[mcmullanbrush]

I used to be a snob when it came to home cinema enthusiasts. I noticed that people with otherwise impeccable taste would buy crash band wallop, no brain action films starring arnold schwarzenegger, silvester stallone and bruce willis.
Okay okay, now i know why, i understand, but my tastes have certainly changed. the prospect of watching an old mono film or one featuring actors talking no longer appeals to me. I have ordered Pearl Harbor even though its supposed to be rubbish, just to watch the battle scene.
Has anyone else been affected in this way?

[mjn]

can't really say i have.

I don't own "must have's" such as Star Wars Phantom Mentance, Final Fantasy, Pearl Harbour, Speed, etc

Which i know, are what people use to "show off" their systems. I just like to know, that my system will be capable of doing the film justice, should the film require it.

[Dubbing Mixer]

Can't say it has. I just watch more films. I always did like crash bang wallop but also comedies and 'talking head' movies too.

Having half way decent equipment means I notice the technical faults far more if the movie is boring but otherwise I watch the same old stuff.

I still like the same kinds of films that I always did. I've always had quite broad tastes. So I appreciate cult classics, sci-fi, romantic comedies, no-brain action films (gotta love Arnie ), drama, even kid flicks (Shrek rocks ). The difference now is just that I watch way more films and enjoy them more than I ever did. Can't say I own Final Fantasy, Speed or Pearl Harbor (I'll use the American spelling ) either because I know I won't enjoy them. But I do intend to get the Phantom Menace because I can't buy every other Star Wars DVD and leave that one out (even if it is cack)

[Ian J]

Originally posted by Dubbing Mixer
I always did like crash bang wallop

So your wife was telling me

[Dubbing Mixer]

Love the new Avatar! Errol Flynn perhaps?

[Ian J]

Dunno, I found it when trawling porn sites

[Dubbing Mixer]

Trawling porn sites? Well, with Flynn's record I guess that doesn't rule him out.

'San Quentin quail' etc......

i disagree aswell, i`m afraid :-)

i think when you first get a system set up youre drawn to the action stuff cos most of the impact of surround is shown off with this genre.....(cue loads of "this film was subtle but excellent...etc..etc) - it kind of justifies the money you`ve just spent!

however, once the novelty wears off you actually go back to watching the films that interested you enough to "get into" home cinema

i was a music fan first (and still am) and only got into surround cos "it was the way the director intended"

i wouldnt buy pearl harbour/phantom menace etc.....

but id flick through the good bits for fun if someone lent em to me!

i only buy stuff on dvd which i cant rent/ ot what comes up for 7/8 quid etc/or one i really liked... - i can rent a dvd 5 times for the cost of buying it - how many times can you watch the same film over and over?

not very "home cinema"i know, but i`ve just off loaded loads of videos that i`ve bought over the last 10 years, most of which i`ve probably watched twice/three times ........ ended up worthless........ should have rented em out!!


rob

Originally posted by robwells
how many times can you watch the same film over and over?

Oh I can watch them many, many times - particularly if it's Lynch or a good sitcom like Fawlty Towers or Red Dwarf

Action films have a good longevity too. I can't count the amount of times I've sat around with mates watching Steven Seagal films (his early ones, not his latter day ones ).

Personally, I take a chance on a lot of £7/£8 films and will pay that just to watch it once or twice. Any more and it's more than likely something that I have a good idea I'll watch a few times. I can't stand renting movies anyway - I like the freedom of owning. Plus, titles go out of print or they're not available for rental anymore. Any film that I liked enough to rent I'd want to own anyway - I can't think of any films that I liked but would only watch once. To me that's a real test of a good film - if I couldn't bear to sit through it again then it's not a good film IMO. Films like that I can watch on TV while I'm doing something else.

You're right about video though. I watched far fewer films repeatedly on VHS. That's probably to do with the poor quality of it and the setup I had. It's probably also why most of us have said that we now watch more movies than we used to. I'm busy replacing most of my VHS collection. I won't throw anything out until I get it on DVD first though.

i`ve got to admit, - i`ve seen alien/aliens/t2/hardware(!)/pulp fiction/enter the dragon more times than i care to admit to.....

also lynch films - got eraserhead/blue velvet/mulholland drive - feel that i only need to see these every now and then. (m.drive is due a re-watch though!)

theres a bloke at my work who can quote every line from so many films, and i often wonder if he enjoys watching them cos he knows exactly whats coming up!

recently i watched jacobs ladder for the first time in about 5 years, and it was great to not quite remember the plot! - still jumped in places cos i`d forgot where they were.......

oh - i`ve watched my vhs copy of airplane and young frankenstein so many times that i can quote most of the gags - i still love them though so i guess you have a point.....

cheers

rob

Originally posted by robwells
theres a bloke at my work who can quote every line from so many films, and i often wonder if he enjoys watching them cos he knows exactly whats coming up!

Probably known as Rocky Horror Syndrome?

I used to be that way with Red Dwarf. Haven't watched them for a while now though. Am holding out for the DVDs (series 1 out soon ).

the funniest thing - !

this blokes a goth and he hates rocky horror!

(one of my overwatched vhs tapes)

cheers

rob - off to bed now - got to be up at 5.45..........

[Reiner]

I would say my taste hasn't changed, action flics, thrillers and a bit of sci-fi rule but I also own others. Not so much into the "intellectual kind" of movies though.
The time that I bought a DVD just for one scene to show of my system is over, what's the point if I don't like the movie and thus never touch that title again!? That said there are two or three of those in my collection but then again there are enough movies in there, too, which also have some good if not better scenes to show off.
During the days of VHS I hardly rented a movie nor did I tape much, but since I got my first DVD I became addicted (click the link below to read the whole story) and thus ended up with some nice AV setup (still room for improvement, I know ...) which makes me re-watch movies and really enjoy it.

[Rambo John J]

Originally posted by Dubbing Mixer
Love the new Avatar! Errol Flynn perhaps?

Looks a bit like Vince Voyeur to me, he appears in a lot of Vivid porn flicks.... so I've heard.

I still like a wide mix of stuff myself. The sound format doesn't bother me at all, as long as the film's enjoyable and looks as good as the source would allow.
I don't think an expensive system is wasted on things like mono/dolby surround films - you can't own a Porsche and drive everywhere at 150 mph. That's the way I look at it, anyway (not that I drive a Porsche). It's nice to know you've got that bit of extra performance there in case you need it, but it's not essential to everyday use

Not sure my taste in films has changed much but, unfortunately, I do now find that I often spend more time checking the picture/sound quality than actually just enjoying the film I'm watching.

I also find myself being let down and demoralised if a new DVD I've bought has fairly average PQ/SQ. It sort of ruins the film, even though it might be a great film.

On the flipside there are some films I'm sure I've enjoyed more than they deserved purely because the PQ/SQ was better than I'd expected. 'Hellraiser: Inferno' is one that springs to mind.

It's a bit like once you start DJing you lose the fun of just listening to a track and end up thinking where you'd mix stuff in, where the changes in the track will come etc.

Anyone else find themselves drifting into analysing their set-up's performance rather than the actual film you're watching?

[Rambo John J]

I do find that I don't get blown away by pic or sound quality any more.
I can definitely relate to that DJing reference aswell, having been there myself many a time thinking "now, what would go nicely into this one...?" and running off upstairs to hit the decks before the newly purchased disc's even got halfway through.
One day I'll have to get round to burning my old 12" vinyl onto CD rather than leaving it all sitting around in crates.

[Ian J]

Originally posted by juboy
Anyone else find themselves drifting into analysing their set-up's performance rather than the actual film you're watching?

Never. Home cinema is a means to an end and not the end itself.

[mcmullanbrush]

Does anyone find themselves desensitised to great sound?
I remember being absolutely amazed by Apocalypse Now in pro logic, and Jurassic Park the first time i heard it in 5.1.
Now i kind of expect good sound effects and sat through Jurassic Park 3 without "noticing" anything special.

"Never. Home cinema is a means to an end and not the end itself."

Although I respect your view and agree with your statement to a large extent, by saying it you're also implying that the quality of the end result is not of primary importantance to you.

You honestly never listen out to see how well your amp/speaker set up is performing? Never divert attention to your sub to check if it's integrating well? Never get distracted by artifacts or smearing at all?

Surely by simply using your HC equipment at all you are, to some degree, evaluating it's performance?

It's almost like saying a CD of a certain album will still provide the same tunes, whether played through a decent hi fi or through a walkman. Sure, the tunes ARE the same but the way you experience them is different and likely to affect your perception of the tunes.

Ever read about the experiments where people are shown the same DVD clip twice, once with high quality sound accompanying it, once with average sound quality? Interestingly, people not only noticed the obvious difference in SQ but also rated the PQ higher when seen with the high quality audio... even though it was exactly the same!

I kind of see HC like my car, it needs 98 Ron fuel to run properly so I notice the lower performance if I use regular unleaded... although it still gets me from A to B.

Same as if a new DVD is poor quality, it's not letting my HC run to it's best ability and, like with the car, when you've spent that much money on it, you prefer it to make you feel good rather than have that nagging suspicion it's not what it could be.

[kevb]

Since I have gotten into Home Cinema I find I have a problem with Cinemas themselves.

My local Odeon has 7 screens after a refitt only one of which has Digital sound, I think that is appaling. Before it only had three screens but one of the screen held about 400 people. It only had prologic sound but the screen was huge. If I pay good money to go to the cinema, bar the size of the screen, I would expect it to at least be the equal of my setup at home. Another thing DVD has brought to light for me is the quality of the prints used in cinemas. I went to see Harry Potter one week after it's release at this cinema. The print was horrible, scratches, dust and even large burn holes at one point which must have been on screen for over 30 seconds.

Just go's to show how spoiled I am by DVD transfers.

Another thing about home cinema is you can choose who you view your films with. No anoying ****ers with bags of sweets and popcorn right behind you and no tallest man in the world sitting in front.

Kevb: I know exactly what you mean, cinemas are becoming worse and worse in their presentation of films. I've actually written to our local Cineworld complaining as they literally just leave the lights on during the films nowadays. Their response was that it was a 'health and safety' issue and they had to have a certain amount of ambient lighting. Daft.

I also had a conversation with the manager about the small screen they showed 'Black Hawk Down' on and said I'd be better off watching it at home as my HC was better than the screen they showed it on... his response? 'Yeah, I prefer watching films at home too'.

That's kind of like the head honcho of your local BMW dealership telling you he prefers travelling by bus...

The R1s are out either as soon as the movie hits the cinemas here or not long after that, so you don't even have the advantages of early viewing anymore.

Take K-Pax for example. As soon as I saw the film posters advertising it, the R1 was available within a week or two!

SGod: Yeah, you're right. I've just ordered 'Resident Evil' on R1 as it'll be with me probably 10 to 14 days after it first opens at the cinema.

Plus it comes with a copy of the new Slipknot video which, worryingly, I find I quite like!

[kevb]

To say one good thing about the manager at my local. When I went to see Star Wars Episode Two. I noticed the sound was terrible screen really small ect. PQ was good as this was on the monday after release. I took the day off to see the film in the afternoon so there would be no kids around.

on the wayout asked the guy on the ticket desk if it was being shown on any other screen he said yes on the same one as I had seen HP and hadn't I been offered the choice.

He asked if I would Like to see the manager. Said yes told him the story. Explained that the reason you come to see a film like this at the cinema was because of the sound ect. He said he was sorry but this was due to the small capacity of the screens. I should have been offered a choice this is when he told me about only one screen having Digital Sound. It is EX which is a bonus.
Offered me a refund on the tickets and to go back and see it in screen with the DD EX sound.

No my tastes haven't changed, Delphi hugs her laserdisc collection.

[Ian J]

Originally posted by juboy
"Never. Home cinema is a means to an end and not the end itself."

Although I respect your view and agree with your statement to a large extent, by saying it you're also implying that the quality of the end result is not of primary importantance to you.

Bit late in coming back on this one but you have completely misinterpreted what I said.

I don't go to the cinema to analyse the sound system I go to watch the film and I don't go to Art Galleries to admire the frames but to see the pictures.

Likewise with home cinema, it is only a means to reproduce the film. Whether I had a cheap starter system or a more expensive upgrade, I set it up, tinkered with it then used it to watch films.

That is one of the reasons that I don't come into this forum very often as I feel that there is too much emphasis here on whether a DVD has DTS or some other technical attribute than on the film itself.

One of the best DVD's that I have seen here is Amelie but when someone started a "Just seen Amelie" thread only two or three people bothered to join in as it doesn't have any explosions or aliens in it.

[mcmullanbrush]

You make a very good point Ian

This is a subject i am very interested in. If someone had told me eight or nine years ago that I would own some of the DVDs that i have now, I would have called them a lying scumbag.

Despite what i indicated in my opening post, my tastes havent so much changed as expanded. My favourite twenty or thirty films has changed very little in the last five years. Most of them are "talking head" movies with no aliens or explosions.

What I do find now is that because I have a reasonable home cinema set up, I tend towards the bigger "crash bang wallop films" to fulfil my systems potential. Just as if I had a Ferrari I would look for opportunities to drive it fast.

[Ian J]

There is no doubt that Independence Day or U571 is more enjoyable with a capable sound system as the films are centred around the special effects whilst films like Amelie or K-Pax where the joy is within the script and the acting benefit less from the "home cinema" treatment.

I bought my first REL subwoofer about seven years ago so perhaps there is less novelty value for me.

I do think that many of the people who complain about some tiny digital artifact in the picture don't get as much enjoyment out of their hobby as I do as they tend to be looking for faults whereas I don't.

Bearing in mind that DVD has only been around for four or five years these people miust have had a terrible time beforehand when all they had was video. (with apologies to all laserdisc lovers)

Originally posted by Ian J


That is one of the reasons that I don't come into this forum very often as I feel that there is too much emphasis here on whether a DVD has DTS or some other technical attribute than on the film itself.

Choices choices remembers when there was only about 3 DVD DTS titles to buy well it felt like that at the time

I still play my laserdiscs My Old Baby