Ridley Scott Warns That Gadgets Are Ruining The Movies
from the you-may-have-that-backwards,-actually dept
Two years ago Italian writer and director Roberto Benigni was so upset by plans to offer full-length movies on mobile phones, that he called the idea blasphemous. That seemed like a bit of an overreaction, to be sure. However, he seems to have some company. Famed director Ridley Scott has apparently stated that watching films on mobile phones and computers is killing cinema. Unfortunately, it seems that he has it backwards. He's blaming the wrong thing when he says things like: "We try to do films which are in support of cinema, in a large room with good sound and a big picture. But we're fighting technology." As we've pointed out time and time again, people want to go out to the theater, but they want the experience to be enjoyable. They don't want to be treated as if they're criminals. So, the problem isn't that people can watch movies on gadgets like mobile phones and computers -- but that the theater industry has done its best to drive people away from actually wanting to go to the theaters. Despite Scott's claims, the massive success of home theater systems lately shows that people really do want to see films on big screens with good sound systems. The problem isn't that the movies are available on tiny screens, but that the theater industry has completely given up in giving people what they want.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: gadgets, movies, ridley scott
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Is that truly what he meant?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Careful of the kneejerk there Mike...
I've been saying that for years, but being just a guy no one has quoted me. Personally I really only feel like there has been only one good movie a year-at most-for several years even though I go to the movies with my wife once a month or so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ridley sort of has a point
However, Mike, you too have a point. The MPAA gave up on pleasing its customers a long time ago, movie theaters too. With the cost of going to see a movie rising every year to make up for bloated budgets on every "must see" movie (which they all are touted to be, doesn't matter what it is) and everyone being thought of as a pirate, it's financially more feasible to rent the DVD in 3-6 months and watch the same movie for about $5USD. Big studios only want to produce big flashy movies that appeal to the lowest common denominator instead of making movies that are actually watchable like they used to do. They see no money in making intelligent movies or movies with a plot, everyone wants explosions and choreographed kung fu.
If Scott thinks the things that makes making most movies possible (computers, technology in general) are killing the industry, why doesn't he just make more movies worth watching to balance out the technophobia?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid
Also, is there any evidence that small screens are a large, or even significant part of the market?
I can't stand people like this, blaming what they see as a bunch of unsophisticated yokels for weak movies coming out of Hollywood, and then extending that to encompass their own feelings of why their movies are stinking up the box office. Fortunately there are a million other places producing good movies.
Eventually Hollywood might also actually make some basic changes in the process, so films don't cost hundreds of millions to produce. Then maybe Ridley will be freed to make that masterwork we're keeping him from with our pedestrian tastes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Transformers
Anyhoo...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sort of Agree
Another factor in movie going is the actual company that you're forced to endure. I generally preffer to see things at home on my HD/BluRay theatre than going to the big screen as I can control the viewing environment. No such luck when you're stuck in a theatre with jerk-off teenies who want to spend more time goofing off than watching. The really annoying thing is that these rude people deprive the rest of us (who have also paid no small sum) the pleasure of enjoying the movie.
At home the only thing that approaches this is when my girls get into a fight over something and then, I can simply pause the movie and settle the matter.
So the joy and experience of seeing things on the big screen are still there, just tempered by today's social realities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sort of Agree
I broke that streak last Friday night and went to see the new "Halloween" in downtown Washington, DC, and I have to say, there's a reason that stereotype exists. Nearly everyone else (and I mean everyone) was talking, yelling at the characters on screen and jabbering away on their cell phones to the point that we literally couldn't hear the dialogue in the movie. After several attempts to ask people around me to be quiet and being met with either indifference or outright hostility and racial epithets**, we got up and I asked for my money back. The theater manager was reluctant to give it to me. He actually told me in a condescending manner that it was "a part of the culture" to act like that in movies and I should just accept it. I guess being white, I was presumed to just not "get" this kind of behavior or something equally obnoxious and offensive. I told him it's part of my culture to actually be able to hear the movie in order to enjoy it and if he didn't refund my money, I'd just take it up with the theater chain's corporate headquarters and mention his name prominently in my complaint.
Problem solved. Money returned. I'll just watch "Halloween" when it comes out on DVD in the quiet of my own home.
That experience just reinforced to me why it is I almost never go to the movies any more. (The only reason I went this time was because the girl I was with really wanted to see it.) With a giant plasma screen, Dolby Surround and a subscription to Netflix, my home movie experience is superior to anything I get at the theater and I don't have to deal with someone else's disruptive "culture", mortgage my home for a Coke, listen to screaming babies, or deal with cellphones as they either ring in the middle of the movie or constantly pop up and glow like fireflies all throughout the theater as people incessantly text-message each other.
**And the racism wasn't just being directed at me, either. A lot of what was being yelled at the screen could have been taken right out of a Klan meeting, just with the races reversed. Lots of cheering and shouted glee as the "white bitch got sliced" and similar lovely exhortations. It was quite disturbing. But I guess that's okay these days. I'm sure the Reverend Al Sharpton could explain why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sort of Agree
4x adult tickets @ $9.50 ea = $38.00
1x child ticket @ $7.50 ea = $7.50
total tickets = $45.50
5x large drinks @ $4.50 ea = $22.50
5x med popcorn @ $3.50 ea = $17.50
5x candy @ $4.50 ea = $22.50
total "food" = $62.50
total for movie = $108.00
I can go to the store, buy popcorn and candy for about $15.00. Buy a movie @ about $17 at Target so total to watch the movie at home is about $32.00.
I'm sorry, but for a savings of $76.00 and not having to stand in multiple lines, I'll watch it at home. It doesn't even cost me $32 since I don't buy movies any more; I get them from Netflix and watch at least 20 movies a month through them so my per movie cost per month is about $2.00.
I can wait to see the movies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Saturation
Also "home cinemas" are probably more to blame than anything else.
Movies in the past weren't any better or worse than they are now. There was just much less choice.
I saw The Terminator a little while back, wow that movie sucks. If that was released now it would flop so bad yet it was a huge hit in it's day.
Oh and one more thing to note, cinemas are best for big action movies filled with special effects. Anything and I mean ANYTHING else is just as good to watch on any media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Saturation
Movies have always been as bad (and as good) as they are now. But the amount of movies being released by the filmakers and studios worldwide are exponentially greater than before, which means an increase in the the amount of crappy movies available.
And while it doesn't matter what size screen or sound system I watch something like Shawshank Redemption on, I'd rather watch a movie like Transformers on the big screen which I did....
As ANON stated... There is just more choice (which is a good thing) and I say all the studios, actors, film companies, investors and movie theatre owners who complain about you and I choosing to watch movies in places other than some loud sticky overpriced theatre can pound sand.
Make a movie worth watching in a theatre at a premium price and we'll pay to go see it. Make a movie that is just so so and I'll wait for the DVD or better I'll catch it on HBO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Movies
We have seen 20-30 movies in the same time on DVD. Probably a quarter of those really sucked and wasn't even worth the rental fee. We use Redbox at only $1 a night. So if it was not worth $1 it was really bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike and Ridley are both wrong
http://movies.aol.com/feature/summer_movies/photos/best-summer-movie-of-all-time-box-office
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14080789&ft=1&f=1045
Oh... and just for the trifecta, can somebody go ahead and say how movie piracy is hurting the industry?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What if the movie isn't available?
When it finally became available on DVD, I bought it.
Am I still a criminal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
agree with 8 and 10
Maybe, number 9, home theaters have grown _because_ of this behavior?
I was more fortunate in that the management had no problem with immediately refunding our money. But why would I want to go somewhere when there is a significant chance of a great evening being ruined by ill behavior?
As for the original article, as other people have noted, there is _nothing_ keeping Mr Ridley from making any movie he wants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Different animals
I'm not putting down the small screen. There are directors, like the Wachowski Bros, who do very well with a small frame. Maybe it's because they are TV kids.
Personally, I'm hoping the experience of seeing the work of a great director and master cinematographer on a large screen in a wonderful, large room never dies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What the hell is the writer talking about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Might be time for a new movie format..?
Now, with the quality/size of TVs and Audio equipment going up and the prices slowly sinking I think the real question still stands to be asked...
"What does a movie theater have to offer that my living room can't provide?"
When you think about the difference in cost for a night out with the family at the theater versus watching a recently released movie on video, even your standard screen size and medium quality sound system is still going to provide possibly better experience out of the comfort of your own couch; no crowds, no audience jabber or chair kicking, and cheap store bought popcorn.
If I go to a movie any more its because I want to see it larger than life with sound features that can be appreciated however few movies demand either and the ones that do usually have a crap plot.
So, maybe its time to get a new format... something that people can't experience from the comfort of their living room. How about a more reclined seat, how about a more emersive video (imax style maybe) where the action is still front and center but there is more going on in the peripheral.
Give me something that I can not get at home and I will go to the movies more often. Hell, I would even pay more for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That being said, directors are different animals than theater owners. Why do people blame the director or studio when the theater experience sucks? Thats like blaming the flight attendant for a bumpy ride on a flight. If anyone, blame the pilot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
small screens rule
my only complaint about small screen technology (phones, televisions, computers, etc.) is that everything is designed around a single screen and audio source.
in my house, there are 3 adults and two kids, and at any given time there are is at least one screen going. either someone is watching TV, sitting at a a PC working or gaming (5 computers and desks in what should be the dining room... we call it a "geek room") or someone is playing a console game.
my only complaint about our setup is that if you want to share your activity (get help, show off something cool, play/work together) then someone/everyone else has to stop what they are doing and go to where your screen is. we would interact more while doing our separate things if everyone's screens were close together and super easy to share. the answer is not just bigger screens, but a single giant screen that can be easily divided (in our case into 4 parts) and a sound system with multiple channels that can provide multiple individual experiences
if we could all sit together in the living room, on the couch, and enjoy our separate screens together, and easily share our audio, plus be able to roll all the screens into a single big screen, that would be optimal. right now, the only affordable technology for achieving most of that is separate computers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Change the Target
Mr. Scott and others can be bitter, or adapt to the technology and produce content that will work in the new environments. Maybe they can use their skills to find ways to accommodate the restrictions of the new media, or discover its strengths.
As far as the quality of movies, I don't believe this anything to do with media, but with rising movie costs, leading in a need for blockbusters, which need to appeal to as many people as possible to be blockbusters, which means they often will be water-downed to the least common denominator.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ticket Sale Percentages
The theatre in my town in just scraping by, with a lot of extra effort by the owners, and while keeping ticket prices cheaper than any of the larger cities in the province. The food is still crazy expensive, but that's where the theatres really make the money to stay open.
The tiny percentage theatres get to keep from ticket sales, compared to what the studios get is what makes keeping theatres open or affordable to patrons difficult.
Unless a movie is pretty much guaranteed to bring in a big crowd in its first week, most movies are delayed in coming here, since the theatre gets a higher percentage of ticket sales as the weeks go by.
Anyhoo...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Much ado about nothing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]