Seeing a movie in a cinema used to be an almost religious experience for me but over time the content just got less enthralling. I began to feel less enthusiastic about it by the mid-late 90s.
It is a shame if cinemas did die out because there is such a difference between seeing a movie on a large screen. I cannot believe anyone would watch a movie on a cellphone. I don't even like doing it on computer. Then again anyone can rig up a projector these days.
Holograms or VR. I don't think either are developed enough to offer the same experience as a movie. But the industry badly needs to diversify and get back regional film-especially in the US. Originally most US filmmakers came from the Mid West-and then after the 60s they started to come from California and New York mainly. Then the shift for filmmakers was more global and outside of NA and Western Europe.
Never in the history of the world have we have global art-it always reflected the identity of some heritage. It's an intriguing experiment to have one size fits all but ultimately unsatisfying.
I read the reports that movie-going in the US is at a 25 year low (but the studios are happy they say because they make sales globally) to mean it is time to think local. The corporations are only interested in globalist policy. An alternative to the Hollywood system desperately needs to sprout. Amazon and Netflix are also globalist in their content selections and promotions.
It's pretty astounding to see filmmaking in a dire state due to the monopoly of company ownership. Everything is so "beta" these days, from writing to acting to musical scores.
One of the best film scores I heard recently was composed for a restoration of a 1929 movie that the unknown composer did for free. Talent exists, it is just that studio owners are interested in something other than making content that pleases specific audiences (which is how it used to be when cinema was diversified).
Disney apparently owns 90 % of film content in cinemas now?
That sort of thing used to trigger anti-monopoly laws.
It is a shame if cinemas did die out because there is such a difference between seeing a movie on a large screen. I cannot believe anyone would watch a movie on a cellphone. I don't even like doing it on computer. Then again anyone can rig up a projector these days.
Holograms or VR. I don't think either are developed enough to offer the same experience as a movie. But the industry badly needs to diversify and get back regional film-especially in the US. Originally most US filmmakers came from the Mid West-and then after the 60s they started to come from California and New York mainly. Then the shift for filmmakers was more global and outside of NA and Western Europe.
Never in the history of the world have we have global art-it always reflected the identity of some heritage. It's an intriguing experiment to have one size fits all but ultimately unsatisfying.
I read the reports that movie-going in the US is at a 25 year low (but the studios are happy they say because they make sales globally) to mean it is time to think local. The corporations are only interested in globalist policy. An alternative to the Hollywood system desperately needs to sprout. Amazon and Netflix are also globalist in their content selections and promotions.
It's pretty astounding to see filmmaking in a dire state due to the monopoly of company ownership. Everything is so "beta" these days, from writing to acting to musical scores.
One of the best film scores I heard recently was composed for a restoration of a 1929 movie that the unknown composer did for free. Talent exists, it is just that studio owners are interested in something other than making content that pleases specific audiences (which is how it used to be when cinema was diversified).
Disney apparently owns 90 % of film content in cinemas now?
That sort of thing used to trigger anti-monopoly laws.
