British director Sir Ridley Scott has claimed technology which allows people to watch films on mobile phones and computer screens is killing cinema.
"We try to do films which are in support of cinema, in a large room with good sound and a big picture. But we're fighting technology. While it has been wonderful in many aspects, it also has some big negative downsides," Sir Ridley told reporters. The director was among a host of stars attending the Venice Film Festival.
The film-maker, whose credits include Gladiator, Thelma and Louise, and Alien, was at the annual Italian event to introduce a digitally remastered version of 1982 cult classic Blade Runner. The 69-year-old, whose new film - American Gangster - is released in November, also took a swipe at Hollywood studios.
"I think movies are getting dumber, actually. Where it used to be 50/50, now it's 3% good, 97% stupid. I'm not criticising Hollywood because I work there. But I'm saying this is the way it is, commerce is taking over art."
View: Full story
News source: BBC News
"We try to do films which are in support of cinema, in a large room with good sound and a big picture. But we're fighting technology. While it has been wonderful in many aspects, it also has some big negative downsides," Sir Ridley told reporters. The director was among a host of stars attending the Venice Film Festival.
The film-maker, whose credits include Gladiator, Thelma and Louise, and Alien, was at the annual Italian event to introduce a digitally remastered version of 1982 cult classic Blade Runner. The 69-year-old, whose new film - American Gangster - is released in November, also took a swipe at Hollywood studios.
"I think movies are getting dumber, actually. Where it used to be 50/50, now it's 3% good, 97% stupid. I'm not criticising Hollywood because I work there. But I'm saying this is the way it is, commerce is taking over art."
View: Full story News source: BBC News
:cough:music:cough:
It's more to do with the size of the audience for clean movies rather than an inherent better quality to them.
*rant mode off*
First: Annoying little ***** making too much noise during the movie.
Second: Cost. To go at night at the closest theaters are 10$ a ticket. Unless I go with someone else I have to go by bus (5.50$
Alternatively I can rent 2 new release movies for 6$.
Third: Quality. I find the image looks much better on a regular dvd on my 32 inch LCD HDTV. In the theaters the image isn't nearly as sharp and is fairly grainy. For example, 300 looked so much better on my TV than in the theaters.
I only goto the theater now if I am dying to see the movie or if its a special occasion like a date or to go with some friends, but I rarely ever go anymore compared to when I was younger when i'd go see some movies up to times in the theaters.
But yeah, why am I going to pay $8 a ticket (in CO) and then have to sit through a million previews and then to add insult to injury commercials! Screw THAT.
and witht he new digital cinema projectors at 4x or whatever the format is called, it's not that likely. though ebcause of the screen size,cinema movies may appear mor grainy, bt tey have far more detail than your HD movie of choice.
As for movie souds, uncompressed audio compared to compressed HD 5/7 chanel audio.. you won't know a difference, for music, yeah if you're an audiophile you might, but for movie sounds...
Nah m8.
HD-DVD is what will kill Blu-Ray. I hope Blu-Ray dies a miserable death.
Cinema will always live on. The cinema experience was/is always brilliant.
They are refitting cinemas to take on the new 3D films (£10,000 to refit). Just waiting for the films to be made.
Theoretically yes but in reality you don't get close to that in most theaters because of the poorly adjusted projecting equipment.
It is because today stupid people can afford professional video camera and PC with video editor.
Because they're scared to take a risk, or rather ask themselves why they should when what they do works. Real shame
I guess that puts you in a similar category to the 97% of films he was talking about.
Someone with a setup like Boz could probably have bragging rights as to getting equal or better setup to that of a movie theater. :p
People drop the cinema because large screen TV's and decent home theaters systems are everywhere, and you can get a really good surround receiver and nice floor standing (real) speakers pretty cheap today compared to just a few years back as well now.
Good home theaters in every home is what's killing cinema. and when you can get home theater cinema with nice good sized LCD tv's at home, wher eyou are allways in the sound sweet spot. why bother goign to the movies ? and besides in home theaters with good sound and all that, none of the good wok they're putting into the movie is going to waste, So I don't really get what he's whineing about.
People drop the cinema because large screen TV's and decent home theaters systems are everywhere, and you can get a really good surround receiver and nice floor standing (real) speakers pretty cheap today compared to just a few years back as well now.
Good home theaters in every home is what's killing cinema. and when you can get home theater cinema with nice good sized LCD tv's at home, wher eyou are allways in the sound sweet spot. why bother goign to the movies ? and besides in home theaters with good sound and all that, none of the good wok they're putting into the movie is going to waste, So I don't really get what he's whineing about.
I guess you could argue the term gadget but also, i would emphasize that watching movies on your cell phone is nowhere near popular let alone damaging the industry. Really they are shooting themselfs in the foot with the home theater market laughing at them. It's just a more logical move, it's the same direction CD's are moving in a way. I just feel that as we move into the "HD ERA" cinema will not be needed as the demand won't be there and they'd be better off releasing movies on optical/digital from the blocks rather then going to cinemas growing spider webs for a few weeks then get on optical etc then find it's all over the internet and then the industry gets angry, can you shoot yourserf in foot any better..
hey u can watch the film for 7 euros or keep it when forking out "just" about 4 times as much some times even same price if you wait longer...
or digitally download it for again way less...
yea, i do see the point, a shame... WTF... damm...
well what can i say, i guess i simply feel like most others, that this is BS
Glassed Silver:mbl
It's not technology that is ruining things... it's the industry that sucks. I'm not watching 2 hour long movies on my cellphone INSTEAD of going to the theater. To draw the conclusion that any reasonable person would do that is just asinine.
Pip'
Pip'
He's absolutely right. Art is getting it's ass kicked.
(And George W. Bush. Because I blame everything bad on George W. Bush. It's so much easier that way).
Look, if people are dumb enough to want to watch movies on your cell phone, someone will happily sell them the technology to do so. But for those of us who have brains in our heads, we'll be watching our movies on a slightly larger screen.
He's absolutely right. Art is getting it's ass kicked.
Uh, no. You just don't hear about art in the mainstream media. There's plenty of art, and it remains true art precisely because Hollywood, MTV, Dick Cheney, Bill Gates, and Japan haven't gotten their greedy claws on it yet.
He's absolutely right. Art is getting it's ass kicked.
Uh, no. You just don't hear about art in the mainstream media. There's plenty of art, and it remains true art precisely because Hollywood, MTV, Dick Cheney, Bill Gates, and Japan haven't gotten their greedy claws on it yet.
ps.: Nice misleading title on this Neowin article as usual. I don't see where Scott even remotely hints that "gadgets are ruining film".
Edit: Well DUH @ me for over-reading the bold part in that article. My apologies. =p
Last edited by GEIST on 04 Sep 2007 - 23:46
Yep, the first line. That you apparently missed. I've conveniently highlighted the relevant part for you.
"British director Sir Ridley Scott has claimed technology which allows people to watch films on mobile phones and computer screens is killing cinema."
ppps.: next time, read a little closer before you post.
pppps.: This is not a letter. You don't have to use post-scripts.
ppppps.: But it's fun, so forgive you.
pppppp.: Help! I'm addicted to post-scripts now!
I believe the responsibility lies solely with Hollywood to create and deliver the "art" of movies. Then it is up to distributors to deliver it: to theatres, DVDs, online, or on phones. And then it is up to consumers to decide how they want their entertainment. If there is a market for movies on cell phones don't blame the producer for delivering to the market.
Hollywood should concern itself only with making quality entertainment and story-telling. Leave it up to consumers to decide how they want it delivered and leave it to the distributors to make it happen. If Titanic doesn't look so hot on a 2" screen (and the battery sinks before the ship does) well then too bad. Get a DVD
But a crappy movie is going to be a crappy movie whether I watch it at a theater or on my mobile phone.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.