# I'll tell you why movie revenue is dropping...



## Niah (Dec 30, 2011)

"I'll tell you why movie revenue is dropping..." is an article by Roger Ebert...here's the link:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20111228%2FCOMMENTARY%2F111229973 (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbc ... F111229973)


----------



## noiseboyuk (Dec 30, 2011)

Niah @ Fri Dec 30 said:


> "I'll tell you why movie revenue is dropping..." is an article by Roger Ebert...here's the link:
> 
> http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20111228%2FCOMMENTARY%2F111229973 (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbc ... F111229973)



1 - yes
2 - yes
3 - yes
4 - yes
5 - yes
6 - yes (and even less forgiveable in an age of digital projection)

It costs the wife and I £30 to see a movie at the cinema with popcorn (me) and candy (her), even smuggling in our own water. Yesterday I bought 3 Blu Rays and a DVD from Blockbusters ex-rental for £2.50 each (decent titles a couple of years old I missed like Frost/Nixon). A store in town sells a ruddy huge sack of great salted popcorn for £1. Even new releases are between £10-£15 to own forever (with a ton of extra features) or £5 for pay per view in HD.

Cinema makes no sense any more. Except for two things:

1 - It gets us out of the house and away from them PESKY MEDDLIN' KIDS
2 - IMAX. Saw Mi4 and the Batman trailer yesterday, and it was worth every penny. Sod 3D, that's an experience I'm willing to pay for.


----------



## Reegs (Dec 30, 2011)

He's spot on, especially on the refreshments. It's murder. I saw the Dragon Tattoo last night. Paid $11.00 to get in. I wanted a SMALL SODA but for the ridiculous price of $4.50 I sure as heck wasn't buying.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 30, 2011)

Reegs @ Fri Dec 30 said:


> He's spot on, especially on the refreshments. It's murder. I saw the Dragon Tattoo last night. Paid $11.00 to get in. I wanted a SMALL SODA but for the ridiculous price of $4.50 I sure as heck wasn't buying.



+1 on the refreshments. Last movie I went to. Took the wife and kid. Tickets 13.50 each. Didn't mind so much. 3d and all. Candy and drink for my son, popcorn and soda for me and the wifey. $30 extra >8o


----------



## Ed (Dec 30, 2011)

In the Uk expect to pay over £10 a ticket as standard, even more for a 3D film. £10 is about $15.5!!

I only go to the cinema when its something I know I definitely want to see, like Sherlock 2 or something


----------



## gsilbers (Dec 30, 2011)

hmm.. i think i only agree on the part about movie streaming competition.. the rest has in most part has been the same way for a more than a few years. 

i think imo, that a lot has to do with the big wigs 
..

before december year end block busters there was about 2 months w/o anything good showings. 

now, there is 6 great movies all at once. 
im a fan so i went to see girl/tattoo, MI4, sherlock, tintin.. 
even 2 spielberg films release at the same time!!!
but for the regular joe 1 or 2 its already too much. each studio wants to sell at the same time, making it just pretty much a seasonal thing this year. 

if those movies where released 2 weeks apart before this december, they would of sold more. 
but for the last 2 months there was absolutly no reason to go to the movies, now .. 
its too many.. so just one good movie will do. 

also, it happened before the summer season this year too. 

for me this year looked like movies was a February (Oscar relay) Aug (summer block buster) and Year end. 

well, thats my theory cause popcorn and drinks has been the same, cell phone and annoyign folks have been there and the new things is more movie streaming at home and big blockbusters trying to sell at the same time and leaving empty weekends w no good reason to go to the movies.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 30, 2011)

I've probably left some out, but there were a few really great films this year:

The Artist
Margin Call
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
My Week With Marilyn
Hugo
The Lady

And some others that were very good, such as War Horse, Contagion, and Midnight in Paris (in spite of the fact that Woody Allen shows total contempt for the medium of film music, and also he still creeps me out).


----------



## rgames (Dec 30, 2011)

About a week ago I saw a film in the theater for the first time in about 15 years.

Expensive, uncomfortable, loud - just the way I remembered the experience. I hate movie theaters 

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 30, 2011)

We go to 50-60 movies a year.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 30, 2011)

rgames @ Fri Dec 30 said:


> About a week ago I saw a film in the theater for the first time in about 15 years.
> 
> Expensive, uncomfortable, loud - just the way I remembered the experience. I hate movie theaters
> 
> rgames



Do you ever fear that when you're 70 you'll look back on life and realize you never enjoyed yourself?


----------



## choc0thrax (Dec 30, 2011)

This year has been terrible for films. I literally only like 2 films that came out this year. Liked Super 8 and loved Midnight In Paris a lot. Woody can molest all the kids he wants, it won't stop me from liking the film.

Movie theatres are annoying. The only thing I like is going to IMAX. Not that IMAX digital garbage but the full-on big IMAX screen ones. I dunno, maybe it's the higher IMAX prices but they seem to keep out some of the riff raff who like to text in front of me during the film. Otherwise I might as well just stay home and watch a movie on Bluray on my 120 inch screen. I've even bought myself rope lighting to put on the floor kinda like a theatre.

I think every city needs a theatre like the Alamo Drafthouse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L3eeC2lJZs&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L3eeC2l ... r_embedded)

For the longest time people have been talking about 3d. 3d this, 3d that. Fuck 3d. That shit is garbage. IMAX is the way to go. Start filming more stuff in that format. Figure out a way to make the cameras quieter so you can shoot dialogue scenes and not have to ADR everything.

I think Ebert is right though, there are many reasons why fewer people go to theatres now. I don't buy the whole snack prices are higher argument. Just bring your own goddamned snacks. If you have an IQ over 60 you'll find a way to sneak them in. We've put people on the moon... probably.


----------



## david robinson (Dec 30, 2011)

i can't smoke a joint in a cinema.
j.


----------



## choc0thrax (Dec 30, 2011)

david robinson @ Sat Dec 31 said:


> i can't smoke a joint in a cinema.
> j.



My friends always buy the tickets at the theatre then go outside and smoke one before heading back in. Of course this is Canada so you can just wander crowded downtown streets smoking all you want. Dunno how it is where you are.


----------



## midphase (Dec 30, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Dec 30 said:


> We go to 50-60 movies a year.



Hey...industry screenings don't count!


----------



## david robinson (Dec 30, 2011)

choc0thrax @ Fri Dec 30 said:


> david robinson @ Sat Dec 31 said:
> 
> 
> > i can't smoke a joint in a cinema.
> ...



mate, this is australia.
drug dogs, etc.
big push from wine/beer co's to keep pot illegal.
plus with all the lebs and asian, who don't want to break the rules, we have a sad Nannie state.
everyone's on gov't payments, and the most important thing is THERE'S NO work here for artists.
30yrs ago, this was not the case.
j.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Dec 31, 2011)

gsilbers @ Sat Dec 31 said:


> hmm.. i think i only agree on the part about movie streaming competition.. the rest has in most part has been the same way for a more than a few years.
> 
> i think imo, that a lot has to do with the big wigs



The ticket / concessions prices are important this year, and here's two reasons why. 1 - the general economic downturn. More people are having to be choosy about what they see. 2 - everyone has their price. For us, 2011 was the year when we went "hold on a minute". It was ticket prices - 2D went from £8.50 to £9.50. Only a £1 rise, but had a much bigger psychological effect... 2 tickets go from just over £15 to nearly £20, and you start to ask the question... how badly to I REALLY want to see this film? Absolutely no doubt we raised the criteria barrier this year and saw less than usual, and price was the single biggest factor.

As for the Oscar-rush, this too is an old phenomenon. I too have found times of the year where there's nothing I want to watch, but 2 things on that - 1, I'm not the entire audience, others will be well served by the films I don't like and 2, cinemas are terrible at scheduling, as Ebert says. Each week I listen to the BBC Mark Kermode and Simon Mayo podcast (3rd most downloaded podcast in the world, fact-fans - it's essential and incredibly entertaining listening). Each week there is SOMETHING I'd like to see. But when I look at the cinema listings, all too often none of these films are there. Last month Take Shelter sounded awesome... where the hell was it? Certainly nowhere near me. Ebert makes this very point, and in an era of digital projection it makes no sense. You can have a different film on every day in every screen if you want... cinemas need to embrace the technology they now have and be a bit more creative about scheduling.

I thought a while ago there should also have an Independent Cinema club, like mothers and toddlers screenings etc. Tickets are half price, and they show carefully selected lower budget and world cinema, the kind of film that usually gets a very limited release or none at all, yet gets the rave reviews. The economics of distribution in days of old really worked against this type of film - now it's a cinch, once digitised it's the press of a button. So a couple of days a week you'd get a really interesting alternative to the mainstream fare.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Dec 31, 2011)

david robinson @ 31/12/2011 said:


> mate, this is australia.
> drug dogs, etc.
> big push from wine/beer co's to keep pot illegal.
> plus with all the lebs and asian, who don't want to break the rules, we have a sad Nannie state.
> ...



Sorry to hear! I thought things were better in Oz. 

Drug dogs?!!


----------



## George Caplan (Dec 31, 2011)

[quote="Reegs @ Fri Dec 30, 2011 7:42 pm" I saw the Dragon Tattoo last night. [/quote]

was it good?

i dont go to the theater at all mainly due to paranoia. but im always keen to know what people think so later i can rent the dvd.


----------



## George Caplan (Dec 31, 2011)

josejherring @ Fri Dec 30 said:


> rgames @ Fri Dec 30 said:
> 
> 
> > About a week ago I saw a film in the theater for the first time in about 15 years.
> ...



every day. but then the fear of not making it to 70 outweighs the fear of not enjoying yourself.


----------



## rgames (Dec 31, 2011)

josejherring @ Sat Dec 31 said:


> Do you ever fear that when you're 70 you'll look back on life and realize you never enjoyed yourself?


Absolutely, that's why I avoid movie theaters!

Putting my feet up with a few glasses of wine while watching a movie is, to me, a much more enjoyable way of taking it in. It's not like a concert or live theater - the medium is inherently pre-recorded, so why not watch the replay in the most comfortable location?

We were in Manhattan last year and took our kids to see the Lion King. That was expensive - about $850 for a family of four - and less comfortable than sitting at home, but it was worth it. Movies, though - dunno. I just prefer watching them at home.

rgames


----------



## david robinson (Dec 31, 2011)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Sat Dec 31 said:


> david robinson @ 31/12/2011 said:
> 
> 
> > mate, this is australia.
> ...



yup ned, sniffer dogs, on trains and in pubs/bars, mainly.
NSW, is a nanny state. run by the cops.
almost like big brother.
not good.
would love to come to Canada, but i fear it's be too cold for me.
i might move up north around Byron Bay soon. warmer than Sydney.
around that area, there's a lot of musos and lotza crops. lol.
re: going to movies?
these places are packed with kids and they are noisy.
can't concentrate on the film with that going on.
i like some of today's flicks and music in them, but really, i prefer the greats, as
i know most do here.

Happy New Year.

j.


----------



## midphase (Dec 31, 2011)

One of the things that never gets discussed when talking about the drop in people going to the movie theaters is the incredible uptake in earnings from home entertainment systems.

There is a yin and yang relationship here that can't be ignored. If you look at the overall spending trends, you'll see that whatever amounts might have been lost by the entertainment industry, have been more than gained by the electronics industry.

In essence, people's home movie watching experiences are much more rewarding than they have ever been. Back in the old "analog" days (which for most of us weren't that long ago), a 32" TV was considered pretty big...and it also involved watching most films in a shrunk letterbox format.

Nowadays 32" HDTV is a starting point, with most of my friends having TV's in the 50" and above range. Blu Ray, HD streams, these have made the home movie watching experience a great one.

So I'm with Richard on this one...enjoying a great film while in the comfort of my home with a great HD picture and my 7.1 sound system provides a much more enjoyable experience than getting my ass to the Arclight where I'm paying $3 to park, $13/ticket, $6 for popcorn and another $4.5 for a small drink.

Of course there are exceptions like the big IMAX features or the 3D Pixars...and I bet if I had kids, my experience would be rather different. But overall...on movies like Thor or Sherlock Holmes...I'm perfectly content on waiting until the Blu Ray comes to Netflix and I can watch it at home.


----------



## choc0thrax (Dec 31, 2011)

midphase @ Sat Dec 31 said:


> But overall...on movies like Thor or Sherlock Holmes...I'm perfectly content on waiting until the Blu Ray comes to Netflix and I can watch it at home.



I'd advise you to set up a trash can under your mail slot so the Thor envelope can slide directly to where it belongs.


----------



## Ed (Dec 31, 2011)

You guys in the US still have it CHEAP compared with the UK. $13 a ticket? Thats only £8.30

Also, you guys have cheaper McDonalds too.


----------



## Nostradamus (Dec 31, 2011)

What I really, REALLY hate are youth playing around with their f*cking moblie phones. Sometimes they even try to film the movie or parts of it holding their crappy iPhone or whatever in front of your eyes.


----------



## midphase (Dec 31, 2011)

Ed @ Sat Dec 31 said:


> You guys in the US still have it CHEAP compared with the UK. $13 a ticket? Thats only £8.30
> 
> Also, you guys have cheaper McDonalds too.




Hmmm...why do you think everyone is so fat around here?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 31, 2011)

> Hey...industry screenings don't count!



Hey, we pay $100/year to see those films at the Writers Guild theater!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 31, 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L3eeC2lJZs

A minute and a half worth spending.


----------



## Reegs (Dec 31, 2011)

George Caplan @ Sat Dec 31 said:


> Reegs @ Fri Dec 30 said:
> 
> 
> > I saw the Dragon Tattoo last night.
> ...



It was. Well-paced, good direction, and great acting. I don't remember the underscore, so it probably did its job well. I hadn't read the books and enjoyed it. My girlfriend has read the books and also enjoyed it, for what it's worth. Neither of us has seen the 2009 Indie version. 

To address the refreshments, we did sneak snacks in, but we each have a soft spot for blue raspberry Icee's so we usually split a large.

Without derailing the topic, I like seeing films on a big screen with people. Comedies especially because it seems like you laugh more. And explosions. Explosions are better. :D


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 31, 2011)

The Swedish Dragon Tattoo series is outstsanding.

We're going to see the remakes, but my expectations aren't very high.


----------



## Ed (Dec 31, 2011)

I havent seen the Sweedish of Dragon Tattoo, but I feel like its probably not going to look as expensive as that kind of story requires. Borne on a tiny budget wouldnt be the same, you know? Sometimes I feel people say a "Hollywood" version is bad just because for no good reason. Like, ooh it looks arty and different I guess it must be better. I wouldnt say the US version can be called a remake since the original is a book.


----------



## choc0thrax (Jan 1, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Dec 31 said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L3eeC2lJZs
> 
> A minute and a half worth spending.



Dude, I like totally posted that already above.


----------



## George Caplan (Jan 1, 2012)

Reegs @ Sat Dec 31 said:


> It was. Well-paced, good direction, and great acting. I don't remember the underscore, so it probably did its job well. I hadn't read the books and enjoyed it. My girlfriend has read the books and also enjoyed it, for what it's worth. Neither of us has seen the 2009 Indie version.



my wife is scandinavian and she reads them all. the swedish made version was a little bit tv guide but quite good nevertheless.


----------



## TheUnfinished (Jan 1, 2012)

I was a bit disappointed by the US remake of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. It looked great and the acting was mostly terrific, but the last half hour or so just went off the rails. 

One of the main things missing was the uncomfortable atmosphere of the Swedish version. The 'threat' didn't seem real in the US version.

But what I particularly didn't like was Fincher's interpretation of the Salander character. He seemed to miss the point, softening her (she's a sociopath for goodness sake!) and also trying to make her sexy - which rather misses the point of the bloody book! And Noomi Rapace IS Lisbeth Salander.

I did enjoy it up until the last act though. Just felt that Fincher's version didn't bring much more than money to the project.

As for the score. It's brooding and electronic, but a bit patchy in quality. Nothing special, I felt that it needed to be blended with a bit of real orchestra here and there. The score to the Swedish version is pretty good. There was also rather too much "here comes a scary bit" atonal synth stuff, that gave too much away.

I absolutely love going to the cinema. I deliberately signed up to Orange so I could egt cheap tickets on Wednesdays!


----------



## Jonik (Jan 1, 2012)

I've signed up for UK cineworld's unlimited club. £15 a month and you can see as many films as you like, with an additional £1.50 for 3d films. considering I see more than 3 a month it's worth it!!!

I do sneak snacks and bottled water in though...


----------



## midphase (Jan 1, 2012)

Ed @ Sat Dec 31 said:


> I havent seen the Sweedish of Dragon Tattoo, but I feel like its probably not going to look as expensive as that kind of story requires. Borne on a tiny budget wouldnt be the same, you know? Sometimes I feel people say a "Hollywood" version is bad just because for no good reason. Like, ooh it looks arty and different I guess it must be better. I wouldnt say the US version can be called a remake since the original is a book.



Actually the Swedish version has really great production value. When my wife first dragged me to see it and I had no idea what it was, I found myself completely blown away by how slick and "hollywood" this unknown Swedish film looked. Plus the score was fucking brilliant.

My main reason for not really wanting to see the USA version is because I had absolutely no issues whatsoever with the production of the Swedish version...same thing with Let the Right One In, and apparently I wasn't the only one given the rather disappointing box office receipts of Let me In.


----------



## midphase (Jan 1, 2012)

Crap....I post and then something else comes to mind:

For a good example of how the "Hollywood" version of a film tends to suck when compared to the original...take a look at The Vanishing. Ironically both versions were directed by the same director...except that the original version is brilliant, and the Keifer Southerland version sucks so bad.


And speaking of Keifer....go see Lars Von Trier's Melancholia...it's a stunning and brilliant film!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 1, 2012)

> I havent seen the Sweedish of Dragon Tattoo, but I feel like its probably not going to look as expensive as that kind of story requires.



F "expensive."

Go see all three of the Swedish ones. You'll see that your guess couldn't be farther off.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 1, 2012)

And I see Kays sort of says the same thing.

There are lots of examples of remakes that don't work anywhere near as well as the original, in fact I'd venture to guess that's the norm rather than the exception (because if the original bar weren't high then why remake it?).

Pardon Mon Affaire is one of the funniest movies ever, but Woman in Red (the remake) was just okay. Same with Cousin Cousine.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 1, 2012)

> Dude, I like totally posted that already above



Ah, sorry about that. I normally skip over your posts, so I missed it.


----------



## choc0thrax (Jan 1, 2012)

It costs a lot of money to film people walking around in snow and sitting at laptops doing research.

The American version of GWTDT is generally getting lousy reviews from those that have seen it. Something about there not being any mystery about who did the crime. It would be getting even worse reviews but Fincher's name is on it and people have drunk the cool-aid on that guy.


----------



## choc0thrax (Jan 1, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Jan 01 said:


> > Dude, I like totally posted that already above
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, sorry about that. I normally skip over your posts, so I missed it.



You should just set me to ignore. Would save you the trouble of scrolling past my crap.


----------



## Dan Mott (Jan 2, 2012)

Hello guys.

I live in Melbourne Australia and I do not enjoy going to the cinema anymore because the sound is WAY too loud for me. It's now become uncomfortable to sit there and watch for a couple of hours. I rememeber it never used to be this loud because I would love going and sitting on comfortable chairs, eating chips and enjoying the film with great sound. 

The last few movies I went to, I had to block my ears in the loud parts. It was just insane. I remember seeing Fast and the Furious and the car sounds where just ear piercing! It's a real shame. I don't know what it's like for the rest of you, but for me it's a terrible listening experience. Maybe people are just going deaf?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 2, 2012)

I like the crap, choc, it's the cynical sick crap I don't like.


----------



## midphase (Jan 2, 2012)

Dan-Jay @ Mon Jan 02 said:


> I don't know what it's like for the rest of you, but for me it's a terrible listening experience. Maybe people are just going deaf?



Don't worry...the older you get the more you'll be doing this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3_HHZFi0As


----------



## Dan Mott (Jan 2, 2012)

midphase @ Tue Jan 03 said:


> Dan-Jay @ Mon Jan 02 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know what it's like for the rest of you, but for me it's a terrible listening experience. Maybe people are just going deaf?
> ...



Hhaha. Nice one.

Can I just ask on a serious note. Is it really an age thing? We get more deaf as we get older, I thought it would be the opposite.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 2, 2012)

Your ears can become more sensitive.

But mine have always been that way. I use custom moulded earplugs in most theaters.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 3, 2012)

Dan-Jay @ Tue Jan 03 said:


> Can I just ask on a serious note. Is it really an age thing? We get more deaf as we get older, I thought it would be the opposite.



I find the quality much more important than the sheer volume as to whether it bothers me.

Two examples - Exhibit A, the IMAX of the Batman trailler last week. Unbelievably loud. The double bass rips nearly ruptured my rib cage. And yet it wasn't painful at all, because it is was very good quality, with most of the energy in LF / sub LF. It was actually dead cool.

Exhibit B - The Quantum of Solace in the local mulitplex a couple of years a go. I'm still scarred. It was brutalising. Screamingly loud, and "screaming" is the right adjective. Just a barrage of hideous noise that did nothing to deflect your attention from the atrotious narrative and editing. It was what it must have felt like to be in Guantanamo.

Probably in terms of pure wattage, Exhibit A would beat exhibit B, but it had a very different effect.

As to getting older... well I am. I find myself getting much more intolerant of bad quality sound and general loud chaotic environments. The recent indoor school christmas fair was a low point - everyone yelling and screaming anyway, and the organisers decided to play "cheery" christmas music through a terrible PA ABOVE the level of the chatter, which of course made everyone shout even more. The voices in my head started to drown everything out at that point, so we beat a hasty retreat before I wound up on the news.

I think what happens as our hearing slowly deteriorates with age is that we lose the ability for fine detail, which helps in such environments, and helps us cope with bad quality sound - it may not be fun, but the brain sort of makes better sense of it all because there's more detail going in. When that detail is compromised, it becomes unbearable. I'm definitely more sensitive to loud bad quality sound than I used to be, but I still love loud and good quality. Interestingly, bad quality loud is actually more damaging to your hearing too - the clipped transients of distortion apparently do more damage than clean sound even at the same level. Distorted in-ear buds are pretty much the worst thing you can do to your ears.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 3, 2012)

So we saw Dragon Tattoo last night.

It was very good, way better than I feared it would be. I still like the original better, however, mainly because the girl's vulnerability held the whole story together (and conversely her strength in the remake made had the opposite effect). There were other thing that were more powerful in the original too...but no question, if someone asked whether they should see this one I'd say yes without hesitation.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 3, 2012)

nbuk - in other words, the ouch freqs in the upper midrange (1.5-5k?) really do hurt.

That's actually a danger: lower freqs carry much more potentially ear-damaging energy, yet they don't hurt.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 3, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jan 03 said:


> nbuk - in other words, the ouch freqs in the upper midrange (1.5-5k?) really do hurt.
> 
> That's actually a danger: lower freqs carry much more potentially ear-damaging energy, yet they don't hurt.



I'd be interested to see some research on that - I'm not aware that LF presents a greater danger to hearing loss. Typically it's the mids or HF that goes first - it's not uncommon for even a severe hearing loss to still have a solid LF response, it's just all the most useful stuff that's been eroded.

I remember when I had an audilogy test when I joined the BBC over 20 years ago that they noticed a small dip at around 6k (I think it was 6k, can't be 100% sure). What freaked me out was that they immediately asked "do you own a Walkman?" and of course I did. They said that was a classic profile for repeated exposure to headphones.

It looks to me like proximity of sound source to ear has an effect. Headphones are worse than loudspeakers, in-ear buds are worse than headphones. It touches on this in this bit of research I found googling that seems reputable - http://ec.europa.eu/health/opinions/en/ ... ge.htm#1p0


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 3, 2012)

A small dip in the intelligibility range (usually it's centered a little lower than 6K, like 4K) is normal by the time you get to your late 30s or so. I wouldn't even call that hearing loss - it's inconsequential.

As to low freqs causing loss, I didn't find anything when I searched quickly, but it stands to reason that the freqs that carry the most power would shake things about the most violently...at least that's the conventional wisdom I've always heard.

Conventional wisdom isn't always correct, however, so I could be wrong.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 3, 2012)

Actually there's a physics question I've never quite understood: higher frequency waves are higher-energy, yet obviously it takes more power to get a woofer thumping.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 4, 2012)

midphase @ Sun Jan 01 said:


> Crap....I post and then something else comes to mind:
> 
> For a good example of how the "Hollywood" version of a film tends to suck when compared to the original...take a look at The Vanishing. Ironically both versions were directed by the same director...except that the original version is brilliant, and the Keifer Southerland version sucks so bad.
> 
> ...



I guess you and I are the only two people who saw Melancholia  

I'm sorry to have to disagree with you-I thought it was brutally self indulgent (especially the endless pre-flashback beginning), the ending was obvious, the built-up dread non existent. I thought it was everything I don't like about "art" films coalesced into too many minutes. It was beautifully shot, of course, but practically everything is these days, and that doesn't compensate for the lack of meat on the bone.

I kept clicking my heels together three times, but the movie went on regardless and I stayed in my seat.


----------



## midphase (Jan 4, 2012)

Lars von Trier and brutal self indulgence are synonymous.

His power is his ability to keep you coming back for more!


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 4, 2012)

midphase @ Wed Jan 04 said:


> Lars von Trier and brutal self indulgence are synonymous.
> 
> His power is his ability to keep you coming back for more!



I would only come back for less. Wait, strike that-I won't be coming back.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 4, 2012)

Oh, I was going to say one other thing about the Dragon Tattoo remake: the choice of using an intrusive electronic sfx score (Atticus Ross/Trevor Reznik) annoyed the holy living sh out of me.

I had to shut that out in order to watch the film.

It's not that they did a bad job at all - I'm not putting down their musical skills - it's that the choice to use those annoying f-ing noises as the pallet is a) not at all subtle, and b) totally at odds with the very human psychological story. They were playing the wrong thing.

Just wrong in my opinion.

And my layman wife had the same impression, in fact that was the first thing she said.

There's a reason that, say, Jerry Goldsmith didn't do the obvious thing and use synths for Planet of the Apes.


----------

