I’ve seen people have some heated fights about this. When I go to the cinema i think “no way that would have been anywhere near as good on a DVD” then if I watch a DVD I think “don’t think that would have been any better at the cinema” heh. Obviously though it does depend on the film, also on your home set up. I’ve only seen Dogville on DVD and think it would be beautiful on the big screen.
I’ve experienced both the revelation of ‘oh, didn’t notice that before!’ of watching a movie I’ve seen on DVD before at the cinema for the first time, as well as the disappointment of realising that the one tiny detail which really made the film for you at the cinema just isn’t at all noticeable on DVD, no matter how big you blow it up (There’s this single bead of sweat in Hana-Bi that was just the coolest thing ever when I first saw it, I’ve never been able to recreate the effect at home, but have experienced it twice at the cinema to know for sure it’s there!).
For some of us, in certain films, there is no way to compare to the true film experience. It’s not just the quality of picture (obviously far superior to DVD and Blu-Ray) it’s the whole 100% focus on the screen, no pause, no drinks, no flashing lights, storms, passing cars, nagging babies/dogs/goldfish. I hear some countries have problems with people on mobile phones even in art theatres nowadays, so I suppose the experience will never quite be as good. I have the good fortune of living in a place with quiet audiences (unless they snore) and generally empty screens for the movies I really want to see.
That said, I wouldn’t get to see many movies if I shunned my TV forever. There’s a lot to be enjoyed watching films at DVD, it’s not an ‘incomplete’ experience at all, just not the same experience.
When you come to the revelation that home formats will never be as good as the cinema, all those dodgy VHS tapes and blurry downloads you’ve been avoiding are suddenly fun to watch again.
I guess I’ve been spoiled, I moved to the city three years ago. & really got into having an art house cinema on my door step. But there’s a lot of films I’ve missed over the ten years, so there’s huge wholes in my cinematic pallet.
I think that a great film will be great however you watch it. Of course, you wouldn’t really experience the majesty of Lawrence of Arabia on an iPhone, but as Meg said, it depends.
Sometimes I feel being in the company of other people can ruin my cinema-going experience. I don’t mean this in an anti-social sense. I know that going to the cinema is as much about being in the company of fellow “film-lovers” as it is about the big screen, but in the past few days I’ve watched a couple of films with small audiences that clearly expected a different film from that they were about to see (one guy behind me actually asked his friend “what the movie [was] about” and “who [was] in it”) — so you hear people squirming, sighing, muttering and clearing their throats. I can’t quiet block these things out, and they end up souring my time in the movie theatre. But there’s still an undeniable magic to the cinema which I keep gravitating towards.
At the end of the day, big screen, small screen, I don’t know that it matters. I first saw No Country For Old Men in its entirety on my iPod nano and was completely riveted. I’d rather watch Dogville on a nano than Glitter on IMAX.
^
I’ve discovered that if you have a screen big enough to see your films and you are not distracted texting or looking at the walls while you watch your DVDs, home/theater shouldn’t be much of a problem.
It depends upon the film, but of course, it is always preferable, if possible, to witness a film AS film—on the big screen, in either 35mm or 70mm (the latter is rare). Please don’t get me started on those horrid little iClod thingies—worst thing to happen to “film watching” (with the exception of the “Twilight” phenomena and those “Sex And The City” brain-killers).
Depending on the subject matter, it is possible a film can work better on television (at least in some ways) than at the cinema. In particular, I am referring to “Network”, since when you watch it on television, you really do get the feel for the “television show inside a movie” aspect. Watching this on the telly inside your loungeroom, you really do feel like following Howard Beale’s advice to turn off the tube and yell “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!” out of your window. As much of a purist as I am about going to the theatre to see flicks, the above is an aspect of “Network” that you cannot quite replicate at the cinema (ironic, I know). That said, I still prefer it on the biggest possible screen, although I have two copies on DVD (yes, two!) for my home. “Switching Channels” and “Broadcast News”, because they are about telvision, also work very well in this respect. Whenever I get wind of “Network” being at the cinema, I go along, because there is still nothing like experiencing it at the cinema. I’ve witnessed “Goodnight, and Good Luck” at the cinema thrice, but not yet on television. I saw “Quiz Show” on the small screen (although I recall really wanting to see this at the movies when it was first released in Australia) and it worked well, being a film about a television show.
Films like “2001: A Space Odyssey” and “West Side Story”, to me, are mandatory big screen spectacles. Not even a widescreen plasma television set could do them justice. This is why I still go to the cinemas, to see films old and new: because nothing can or should replace the option of seeing films at the picture house. Also, films at the cinema are a social experience: I have met some truly wonderful people and made several friends by going to the movies.
if you go to the movies by yourself then its fun to see the crowd and how they react to the film (esp horror or comedy). If the crowd is small, then you select few are the sharing something not many have seen If it is just you in the theater then you can do whatever u want (within reason) in there.
The best is when you have a date (I try to go with my gf at least once every two weeks) and go to dinner first, a movie then discuss the movie over diner or dairy queen dessert. Seeing a movie with a date is uber romantic (even if you dont use the popcorn trick (:). And if you are the only two in the theater then it gets uber uber romantic (if you catch my drift).
Anyhoo one of the best things about film is the ritual of going out to see it, and even a bad film is worth the money because it is secondary to the experience of going (though i stopped buying popcorn because its a rip off)
@ Mark D Vanselow
You’re so very right. “2001” is a film I live by and have seen numerous times on DVD but not on a big screen. As a result I can’t comfortably say that I’ve actually experienced it yet. I’m still waiting for a 70mm print to float through Sydney at some point.
The answer to this is “yes” and “no”.
We get different things out of the different formats.
The theatre offers a larger audience to view with, size of screen, and optimal sound…if the theatre is good. Dennis has already pointed out that viewing with others offers us a perspective on how other people might react to the movie. Screen size gives us a better opportunity to see the entire frame in detail; my eyes tend to rove more when I see a movie theatrically because the objects are bigger and therefore easier to look at. If the sound is good, it can offer a more immersive experience.
Home viewing offers us the chance to go back and fourth in the film, looking at any part we wish, picking it apart. We can control factors like volume. We don’t usually have fellow patrons dicking around with their cell phones and unpacking lunches while the movie is playing. Home viewing can also offer the chance to listen to commentaries and take bathroom breaks without missing out on anything.
There are a number of films that I’ve seen on both formats and I find that it’s not the format that wins the day for me but the film itself. The Searchers is a masterpiece if you see it on the big screen and if you see it on Blu. And neither format can help Napolean Dynamite.
As much? Yes. Exactly the same thing? No.
Personally, I find myself very underwhelmed when I go to watch a film in the theater I have already seen on DVD (i.e. The Godfather)
I’ve had a similar experience with a very shoddy print of North By Northwest after seeing the Blu-ray at home.
I had that experience with Tokyo Story. But, conversely, seeing The Apartment on the big screen was a revelation.
Yea, for me seeing My Night at Maud’s on the big screen was revelatory, but then again, I hadn’t seen it before.
@ Mark D Vanselow
@Temitope Chimaobi Ogundare
Totally agree about 2001: A Space Odyssey. Having seen it many times on video and DVD, it wasn’t until a couple of months ago, when I saw it on the big screen, it having been remastered, that I finally understood why people believe it to be a masterpiece. It really does reach another level when seen on the Big Screen. I found the same with Truffaut’s Quatre Cents Coups, you just see things you wouldn’t see on the small screen. Like wise having seen something like Nolan’s memento on the big screen two or three times it has never felt like the same allencompassing experience it was at the theatre.
So I belong to the camp that believes that you should catch it on the Big Screen if at all possible. Having said that, I have had thousands of wonderful experiences of film on the small screen too!
I really think the question of wether or not the film is as good in the theater as it as on your home screen is irrelevant. Unless you are watching a DVD that has the option of an alternate ending or extra scenes then the film is the same, just as good or as bad as it was in the theater. But when you are asking about the experience that is a completely different matter all together. There is no doubt that the screen and sound quality are better at your movie theater than in your home, unless of course you have one of those fancy, high tech screening rooms (which I so badly want) in your house. The movie theater is where people fall in love with films. It’s easier to get lost within the world the film makers have created. It’s easier to forget that you have bills to pay and a house to clean and errands to run while you are completely encompassed by a theater. Where as when you are at home you can’t ignore the phone ringing, or the dog barking or things like that.
Some may argue they like watching movies in their home better because they can relax and are more comfortable. I challenge these people to put on their most comfortable pajamas and head to the movie theater. Let the people judge, but in the end if comfort is the problem, then you’d probably get more out of your 11 dollars then the people staring at you.
Either way films watching a film is an experience every time.
Depends on the movie’s content and form.
I rather like watching intimate chamberplay, character study like films at home on DVD. That way my full concentration is there and I’m comfortable.
But nothing beats watching a blockbuster or horror film in a theatre with a rowdy audience. I used to go out of my way to Harlem and the Bronx when I lived in NYC to watch horror films, especially the bad ones because the audience participation made a meh to bad film completely worth my $11.
I’ll never forget the guy behind me in the My Bloody Valentine 3-D screening who loudly balked at a scene in a grocery store with a sign that said “UTZ chips for sale 99 cents”. In NYC corner stores all UTZ chips are 99 cents or less already. He exclaimed, “pfft, what? That’s not even a discount! You can get two bags for 99 cents at the bodega, what the fuck?!” I just loved that in all of that ridiculous movie that one scene was the thing that ruined this guy’s suspension of disbelief.
Garry Eunson
Bought a couple of DVD’s yesterday, to while away a cold January weekend. But is it as authentic as watching these movies at the cinema?