The decline of print film criticism is obviously a subject near and dear to me, and most theories as to the why revolve around Internet sites. I think it’s nuts that the LA Times runs reviews from Chicago.
[Tangent: I imagine someone might seize on this sentence to point out that maybe I shouldn't be in the Village Voice if I feel that way, to which I would initially respond that I'm barely in the Voice anyway, usually just in the capsule section a couple times a month. I would also say that I think alt-weeklies are useful for diverse voices, but that the number one paper in the number one film city in the country really ought to be able to use hometown critics across the board. LAT should be providing syndication material, not using it.]
Anyhow, this argument is a new one on me, and I think quite a valid one:
Agree? Disagree?
(h/t) MovieCityNews)
It’s a two fold issue, really. As you’ve said, people still like the social and spectacle aspects of seeing a movie in a theater. But the movies they’re most likely to actually go see are the big budget blockbusters that are essentially critic-proof. Beowulf was kind of crappy but Angelina’s tits were floating right in front of my face! I just wish they had weathered an “R” to get some more areola in there.
All the rest of the movies, I think people are just as happy to wait for the DVD. A properly setup HDTV can look fucking good and more and more people are getting them. At that point, the imdb or netflix ratings are usually sufficient to to make a decision, and people are also more willing to take risks because it’s a much lower investment.
The studios are fine with this because they’re making more money than ever on DVDs. Even with flops. They don’t really need to go out of their way to appease critics anymore, so that might have an effect on screening opportunities too.
I certainly have a large number of friends who’d rather see movies at home on HD than in theaters. After being out here in the suburbs for a while, I sympathize more and more.
Still, I’m glad I saw the theatrical version of Grindhouse, since it doesn’t seem imminent on DVD any time soon. And Beowulf in 3-D imax, of course.
Were the fake trailers on either of the dvd releases? Those were basically the best part of the thing.
But yeah, with a few note-worthy exceptions, I’d rather watch a new movie at home on my wide screen. Part of it is that I have a tendency to need to pee in the middle of a movie. That’s also my biggest problem with HBO.
Yes, the screen is smaller. But the chairs are more comfortable, the food is better, there’s intermissions whenever you want, no one has a cell phone and you don’t have to wear pants. That’s tough competition for the theaters.
You wear pants in theaters?
The only fake trailer to be preserved so far is Machete, on the Planet Terror DVD. The others are not yet on disc in any form, nor are the fake ads.
Part of it is that I have a tendency to need to pee in the middle of a movie. That’s also my biggest problem with HBO.
That sounds like a beer problem. But as for HBO, get TiVo and that part is solved.
My apartment’s kinda crappy, so I’d rather sit in the Arclight than at home. One day I’ll have a kick-ass TV, but I’d like to get more settled first.
I;m not really sure what it is. THe long and the short of it is that sometime post high school I started realizing I was more likely to enjoy a movie if a friend recommended it than if a critic gave it the thumbsup.
These days, I can look for the few critics whose opinions I appreciate (like yours, Luke!) and just sort of pick and choose, plus I usually skim the big compiler sites while I’m at it.