
Hollywood Should Pay Attention to Christopher Nolan's 'Dunkirk' - kposehn
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/07/why-hollywood-should-pay-attention-to-dunkirk/533094/?utm_source=atlfb&amp;single_page=true
======
maldusiecle
I don't agree that choosing a new format and upping ticket prices again is
going to get people going to the movies again. Hollywood (and Hollywood
commentators) are obsessed with the idea that films should be these huge
spectacles, but is that all that audiences want?

A lot of people I know are bored with movies. Spending $30 to go to another
remake or superhero movie just isn't very attractive. I don't know anyone,
other than boring film critics, who thinks the problem is a lack of spectacle.
If anything, the problem is _too much_ spectacle--the kinds of movies made are
limited to these goofy would-be epics. Everything has to go up to 11. It's
really limiting when every movie has to appeal to the sensibility of a
14-year-old boy.

~~~
ashark
In general there's an increasing problem of a _glut_ of excellent
entertainment. Movies are in a bit of a slump, but there are still several
good films a year. TV's probably the best it's ever been—it's _nuts_ how good
it is. Video games are excellent and relatively cheap. There's an ongoing
board gaming renaissance. Good or great music for almost every taste comes out
every year. Then there's the fact that it's all _hyper-available_ , including
much of the back catalogue for _all of human recorded /written entertainment_.
Almost no wait. Just press a button or three and enjoy. You can find a
credible top-ten (or top-1000...) for almost any kind of thing you care to and
the only impediment to experiencing at least 80-90% of them will be _time_.

The hard part now isn't identifying and gaining access to great entertainment,
it's figuring out which great entertainment you skip in favor of other great
entertainment. If you remember what the world was like pre-Internet, this is a
_really_ weird situation.

That film isn't exactly having a golden age right now makes it easy (nearly
necessary, given how good everything else is) to largely avoid it, even if it
isn't _terrible_ , especially since cinema-going is one of the more expensive
options for mass entertainment.

Of course they continue to sell plenty of tickets, so maybe this post is just
a bunch of crap.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
I realize this sounds like "in my day we had to walk five miles in the snow,
uphill, both ways," but lately I've felt like I honestly don't appreciate
music and video games as much as I used to, precisely because they're so
available.

It used to be that I would really sink myself into media, listening to an
album over and over, or learning every trick of a game, because I only had a
few and I needed to get the most of them. Now, the moment something loses its
brand-new sheen, I'm off to something else to try to recapture that initial
excitement. On the surface it seems like I've got everything teenage-me ever
wanted, but I don't really _love_ anything like he did. I've got over a
hundred unplayed games on Steam, and none of them excite me.

~~~
ashark
Entire subcultures, now examined in detail by various Internet personalities,
are built around how hard it was to find good media in the "old days", and how
easy it was to end up with _crap_ as your only novel option. See: The Angry
Video Game Nerd, various programs on RedLetterMedia, and a few hundred others.
It'll be interesting to see what happens to these subcultures now that what
they're built on is basically gone, and they're trucking in nostalgia for not
just old media but _old ways of experiencing media and review availability_
more than anything else.

The percentage of time kids spend, say, playing a truly bad video game because
it's the only one they have access to that they haven't already played to
death, or re-watching a half-dozen VHS tapes because they're the only kids'
movies your family owns so when you don't have a rental out _that 's it_[0],
or putting up with some terrible VHS rental from Family Video you grabbed on
strength of the cover because damnit _that 's what you have for the night_,
has got to be much lower than it used to be. The effects of this on culture,
especially things like b-movie culture, will be interesting to observe.
Already many kinds of knowledge—film synopses/ratings/trivia, game
tips/secrets—have been driven to near-zero social value, which has surely
changed kids' society in ways I don't have good insight into (yet—my kids are
too young)

[0] Kids still do the obsessive watching-the-same-thing-over-and-over thing,
but it's different because they never do it _because there 's no other option_
anymore.

[EDIT] also:

> I've got over a hundred unplayed games on Steam, and none of them excite me.

LOL, lightweight. I've got like 500 total games (just on Steam) and I've only
given maybe half a fair shake, let alone played them all the way through,
including many that I played pre-Steam. Those stupid package deals they do and
Humble Bundles really add up over the years. I'm kinda slowly bowing out of PC
gaming despite knowing there's a _ton_ of excellent stuff on my to-play list,
because I'm running up against that having-to-choose-great-things-to-not-
experience problem I mentioned in my post upthread. I just don't have enough
entertainment hours for it anymore, _plus_ TV, _plus_ catching up on the
hundreds of excellent films I haven't seen and the several great ones that
come out each year despite the slump, _plus_ OMG so much great TV is coming
out now, _plus_ the hundreds of books I want to read, and _man_ there are some
comics I'd like to get into but _I just can 't even_ with all this other
stuff. It's kinda stressful, actually. Like, I _can_ enjoy the very best (or
close to) of anything I care to, so I _should_ be. I waste a lot more time on
meta-media and reviews and such than I used to, chasing that best-of-the-best
sliver of the pie.

Meanwhile I grew up with an NES my only console (from early in its lifespan
through freshman year of college!) and a few VHS tapes and Saturday Morning
Cartoons, a few DVDs later on when I had a job... and I'm not sure my
childhood would have actually been any better with this mountain of hyper-
available, high-quality entertainment we have today. Worse, maybe. Quite
possibly (probably...) my _current_ quality of life would be better without
it.

~~~
sogen
Yes, it's proven that too many options decreases engagement. I'd just leave a
couple games and delete the others.

I only watch one or two tv shows exactly because of that.

------
khazhoux
I saw Interstellar on a beautiful IMAX screen. There were a couple of teenage
boys laughing and cracking jokes behind me most of the movie. Not loud enough
you'd kick them out, but still obnoxious, especially in the quiet scenes. They
apologized when I said something, but then they started again after 10
minutes.

During Rogue One, the guy sitting next to me waited until the end of the
opening crawl to unwrap his steaming jalapeño cheese hotdog, which he then
slowly ate over the next 15 minutes, relishing every bite and every chug of
soda.

Add to the fact that the acoustics in theaters are still never quite right
(it's often LOUD but doesn't envelop you)...

I just don't know why I would ever enjoy the theater experience again, when
it's just so damn difficult to enjoy a good film.

~~~
emodendroket
It probably makes me sound incredibly crotchety to say so but one of the
things I dislike about going to the theaters is that the audio volume is often
too high for my liking.

~~~
vidanay
The problem isn't 100% volume, it's shitty sound engineering. Dialog is mouse
fart quiet and background music is 1812 Overture loud.

~~~
emodendroket
True enough, but I'm not compelled to stick my fingers over the ears over
hard-to-hear dialogue.

------
jsmthrowaway
Large format film is the domain of the auteur because they're the only ones
who can get away with it. 70mm is _ridiculously_ expensive, and the logistics
of moving it around doubly so -- a typical thousand-foot reel of 1570 IMAX
70mm will give you about _three_ minutes of shooting before a reel change is
necessary. You get one good take, then your camera assistants spend 10-15
minutes changing the reel while your cast stands around smoking. 35mm, on the
other hand, buys you about 10 minutes of shooting on a typical reel and a much
faster turnaround.

When Christopher Nolan says sure, I'll cook you a billion dollar movie but
here are my requirements, he'll get away with it. When Judd Apatow tries the
same, he won't. Blockbuster superhero movies, given their returns, should be
shooting on whatever they want but those are made for quantity.

~~~
JoshTriplett
I've seen analyses that suggest that 70mm is roughly equivalent to 8K
resolution, once digitized. Given that 8K cameras exist, and would presumably
allow as much shooting as you can attach auxiliary storage capacity, what's
the advantage to shooting in analog 70mm instead, especially if you're going
to end up digitizing anyway?

~~~
objclxt
Despite being in tech industry I went to film school back when it was still
very common to be taught to shoot film so I'll have a go:

> I've seen analyses that suggest that 70mm is roughly equivalent to 8K
> resolution, once digitized.

It's tricky to give an exact number because it's an analog format, but in most
cases it will be higher than that. You can get a good 4K transfer off 35mm,
and 70mm is four times the area - so 8K would be very conservative.

Of course, the big advantage of film is you get the grain, as well as what
some people consider to be a better look (although that's subjective).

> Given that 8K cameras exist, and would presumably allow as much shooting as
> you can attach auxiliary storage capacity,

When shooting digitally your ratio would usually be 10:1, even 20:1 (as in,
you shoot 10 times more material than you end up using). You're right that
lots of directors see that as a great benefit.

But when shooting with film - and _especially_ 70mm - you have to be really
conservative. A ratio of 3:1 would be much more common because you just can't
afford any more. And that means you have to be very careful in layout your
shots up, getting your actors prepared, etc. There's a minority of directors
who appreciate this.

------
unethical_ban
[http://imgur.com/MgSGL1G](http://imgur.com/MgSGL1G)

This is one example of just how impressive "real" IMAX is. I saw Interstellar
twice in IMAX and was blown away both times. And as an aside, to continue my
rage against trailers: If you didn't know about the tidal planet from the
trailers, it was absolutely skin-crawling in its wonder when you see it for
the first time in IMAX. To heck with over-revealing trailers!

~~~
jstanley
What is the image supposed to demonstrate?

~~~
arielweisberg
The difference in resolution and framing. The framing isn't inherently better.
The difference in resolution is.

~~~
e40
And frame rate. IMAX HD is 48 frames/sec compared to 24 for regular film and
IMAX.

~~~
arielweisberg
I don't think I've ever managed to see a 48 fps movie. The only one worth
watching was The Hobbit and the showing I caught wasn't 48 fps.

Wikipedia makes it seem like IMAX HD died way back in 92 as soon as it was
introduced?

~~~
SomeHacker44
I saw that movie at 48 FPS. It's the only 48 FPS movie I saw. However, it was
stunning how much more - I don't know, realistic isn't quite the right word,
but something - it felt to watch it. I wanted to watch all movies in
(preferably non-3D) 48 FPS from then on, but it never caught on that I could
tell and I haven't seen another one.

------
berberous
I saw The Hateful Eight in 70mm, but it was projected on a normal-sized movie
theater screen, and frankly, if anything, it looked worse than a normal film.
I suspect the staff was inadequately trained in how to operate a real film
projector, as the focus looked a touch soft.

On the other hand, seeing Interstellar in 70mm IMAX was _incredible_. Even
with the recent IMAX Laser projectors, 70mm IMAX prints contain much more
resolution and it was the best looking movie experience I have ever had. I
highly recommend seeing Dunkirk in 70mm IMAX if it's playing near you.

~~~
arethuza
Seeing _The Dark Knight_ on an IMAX screen was particularly impressive because
of the cuts from "normal" screen size to full IMAX - they really were
breathtaking.

------
CamperBob2
I've gotta say, I'm not crazy about sanitizing realistic war movies for a
PG-13 rating, as Nolan has reportedly done. Would Saving Private Ryan have the
same impact with less violent imagery?

~~~
JBReefer
Anything that "blunts" war or portrays it as anything besides "the worst
living nightmare possible" is a lie. There of course is wonderful art to be
made that acknowledges that fact - Guernica, Saving Private Ryan, The Hurt
Locker - but to me, it's critical to acknowledge this. The extras who are
casually shot in action scenes aren't extras in the real world, it's an act of
actual murder that is abhorrent in the real world.

One of humanities great moments happened after WW2, or maybe Vietnam: the
realization that war is not noble, that "pro patria mori" is bullshit, and
that no one really wins. Our media must reflect this fact, even if it seems to
have lost touch with reality everywhere else. It's critical to the discourse
and to our continued survival.

------
Overtonwindow
I see maybe one movie in the theaters a year. High ticket, food, and drink
prices, along with bad seats, people using their smartphones in full
brightness, and other bad behavior, have made it not worth it.

------
skywhopper
I enjoying seeing movies in the theater. Digital projection is mostly fine,
and I don't think your normal audience is going to be wowed in a meaningful
way by 70mm film.

What's driven _me_ to see fewer movies is the constant bombardment with
repetitive ads. From the moment I walk in the theater, there are ads blaring
that you can't ignore. Then when the movie does "start", there are a good 20
minutes of trailers and often additional ads. The first time I see a batch of
trailers, I'm okay with it. But if I go to the movies more often than once a
month, I see so many trailers repeated that I rapidly get tired of the
exercise. Maybe hold it to 2-3 trailers and one or two ads and let us have a
little quiet time before the movie starts. The constant sensory overload is
unpleasant even if the ads themselves weren't annoying.

I'm sure the movie industry believes all the ads are worthwhile, and the media
conglomerates certainly don't want to pass up a chance to overload a captive
audience with the latest musical artist or TV show they're pushing, whether
it's counterproductive or not.

But for me, it makes it a lot less appealing to go back to the theater unless
I'm sure I'm going to enjoy the movie. So much for taking a risk on a film I'm
not sure about. I'd rather stay home, where I can do the same, but without all
the desperate advertising.

------
stcredzero
_One nightmarishly synergistic strategy is a pivot to toys, recently announced
by Warner Bros., which will try to further capitalize on the marketing
potential of all its family films._

A dream to some...

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuTviZDhXEE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuTviZDhXEE)

------
morley
70mm has already long-since proved itself to be a lucrative mass-market
format: it's called IMAX.

~~~
smacktoward
Most "IMAX" screens are not what most people think of when they think of IMAX.
Rather than 70mm film projected onto multi-story screens, they're just using
an IMAX-developed digital projection system and a slightly-larger-than-
standard screen. The result can be disappointing if you go in expecting _real_
IMAX and get the inferior mass-market alternative instead.

IMAX deliberately lumps their 70mm system and their digital system together
under the "IMAX" brand, without any additional information to help people
distinguish between the two. It's hard not to think that this is done
intentionally, to use the brand value their large-format system has built up
over the years to sell tickets for the comparatively more lackluster digital
system.

~~~
justin66
You're right that people should set their expectations properly, but IMAX
Digital is still pretty great, visually and aurally. I saw Inception on an
IMAX Digital screen and it really was just about perfect. The somewhat over
the top audio production that Nolan does really comes alive on a system like
that, and the film looked beautiful.

In a situation like that I don't know what the utility of the larger system
would have been. I saw Avatar in 3D on such a system, and it was of course
completely amazing, but that's not for everything.

------
zitterbewegung
I hate 3D movies because it causes eye strain. I hope they pay attention but
in all seriousness the market should already do this. I will watch movies in
large format if I can and the movie is good .

~~~
PhasmaFelis
3D movies are mostly just irritating to me, because I have strabismus and only
process input from one eye at a time, so I can't see stereoscopic 3D. With the
glasses on, it just looks like a normal movie to me. Everyone gasps when
something flies at the camera, and I don't get it.

Though I am glad they upgraded to polarized 3D glasses from the old red/blue
kind. I couldn't watch movies at all with those--I either saw just the red or
just the blue.

------
woofyman
I saw Aliens in 70mm when it was first released in a huge theater. It was
awesome.

~~~
chiph
_Empire Strikes Back_ for me. Amazing.

> Despite an increase in 3-D releases, the box-office market for that
> particular upcharge is falling as 3-D has gone from being a special
> experience to a perfunctory feature for every blockbuster.

The problem is the directors using 3D just couldn't resist the overused trope
of having an arrow (or spears, in the case of _Star Trek: Out of Darkness_ )
fly out of the screen at the audience. I dunno, maybe it was intended as an
homage to the old Anaglyph 3-D movies, but it fell flat.

~~~
michaelchisari
The only movies I've seen that do 3-D "right" have been Avatar and Dredd. The
former because the technology was built around the film, and it was presented
in this subtle way that created an extraordinary depth without feeling cheesy
or tacked on.

The latter because they really did some cool effects with the "Slo-Mo" drug
that didn't have the same impact in 2-D.

But aside from those, it just feels like a way to charge more for a less-
enjoyable experience (films that are too dark, potential headaches,
uncomfortable glasses).

------
Shivetya
does anyone know if this format transfers better with 4k or is the effect not
able to scale to it?

