Well said, but, I've still booked my tickets for the 3D Avatar. Annoyingly the 2D version of it has the image cropped to make a 2.35:1 ratio. Which version is Cameron's intended framing? Now we have to deal with two different versions of a film because 3D works better in 1.85:1 - apparently.

Sooooo, you are saying all cinemas should have a licence to serve booze? Here here :)

Is the broadcast of sporting events in cinema really a new development? I have seen archive footage from the early 70s of Muhammad Ali on Parkinson urging viewers to watch one of the Ali-Frazier fights in theatres (presumably using the US term for cinema, rather than referring to a stage adaptation). Also, my local digital cinema in Kent has been showing a regular programme of operas and ballets almost since it opened.



But you're right that businesses must maximise the use of their commercial space. If it's empty, it's costing money. And we really don't want fewer screens. While DVD and widescreen TVS have brought the home cinema experience a long way, you still cannot beat the proper cantilevered auditorium cinema setting.

It's cinema coming full circle in a way. When it was first invented people used to go to the cinema to watch the news among over things. However this was before the invention of television so why they're showing sporting events on the big screen I don't know.

I really wish film critics, and Mark in particular, would get over their endless tired ranting about 3D. It's like throwing a strop over the fact the sky's blue. Get over it! If you don't like it, go watch the 2D version. But PLEASE stop boring us endlessly repeating that nobody wants it - Clearly the public do or 3D movies wouldn't be being made.



What exactly does 3D take away from the 2D experience? Absolutely nothing unless you think that wearing glasses seriously detracts from the viewing experience (in which case, God help you if your eye sight starts to go). All 3D does do is ADD to the cinematic experience and yet critics feel they have to rant on and on and on about how awful it is and nobody wants it.



I've heard Mark say a lot of really dumb things over the years but his comment that the 3D version of a film "isn't cinema" must be the most ridiculous thing he's ever said. He sounds as ridiculous as Chaplin did when he whinged that sound films would never work - months after it was VERY clear that silent cinema was dead and over.

The guy behind the glass is distracting; I expected him to come in and do the travel.

@Ian Smith.



Mark is wrong about many things (like all films should be made in the language where they take place with subtitles or that Marion Cotillard should have tried to sing in La Vie en Rose or that Twilight is a good film or that Inglourious Basterds was as bad as he said or that Star Trek was as good as he said or ....) but he's not wrong about 3-D.



We don't want it and we don't need it - certainly not in its current form.

The depth of field is not continuous and it really messes up the colours if you want to know what we lose, and who wants to wear stupid glasses to watch a film? If you make an animated kiddies film in 3-D only, yes people are going to see it (just like if you make an animated kiddies film in 2D only).

Having now seen a handful of 3D movies at my local cineworld, I can safely say I will not be bothering to see any more. I caught an early screening of Up in 2D and did not see anything that would make me believe that 3D would enhance the experience.



I will be going to see Avatar at the IMAX in Waterloo as this, I believe, is the best way to see a 3D film.



As to Ian Smiths comments, so far I think Mark is right about 3D. Its all just pointy pointy nonsense that detracts from the characters and stories. The cinemas seem to finally be listening to the public by getting rid of the added cost if you bring back your glasses. So thats one point conceded, now all we need is a film maker to prove the "immersive' argument and we can all shout at Mark for been an idiot.



Simplifying the argument by saying that they would not be been made if no one wanted them is ridiculous. There is an underlying fear of loss of profit due to the huge amount of piracy that goes on.

The studio bosses still have their collective heads buried in the sand when it comes to modern distribution methods and the fact that not everyone wants to go to a cinema and have to sit next to screaming kids and adults who have to constantly chat to each other though the film.

antimode,

Which kiddies film have only been made available in 3D? And if you're going to make claims about colours being messed up can you give the evidence or details for this? (I've seen a couple of films in both 3D and 2D and certainly never noticed any problems with colour)



misterjollylives,

You contradict yourself somewhat. Leaving aside the fact you've judged "Up" in 3D despite not having seen it, you dismiss 3D and then admit you're going to the IMAX to see Avatar in 3D. If 3D is worse why on earth would you do that? Your argument makes no sense!



I would agree that 3D works best on a large screen (I've only ever bothered seeing a 3D film at the London IMAX which is local). But seriously, if you don't like 3D on a small screen don't go see it - go to the 2D version instead. If claims that people didn't want it were true the cinema's would soon be empty. Heck, you only have to wait a couple of months and most stuff's available on nice 2D friendly shiny disc anyway.

I heartily concur that more cinemas (and, indeed, pubs) should serve real ale.

Years ago, I saw James Cameron's Ghosts of the Abyss (a documentary about searching the wreck of the Titanic, which was in many ways a test project for new 3d filming techniques and in other ways an intrusive grave robbery). The only moment in the whole feature when I felt the 3d worked was when a boom on one of the robot submersibles was prodded towards the camera and, therefore, the audience. Like Mark said on the Culture Show last night, having one 3d moment in an entire film does not make 3d an immersive experience.



It is just a cyclical gimmick. That in itself does not make it unwelcome but we should not prepare for a bold 3d future of cinema. It'll be gone again by the end of next year.

Is this it?

I have to disagree with Mark about 3D. It is a part of cimema, just so far it hasn't been done very well. Fingers crossed Avitar will be a great film, where the 3D compliments the film. 3D has been around for a long time and need to be used in a grown up manner.



My old film lecturer always said that they best directors, highlighted the story and enhanced the actors performance, not their own visual flare (a charge I put on Tarantino). 3D should be the same.

The main problem I have with the Jackson movie being shown in cinemas is that it’s just a glorified advert for the DVD release in January. I’m sure they couldn’t rush out the DVD for Christmas (with all the other big releases being duplicated) so they created the gimmick of a limited run to drum up some interest (as if they needed to).



On the other hand, where I live we only get the big mainstream multiplex fodder, so I quite like the new trend where more marginal art house films are being released on DVD almost simultaneously rather then having to wait five months to see them. It’s like the good old days of Palace video in the early eighties. This probably makes me a hypocrite.

For the idiots who think 3D is the future. In the kingdom of the blind the one-eyed man still can't see the thing you think is so great.



Marks right. 3D will be a new art-form if anything. Those who confuse the two are missing the point, and that includes the big film companies. And they've made this mistake before, computer games aren't films, they're something else, yet film companies think a game will make a good film, or that a film will make a good game. They can live in the same imagined world, but they're different.



The problem is perhaps that film companies aren't FILM companies any more. They're entertainment companies, who will do anything to get a paying bum on a seat. All Mark and others are saying is, a film is a film, and the other stuff is other stuff – just don't confuse them.



Personally, I think anyone who sings the praises of 3D are probably the same people who wouldn't watch a black and white film because it's in black and white. It ain't the colour or the 3D or the sound that makes a story engrossing. Heck, you might even be able to just put words describing what's happening on bits of paper and be as entertaining... has anyone ever tried that?



Not long now until mass audience interaction will be changing the action on screen. Cries of 'the zombies behind you!' making the girl run instead of being disembowelled. Watch Mark cry when that happens.

VUE cinemas are owned by Warner I believe so when some artists that are signed to Warner records have live DVDs coming out they show a prescreening at selected VUE cinemas.



It is evident from my username that I am a massive Muse fan and I went to see their Live at Wembley Stadium DVD (aka H.A.A.R.P.) at my local VUE. I must admit I share your old opinion on the matter Dr. K, cinemas are for films, but boy was that a good experience!

Sorry, MarkoosMuse but Vue Cinema is not owned by Warner Bros. The company was formed when SBC bought out Warner Village Cinemas in 2003, and was the feature of a subsequent management buyout in 2006.

I haven't seen "This is It" myself but does it not count as a documentary?

Why do concerts shown at cinemas not count as films? As brotherjosephus said, they're essentially documentaries.



I'd love to see more concert films get releases in the cinema - especially Springsteen's gig at the Hammersmith Odeon in '75.

oi! content not working! again! this is annoying, extraordinarily annoying.

As I sat there and listened to The Good Doctor contemplate the future of Cinema like that, I was immediately reminded of David Cronenberg's latest short film he made a few years back:



"At the Suicide of the Last Jew in the Last Cinema in the World"



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEMT1mQiD68



and people say 3-D is harmless! Hah.

To Mr Ian Smith,



I am a film critic who also has a problem with 3D films, both for the same reasons as Mark in that's it's an already tired gimmick, if the films are that good then they will not need to be shown in three dimension and also for the fact i that i have some sort of monoscopic vision which impairs me from seeing the 3D effect as intended i.e. i just see it as flat 2D even with the glasses, which results in me watching the 3D film without the glasses which ignites the odd quizzical glance from the other criics in the room. The press screenings for these films are mostly in the 3D version, so the sooner we have less 3D films the sooner i will be a less grumpier critic.

I don’t believe the Jackson rehearsal footage was just for his benefit and never meant to be shown. It includes short interviews/testimonials from other performers and is shot quite expertly. The company behind it may have had a longer term aim of filming the live shows and releasing a film of them, using some of the rehearsal footage in it, when the live shows ended. The aim of the concerts was to make lots of money let’s not forget.



Is ‘This is it’ cinema? It falls under a ‘documentary’ heading.

Populist and edited to be entertainment, but so was U2s ‘Rattle and Hum’.



Can a move shown in 3D be true ‘cinema’?

3D if done well could enhance the experience, but a good film should be able to work in 2D or 3D. Having said that we haven’t yet had someone sit down and thought about how to create an immersive 3D world; so far 3D’s been about things flying out at the audience; perhaps ‘Avatar’ may start to change that.



But to take the argument ‘what is cinema’ further: I’d argue that most of the stories from what we consider ‘classic films’ could also be done on a theatre stage.



‘Ben Hur’ at the U2 arena is an example; it’s just a big stage.

‘Reservoir Dogs’ would make an ideal theatre piece; a small cast mainly occupying a single set and so on.



So what is it about these that make us think of them as ‘pure cinema’? Perhaps they’re just ‘augmented theatre’.



Follow this argument and only those (non-documentary) films that would be impossible to do on a stage would be the only ones that we would count as ‘pure cinema’, in that they rely totally on cinematic techniques to have any impact at all.



It would be an interesting debate to identify those. I’d suggest Antonioni’s ‘Blowup’ as an example, but what others?

HRolfKraki,



When someone starts a post with the word "idiots" they're saying far more about themselves than the discussion or opinion they're trying to argue against!



I don't know why I'm replying actually since you've clearly made up your "black or white" mind up about who I am already, posting all kinds of ridiculous assumptions about those who enjoy 3D.



For the record I have watched a LOT of black and white films (and also - to pre-empt your next cliched "black and white" declaration - foreign films with subtitles). One of the things I've loved most about the advent of Blu-Ray is the chance to see and own classics like "Casablanca", "It's A Wonderful Life" (came out last week in a wonderful pristine HD transfer) or even "La Haine" in better quality than I've ever seen at my local cinema (although I'll admit I've had a bit of a rant on one of the forums about how bad the "HD" transfer of "The 39 Steps" that came out last week is). Top of my Blu-Ray "wants" list is "Les Quatre Cents Coups" so stick that in your prejudiced, overly-judgmental pipe and smoke it! :-P



And for the record, I haven't said 3D is the future of cinema. I don't think anyone (other than Katzenberg) has. It's a way of differentiating what's on offer from the "home" experience of just renting a DVD, and as such it seems to be proving rather successful.



By the way, presumably those who've been enthusing about 3D so profusely for years (notably Peter Jackson who was experimenting with it even during Lord of the Rings shooting, and Cameron) are "idiots" too. Pardon me if I take their opinions on what constitutes "cinema" over those of anonymous bloggers any day :-P



Ian

It was a personal opinion. Like yours.



Peter Jackson and James Cameron have something in common. They love computer graphics and are building their careers on them instead of concentrating on story (see King Kong). They'll be 3D geniuses I'm sure. They aren't film geniuses though.



But you can believe what you like Ian, I'm not prejudiced enough to say otherwise. I didn't even call you an idiot, or refer to you at all, as (like you point out) you don't think 3D is the future. Time to get off the high horse and ease some pressure on the ego a little?

jayfurneaux: would anything with a car chase fit your theory?

This could be a good thing. If cinemas effectively become big screen 'events spaces', then as well as having music concerts, football matches and the rest, we may get to see some more interesting cinema sneaking in, and hopefully some better art than the Zidane thing.

Dr K seems to be mellowing as he gets older (not old but older).



Kenny Ortega is not a great director and was the worst thing in This Is It with his repeated and lets not forget FAKE as hell arse-kissing of Michael Jackson. Just like every other snake who have used MJ as a commodity to line their own pockets he stinks worse than excreta.



That said This Is It was an important movie because it showed more than any other piece of film MJ as an artist and a creator. He was for the first time not playing to camera as he was distracted by his rehearsal and that made it quite poignant!



When Avatar 3-D will play the cinema becomes like a theme park, when Zidane plays Cinema becomes like a contemporary art gallery, and when The Godfather plays cinema returns to it's classic format. It's all fine by me and I feel the more cinema varies itself the more relevant it will continue to be in popular culture.



High School Musical is almost as bad as X Factor - an exploitation of young people for a quick buck (watch how its main Stars get thrown onto the celebrity wasteland when it inevitably goes out of fashion). Grease, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, Blues Brothers and Singin' in the Rain will stand the test of time but very quickly this High School Musical FAD will rot in a skip like an old McDonalds Happy Meal Toy.

Most cinemas are popcorn vendors that show films. I'm sure they'll happily screen anything that keeps people consuming salt- and sugar-saturated gunk.



That said, is one screening of Saw 6 really a good representative control group from which to make comparative judgements?

Actually... could they make a PARTIALLY 3-D film?



In that case I for one would love to see a Charlie Kaufman or a David Lynch 3-D-esque film... where certain scenes would have to be seen in 3-D so they could screw with your mind more efficiently. Hm, dangerous thoughts, no?

I’m just concerned that film makers will compromise story integrity for the sake of more ‘3D moments’.



meanwhile the jury is still out.

Am not a Jackson fan either but cinema's need to draw people in away from there "home cinema's" and if putting on stuff that isn't necessarily film helps get them in then thats fine. Embracing other art forms is also another way that independant cinema's can compete with the multiplex.

If you owned a cinema Mark would you only show film's?

I agree wholeheartedly with the doctor's opinion on 3D,that it cannot be described as 'cinema'. And indeed, showing movies in 3D or concerts etc in your local cinema, can't really be seen as a bad thing if it means the industry will continue to be as accessable to ordinary people. If new technology or ideas such as 3D wernt brought in, essentially to make money, we may see many cinemas closing, (a depressing thought!) in an era where the industry is threatened by illegal downloading etc. In the end cinema has to evolve. As long as i can still get the 'real ale', im happy

A couple of comments. One, I agree with you wholeheartedly about Jackson, except I never even liked the stuff from the eighties you did. The Jackson facade has always struck me as both eerie and bland, like a commercial product reflected in a distorting circusy mirror, exaggerated pop with too much sodium. I definitely think that there's nothing wrong with seeing things other than movies in a theater--they played special episodes of This American Life in theaters over the last couple of years, a Public Radio based human interest show which is better than most flimsy, witless fiction cinema--but I think you could have made your point better by comparison with just about anything other than the attendance of the latest Saw sequel! After all, those Saw movies are supposed to be the corrupt sell out pictures that get butts in seats; it's a rotten unscary franchise which has hopefully run its course--soon Jigsaw will meet Abbot and Costello and then we'll finally be over a that line. Remember Friday the thirteenth part six, introduced with a parody of James Bond? Jason walked into an eyehole of his own trademark hockey mask, turned to the audience and flung his machete at the camera! My point, Saw is not proper cinema; it's not even proper matter for a baby's diaper.

DO NOT denigrate cinema by comparing it to a church.

That is sooo true

26 "would anything with a car chase fit your theory?" HrolfKraki



I began thinking of big dumb action and special effects movies after I posted.



'Jurassic Park', no problem on a stage; full scale animatronic dinosaurs were done with the Walking with dinosaurs show.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAE5aqG8L_U



'Star Wars'? Radio 1 once did a radio serialisation. 'Lord of the Rings' has also been done on radio, as has Bond.



Martial arts movies? The Shaolin Monks stage a successful live stage show.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaLpiZJj6_Q&feature=fvst



Modern film Kung Fu derives from the ancient and highly acrobatic Chinese theatrical tradition that combines acrobatics with martial arts skills.

https://www.travelchinaguide.com/cityguides/shanghai/entertainment/portman-acrobatic-show.htm



But really big & dumb action and special effects movies? Car-crash and stunt shows of course are staged, but I know what you mean.



'Die hard 4', 'Predator 2', 'Armageddon' and 'Transformers 2' would be problematic; it could be argued that without the stunts and special effects there is no story. Ditto 'The Transporter', though I imagine some people would pay good money to watch a half-naked Statham wrestle men whilst covered in oil ;-).



But I strongly suspect Dr K would be not happy at the thought of Michael Bay representing the essence of 'pure cinema'!



Horror is another problematic area.

'Dracula' of course was a book and stage-play before it became a film. James Whale's 'Frankenstein' (the Karloff one) I can imagine being a highly charged theatrical experience. The first 'Saw 'could be staged in a theatre.



But slasher films rely on cross-cutting, staged sudden reveals and chases so stage potential could be limited. Without the special effects (gore) and cross cutting is there a point (story) to films such as 'Halloween', 'Final Destination' or 'Hostel'?



I now have 'The Matrix' and Kubrick's '2001 a space odyssey' nagging at the back of my mind. Do these represent 'real cinema'?



(Though of course the Matrix could be done as a book, William Gibson mined this field long before 'The Matrix' e.g. Neuromancer, whilst 2001 started life as a novel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuromancer )



So what other films or genres represent 'pure cinema'? Dr K's 'Real Ale'?

>Actually... could they make a PARTIALLY 3-D film?



It's been done, I believe. The Mask (1961), not that I've seen it.



But I expect it'll be something like this that might turn 3D from novelty gimmick into a just another tool in the director's toolbox, like lens flare, soft focus or sound. It remains to be seen if the current round of 3D films is a passing fad (like every other time for, what, a century?) or if the technology and imagination are there yet. Many technologies suffer from fitful use until they find an environment to flourish in. Whoever capitalises on this at the right time will then be hailed as a genius.

Someone posted a well argued pro 3D comment in the comments for the previous post Mark did on horror. Seems more relevant here:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode/2009/11/twilight_of_the_blogs.html



I'm agnostic, I haven't seen any films in 3D yet, so have no idea what its like.

I went to see Muse at Wembley Stadium at my local cinema. I was originally unable to get tickets for the real gig. It was fantastic and a relay enjoyable night. The cinema took nothing away from the experience in my option and had the best of both worlds. It was loud and exciting but i was able to buy drinks and popcorn as well as sit down because I'm not the young whippersnapper i once was.

there's a few things that bother me about 'this is it', and the main one is that it's alarming how quickly the studios can cash in on a celebrity's death. do they think that if it had been a year later everyone would be asking who michael jackson was?



my second point is that i totally disagree with your change of heart, you say that it keeps the 'real' cinema afloat, but people said that computer animated cartoons could coexist with stop motion and hand drawn cartoons, but if you take a look it's now considered a real treat or novelty to see the, now archaic, animation styles. sorry to quote rorschach from watchmen, but one must 'never comprimise, even in the face of armageddon'.

Dr K,



I've no particular problem with 3D. I'm sure back in the fifties there were those who still insisted on films being made and projected in a four-by-three aspect ratio. But no, they persisted with that crazy CinemaScope concept and it's now the norm. What was the last new film released in 4:3? (Fish Tank, I believe.) 3D just adds a bit more to the film - think of it as stereo for the eyes. Not every film needs 3D any more than they all need 12-channel Dolby Supa-Mega-Digital 5.1 Surround: the average Woody Allen film could get by perfectly well in mono. I'm happy to see 3D films once in a while - it's kind of fun but I'd like them to apply it to something other than digimation and splatter films.



I've also no problem with concert films: it's just another kind of film I don't really want to see, like teenage nerd comedies or Hungarian vomiting movies. I'm not a Michael Jackson fan so I've no intention of seeing This Is It, in the same way I don't want to see Couples Retreat because it looks horrible. (Give me a morally dubious piece of sub-X-Files alien abduction hogwash any day.)

oh yeah, one major thing i have against 3d films, aside from having to wear headache glasses (and incidently, what are people who already wear regular glasses supposed to do?), but when they're released on dvd they have to use that stupid red and green type of 3d and that sucks.

would you rather watch a good black and white movie, with believable characters and funny characters or some horses*** colour film?



3D will waste money on needless tech, which could be spent on digging out good scripts and comfier seats at your local kino

Don't forget there is one music concert movie that both manages to feel like being at a concert, and be a cinematic experience...Talking Head's/Johnathan Demme's 'Stop Making Sense', a film that really should be seen (even if just for THAT oversized suit).



There's a counter reason why i'm opposed to 3D, aside from the technology/narrative debate it'd be another nail in the coffin of affordable cinema. The average ticket cost where i live is £7.50, if you want to see a 3d film it's £9.00!!! The most criminal thing that's happened to cinema in the last 10 years is the escalating price that has frozen families out of the cinema. A medium which was conceived to be affordable and accessible....isn't anymore...3D will just add to that.

wadworth's 6x is 'the exorcist' of real ale

where is the best place to sit in the cinema iyo?

Um the novel of 2001 was based on Arthur C Clarke's screenplay, not the other way round.



But, yes, The Wachowski's did steal liberally from Neuromancer, as well as loads of other stuff. There's barely an original idea in the whole film.

The current complaint about 3D is the same as we heard when animated movies started to transition to digital animation. 3D is just a tool that can help tell the story. It does not replace the story. If people pay to see 3D it will be here to stay.

jayfurneaux: Funnily enough after I posted I wondered if you couldn't do a car chase on stage if you were really creative and of course arena shows with cars happen all the time.

French Connection the Musical may be a possibility.

Hi Dr. K,



Regarding the debate with 'Michael Jackson's: This is It', I personally think the whole thing is a rather sick money-making scheme.



"For two weeks only", I mean, come on, who is Ortega and the distributors trying to kid?

This movie is also really trying to make the audience feel and act like it's an actual concert. I was at the cinema the other day to see '9' and the cashier asked me if I wanted to buy a Michael Jackson tour t-shirt for only £25.

It's a total joke. I go to the cinema for one reason only.



Also, adding to this giant 3D chat which has suddenly popped up, I am a fan of 3D and some films have looked great in it, 'Up' and 'Coraline’ for example, but I think what everyone is forgetting is that the 3D is just an addition to the feature; the film doesn't or shouldn't rely on its third dimension.



The re-release of 'Toy Story and Toy Story 2' in 3D is a prime example. We all know that both films are masterpieces from Pixar, yet seeing them in 3D made no difference what so ever, it added no extra charm or character and all it did was made my wallet much lighter.



3D is nice on occasions but it's definitely not the future of cinema, and nor is Michael Jackson's long lost concert.

I can't agree with this. Surely cinema is about the experience of watching a film on a large screen in a room full of people? If the film is a story, a documentary, live concert footage, or whatever, I still think that's cinema. It would be great if filmmakers could think of some original uses for the technology which completely broke the mold of what we typically think of as a film. I think it can really work as an experience as long as the film lends itself to being watched on a large screen and with a larger audience than you would expect in your own front room. After all, no-one hss to go and see any of these films unless it's something that appeals to them, that's what film critics are for :) I'm sure the art of creating cinematic stories that we traditonally think of as cinema isn't about to die out.

48: Kubrick and Clarke used Clarke's 'The Sentinel' short story as the starting point for their joint screenplay.

But I'll give ground here, my opinion was biased by having read the novel before seeing the film (and having been young at the time); and a strong admiration of Clarke's work. (The film and novel came out almost simultaneously.)



I agree about 'The Matrix'; it just built on ideas that were used in SF stories from the 1960s (possibly earlier) onwards. What made it stand out as a film though was its striking visual style. Without this would it be worth seeing?



50. A car chase on stage? A different experience but I don't see why not. The O2 arena version of 'Ben Hur' included both the sea battle and chariot race; if you've read about what the Romans staged in the Coliseum then anything might be possible. (But of course, they had no concerns about Health and Safety, quite the opposite.)

I have to agree with Dr. K on this one, cinema venues should diversify their offer if that's the only way to keep them afloat.



It might not be the entirely same thing, but I think it's interesting to draw the parallel with the world of video game consoles. In the beginning they were machines built with the sole purpose of running video game software, but nowadays you can use them to watch movies, TV, listen to music, browse the internet, participate in game show/video game hybrids such as 1 vs. 100 and even conduct your daily exercise.



At first some gamers were worried that such diversification might lead to video games being pushed to the sidelines on the very machines initially dedicated to running them, but in reality that didn't happen, it has only lead to more people becoming interested in the medium. Someone might buy a PlayStation 3 because it's a fine Blu-ray player, but then stay for the games. Likewise, I believe someone might come to the cinema to enjoy a concert, but then choose to return to see a movie. Everyone could profit from that.



(Speaking of which, some movie venues are even being rented out for playing video games on the big screen.)

Part of the reason why Mamma Mia was so lucrative was because of screenings being held where people could join in, singing along to Abba.



The only non-cinematic programme I have experienced at a flick house was a satellite-broadcast Q and A with Mike Leigh, following a screening of Happy-Go-Lucky. I found this to be a great experience, really interesting and informative and something which is important for those who can't get to the Southbank, or wherever the discussion is taking place.

There seems to be a thin line of agreement here. Cinemas should put on whatever they can to keep themselves open. Cinema is the venue, not the product. So, just because something is on in a cinema doesn't make it a 'film', or mean a film reviewer (Dr K in particular) should have to review them.

I will not be upset when he refuses to see my musical project. Anyone got a rhyme for Poughkeepsie?

i must admit i find your current line of argument that there are "films" and "not-films" a bit baffling and somewhat artificial. for me a film is something that is filmed (whether using actual physical film or digital means) and nothing more. you touch upon the idea that the boundaries of the art form are being pushed all the time (e.g. zidane, funnily enough i would add jackson's own moonwalker from back in the day) yet then go on to describe 'this is it' is "not a film".



there seems to be a confusion between films which contain a conventional narrative and films which don't (and an ocean-sized grey area in between), and whether something is a "film" at all?



to describe 'this is it' as "not a film" i think confuses the issue. there are as many kinds of film as there are filmers willing to film things, even if i suppose with 'this is it' the people making the film were doing so unwittingly it would seem.

Until hearing the review of "This Is It" made by the good Doctor above, I had little inclination to watch the aforementioned film. As a film fan and a music fan, there was little offered which would satisfy my artistic inclinations which isn't to dismiss it's integrity as I am sure Kenny Ortega is a wonderful at his trade, as he wasn't I am of the belief High School Musical would not be the global phenomenon it is today. Irrespective of the Disney machine Kenny Ortega must be given credit for HSM's achievements in some capacity at the least.



I digres... A very interesting point raised in the review is that much of "This Is It" features on incomplete footage of songs taking place in rehearsals, while this may be something to hinder many, as a musician myself, this is something which possibly is the most interesting aspect of "This Is It'. The trials and tribulations of a musicians are often seen to be of a glamourous nature but the reality is often countless rehearsals which often seem to meander and go in little direction, which isn't to denigrate being a musician in the slightest bit, but the times when things work is all the more special.



There is little chance I will be able to view "This Is It" at the cinema but if the film shows aspects of 'construction' in music then I think that could be a very interesting issue, as it something which very rarely receives as much attention as it often should.



As for the future of Cinema, which seems to have got a lot of discussion above for the threat of 3D and other such things. Being a resident of London where there is a great selection of cinemas, there is a possibility that my judgement in making an assessment to this issue is possibly tainted.



My personal suggestion and recommendation for the suggestion to 'save' Cinema is that there are many viewers who do have an interest in 'Non Mainstream' Cinema and catering for such an audience will not end in failure. A few weeks back, I was lucky enough to see "Un Prophete" Audiard's new film (the director of the wonderful 'The Beat My Heart Skipped) at the London Film Festival, shown at Leicester Square Vue. I state I was lucky, as even though it was shown around midday on a Monday, the film was sold out and there was even a queue of around 50 people for returns.



Around the corner from that cinema, is the truly wonderful Prince Charles Cinema. Earlier this year, they showed John Carpenter's "The Thing" which sold out (prior to it's digital remastered rerelease) and a truly wonderful film called "The Carnival Of Souls" an odd horror of sorts from 1962, which near enough sold out too.



Cinema like any industry is market driven, if we as the consumer do not allow ourselves to be condescended by distributors and Multiplex chains and place our hard earned money into the pockets of Cinemas such as the British Film Institute, the Prince Charles and the ICA then there could possibly be a decent knock on effect. Having written such points, I do appreciate that outside a city such as London one might not have a wealth of options and the limitations may be of a greater impact.

A question:



I had a choice this weekend, i could either go and see the last showing of Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs at my local multiplex in 3D for 8 pounds, or at my local "indepedent" cinema in 2D for 3 pounds.



When i say independent i don't mean arthouse i mean budget. They show the same stuff as a multiplex but for a cheaper price with only one person running the whole show and about 3 people in the audience. And velvety walls.



Which is Great, a brilliant atmosphere for the film and no one to spoil it for you, plus you save a fiver.



Except that about a minute into the credits the film stops rolling and I never get to find out either who the voice cast was (turns out it was Mr. T.) or see the cute animations at the end.



So: Is a cinema legally bound to entire credits?

Caveman 1982 is damn right! Carnival of Souls is indeed a wonderful film, one of the greatest horror films ever i think, nice to see someone else actually knows it exists. Although steer well clear of the horrendous 1998 "remake". How does Doctor K feel about Herk Harvey's 1962 masterpiece?

The annoying thing about 3D is - I saw 'cloudy with a chance' in 2D and spent most of the time thinking 'I bet this would look good in 3D'

I have a strange sense of loss reading this blog and could actually have a little cry. I don't want going to the movies to become a reality TV type experience where all the good drama and humor is drowned out by banality. I love the social aspect of seeing a great flim with an audience. I don't begrudge anyone their turn to rent the church hall but my fear is that well written films already struggling to find space will be squeezed out by the pilates instructors drinking fizzy pop instead of real ale.

A couple of comments. One, I agree with you wholeheartedly about Jackson, except I never even liked the stuff from the eighties you did.

Snapfish coupons