(My weekly questions’ comment section are open for the first week of their publication. This thread’s comments are now locked. Subscribe to make sure you don’t miss the next one.)
While watching a new film that received a streaming platform release, my thoughts returned to a recent interview with Quentin Tarantino in which he insisted that films should receive a cinematic release:
I’m probably going to be doing [my final film THE MOVIE CRITIC] with Sony because they’re the last game in town that is just absolutely, utterly, committed to the theatrical experience. It’s not about feeding their streaming network. They are committed to theatrical experience. They judge success by asses on seats. And they judge success by the movies entering the zeitgeist, not just making a big expensive movie and then putting it on your streaming platform. No one even knows it’s there.
I mean, and I’m not picking on anybody, but apparently for Netflix, Ryan Reynolds has made $50 million on this movie and $50 million on that movie and $50 million on the next movie for them. I don’t know what any of those movies are. I’ve never seen them.
I haven’t ever talked to Ryan Reynolds’ agent, but his agent is like, “Well, it cost $50 million.” Well, good for him that he’s making so much money. But those movies don’t exist in the zeitgeist. It’s almost like they don’t even exist.
I won’t deny I have always struggled with watching films for the first time at home - even classic films, which I try to find on the big screen whenever possible. The home-viewing experience is just always inferior to buying a ticket, sitting down in a theatre, and letting the real world outside melt away. I struggle even more when these films are new, meaning I can’t blame being born in the wrong decade for missing a theatrical release. Somehow the luster of the experience feels diminished. Perhaps I’m an artifact of a former way of life like Quentin...
What about you? How do feel about films that don’t receive theatrical releases?
I hear about this quite a bit, but I haven't had much experience with it myself. The last time I saw it was here in Oz. A nineteen-year-old dickhead was watching TV on his phone during the trailers. A guy told him to stop it, the kid made some smart-ass comment about how they were just trailers, and the guy succinctly suggested either the kid's head or phone were getting broken. Problem over. Made me wish all cinema employees were ex-special forces.
I remember when it first opened the Arclight was pretty militant about this kind of thing, towards the end the couldn't care less. And that was a pricey ticket to the movies.
I feel like this question is directly related to the content vs film distinction that’s becoming increasingly easy to make. Take Roma which premiered on Netflix. For me, that film was diminished by the small screen experience. Ant-Man 3 not so much. That said, during the lockdowns, we gave our daughter a mini-film history course at home, and the small screen still generated enough magic to make films like 2001 et al unforgettable.
It depends: small independent movies that can’t easily make it to a movie theater always get my attention, but I generally don’t watch big budget movies made for platforms. I just find it nonsensical...
I think this is an important distinction for many. We would watch small films in the cinema if they ever existed there, but the indie film market in the States has dried up and, in Europe, those slots for American films are reserved for bigger-budget films. Consequently, streaming is now the only home most indie/low-budget films can hope for. I'm glad they exist there. But I do struggle with being as moved by big Hollywood productions being given to me over the small screen.
When I was growing up, we went to the cinema every week, pretty much, no matter what the latest release was. That was where you watched new movies
Then you had the video rental store where you could find the odd curiosity that you’d missed or hadn’t made it to our 3 screen local. Once you could buy videos it was even better as you’d actually own some of your favourite movies and didn’t have to wait until they were on TV at Christmas
However, as much as it was great to watch stuff at home, nothing beat queueing outside the cinema with a group of folks your own age all hyped to see Return of the Jedi or Rocky IV and then getting in and scrambling for a decent seat!
Streaming is the worst of both worlds. The movies are there but without the cinematic experience or actually getting to own the physical copy. It’s like someone just lets you watch their copy for a bit
And, ultimately, I’m sure there aren’t any filmmakers who imagined their movies being watched on a phone or a tablet
Still try and go to the cinema as often as we can and our son is the same with his friends. As for the cost, we’re quite lucky with the prices where we live. Got to see the new Mission Impossible for £5 each if you go out of core hours. If you want popcorn or juice that’s a second mortgage though!
Streaming has its place but I think mostly for TV shows where they can be watched in a serialised form
Anyway, apologies for the rambling answer. Not sure I’m happy agreeing with Tarantino on anything these days but he might have a point for once! 😁
I appreciate the rambling reply! I think you bring up the vital point - the absence of physical media, which I scream about quite often. There was a magic in discovering a VHS tape in your local shop, slipping it in the VCR, wondering what you were going to get. That ceremony, being trapped with your selection, had a weight of its own. Even getting a DVD sent to me by Netflix had it to a degree. But being able to hit play on a streamer, get bored after ten minutes, and turn it off diminishes the experience for me, I think. I prefer being trapped by a cinema or the fact that if I hit stop on the VCR, there would be nothing else to watch.
Imo, there exist many good films that for one reason or another are released direct to video or television or streaming. (There's also lots of crap of course.) Many contemporary martial arts b-movies, for instance, go DTV, as do later horror sequels to notable franchises. This does not necessarily mean that these are bad pictures or that they don't receive any recognition.
So, I don't think a movie necessarily has to have a theatrical release to qualify as good. Tarantino also specifically seems to be talking about big budget productions that cost over 50 million. But really, a lot of the non-theatrical pics don't have budgets that are that big. Indeed, smaller budget works seem to thrive in the DTV space.
I think there are two things here. One, the space direct-to-home video used to occupy, which was a glorious wonderland of pictures that for some reason or another Hollywood or other countries viewed as less-than, but which were good enough to endure in our hearts and imaginations. Two, indie films...which thrive on streamers today, but should be thriving on the big screen except studios bought these indie outfits up and shuttered them to eliminate their competition. In the first case, I've always viewed these films as being a little less magical in one way and more magical in another. They almost seemed to exist to be discovered by kids shuffling through local video stores rater than at movie theaters. I'm not sure I find that on streaming platforms, but I concede that's probably just my experience. In the latter, I'm glad streaming platforms exist to give a home to these indie films, but I'd rather them on my big screen as they were through the nineties and early aughts.
I love cinema but can’t see everything I want there, so have no problem watching at home, and for big releases I break out the projector and screen to make it feel more of an event.
I can't deny there's a psychological component for me. I cannot help, no matter how hard I try, feeling that the film itself has somehow been diminished by the decision to premiere on streaming. It feels smaller before I even hit play. It's one thing to watch a film from 1988 I missed on the big screen, and it's very much another to watch the latest film from some director I love that way.
It doesn’t affect me the same way, to be honest. I try to duplicate the feeling of the event of going to the cinema, even down to locking my phone away in another room.
I always prefer the theater but just don’t have time or money to go much anymore. But I think a good movie is good no matter how it’s watched. I mean, is Casablanca a classic because it was released in a theater or because it’s a good movie?
It's a great film, for sure. But I just don't know if we'll ever have a CASABLANCA released on a streaming service. Streaming services have been around for several years now, making films, and I can't think of more than one or two films that enjoy that zeitgeisty power that Tarantino is describing and which we could easily use to define CASABLANCA's success across two centuries.
There are surely many really GOOD movies that I've never seen in the theater - esp. my tippy-top fave, the LotR trilogy (boy, would I love that!) but must say it is different than trying to watch at home with all of its distractions. So, mostly AGREE, although in my area theaters that show, say, retro, classic movies are few and far between.
You're a rare person who cites that watching a film at home comes with many distractions. I usually hear about how convenient that is...except I have children. It. Is Not. Convenient.
Have only a CAT who provides a similar distraction....for attention, food, etc. Still, as a mom and grandmother, well know what you are talking about....!
The theatrical experience is overrated for me nowadays, particularly with how much it now costs to go to a theater. In LA to see Oppenheimer at Universal Citywalk, each ticket is $25 apiece. Add in the cost of parking $5, popcorn and soda $25, and a babysitter for while we are out for another $100, seeing a movie nowadays can cost almost $200 for a couple with kids. No way I'm paying that much for Guardians 3, or Fast X or any of the franchise films coming out recently. We did take off work to see Barbie in the afternoon this past week, which made the tickets cheaper and no babysitter, but it did cut into our salaries for the week.
Absolutely, the ridiculous cost of going to the cinema in a major city has become a significant obstacle to the moviegoing experience for tens of millions across the globe. But to be clear, I'm not saying films shouldn't be watched at home. I'm more curious about if we experience films that debut on streaming platforms with the same passion and excitement as those that debut on the big screen (even if we can't afford to see them). For example, I don't know one person who has ever subscribed to a streaming platform to see a film. But I know many who have waited desperately for a film to be released on Apple so they could rent it and finally see it themselves.
Funny. I specifically subscribed to Shudder to see Mandy, and my wife and I first subscribed to Disney+ to see Black Widow when it came out during the pandemic. What I think you are getting at, but not quite stating is the quality drop of movies direct to streaming services. They treat films as content to be churned through, rather than events. I definitely looked forward to seeing The Irishman on Netflix, but otherwise, their recent films feel generic and forgettable (which I'd argue is the point).
That's the thing: I don't think there's a quality drop in many cases. These films, if released in 2000, when there was a thriving and diverse film market, often would've done gangbusters. BUT I do think agree about the content churn. They're not events, the zeitgeist Tarantino describes. They're data points to be churned, and maybe that's the source of so much of the problem for me -- the streamers' own disinterest in their own films as films (rather than content) muddies (pollutes?) the experience for me.
Audiences and their phones have changed the experience of going to a movie.
Do you mean their use of the phone in the movie theater, or the willingness of many to watch films on their devices?
Yeah, I mean't people using their phones in the theater. It was a real problem before the pandemic.
I hear about this quite a bit, but I haven't had much experience with it myself. The last time I saw it was here in Oz. A nineteen-year-old dickhead was watching TV on his phone during the trailers. A guy told him to stop it, the kid made some smart-ass comment about how they were just trailers, and the guy succinctly suggested either the kid's head or phone were getting broken. Problem over. Made me wish all cinema employees were ex-special forces.
I remember when it first opened the Arclight was pretty militant about this kind of thing, towards the end the couldn't care less. And that was a pricey ticket to the movies.
I feel like this question is directly related to the content vs film distinction that’s becoming increasingly easy to make. Take Roma which premiered on Netflix. For me, that film was diminished by the small screen experience. Ant-Man 3 not so much. That said, during the lockdowns, we gave our daughter a mini-film history course at home, and the small screen still generated enough magic to make films like 2001 et al unforgettable.
I love the idea of surviving lockdown by sending your daughter to film school on your home couch.
It depends: small independent movies that can’t easily make it to a movie theater always get my attention, but I generally don’t watch big budget movies made for platforms. I just find it nonsensical...
I think this is an important distinction for many. We would watch small films in the cinema if they ever existed there, but the indie film market in the States has dried up and, in Europe, those slots for American films are reserved for bigger-budget films. Consequently, streaming is now the only home most indie/low-budget films can hope for. I'm glad they exist there. But I do struggle with being as moved by big Hollywood productions being given to me over the small screen.
When I was growing up, we went to the cinema every week, pretty much, no matter what the latest release was. That was where you watched new movies
Then you had the video rental store where you could find the odd curiosity that you’d missed or hadn’t made it to our 3 screen local. Once you could buy videos it was even better as you’d actually own some of your favourite movies and didn’t have to wait until they were on TV at Christmas
However, as much as it was great to watch stuff at home, nothing beat queueing outside the cinema with a group of folks your own age all hyped to see Return of the Jedi or Rocky IV and then getting in and scrambling for a decent seat!
Streaming is the worst of both worlds. The movies are there but without the cinematic experience or actually getting to own the physical copy. It’s like someone just lets you watch their copy for a bit
And, ultimately, I’m sure there aren’t any filmmakers who imagined their movies being watched on a phone or a tablet
Still try and go to the cinema as often as we can and our son is the same with his friends. As for the cost, we’re quite lucky with the prices where we live. Got to see the new Mission Impossible for £5 each if you go out of core hours. If you want popcorn or juice that’s a second mortgage though!
Streaming has its place but I think mostly for TV shows where they can be watched in a serialised form
Anyway, apologies for the rambling answer. Not sure I’m happy agreeing with Tarantino on anything these days but he might have a point for once! 😁
I appreciate the rambling reply! I think you bring up the vital point - the absence of physical media, which I scream about quite often. There was a magic in discovering a VHS tape in your local shop, slipping it in the VCR, wondering what you were going to get. That ceremony, being trapped with your selection, had a weight of its own. Even getting a DVD sent to me by Netflix had it to a degree. But being able to hit play on a streamer, get bored after ten minutes, and turn it off diminishes the experience for me, I think. I prefer being trapped by a cinema or the fact that if I hit stop on the VCR, there would be nothing else to watch.
Imo, there exist many good films that for one reason or another are released direct to video or television or streaming. (There's also lots of crap of course.) Many contemporary martial arts b-movies, for instance, go DTV, as do later horror sequels to notable franchises. This does not necessarily mean that these are bad pictures or that they don't receive any recognition.
So, I don't think a movie necessarily has to have a theatrical release to qualify as good. Tarantino also specifically seems to be talking about big budget productions that cost over 50 million. But really, a lot of the non-theatrical pics don't have budgets that are that big. Indeed, smaller budget works seem to thrive in the DTV space.
I think there are two things here. One, the space direct-to-home video used to occupy, which was a glorious wonderland of pictures that for some reason or another Hollywood or other countries viewed as less-than, but which were good enough to endure in our hearts and imaginations. Two, indie films...which thrive on streamers today, but should be thriving on the big screen except studios bought these indie outfits up and shuttered them to eliminate their competition. In the first case, I've always viewed these films as being a little less magical in one way and more magical in another. They almost seemed to exist to be discovered by kids shuffling through local video stores rater than at movie theaters. I'm not sure I find that on streaming platforms, but I concede that's probably just my experience. In the latter, I'm glad streaming platforms exist to give a home to these indie films, but I'd rather them on my big screen as they were through the nineties and early aughts.
I love cinema but can’t see everything I want there, so have no problem watching at home, and for big releases I break out the projector and screen to make it feel more of an event.
I can't deny there's a psychological component for me. I cannot help, no matter how hard I try, feeling that the film itself has somehow been diminished by the decision to premiere on streaming. It feels smaller before I even hit play. It's one thing to watch a film from 1988 I missed on the big screen, and it's very much another to watch the latest film from some director I love that way.
It doesn’t affect me the same way, to be honest. I try to duplicate the feeling of the event of going to the cinema, even down to locking my phone away in another room.
It's a good habit to try to maintain. Myself, I have to deal with my kid asking for more snacks every five minutes.
See, having teenagers now helps! And means I don’t have to wait until they’re in bed to watch horror!
I always prefer the theater but just don’t have time or money to go much anymore. But I think a good movie is good no matter how it’s watched. I mean, is Casablanca a classic because it was released in a theater or because it’s a good movie?
It's a great film, for sure. But I just don't know if we'll ever have a CASABLANCA released on a streaming service. Streaming services have been around for several years now, making films, and I can't think of more than one or two films that enjoy that zeitgeisty power that Tarantino is describing and which we could easily use to define CASABLANCA's success across two centuries.
There are surely many really GOOD movies that I've never seen in the theater - esp. my tippy-top fave, the LotR trilogy (boy, would I love that!) but must say it is different than trying to watch at home with all of its distractions. So, mostly AGREE, although in my area theaters that show, say, retro, classic movies are few and far between.
You're a rare person who cites that watching a film at home comes with many distractions. I usually hear about how convenient that is...except I have children. It. Is Not. Convenient.
Have only a CAT who provides a similar distraction....for attention, food, etc. Still, as a mom and grandmother, well know what you are talking about....!
If I really enjoy the movie, I think "wish I could've seen this on the big screen first".
Exactly. For me, the fact that I can't think that about streaming films is existentially jarring as a cinephile.
The theatrical experience is overrated for me nowadays, particularly with how much it now costs to go to a theater. In LA to see Oppenheimer at Universal Citywalk, each ticket is $25 apiece. Add in the cost of parking $5, popcorn and soda $25, and a babysitter for while we are out for another $100, seeing a movie nowadays can cost almost $200 for a couple with kids. No way I'm paying that much for Guardians 3, or Fast X or any of the franchise films coming out recently. We did take off work to see Barbie in the afternoon this past week, which made the tickets cheaper and no babysitter, but it did cut into our salaries for the week.
Absolutely, the ridiculous cost of going to the cinema in a major city has become a significant obstacle to the moviegoing experience for tens of millions across the globe. But to be clear, I'm not saying films shouldn't be watched at home. I'm more curious about if we experience films that debut on streaming platforms with the same passion and excitement as those that debut on the big screen (even if we can't afford to see them). For example, I don't know one person who has ever subscribed to a streaming platform to see a film. But I know many who have waited desperately for a film to be released on Apple so they could rent it and finally see it themselves.
Funny. I specifically subscribed to Shudder to see Mandy, and my wife and I first subscribed to Disney+ to see Black Widow when it came out during the pandemic. What I think you are getting at, but not quite stating is the quality drop of movies direct to streaming services. They treat films as content to be churned through, rather than events. I definitely looked forward to seeing The Irishman on Netflix, but otherwise, their recent films feel generic and forgettable (which I'd argue is the point).
That's the thing: I don't think there's a quality drop in many cases. These films, if released in 2000, when there was a thriving and diverse film market, often would've done gangbusters. BUT I do think agree about the content churn. They're not events, the zeitgeist Tarantino describes. They're data points to be churned, and maybe that's the source of so much of the problem for me -- the streamers' own disinterest in their own films as films (rather than content) muddies (pollutes?) the experience for me.