CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Culture & Entertainment › Movies › Is streaming killing the art of cinema?

Is streaming killing the art of cinema?

Started by Nicholas Sullivan49 · · 👁 7 views · 95 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Nicholas Sullivan49Joseph Edwards86Joseph Lee3Lawrence Booth2nimblenomad41William White2Anthony Davis6redowl90crimsonmoose3Brian WilliamsLarry Martin11Brian Mitchell44Raymond Palmer8Ryan Wood98Joshua Johnson67darksurfer26Joshua Bennett4nimblemarlin17shadowviper12Douglas Phillips4Alex Parker8Jose Miller17ironcrane7Sean Gomez4 …
William White2 William White2 Member
47 messages
joined Sep 2005
#61 ·
White said:Well, I suppose... As long as you're drinking alcohol and keeping it cheap, it works out...

but now you're just being unnecessarily extreme🙄 😬
what exactly isn't allowed anymore? can we not even drink a beer?

Beer is just food, really, and besides, you wouldn't even have the luxury of drinking it in a movie theater anyway😁

I guess if you want every single movie you see in a theater to feel like Mulholland Drive🤣
then maybe you should just admit that watching blockbusters isn't worth the effort😁
shadowviper12 shadowviper12 Active Member
50 messages
joined Jan 2016
#62 ·
And you better make sure those greasy sliders come with plenty of onions... seriously, don't forget the extra grease and the onions!!!!

Also, it’d be pretty cool if you actually tried to tackle one of my actual points instead of just constantly whining about how "it's too cheap" or whatever...

Oh well... I guess you can't win them all...
Alex Parker8 Alex Parker8 Newcomer
8 messages
joined Jun 2006
#63 ·
...I honestly don't think digital piracy is destroying the film industry; if anything, it might actually be pushing it forward... at least looking at my own habits... I'll grab a new release online, and if it turns out to be any good, I'll go see it in the theater. But if it’s a dud? No harm done—I’ve already got it on my hard drive... 😂 ☕
Douglas Phillips4 Douglas Phillips4 Active Member
70 messages
joined Apr 2003
#64 ·
White said:Give me a break... A guy who watches movies just so he can claim he saw them before everyone else, while completely ignoring quality or the actual viewing experience—that’s a fool in my book...

Well, give me a break... a guy who calls other people fools without presenting a single real argument is an idiot in mine.😉

The main reason I sometimes settle for a digital rip is simply because I live more than 62 miles from a decent theater. I work over sixty hours a week, spend my Saturday mornings in lectures, and usually don't have the cash or the time to make a trip happen—maybe once a month if there's a major premiere I *have* to see on the big screen. For everything else, I'm selective: low-quality pirated files are out of the question, though maybe a massive blockbuster is okay if it's a high-quality rip and I can't make it to the cinema anytime soon. Otherwise, watching a comedy with my partner (for instance, she's a huge fan of Jennifer Aniston—is it really worth driving ninety minutes each way and paying $33 on top of that?) is perfectly fine on a DVD rip. Being "first" to see something is the absolute last thing on my priority list.

Besides, my setup for a digital movie is basically the same as watching a DVD: my PC is digitally hooked up to a receiver and massive speakers that rattle the windows and doors, a solid Sony Weg TV (which will eventually be upgraded to a larger LCD), a cold beer in hand, and a bowl of buttery popcorn. It feels just like the theater. Nobody ever complained about the experience.☕
Anthony Davis6 Anthony Davis6 Member
18 messages
joined Nov 2005
#65 ·
Look, let’s not even get into high-end home theater setups with fancy projectors and screens. I’m talking about a solid projector paired with a decent Pioneer or similar DVD/DivX player hooked up right. Throw in some AC3 audio, and you're pretty much set. Honestly, anyone hating on this probably hasn't actually sat down and watched a well-encoded DivX file on a decent setup—and it doesn't even have to cost a fortune. You can grab a quality player for maybe $400 to $167, and while the screen quality depends on what you bought, even an average setup usually looks better than those crappy, pixelated DVDs we used to deal with. The sound is just as good. It’s honestly kind of funny seeing people call this stuff stupid. I don't know what to say to them.
Jose Miller17 Jose Miller17 Active Member
162 messages
joined Sep 2003
#66 ·
Wow, looks like you got a warning... If you can't play nice in the sandbox, maybe just sit this one out. Thanks.
Nicholas Sullivan49 Nicholas Sullivan49 MemberOP
21 messages
joined Aug 2007
#67 ·
I am standing firmly with White. For me, video rental stores and movie theaters remain the only things that matter; nothing else even exists anymore! If people want to waste their lives watching files on a hard drive, fine, I couldn't care less... Everyone is just going to scramble for excuses to either watch them or not, but nobody is actually going to change their minds or stop watching if they’ve been doing it all this time. Therefore, these pointless arguments of yours are completely useless!!!!!!🙂 🙂
nimblemarlin17 nimblemarlin17 Regular
459 messages
joined Mar 2004
#68 ·
I think we’re getting off track here. I'm pretty sure the OP was talking about those crappy DivX files—you know, the ones recorded in a movie theater where you can clearly see the back of people's heads in the crowd. Since there are plenty of idiots out there who actually enjoy watching those, I want to know why.

Comparing an MP3 to a DivX file is technically possible, but it’s a bit of an apples-to-oranges situation. A standard music CD usually just holds the tracks, whereas DVDs come packed with extras, menus, different subtitle tracks, surround sound, and all that junk. When it comes to that level of complexity, DivX doesn't even stand a chance.
Raymond Palmer8 Raymond Palmer8 Active Member
144 messages
joined Jul 2006
#69 ·
🙄 Honestly, I could just grab a few crappy DVDs from my collection and start complaining about how useless they are... people have totally lost the plot—they really don't have a clue what they're talking about.
I’ve got an original Mad Max DVD bought at Best Buy, but I also have the exact same movie as a rip—who knows where it came from—downloaded online. On the same TV THE RIP IS BETTER!!!
So, does that mean I should trash every single DVD out there?

Look, I'm not saying TS, CAM, or whatever other pirate junk is actually good. I don't even download stuff like that. Screeners and DVD rips are my only move.

Nicholas Sullivan49, you clearly haven't a clue what DivX even is or how it works. You're acting like DivX sucks and DVDs are great? Hilarious...

The thing is, you guys don't care about the experience at all... All that matters to you is finding the CHEAPEST option possible... And that is...

Man, just so you know, I watched "Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" at home for the second time because I completely bailed on going to the theater—the idiots around me were driving me nuts. I already posted about this on another thread.
At home, I get peace, I can watch whatever I feel like, and I pick the time. I usually watch on a screen about 6 feet wide with sound that's honestly better than the theater most of the time.
What other detail am I missing? Some nostalgia for when TVs weren't available to regular folks?
crimsonmoose3 crimsonmoose3 Regular
310 messages
joined Jun 2006
#70 ·
Raymond Palmer8 said::

Just so you know, I actually sat through "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" at home for a second time recently. Honestly, going to the theater was just a massive headache thanks to the idiots sitting around me. I’ve already mentioned this in another thread...
At home, I actually have peace. I get to choose exactly what I feel like watching and when. Plus, I'm usually watching on a screen about 7 feet wide with a sound system that's frequently better than anything you'll find in a multiplex.
What else is there? Is it just nostalgia for those days when high-end home theater setups were out of reach for the average American?...

Exactly. The most infuriating thing about theaters is when some lady decides her toddler—who can barely talk, let alone read—needs to watch an epic fantasy film meant for adults. She ends up reading the subtitles to him while he keeps peppering her with questions about why the dwarf killed that guy or why the river flooded the valley. It's enough to make you lose your mind...🤮
shadowviper12 shadowviper12 Active Member
50 messages
joined Jan 2016
#71 ·
Nicholas Sullivan49 said:Look, I'm standing with Vajta on this one—for me, video rental stores and actual movie theaters are the only things that matter. Everything else is just noise. If someone wants to sit around watching low-res files on a computer, honestly, go for it, it doesn't affect my life... everyone’s just going to dig their heels in and find reasons to defend their way of watching or attack the other side, but nobody is actually changing their mind or stopping their habits, so all these arguments we have here? They're totally pointless!!!!!!🙂 🙂


Man, you hit on five different points there... but please, don't try to convince me that DivX is somehow "good." Objectively speaking, the quality is trash compared to even a standard DVD... it reminds me of that old joke:

A wife walks into the bedroom and catches her husband in bed with the neighbor,
and he looks at her and asks: "Honey, do you trust me, or do you trust your own eyes??"

So, Nicholas Sullivan49 and Vajta... I'm definitely going with my eyes (which, by the way, are 20/20, as they say here in the States)😁 😁
redowl90 redowl90 Regular
287 messages
joined Aug 2005
#72 ·
Douglas Phillips4 said:Look, I’ll be honest... if someone starts calling people fools without actually backing it up with a solid argument, I just can't take them seriously. 😉

The main reason I still hunt down DivX files every now and then is simply because I live a bit too far from a decent AMC Theatres. 62 milesI work through the week, and my weekend mornings are pretty much tied up with lectures. Between that and my budget, I rarely have the time or the cash to treat myself to the cinema—maybe once a month if there’s a major premiere I absolutely can't miss. For everything else, I’m picky. I refuse to deal with low-quality pirated rips, but I might consider a big blockbuster if the quality is decent enough for home viewing. Honestly, I don't see myself heading to a theater anytime soon. Usually, I just pick out a comedy to watch with my partner. She’s a huge Jennifer Aniston fan, for instance. But is it actually worth it to drive an hour and a half each way just to catch a movie? I'm not so sure. $33 On top of that? Honestly, if we're talking about a DVD rip, those extra details are perfectly fine. To me, playback time and being "first to see it" are pretty low on my list of priorities.

To be honest, watching DivX feels just like watching a DVD to me. My setup is pretty solid: the computer is digitally hooked up to a receiver and massive speakers that make the windows and doors rattle. I’ve got a decent Sony Way TV (though I'll probably upgrade to a larger LCD soon), a cold beer in my hand, and a bowl of buttered popcorn. It’s basically like being at the movie theater. No one's ever complained about the experience. ☕

A fool and an idiot are basically the same thing...

So, you’re saying you can't swing a trip to AMC Theatres right now... It's funny how there's always enough cash on hand to grab a pirated copy instead. I can just picture it: sitting at your computer, hooked up to a receiver and those massive speakers that shake the windows and doors, all while staring at a decent Sony Way TV—which, let's be honest, you'll probably swap out for an LCD soon enough anyway.

Ten years ago, it never even crossed anyone's mind to complain about going to the movies. Nobody was ever talking about some grandma reading subtitles to her kid, people being distracted by their popcorn, or someone sitting way too tall in the seat in front of you. You just didn't think about that stuff because you were actually there, immersed in the experience. Back then, hitting up an AMC Theatres was pretty much the only way to see a movie before everything moved to home video.
With all this new technology supposedly "improving" our lives, people have just gotten lazy. Honestly, nobody wants to put in the actual work anymore. $10 Movie ticket prices? Honestly, it feels like they're sky-high mainly because of all the pirates out there. It’s the same old story: people looking for an easy way to make a quick buck off lazy fools who won't pay full price. And unfortunately, it actually works.
Every single movie theater in Washington, D.C. has gone belly up, and honestly, I think it’s because of people like my tenant. He comes up to me and asks, "Hey, redowl90, you got any new movies?" And there I am, feeling pretty proud of myself, telling him, "Yeah, I just picked up the special edition of Walk the Line—you can't even find this in stores or rental shops yet!" Then he just looks at me, totally disappointed, and goes, "Right, but I meant do you have anything new on DVD?" What am I even supposed to say to that fool?
Sure, the local cinema scene in Washington, D.C. took a hit once AMC Theatres moved in, but that really just points back to a certain mindset. People around here tend to flock to wherever they can be seen—basically, they want to go where the crowd is most glamorous. Naturally, they also head toward the places with the biggest selection, so you actually have some decent options when picking a movie.
So, I hit up an AMC Theatres this past Sunday for that free movie day T-Mobile was running. I went to catch *The Grudge*. To be honest, the theater was packed with these posers—people who only showed up to flaunt their gear and act tough just to feel more secure in their own skin. But amidst that parade of complete fools, one guy totally stole the show right at the start. He was a slightly heavyset guy, sitting all by himself, clutching a massive deli sandwich he’d picked up at a convenience store, wearing a "Freddy vs. Jason" t-shirt. I found his whole vibe pretty refreshing. In a weird way, he was the only person who actually fit the mood of a horror movie, yet at the same time, he was the only one who didn't fit in with the rest of the crowd at all. He was probably the only person in the room truly enjoying the film because he’s an actual fan. And honestly, you have to be a real fan to actually enjoy what you're watching. Everything else? Just a bunch of acting.

Well, that's it for now... I've been trying to finish this post for an hour because I keep getting interrupted, so I'll call it here, even though there's still plenty more I want to get out. I'll probably pick this back up once someone clears out what I've already posted... 😉
Douglas Phillips4 Douglas Phillips4 Active Member
70 messages
joined Apr 2003
#73 ·
redowl90 said:Calling someone a fool and an idiot is essentially the same thing...

And regarding your claim that you can't afford a trip to the theater... It’s interesting how people always seem to find the cash for a pirated copy. You'll sit there on your computer, hooked up to a receiver with speakers loud enough to rattle the windows and doors, all while watching on a decent Sony Way TV (which, let's face it, will probably be replaced by an LCD soon anyway)...

Hold on, you're putting words in my mouth again. I don't buy or pay for movies; it never even crosses my mind—I just get them for free. And maybe you could have noticed that time is an issue, as is the drive to and from the theater. You're selectively reading just to start a fight 🙄. I really don't care for your condescending tone.

redowl90 said:Ten years ago, it absolutely never occurred to anyone to skip the cinema. Nobody was ever complaining about "grandmas reading subtitles to their kids," or people with popcorn, or some guy sitting two meters tall... All that stuff was forgotten because you were actually in the theater enjoying the movie—it was the only way to see it (until VHS came along, obviously)...
But with technology "evolving," people have just gotten lazy. Naturally, nobody wants to shell out $10 for a ticket anymore... High ticket prices are largely driven by the rise of the bottom-feeders (read: pirates) who realized they could make a killing off lazy fools... Unfortunately, they are.

Wait, are you seriously picking fights on a forum just because you're feeling nostalgic? Get with the times. Who actually cares how movies were watched ten years ago when there was practically zero choice? Nowadays, you can set up a home system that's better than any theater experience we had a decade ago, but the same thing happened to the theaters themselves. In my local AMC Theatres, stereo sound is a novelty, and the seats are still those uncomfortable ones that leave your backside numb until the credits roll. Plus, movies show up two or three months after they hit NYC, and even then, they're usually low-budget flicks I'd rather wait for on DVD. Or just watch via DivX 😛. And I know what you'll say: "Oh boohoo, poor theaters, the pirates ruined them." But what were they doing with their money when business was booming? Where is the tech, the new screens, or the comfortable seating? In the last twenty years, the only real change was stereo sound (from ear-splitting speakers), and that was maybe five or six years ago. So, that's why I feel zero nostalgia and zero sympathy. Business was good; God knows what they did with the profits. If a theater fails, maybe someone who actually knows how to run a business will buy it. Then there might actually be money to go see something every weekend without having to drive all the way to 124 miles! 👎
Nicholas Sullivan49 Nicholas Sullivan49 MemberOP
21 messages
joined Aug 2007
#74 ·
mr X said::

Nicholas Sullivan49, you clearly have no clue what DivX even is or how it works. Claiming DivX is trash while DVDs are somehow superior? That’s just laughable...

QUOTE]

This has honestly crossed the line from a discussion into pure arrogance! I have a full home theater setup—two rear speakers, two front ones, a center channel, a subwoofer, a DVD player, a receiver, and a plasma TV—so now you’re actually asking me where I would go to watch movies? Are you seriously suggesting I should bother going to a video rental store, buying DVDs, or trekking all the way out to some sketchy flea market just to find something to watch... $3.25 I'll just buy some cheap bootleg crap or download something online and watch it on my DivX player or computer, where both the audio and video quality are absolutely pathetic! Why should I waste my precious time hunting down subtitles? Why should I be forced to upgrade my entire setup just so this miserable DivX player can ruin a film—which is meant to be an art form—and destroy the very essence of cinema and video stores?! If you don't agree with me, I honestly couldn't care less...👋
shadowviper12 shadowviper12 Active Member
50 messages
joined Jan 2016
#75 ·
Man, you’re totally overthinking this, Nicholas Sullivan49...
If your setup can handle a DVD, it can definitely handle a DivX file—no need for some massive, overpriced hardware upgrade or any other nonsense. Instead of obsessing over a pristine physical disc, just grab a decent high-def player and call it a day. Honestly, the picture quality and the sound? They're basically identical for what it's worth...

And look, let's not start comparing apples to oranges here by acting like watching a movie at the AMC Theater is the same thing as watching one in your living room. It's the same deal with physical DVDs versus digital files; you can't compare sitting in a premium cinema setup at home to being in a massive theater, and nobody who actually likes digital formats is out here claiming they've got the exact same vibe as a Hollywood screening...

The real question we're talking about is this: when you're chilling at home using the gear you already own, does it actually matter if you're playing a DVD or a DivX file?...
If anyone can actually prove to me that one is "real" and the other is total garbage, I’ll personally buy everyone at the next tailgate party a 12-inch sub...
Nicholas Sullivan49 Nicholas Sullivan49 MemberOP
21 messages
joined Aug 2007
#76 ·
Look, Nicholas Sullivan49, I’m not trying to pick a fight with you, but there is absolutely no reason for me to bother with DivX files. My home theater setup is built for DVDs, and frankly, the DivX files I own are complete garbage. I have a dedicated player, but it isn't integrated into my home cinema system, and even if it were, it doesn't belong in that high-end setup anyway! I'm not looking for an argument, but just look at the quality of these files I'm dealing with. Maybe I jumped to conclusions thinking all DivX is junk, but mine are truly pathetic—the subtitles are out of sync and the graphics are a total disaster...
shadowviper12 shadowviper12 Active Member
50 messages
joined Jan 2016
#77 ·
So, you don't even have any decent DivX files? Man, you're really missing out on the good stuff... maybe you should track down some high-quality rips just to see what I'm talking about. You might actually dig them once you see them...

Another thing though—just basic manners, really—if I'm calling you by your handle, Nicholas Sullivan49, the least you can do is use mine too...
Nicholas Sullivan49 Nicholas Sullivan49 MemberOP
21 messages
joined Aug 2007
#78 ·
Fine, shadowviper12, my apologies! Cheers to Divici and DVDs then...!!🙂
shadowviper12 shadowviper12 Active Member
50 messages
joined Jan 2016
#79 ·
Apology accepted...😁

and CHEERS TO THAT!!!!👍 👍 👍
ironcrane7 ironcrane7 Member
38 messages
joined Apr 2004
#80 ·
I am in complete agreement with White. There is simply no substitute for the cinema experience.
To an extent, I can empathize with the genre fanatics like Jerry and Constantine, as well as those more demanding filmmakers who don't exactly find much support from American distributors. Or even those who don't live in Washington, D.C. and can't keep up with the screenings at Central Park. But certain films simply demand the largest screen possible. Think of Leonov's westerns—those sweeping close-ups... or Stalker.
I am perfectly willing to sacrifice my "informed" status and some sort of imaginary cinematic "education" if it means waiting for the right moment to experience a film at its full potential.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads