←back to thread

The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

(www.newyorker.com)
231 points frogulis | 5 comments | 15 Jul 25 03:52 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
somenameforme ◴[15 Jul 25 04:23 UTC] No.44567805[source]▶
Fun fact: movie sales, in terms of tickets sold, peaked in 2002. [1] All the 'box office records' since then are the result of charging way more to a continually plummeting audience size.

And this is highly relevant for things like this. People often argue that if movies were so bad then people would stop watching them, unaware that people actually have stopped watching them!

Even for individual movies. For all the men-in-spandex movies, the best selling movie (by tickets sold) in modern times is Titanic, 27 years ago.

[1] - https://www.the-numbers.com/market/

replies(25): >>44567864 #>>44567968 #>>44568136 #>>44568154 #>>44570905 #>>44570997 #>>44571105 #>>44571251 #>>44571355 #>>44571403 #>>44571486 #>>44571608 #>>44571759 #>>44571905 #>>44572267 #>>44572485 #>>44572904 #>>44573167 #>>44573177 #>>44573253 #>>44573502 #>>44573585 #>>44574449 #>>44576708 #>>44580563 #
zamadatix ◴[15 Jul 25 14:38 UTC] No.44571608[source]▶
In 2002, watching a movie at home for most people meant flinging a low quality VHS or DVD onto a ~27" tube TV (with a resolution so worthless it might as well be labeled "new years") using a 4:3 aspect ratio pan & scan of the actual movie. Getting anything recent meant going out to the Blockbuster anyways. In 2022, watching a movie meant streaming something on your 50+" 16:9 4k smart TV by pressing a button from your couch.

Box office ticket sales say people go to the theatre less often, not that people watch movies less often. Unless you specifically want "the movie theater experience" or you absolutely have to see a certain movie at launch you're not going to the theatre to watch a movie. The number of movie views per person may well be down (or up), but box office ticket sale counts don't really answer that question.

replies(11): >>44572352 #>>44572470 #>>44572546 #>>44572564 #>>44572738 #>>44572859 #>>44573434 #>>44573975 #>>44574881 #>>44575039 #>>44575905 #
shaky-carrousel ◴[15 Jul 25 19:24 UTC] No.44574881[source]▶
Nah, I don't buy this. In 2002 your "low quality DVD" was peak quality for us. Same way the blocky renders of PS1 was peak video-gaming for us. It only looks low quality when compared with today. For us at the time, it was magnificent.
replies(2): >>44575005 #>>44579605 #
gretch ◴[15 Jul 25 19:37 UTC] No.44575005{3}[source]▶
> For us at the time, it was magnificent.

At the time, did you think the quality of that DVD was about the same as the experience you got in the theater?

The parent post is arguing that the gap in experience between home theaters and theater theaters has shrunk immensely. Right now I have a 85" wide OLED in my living room - That's not a thing that existed in 2002

replies(4): >>44575419 #>>44575492 #>>44575877 #>>44576607 #
1. asdff ◴[15 Jul 25 21:12 UTC] No.44575877{4}[source]▶
The big difference maker imo in movie theater experience is size and sound. You still need to drop about the same few thousand dollars you had to drop in 2002 to buy a proper projector and sound system today. 85 inch low pixel density screen and a sound bar ain't it, but if it is it for you, you are probably no discerning audiophile who would have probably have been fine with whatever was sold in a comparable market segment in 2002 (refrigerator width crt displays were in fact all the rage and very desirable at one point).
replies(1): >>44576579 #
2. crazygringo ◴[15 Jul 25 22:33 UTC] No.44576579[source]▶
You can drop about $800 on a great 1080p projector, screen, and a pair of AirPods that will give you better surround sound than most speaker systems will give you.

My projector screen takes up more of my vision than any movie theater screen I've ever seen except IMAX.

replies(1): >>44585717 #
3. jjcob ◴[16 Jul 25 19:03 UTC] No.44585717[source]▶
People don't just go to the cinema for the image/audio quality. Most people go to meet friends.
replies(1): >>44587017 #
4. crazygringo ◴[16 Jul 25 21:33 UTC] No.44587017{3}[source]▶
That's kind of my point. You don't need to go for image/audio quality at all now. It's purely social, or to see something sooner.

Whereas it used to be very much about image and audio quality.

replies(1): >>44618371 #
5. asdff ◴[19 Jul 25 19:07 UTC] No.44618371{4}[source]▶
I'm sorry but airpods and a 1080p screen from your couch are on a different planet compared to theater sound and even liemax or smaller formats. You can't feel sound from an airpod in your chest.