On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:31:03 AM UTC-6, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
On 2023-01-20, Ted Heise <the...@panix.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 16:40:16 -0800 (PST),
Some dued <theodo...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 7:09:26 PM UTC-6, TE wrote:
Wow...I don't remember O'Toole being such a ham. Man, he can
really chew the scenery.
I rented that movie in college, came on 2 VHS tapes. I came
home drunk and watched it real confused until the "first" tape
ended up with him dying.
Oh my. Being drunk it probably didn't matter much, but that's a
movie that really needs to be seen on a big screen.
That's a modern question -- is an at-home 70" DVD play the equivalent
of seeing on a big screen?
--
Making the simple complex, that is easy -- anyone can do that.
But to make the complex simple, awesomely simple, that is
true creativity. -- Charles Mingus
If sized correctly, it’s roughly equivalent to being in the far back seats in the auditorium. So not as impressive as seeing it from the middle of an auditorium.
This is assuming watching on 4K non-streaming, and with something equivalent to Dolby Atmos.
I don’t dip into the old movies as much as I used to, but one thing that is obvious when you watch even the best of the classics - production values and acting are much poorer than the great movies of today. On the production values, part of that is
that film is extremely expensive and must be developed before viewing, whereas digital is cheap and you can see how something looks immediately in playback. If you need to do 50 takes to get it right, you’ll annoy people but you’re not going to break
the bank. The other aspect is that most of the first half century of film actors cut their teeth in either vaudeville, theater, or silent films, where overacting is necessary. Today’s serious acting seems much more naturalistic.
My thoughts as a film buff but not expert.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)