I'd like to thank the Academy...

I was going to watch the Oscars just to see Jon Stewart, but then I decided that would be like forcing myself to go see The Island just because Scarlett Johansson was in it. (Oh, wait... I did do that...)

I tuned into the Oscars only because he was hosting (apparently I'm the only one, judging by the ratings). When CGI Chicken Little came out to present a freaking award, I can only assume that Jon was backstage contemplating just how surreal the night had become.

Lauren Bacall looked good for someone who passed away two years ago.

Informing the people who just paid your bills that they're thieves? Priceless.

Amen to that.

The biggest problem with Hollywood, is that it's no longer about making quality entertainment. It's about making money, and the fact that The Industry is constantly calling its customers 'theives' shows that it has lost touch with what its customers/theives want.

The business model needs to change. According to George Lucas it will Once it does, we will start seeing quality entertainment again, because the movie making process won't be burdened by the topheavy Hollywood bureaucracy.

Although making better movies only solves half the problem. Theatre owners will be left to create a better overall experience. Just like Marc Cuban said.

I think Ms. Bacall would be surprised to hear she passed away two years ago. And, if she did, then Lars von Trier's "Manderlay" (2005) and the upcoming "These Foolish Things" (2006) should really get a lot of attention for the special effects used to create her character in such a lifelike manner!

Just a quick note, it's Jon Stewart, no "H". Otherwise, nicely written.

Trust me Mr. Academy President, my system is plenty enough to rival your precious theater experience.

I was thisclose to throwing my chicken pot pie at the screen when they snuck those comments in; but doing so would have ruined my screen and forced me to actually go to a theater.

Long-live the future of same-day theater/DVD/cable release.

Lauren Bacall is not dead, and it appears multiple people misunderstood the joke that a previous poster made.

"Lauren Bacall looked good for someone who passed away two years ago" is just a funny way of saying that, yes, she looked bad.

Thanks for clarifying, cheeky bastard. That's what I get for not reading the original comment and just responding to Brian's question.

Wow. Where in the world did this thread go? I guess if Brian felt like steering the comments to his own article about the academy awards towards defining what a joke should be, more power to him. What a weird beast this WWW is.

Well, if I were concerned about where the conversation was headed, you can be sure I'd head it off.

I know. I've seen you do that in other threads. My comment was just meant as a little bit of ribbing. I meant no criticism. My apologies for not being clearer. (Seems like it is indeed harder to get dry humor across in writing).

I'd like to see a focus on less expensive but higher quality films ...

You won't find any argument from me on that point. I've been written a little about that as well.

... but I just don't see it happening anytime soon.

Unfortunately, you are probably right. In the article I linked above, Lucas himself gave until 2025 before we really see a prevalence of small budget movies. I guess the best we can hope for, is that independent film makers will somehow gain a foothold in the monolithic distribution world. I myself am betting on the fact that I can (hopefully) produce a cheaper, high-quality movie than Hollywood has be doing of late. Time will tell...

We need to be careful though, when we start to talk about quality films and blockbuster films as though they're mutually exclusive. Just because they generally have been in the past doesn't mean that they are.

france: Trust me Mr. Academy President, my system is plenty enough to rival your precious theater experience.

well what does your system have to do with the kind of television normal people have? the VAST majority of americans only have a 20" tube television with a $50 DVD player, and the only speakers they have to listen to are the ones embedded in the $100 television. nobody i know even has a widescreen LCD television.

the academy president was absolutely correct in the observation that the home movie watching experience cannot rival watching it in the theater.

According to this press release from the Consumer Electronics Association's CES show this past January, 12 million HDTVs shipped last year and they are expecting to sell 16 million this year. In 2004, 4 million were sold. There are about 95 million households in the US, so right now, about 1 in 5 US homes have HDTV. By the end of this year that number will be closer to 1 in 3. If you don't know anyone with a widescreen TV now, odds are good you will before the year is out.

1 in 5 homes?

if 4 million were sold last year and there are 95 million households, where do you get the 20% number from?

just because the industry is hoping to sell 16 million units doesn't mean they will. also, how many of those 16 million units are 50" theater-quality HDTV LCD? and how many can afford those? also, how many of those are going to be connected to a Hi-Fi theater-quality sound system? most likely the bulk of those 16 million HDTV units are 20-23" size and people won't be connecting them to a Hi-Fi theater-quality sound system.

well, the point is that the academy president has a very valid point that the vast majority of people who watch DVDs at home cannot rival the experience of watching a movie in a theater.

until 50" HDTV LCD televisions start costing less than $300, and Hi-Fi sound systems cost the same as these little speakers i have connected to my PC, people will still have a better entertainment experience watching movies at places like the Cinerama in Downtown Seattle.

well, the point is that the academy president has a very valid point that the vast majority of people who watch DVDs at home cannot rival the experience of watching a movie in a theater

I say this is completely untrue. Please keep in mind, all of the statements made by the Academy regarding DVD vs. The Theater Experience were only made to serve the best interests of the Academy, and Big Hollywood. While there may or may not be truth in those statements, at least understand WHY they were made.

As for the home theater experience; I think you're talking about personal preference here, and this comes down to a game of Would You Rather, in which the question is: Would You Rather Pay $20-$50 for a single evening of movie-going in crowded multiplex - OR stay at home, pop in a DVD from Netflix, and enjoy your film from the comfort of your own home?

This is a personal decision. For me, I choose to stay at home 90% of the time. I own a very modest home theater consisting of a 24" TV, and a 5.1 surround system. I know it that might not impress any of you, but for my wife and I, this is an enjoyable movie experience.

For me, having a decent home setup makes it worth waiting for titles to arrive on DVD, and skipping the theater with it's overpriced snacks, long lines, sticky floors, and crying children. Unless it's something REALLY special, I say "No Thanks".

We don't all have to have 60" HDTV's, and 2000 Watt surround systems in order to enjoy movies at home do we? Should we all just scuttle along to the theater(s) like lemmings because Hollywood tells us it's "better"?

Heck, I don't even know how big my TV is. It was a Christmas present from my wife's folks a couple years back. Probably no larger than 30". As to sound system, we use nothing but *gasp* the TV's speakers.

And I haven't gone to the theater in nearly 6 months. The point? Just because I can't match the theatre experience in my home doesn't mean I'm bound and determined to sprint to the cineplex. It's not only about experience, and that's where the academy president misses the point.

I don't go for a variety of reasons, but the biggest is that Hollywood hasn't released a movie in that long (~ 6 months) that I've wanted to pay for The Experience™ of watching it in the theater.

@The Filipino: It was a miscalculation. 12 million sold in 2005 + 4 million in 2004 = 16 million DTVs / 95 million homes = 1 in 6 homes. I'm not sure where you get your figures on the proportion of 20-23" DTVs being the majority of those sold, but just looking an unscientific sample of a couple of online stores -- BestBuy and Circuit City -- it seems like the majority of widescreen televisions for sale are 30" and over. Also, the CEA's target sales numbers are conservative and have been exceeded by 15% in actual sales for the past 3 years.

Also, your arbitrary price-point of $300 might be what you would require in order to purchase an HDTV, but don't confuse your preferences with the vast majority of consumers. Many don't live in a city with a cinema like the one you mention in Seattle. Many people have children and the hassle and expense of taking the family to the movies or finding childcare while they go to the movies is prohibitive or not worthwhile. Also, the trend in most aspects of modern life and entertainment in our society is towards the home. The majority of people consume music at home and watch all but the newest movies at home. Shopping at home, whether by mail-order, TV shopping channels, or Internet sales are taking more and more business from brick-and-mortar stores. A growing number of Americans work from home, whether in self-employment or by telecommuting.

Many people may find that going out to the movies is still enjoyable, but those numbers are shrinking as the movie-going experience deteriorates in many areas. Even with drastic changes in the way the movie theater industry works, I don't know that they will ever again be the huge cultural force they once were.