Music & Movies

Also, there are 2 digital theaters it's showing on in town. Would you recommend I see it digitally if I see it, or is that just a bunch of flap?

I hear it's just a bunch of flap. In test markets, people cant tell the difference between digital and celluloid. So I wouldnt seek it out or be scared of it, but I wouldnt wait longer or pay extra for it either.

Doesn't it also apply to the sound? Because I think it really would sound better? Or is all sound already digital anyways?

I think it might be.. at least maybe the THX stuff. The movie-makers prefer digital as it wont decay like celluloid does. But the projectors cost around $150,000 apiece, so the theaters are hesitant to buy them.

Also there are no movies for them yet.

Here in NYC, it's playing in two theaters (good ones, too) at the same price as always. So I guess I might as well. If it's worth paying to see, that is...

And Ebert (not that Ebert is an expert on anything, what a sap) suggested that the colors looked flat on a non-digital version. The thing is, it's not just the film that is digital, the whole thing was produced digitally, so it's changing medium when it's put on celluloid.

Mr Crab
Say what you like about Ebert, but yah, what stamina. Not only does he watch about 8 movies a day, he seems to see them in as many formats as there are.
Me, I go to about one movie a year in the theatre and wait for the videos on everything else.
In the last 12month it was Lord of the Rings. Took my father, (age 94)...we all loved it, including my wife who wasn't all that familiar with the books.
Back to Ebert, I love it when I trashes a film I also did not happen to like.

I thought LOTR was pretty cool, although it glosses over a lot of stuff out of the book and changes a few parts to allow it to have sexual tension and stuff. I think the reason most ppl seem to like it is that even though it's not 100% faithful to the original story, it has *a* story at least. Maybe if you haven't read the book you'll get a totally different picture of the world & what's going on, but it'll still be interesting anyway. Although my favorite parts of the series were all the ramblings about stuff that happened thousands of years ago anyway...Tolkien sure knew how to make a complicated history. (I have thousands of years of history for a book I'll probably never write, but not nearly as complicated as his. I just explain how some of the races came to be but I don't exactly have the expertise to describe in great detail all the battles that must've taken place at one time or another. Although someday if I don't give up I may bumble through that part anyway. )

I was really happy with the LOTR movie. Tolkien may have been a master, but he didn't know how to milk certain dramatic aspects of the situation. Fantasy works best when we see a little of the bad guy's side of the equation, and I think expanding the involvement of Saruman was a wise move on the part of the filmakers. Ditto such things as the inclusion of the death of Boromir as an onscreen rather than offscreen thing like it is in the book, and Aragorn and Frodo's conversation on the hill before he leaves. Most of the changes and extras actually enhanced the movie rather than detracting from it, and while it did not remain true to the letter of the lore it was true to the spirit of the lore.

...plus love interests, and women in general were added...

anybody heard the news lately that they found water on mars. it was in yesterdays science times.

BTW anybody seen and good recent sci fi movies lately?