Video On Demand

[stevetseitz]

I worked as a consultant with Hollywood Video a few years back and they were trying to develop something like it back then, but then I read that Wal-mart and Blockbuster starting new divisions following the "NetFlix" business model. So maybe the studios aren't to hot for the idea.

[cinemabon]

It's so funny seeing European filmmakers cry foul at George Lucas using digital cameras to shot his last picture. They want to keep film "pure". I've got news for them. Shooting with phycial motion picture film will be as antiquated as silent movies over this decade. The studios are falling all over themselves to line up new "digital" projects. WHY?

Because now they can 'wire' a movie anywhere in the world a lot cheaper than having a print made and shipping it to, say, Paris. It becomes a simple matter of economics. Using a high speed connection, a film can be transfered by 'wire', downloaded onto a hard disc, and digitally projected with almost identical quality to 35mm film. Now they aren't quite ready to match 70mm, but it is only a matter of time. Kodak, your days are numbered!

But don't look for your film online any time soon. Theater owners will have something to say about that. They have a strong influence in Hollywood. So I would say the time from theatrical release to DVD will be shortened. But first run films, online? Not for a long time to come.

[pmw]

>But don't look for your film online any time soon. Theater owners will have something to say about that. They have a strong influence in Hollywood. So I would say the time from theatrical release to DVD will be shortened. But first run films, online? Not for a long time to come.<

Thats an interesting thought. But what about delivery via cable/wire direct to consumers' homes. Being able to deliver a movie directly would seem like an economically appealing thing to the studios. I would of course prefer to see them in theaters but it seems like if you could get a new release on your tv the day it came out, that a certain number of people would do it...

[stevetseitz]

>>It's so funny seeing European filmmakers cry foul at George Lucas using digital cameras to shot his last picture. They want to keep film "pure". I've got news for them. Shooting with phycial motion picture film will be as antiquated as silent movies over this decade. The studios are falling all over themselves to line up new "digital" projects. WHY?<<

I hope this is not the case because it will absolutely KILL the movie industry. Shooting on film may be antiquated, but it's still technically superior in every visual characteristic. Resolution, contrast, and color are superior on film. Admittedly it's cheaper to shoot on digital, but with the Home Theater market becoming more and more popular, it won't be long until many people have better set-up's in their home than the local multi-plex. One can buy an unbelievable HD front-projector from Sanyo for under $5000.

For years theaters have been getting smaller and of poorer quality. In the attempt to make a profit the local cinema has been forced to jam more theaters into the same floorspace. Digital will address the quality issue making projection somewhat "idiot proof". We have all experienced focus and shutter-ghost issues while seeing movies at the theater.

In the 50's and 60's the studios had to INCREASE costs on movies to bring customers back because of the popularity of color T.V. They started making epics in 70 MM, Todd-AO and Cinerama. Only by giving the consumer a much better experience will they get people to go to theaters in sufficient numbers. One of Lucas old buddies Douglas Trumbull created a "Showscan 70" process that consisted of 70MM @ 60 f.p.s. the effect was reported to be almost three dimensional without the glasses.

I recently saw "Star Wars: Episode II" in the IMAX format and I came away from the film with a little bit of the same kind of AWE that I had after seeing the first Star Wars films in the huge auditorium (R.I.P.) at the Westgate theater.

In my opinion, it's time for the studios to do something the home theater market simply cannot reproduce, like a new major feature motion picture shot in IMAX or some other large screen format. They need to bring the wonder back to the cinema.

[Johann]

I wonder what Spielberg thinks about this.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't he the only man working in Hollywood who still splices his films by hand? (Kubrick did it as well)

[cinemabon]

Whether a film is shot on one medium or another, to me the end result must be clear, and flow smoothly, with "proper" transitions. I've seen many films in large format: 70mm, 140mm, Showscan (in Vegas), 65mm (Todd-AO and Vista-Vision), Cinemascope (Anamorphic 35mm), Super Panavision-70 (Anamorphic 70mm), Cinerama-35 and Cinerama 70 (three projectors running simultaneously), there's even the Kodak 360 Theater (a 360 degree surround you experience) and all of these processes have ONE THING in common... to WOW you at the theater with spectacular imagry. But the thing that helps to make the experience complete, is sitting in a large open room with other film enthusiasts. This is what helps the theatrical experience, that there is a shared moment with others.

On the other hand, there is the perfection one can achieve in one's living room. Perfect peace and quiet, being able to hear every nuance and grasp every detail without distraction. The best on the wall projection systems are very close to 35mm film. Check out http://www.projectorpeople.com/ for the best prices on projection systems I've been able to find after three years of researching this subject. Now add a DVD player and any of the several surround sound systems and you've got a theater in your home...with one exception. You've lost the audience that laughs and gasps and cries when you do. That shared experience is what is missing. And without it, we are all alone in the dark without someone else to turn to when the lights come up and say, "Did you like it, too?"