What is new in Cinema or is it dying?

In some restaurants where you are within reaching distance of another table then yes...I wont go to those places. Plus Im not trying to watch a film at a restaurant...Im focused on my meal.

Its simply distracting when you are relaxing watching a film.

 

you hit on it - my god the remakes the Herbie, Dukes of Hazard and a remake of Smokey and the Bandit, not to mention the horror genre has been dead since the seventies. Enough of the "shock-curse" and "music crescendo" - where is the substance?

 

It requires a new digital projector and an updated screen. Heres a couple links...

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i1c5a3d24ccc0c11be93b57ad6f2ed194

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117958595.html?categoryid=13&cs=1

If you google theres a nice article just on the technology somewhere..I read it about 6 months ago. Unfortunately cant find it right now.

 

I dont think film content is much different today than in yesterday.

The majority of films have always been pretty bad with a few shining moments every year.

Dont forget its the film BUSINESS and making money is the priority. Thus your sequals and remakes..because they are the easiest and safest way to get a nice return on your investment.

Take a look at the top grossers every year..they are mostly mediocre films with lots of remakes and sequals. Thats what the general public wants to see.

If you want great films they are out there but they come and go quickly...did you go to see Sunshine ? An AMAZING scifi thriller that no one saw..except me and the other 3 people in the theater.

If you seek you shall find.

 

Part of the problem is that movie stars cannot fool the public like they did in the old days.
Too much of their real life is accessible through the internet, TMZ, Entertainment Tonight, tabloid newspapers, etc.
The film stars use to be idolized in the old days. We only knew their public persona, not their private lives or how much of a jerk they actually were. This made going to the movies a more special experience. You looked forward to the next James Bond movie, a movie starring Robert De Niro or Ursula Andress. They were "bigger than life".

Nowadays, we don't have glamorous movie stars anymore. We see too much of their private life. We see them without their make-up or on their way to rehab. Too much over-exposure, IMO.

 

We have a theater here that serves meals & drinks. It's called Movie Tavern.

I enjoy going there... you can't hear others eating. BUT, you can hear the people that have DRINKS. They start ****ing laughing & talking like it's a bar.

 

+1000000

 

Back in 2001 my thesis was in technology in the classroom, specifically on distance learning using various emerging technologies and concepts. 3D interactive holographic projection is the best solution for taking the classroom to any location in the world.

With that in mind I think that holographic projection would be great for live theater and gaming especially if you add the interactive and 3d components but am not sure if it'll work for as a general cinematic experience. Audience participation can be fun but I'd rather that the Sweet Transvestite stayed up on stage, or better, on the screen.

Here are a couple of examples of holographic projection.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMEb4HOWe4k&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIcsYBZSQ48&feature=related

I agree! I really enjoyed The Bourne trilogy but too bad they tried to put a guilt complex on the younger generation and the military's all volunteer force.

 

The thing is, people have been predicting the death of movie theatres for 15 years, and it's not happening.

And now with 'On Demand' cable programming they are predicting the same thing, but I'm not seeing movie viewership going down.

Same thing for movie rentals - but Blockbuster and Hollywood Video places are still packed on Fridays at 6pm like always.

Here, you can go to first release movies between 10am and 2pm for $4, and between 2pm and 5pm for $6, and after 5pm it's like $9.50 or something like that.
Movies at home are fine - but sometimes you just GOTTA get out of the house for awhile...

 

I agree with part of this, but not every actor is a whack-job.

Me and the wife were discussing who will be the next Burt Lancaster, Sean Connery, Paul Newman, Charles Bronson, and pretty much the only ones we settled on were Tom Hanks, a little gap, then John Travolta, and maybe Matt Damon, Johnny Depp. Tom Selleck had an opportunity, in our opinion, but kinda disappeared for awhile. Will Smith, unless he starts appearing in 6 movies a year - he's becoming overexposed.

Not Ben Affleck or Leonardo, that's for sure..

And we don't think it's a great idea that Al Pacino seems to be in every movie out there now.

 

There is a cool movie theather that does this and patrons sit in armchairs or big comfy couches, only problem is that theater is in Tijuana lol

 

They're probably watching a different "show" as well.

 

I'd have to put Christain Bale - at the top of the list. Yet to see a movie where he wasn't compelling.

 

Dont forget the Daniel Day Lewis. I think he is the one that will be remembered.

 

I probably go to 1-2 movies a year, if that. Once you get a bit behind on the latest releases and you've got a netflix account with a 50" HD at home it's hard to justify.

No, it's not the same as a real theater experience- but I've got a problem with being a dark room with a bunch of strangers, eating and sipping away, while I am slouching in my seat to avoid blocking someone's view. It's worth the trade-off for me.

If we ever get to the point of a fully immersive experience I'll probably make the trek more often. If you're in L.A., The Bridge is pretty similar to ArcLight.

 

I saw the latest die hard there lol