While it’s exciting to consider the possibilities stemming from this era of innovation—which directors and futurists for decades have envisioned—that allows us to watch a movie “anywhere, anytime,” the more preoccupied we become with the technologies of how movies can reach us, the less we seem to ask the most important question: How do we really want to experience a film?

That’s what Ridley Scott talks about in this short piece on the Huffington Post. He’s totally right—despite chain theaters’ attempts to make going to the movies as unpleasant of an activity as possible, the best way to see a film is still inside a theater, and, barring that, on Blu-ray. Not, in other words, via streaming. “Technology,” as Scott notes, “will need to make many more huge leaps before one can ever view films with the level of picture and sound quality many film lovers demand without having to slide a disc into a player.”

But all that said, I’m not entirely sure that the image and sound quality Scott prizes so highly really matters to most people. People are lazy, and convenience generally wins out; most will gladly accept degradations of picture and sound quality, provided they can get the film (or music, or TV, or whatever) easily and cheaply (or steal it). I can’t help but think that Blu-ray, as impressive of a storage medium as it can be, will be the final generation of the ever-evolving physical media we’ve used to transfer movies.

I should also note that, like Scott, I’m also firmly in the theater/Blu-ray camp—I’m one of the obnoxious film nerds who care (probably too much) about such things as aspect ratios and 1080p. (There’s no way, for example, that I’d watch Scott’s upcoming Prometheus for the first time at home or on a computer—I’ll be there in a theater, pretty much no matter what.) But I’m pretty sure that when it comes to stuff like that, I’m in an ever-shrinking minority.

Via (naturally) @Criterion.

With honor and distinction, Erik Henriksen served as the executive editor of the Portland Mercury from 2004 to 2020. He can now be found at henriksenactual.com.

8 replies on “Ridley Scott Observes That Physical Media Is Still a Thing”

  1. If the movie is shit, I don’t care how good the picture quality is. And do I really need to see “The Hangover” on Blu-Ray? For Ridley Scott’s work, I probably do.

  2. Hm. I think the theater experience is more about the notion that your entire focus for the next 1 to 3 hours will be watching the film. Not also getting the phone, checking the dryer, making sure the cat didn’t pee on the sofa…. just immersed in the film. Riffing off of @Suburban’s comment, sometimes my computer montior gives me a clearer picture of (say) ‘Blue Velvet’ than a wonky projector running an aged print. It can’t pinpoint my attention in quite the same way as a theater, though.

  3. @Sok: Yeah, good point. Lately I’ve found myself switching my phone to airplane mode and turning off my laptop whenever I watch a movie at home, ’cause otherwise I can’t help but pay attention to 20 other things that aren’t whatever I’m supposed to be watching.

  4. There is also something to the shared bond of movie experience in a theater… but sometimes people can be pretty annoying (with myself as the notable exception, of course)
    For me, the ideal would be a huge screen, great picture, nice seats, and a group of your favorite film fan friends along for the ride.

  5. What the fuck’s the point of going to a theater if the movie is going to be projected piss-poorly? Every movie I see in theaters these days is dim thanks to idiot projectioners thinking they’re saving money dimming the bulb, out of sound sync, dirty, cropped, or just a goddamn DVD projected on a screen.

Comments are closed.