Tweetweek
Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 11:54AM
Wanting movies to be projected on a screen in public, as they have been since their inception, is now the height of arrogance. Got it.
— Scott Tobias (@scott_tobias) July 20, 2017
It seems perverse that Christopher Nolan has now obscured Tom Hardy's beautiful visage twice -- as Bane and as a heroice pilot in Dunkirk.
— Susan Wloszczyna (@wozerina) July 21, 2017
Remember when a movie called "Queen of Earth" was made and it shockingly wasn't a biopic of Kathryn Hahn? #Emmys pic.twitter.com/rBwIa0S6dR
— Matthew Eng (@Eng_Matthew) July 13, 2017
Note: you don't have to turn every animated classic into a live action film. In fact, you don't ever have to. Actually, stop doing this.
— Candice Frederick (@ReelTalker) July 15, 2017
THE FABULOUS BAKER BOYS - A romance about people no longer capable of taking pleasure in anything. Exquisite.
— Scott Nye (@railoftomorrow) July 16, 2017
You think somewhere in the Marvel Cinematic Universe there's a drag queen named Sokovia Accords?
— Joe Reid (@joereid) July 17, 2017
If you can’t see DUNKIRK at Christopher Nolan’s personal IMAX theater housed inside a giant active volcano, do you really even like movies?
— Matt Singer (@mattsinger) July 18, 2017
Carol Kane of Thrones. #CKOT pic.twitter.com/3RXEpl8iNk
— Scott Rising (@rising) July 18, 2017
Well done, Pittsburgh. pic.twitter.com/wnHcXPv139
— Eric Powell (@goonguy) July 17, 2017
nothing but respect for MY president pic.twitter.com/gtx0GDlAiI
— Prénom Carman (@CarmanTse) July 23, 2017
TAKE MY MONEY pic.twitter.com/GxKW6CjgsM
— Margaret (@lady_sati) July 23, 2017
Gay milestone: Cate Blanchett using her role in Thor: Ragnarok to recreate Madeline Kahn in Clue. pic.twitter.com/NQt1jxbFHR
— Louis Virtel (@louisvirtel) July 23, 2017
One way to go easy on Dunkirk for being kind of besotted with its own directorial signatures is to see Baby Driver right afterward.
— Nick Davis (@NicksFlickPicks) July 22, 2017
My fave film aesthetic is Drew Barrymore talking on landline phones in the ‘90s. pic.twitter.com/JvZk25uPKl
— Matt Jacobs (@tarantallegra) July 23, 2017
Reader Comments (14)
On that Scott Tobias tweet: There's a difference, guys, between not wanting theatres to die (to be clear, the only theatres dying will actually KILL is the blockbuster, so, of COURSE I'm not going to advocate for the death of theatres), and thinking theatres should be the only option for primary distribution. If what you're making is a talky prestige biopic or other comparable "actors movies", do you need more than a 15" screen as the primary viewing ground? Probably not, and, in truth, the 15" screen as primary viewing ground might even be PREFERABLE. Big enough to not be a big strain on the eyes (screw watching stuff on phones), but small enough to feel intimate.
Thanks for including me :P Cannot wait for Ragnarok!
volvagia -- i weep for you and hope not everyone else has forgotten the joy of watching non visual effects spectacles on big screens. Cinema has always been partially about scale. The great movie stars deserve to be seen larger than life, not smaller than the people watching them in the room.
sati -- it looks better and better with each new trailer.
I got a 50" 4K TV, and movies are so vividly real on it. Guess what, I kinda hate it. It's too vivid and real. There is something about how a movie looks, even one shot digitally, on a movie screen.
David Thomson said something like, a TV screen is like watching an aquarium in your room, while a cinema screen is like watching a Great White pass you in the water.
That's the power of the movies!
@Nat only if you are able to go to the movies, my dad cannot! I definitely prefer the cinema experience. Please let's not sit here and pretend that everyone is PHYSICALLY ABLE to go to the movies or can afford too for that matter.
I'm a discharge planner at a hospital, you know how difficult it is to try to figure out how a patient who cannot move from the waist down will get to and from a doctors appointment when he/she have 15 stairs and no elevator or ramp. Getting my own father in and out of the house takes almost an hour each time.
This argument of seeing movies the right way or not (which I agree that the big screen is the right way) always presupposes that everyone can see movies the right way. And thus it seems that most of the critics lamenting the (premature) death of the big screen are NY, LA, Chi based.
Here in middle America, the idea of seeing non-blockbusters, classics, foreign films, indie films, on the big screen died years ago. Want to catch the new Haneke film? It'll be playing 6 months after its limited NY release for a week at a theater 1.5 hours away. Good luck.
I get that if you could see a Baumbach on the big screen you feel like Netflix is taking an experience away from you. If you live in a city where the studio is barely going to open it anyway, it feels more like Netflix is giving you something.
Nikki, I'm sorry to hear about your father - it's terrible seeing our family be unable to do what they once could - but that is not at all what Nathaniel is saying. It's not what Christopher Nolan is saying, either. Nobody is suggesting those with disability should just not watch movies.
VHS was around for decades and people still went to see adult dramas in droves. The access to home viewing options was never a major hindrance the way that it is today. So much so that people, like Volvagia, have somehow convinced themselves that watching a movie on a laptop isn't just a convenient option, but a preference. Cinemas aren't helping by being so damned expensive, though, obviously.
Robert A. - Well said. That is one of the clearest and best arguments I've heard in regards to "big screen vs. small screen debate." Nathaniel (who I have followed on his blog for years and years. This is no slight) has also seen Hamilton. I own a few books about the musical and the full original cast album. That's as close as I can get. For years. My point is that Netflix is not the enemy, inclusion is not the enemy. I want to see it all, trust me, on the biggest screen you've got- but my circumstance and, moreso, my zip code won't allow it.
That was a long-winded way to say that Netflix and other streaming services that have followed and will follow, may just be the best thing that ever happened to a heartland cineaste like myself.
@Glenn, Thanks, I'm just pointing out that Netflix isn't an enemy and everyone doesn't have the option of getting to the cinema. Not to mention the prices.
Jake and Nikki and everyone --- i understand why people value Netflix. I value it too. I am just very concerned with the way these arguments are always dealing with so much false information, false equivalencies, and so little nuance and the media is often just treating Netflix like a god and the panacea for what ails anyone a) short on funds or b) without a good movie theater near them. As if Netflix as a company can do no wrong and should actually be praised for everything they do. This is painfully obvious to anyone (like me) who thinks that Netflix does some things right but has also watched how they've changed over the years.
Netflix is a for profit company and it is in their best interest to destroy movie theaters and actually to destroy movies as an artform since statistically they are about streaming television and becoming a content creator.
Yet the media and specifically these arguments, treats them mostly as a distributor of content)... like a harmless aggregator. Which... well, yes they were that a long time but now they're primarily a content producer.. So even though I like streaming they have done a lot of damage to the theatrical model and also (and this is almost never addressed) they have done a ton of damage to people's access to film history -- people keep saying "i saw so many movies i wouldn't have seen without netflix" -- but what they fail to realize is that Netflix is for profit and also curates for you. They are controlling what you have access to and they have systemically abandoned the first 100 years of moviemaking! It's very hard to find more than a single film from any given year.As they achieved market dominance they put other companies and thus other modes of watching movies out of business. And now that they no they don't need to pay licensing fees for older films in order to get your money they won't. But now physical copies are much scarcer because they popularized streaming.
as Netflix's own library grows they provide less and less film. Again: for profit company. Not an altruistic company that just wants to give you easy access to things!
It's okay to love them. It's just very foolish to view them as some kind of savior or some kind of altruistic force in the world which is what many of these arguments seem to be saying.
Netflix is awesome. Great for film-lovers
One of the things that drives me away from theaters are the rude obnoxious people who attend the movies. Especially here in Jordan, where people just talk non stop, answer their phones and chat loudly, with zero regard to fellow movie-goers. It really makes the experience unsufferable.
On top of that there are blasphemy laws and decency laws that basically maul the movies via censorship. You guys are complaining about movies reaching Middle America, try my luck here in the Middle East. I had to cross a border to watch Wonder Woman in Israel! It takes FIVE hours from Amman to Tel Aviv!