all.

So why do I now want to go to the theater? Do I want to go because it's more expensive than a DVD rental? Do I want to go for the greasy popcorn coated with trans-fat butter-flavored oil? Do I want to go so I can hear cell phones going off all over the place and people yakking on them? Do I want to go because most of the movies aren't shown on large screens at all, but in boxcar-sized rooms with screens not much bigger than my projector screen at home? Do I want to go because the sound is turned too loud and pumped through a mediocre audio system?

What an asshole. "Hey, it's easier and easier each year to watch movies at home, so I'm going to write a bullshit 'trend' piece about how movies are dying out because popcorn is greasy! Journalimism is so easy!"

If he really wanted to write an article about how the movie-going experience has worsened over the years, that's fine. I might think he's a lame bitter old crank, but hey, I can be kind of a bitter crank myself. But to write the article about how technology is killing movies, and then to fall back on the old "people talk on cell phones!" stuff is so weak. Are you a PC Magazine columnist or a bad 1980's stand-up comedian?

Now with the DVD and the so-called home theater, the average experience is simply better at home. You can stop the movie when you want. You can eat dinner while watching. You can pause the movie and examine a scene more closely.

The nerd who wrote this tripe is named John Dvorak. I'm telling you now, so if you ever read anything else by him, you'll know he has no fucking clue what he's talking about when it comes to watching movies. "You can eat dinner while watching"? That's certainly one way to enhance the filmgoing experience! Shoveling food down your gullet while half paying attention. I'm sure that's exactly what Tarkovsky and Kubrick had in mind...

"How can we create a piece of work that will enrich the viewer's souls, but can be broken up into easily-digestible 10-minute chunks to be viewed between bites of Salisbury steaks and trips to the can?"

The only thing you really miss is the group experience of sitting in an audience with a hundred or more strangers who react to the film, which is an important form of socialization. Of course, that experience has to be balanced by the idiot with the hat sitting in front of you or the girl who keeps getting up every five minutes to go to the bathroom or make a call.

So, Dvorak thinks socialization in movie theaters in important...unless annoying other people are involved. It's okay, John, no one's asking you to leave your house. (Seriously...no one...) Hang out there all day and watch movies by yourself in between Halo 2 rounds. It's cool, none of us hatted people will disturb you. But the rest of us still kind of enjoy going to see movies, and we aren't swayed by the unconvincing "DVD and Internets kill movies" arguments.

He then goes on to compare it to the death of newspapers, which again shows a complete lack of comprehension of the basic structure of media. Newspapers aren't going to die out, you idiot...The delivery system itself might just have to change. Instead of printing up bulky papers every day, the entire process might go online. But it's not like The New York Times is gonna stop existing tomorrow...I guess that just makes for more interesting headlines.

Meanwhile, the newspaper publishers are clueless as to what they might do to stop the bleeding and Hollywood is more concerned about digital rights management than they are about their own future. Hey, guys. There is a huge locomotive headed your way. Take a look!

John, you're an idiot. You spend an entire article stating confidently that digital media will replace the old celluloid versions of movies, and then you wonder quizzically why movie studios care about digital rights management. Because if movies are all digital and anyone can copy any digital media they want, then anyone can get their hands on any movie for free. What's a bigger locomotive than that heading Hollywood's way, exactly? Snarky comments about greasy popcorn?

See, here's the thing, folks. The new technology never really eliminates the old completely, unless it does the exact same thing but cheaper. Home theaters don't exactly replicate the theater experience...You can't go out on a date to watch a movie in your living room. Kids can't watch a movie in their bedroom to get out of the house for a few hours in the middle of summer vacation. People need theaters.

What instead happens is old and new technology become integrated. Think about radio. When TV and movies came along, radio didn't cease to exist. Because TV and movies provide different kinds of entertainment than radio. So radio adapted, changed, morphed but remained around. And after Howard Stern goes to Sirius, most people who listen to radio will probably shift to satellite. (I know I'm planning to.)

Movies will likely be the same. Maybe there will be fewer theaters, or fewer films released theatrically. Maybe the business will shift to revival theaters, that play a mix of new and classic films (oh please oh please oh please that would be so awesome...). Maybe things like double-features, 3D or other 50's style gimmicry will come to replace traditional films. I don't know. But I do know that lots and lots and lots of people like going to movies, even if anti-social dorks like John Dvorak can't imagine leaving the safe confines of their studio apartments for a few hours just to catch a flick.