Idiot Douchebag Oliver Stone on the DVD Format

Oliver Stone Epic Fodder for DVD, But He's Not So Hip on the DVD format.

By Kyra Kirkwood


The new Oliver Stone epic Alexander, currently in theaters, could be a
goldmind for DVD extras. Not only does the film have some of today's
hottest actors -- Colin Farrell, Angelina Jolie, Jared Leto -- but it's
filled with rich history and lavish sets, spectacular costumes and
monumental battle scenes. The movie, which took 13 years to bring to
screen, follows the life of Alexander the Great, a man who conquered 90
percent of the known world by the time he was 25 years old.

The Possibilities for disc extras are plentiful from a
reality-vs.-Hollywood study of the three-hour film and a look at the
luxurious costumes to Greek mythology features and a behind-the-scenes
documentary shot by Stone's 19-year-old son, Sean.

While excited about the DVD future of Alexander, Stone isn't entirely
enthusiastic about the format itself. Infact, he thinks DVDs will
destory today's cinematic experience. "It's the end of movie-movies the
way we know them," he said during a Los Angeles press event for the
film. "It's like mail-order sex, Internet sex. It's an easier way to
access the person. It's not good for us." The DVD format cheapens
movies, he added. "If you walk into a room with 5,000 DVDs, how are
going to respect movies? How do you know the good ones," Stone asked.
"It's going to LCD -- the lowest common denominator. It's making movies
into supermarket-shelf items, which is probably the best you can get at
Wal-Mart... It's hopeless."

Recently, Warner Home Video released an encyclopedic collection of
Stone's work, packed with extra features from 12 of his famous films,
like JFK, Platoon and Wall Street. Also included are documentaries such
as Persona Non Grata and Looking for Fidel. So it's not as if Stone
boycotts the format; he knows the popularity of DVDs is impossible to
ignore. "Whatever the new technology is becomes the money maker, not
necessarily rightly," he said. But whatever is next on the horizon could
rock DVD's stable foundation. "The fact is, this is digital -- it's not
going to hold. People say analog is the only thing to make it," Stone
said. This could be a big scam at the end of the day. In five years, all
your DVDs are going to be worthless... There's no hope. There's only new
technology."


How ironic that Stone says there is no hope for DVDs. That's precisely
the prospect for Alexander's box office take in.
--
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we.
They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people,
and neither do we." - George Dumbya Bush

Black Locust

"Black Locust" wrote:

(snip)
>
> While excited about the DVD future of Alexander, Stone isn't entirely
> enthusiastic about the format itself. Infact, he thinks DVDs will
> destory today's cinematic experience. "It's the end of movie-movies the
> way we know them," he said during a Los Angeles press event for the
> film. "It's like mail-order sex, Internet sex. It's an easier way to
> access the person. It's not good for us." The DVD format cheapens
> movies, he added. "If you walk into a room with 5,000 DVDs, how are
> going to respect movies? How do you know the good ones," Stone asked.
> "It's going to LCD -- the lowest common denominator. It's making movies
> into supermarket-shelf items, which is probably the best you can get at
> Wal-Mart... It's hopeless."

(snip)

Disregarding easy swipes at Stone or his latest movie, he makes some very
valid points about how technology while making it easier and cheaper to get
a quality movie experience in a home environment, is cheapening and "dumbing
down" the content and overall "look" of movies these days. And he's right
that in probably less then 5 years from now, all those dvds we've bought
over the last 5 or 6 years will be as worthless as vhs or laserdiscs are now
because of whatever upcoming digital format.

I mean, speaking just for myself, why have I had to buy 5 versions of one of
my personal favorite movies, "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" since it
came out on vhs a couple decades ago? I mean, there's the vhs tape, then the
1st laserdisc version, then the Criterion LD version, then the "remastered
version, then the super-duper dvd version, ad infinitum.

Also, as we've seen, "new" versions of movies are created as an incentive to
buy the same movie again and again whether it's simply updating the
soundtrack from stereo to DD 5.1 or matted to anamorphic to a HD transfer
and on and on or worse, re-editing a movie either subtly or drastically with
every re-release until the original version is a forgotten memory.

It's easier for the industry to keep recycling proven "hits" over and over
in new versions and new formats then to nurture innovative new talent who
could be making huge strides in the cinema arts, not to mention creating new
classics. It's no coincidence that as technology vs craft has become the
dominant force in the arts, the quality of the arts has slowed and declined.
This is true not just for movies, but music and illustration as well.

T.B.

TB

"TB" <> wrote in message
news:8GPsd.5001$...
> It's no coincidence that as technology vs craft has become the dominant
> force in the arts, the quality of the arts has slowed and declined.

My favorite example of all this is CGI. This technology has pushed good
story lines to the periphery of film making. And it's also made
action/adventure films innefectual. There is no thrill in watching these
films when it's so obvious that what is happening on screen is artificial.
It causes a psychological seperation.

I'm hoping this is just a fad and filmmakers will recognize the mistake in
this. But, the trend of glitz over substance is something I've noticed
occuring since Batman I.

Bernie Woodham

"Bernie Woodham" wrote:
>
> "TB" <> wrote in message
> news:8GPsd.5001$...
>> It's no coincidence that as technology vs craft has become the dominant
>> force in the arts, the quality of the arts has slowed and declined.
>
> My favorite example of all this is CGI. This technology has pushed good
> story lines to the periphery of film making. And it's also made
> action/adventure films innefectual. There is no thrill in watching these
> films when it's so obvious that what is happening on screen is artificial.
> It causes a psychological seperation.
>
> I'm hoping this is just a fad and filmmakers will recognize the mistake in
> this. But, the trend of glitz over substance is something I've noticed
> occuring since Batman I.

A perfect example of this is the recent movie, "Sky Captain and the World of
Tomorrow." The film looks georgeous but all the money and imagination went
into the technology and design of the film, not the story and to a lesser
extent, the acting and direction.

T.B.

TB

In article <8GPsd.5001$>,
"TB" <> wrote:

> Disregarding easy swipes at Stone or his latest movie, he makes some very
> valid points about how technology while making it easier and cheaper to get
> a quality movie experience in a home environment, is cheapening and "dumbing
> down" the content and overall "look" of movies these days. And he's right
> that in probably less then 5 years from now, all those dvds we've bought
> over the last 5 or 6 years will be as worthless as vhs or laserdiscs are now
> because of whatever upcoming digital format.

Not entirely true. The Laserdisc format is essentially dead, but there
are still LD's selling on eBay for $100 and upwards. Sure, VHS is
worthless, but wasn't it pretty much always worthless? It was always a
disposable low quality rental junk product that was marketed to the
bottom feeders who think Adam Sandler movies are quality works of
cinema. So I don't buy this "all your dvds will be worthless in 5 years"
nonsense. Sure, some DVDs will, but many already are even when we're
still in the formats prime. Look at how many DVDs you can find in
Wal-Marts bargin bin. It all depends on the quality of the movie, the
audio/video quality and the bonus features.

And why is this argument seemingly always used against DVDs, but never
CDs? We're told to boycott DVDs because something better will come along
in a few years, but why arne't we told to do the same with CDs? First we
had vinyl records, then 8-tracks, then cassette tapes and now CDs.
Oliver Stone says it's because DVDs are digital. HELLO, so are CDs. SACD
and DVD-A have come along to try and kill the CD and look, the CD is
still going strong while those formats continue to go absolutely no
where. Why should it be any different for DVDs?

> T.B.
>
>
--
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we.
They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people,
and neither do we." - George Dumbya Bush

Black Locust

"Black Locust" <> wrote in message
news:bl2112-...
> In article <8GPsd.5001$>,
> "TB" <> wrote:
>
>> Disregarding easy swipes at Stone or his latest movie, he makes some very
>> valid points about how technology while making it easier and cheaper to
>> get
>> a quality movie experience in a home environment, is cheapening and
>> "dumbing
>> down" the content and overall "look" of movies these days. And he's right
>> that in probably less then 5 years from now, all those dvds we've bought
>> over the last 5 or 6 years will be as worthless as vhs or laserdiscs are
>> now
>> because of whatever upcoming digital format.
>
> Not entirely true. The Laserdisc format is essentially dead, but there
> are still LD's selling on eBay for $100 and upwards. Sure, VHS is
> worthless, but wasn't it pretty much always worthless? It was always a
> disposable low quality rental junk product that was marketed to the
> bottom feeders who think Adam Sandler movies are quality works of
> cinema. So I don't buy this "all your dvds will be worthless in 5 years"
> nonsense. Sure, some DVDs will, but many already are even when we're
> still in the formats prime. Look at how many DVDs you can find in
> Wal-Marts bargin bin. It all depends on the quality of the movie, the
> audio/video quality and the bonus features.
>
> And why is this argument seemingly always used against DVDs, but never
> CDs? We're told to boycott DVDs because something better will come along
> in a few years, but why arne't we told to do the same with CDs? First we
> had vinyl records, then 8-tracks, then cassette tapes and now CDs.
> Oliver Stone says it's because DVDs are digital. HELLO, so are CDs. SACD
> and DVD-A have come along to try and kill the CD and look, the CD is
> still going strong while those formats continue to go absolutely no
> where. Why should it be any different for DVDs?
>
>> T.B.
>>


You're exactly right. HD-DVDs (or whatever the next format will be) will
probably not take over DVDs like DVDs took over VHS. The reason is because
it doesn't offer the same kind of monumental leap in technology and features
that DVD did over VHS. All that's improving is the resolution of the video.
And since DVD is pretty damn good (brilliant actually in alot of cases), I
predict many people won't jump ship to HD-DVD.

The same thing happened in music like you said. CDs came out and it was a
huge improvment over tapes. Not only was the sound alot better, but you had
a ton of extra features: instant track selection, no rewinding, extra
durability, etc. So it clicked with the masses. But when SACD and DVD-A
came out, people didn't get into it because it offered nothing other than
improved sound. But for most people, the sound was good enough already on
CDs. Heck, the format taking over now is MP3/WMA which has inferior sound
to CDs. But it's taking off because of the convenience factor and the extra
features (storing all your music on a device that fits in your pocket,
accessing your music by artist name, album name, genre, etc.).

So only a new format that provides a ton of new, useful features will ever
fully dethrone DVD. In fact, it'll probably be a similar format to MP3/WMA.
The true next-gen of movies will probably not be stored on any optical disc.
Instead of going to Best Buy, you'll just download the movie from
BestBuy.com. Then load it up on your PVS (Personal Video Server). Then on
your TV you'll be able to select which movie you want to watch, similar to
how you search for a movie on a web site like IMDB (by actor name, by title,
by director, by year, by genre, by plot keyword, etc.)


Dan

Dan P.

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:01:00 -0600, Black Locust wrote:
> While excited about the DVD future of Alexander, Stone isn't entirely
> enthusiastic about the format itself. Infact, he thinks DVDs will
> destory today's cinematic experience. "It's the end of movie-movies the
> way we know them," he said during a Los Angeles press event for the
> film. "It's like mail-order sex, Internet sex. It's an easier way to
> access the person. It's not good for us."

I don't know what Stone thinks "Internet sex" actually is, but looking at
porn online doesn't hold a candle to actual sex. DVDs are not going to
kill "movie-movies" anymore than the internet has stopped people from
having real sex.

> The DVD format cheapens
> movies, he added. "If you walk into a room with 5,000 DVDs, how are
> going to respect movies? How do you know the good ones," Stone asked.

Couldn't the same be said of, say, multiplexes? How does anyone know
whether any film is good? Stone here seems to be deriding the amount of
choice DVDs give you. I really don't see how having the ability to watch
thousands of films, which includes hundreds of little-seen and independent
films, could be anything other than a *good* thing.

> "The fact is, this is digital -- it's not going to hold.
> People say analog is the only thing to make it," Stone said.

I'd really like to know who these people are who say that. They're
probably the same people who predicted that CDs would never catch on.

-Jay

Jay G.

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 04:37:13 GMT, TB wrote:
> "Bernie Woodham" wrote:
>> "TB" <> wrote m...
>>> It's no coincidence that as technology vs craft has become the dominant
>>> force in the arts, the quality of the arts has slowed and declined.
>>
>> My favorite example of all this is CGI. This technology has pushed good
>> story lines to the periphery of film making. And it's also made
>> action/adventure films innefectual. There is no thrill in watching these
>> films when it's so obvious that what is happening on screen is artificial.
>> It causes a psychological seperation.
>>
>> I'm hoping this is just a fad and filmmakers will recognize the mistake in
>> this. But, the trend of glitz over substance is something I've noticed
>> occuring since Batman I.

Tim Burton's Batman was made largely sans CGI effects.

> A perfect example of this is the recent movie, "Sky Captain and the World of
> Tomorrow." The film looks georgeous but all the money and imagination went
> into the technology and design of the film, not the story and to a lesser
> extent, the acting and direction.

This isn't really CGI's fault though. The acting and directing could've
been awful with stop-motion or miniatures. The weakness of a story
wouldn't have been improved by simply an alternate shooting method. CGI is
just a tool. When someone misuses a tool, it's the person's fault, not the
tool's.

-Jay

Jay G.

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 02:42:12 GMT, TB wrote:
>
> Disregarding easy swipes at Stone or his latest movie, he makes some very
> valid points about how technology while making it easier and cheaper to get
> a quality movie experience in a home environment, is cheapening and "dumbing
> down" the content and overall "look" of movies these days.

How is it exactly doing that, and how is it different "these days" than it
was with VHS and LD? Actually, since DVDs more often than not come in OAR
instead of the traditional 4:3 reformatting on VHS and TV, aren't movies
becoming *less* dumbed down with DVD?

> And he's right
> that in probably less then 5 years from now, all those dvds we've bought
> over the last 5 or 6 years will be as worthless as vhs or laserdiscs are now
> because of whatever upcoming digital format.


> I mean, speaking just for myself, why have I had to buy 5 versions of one of
> my personal favorite movies, "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" since it
> came out on vhs a couple decades ago? I mean, there's the vhs tape, then the
> 1st laserdisc version, then the Criterion LD version, then the "remastered
> version, then the super-duper dvd version, ad infinitum.

You never "had" to buy more than one copy. You bought multiple copies
because, presumably, each one was better in some way than your previous
one. And studios re-releasing films isn't restricted to new media; there
were multiple VHS releases of "Close Encounters" as well.

> Also, as we've seen, "new" versions of movies are created as an incentive to
> buy the same movie again and again whether it's simply updating the
> soundtrack from stereo to DD 5.1 or matted to anamorphic to a HD transfer
> and on and on or worse, re-editing a movie either subtly or drastically with
> every re-release until the original version is a forgotten memory.

Certainly studios look for ways to re-sell a product, although they're not
necessarily looking to re-sell it to the exact same people. New
soundtracks and transfers are usually considered *improvements* though.
Again, you don't have to buy the new version simply because it exists, but
I don't see why we should begrudge a studio for releasing a better product
down the road. We don't get ****ed at TV makers when they release a better
product the very next *year* as the model we bought.

Also, I don't think Stone would quite side with you regarding your bitching
about Director's cuts.

> It's easier for the industry to keep recycling proven "hits" over and over
> in new versions and new formats then to nurture innovative new talent who
> could be making huge strides in the cinema arts, not to mention creating new
> classics.

Studios often funnel the money coming in from DVD sales into making new
films. It's just another source of revenue, which includes another way for
a film that say, is struggling at the box-office, to make a profit.

-Jay

Jay G.

"TB" <> wrote in
news:8GPsd.5001$:

> I mean, speaking just for myself, why have I had to buy 5 versions of
> one of my personal favorite movies, "Close Encounters of the Third
> Kind" since it came out on vhs a couple decades ago? I mean, there's
> the vhs tape, then the 1st laserdisc version, then the Criterion LD
> version, then the "remastered version, then the super-duper dvd
> version, ad infinitum.

If you love a movie enough to buy it 5 times, I can't describe that
as "cheap", either in terms of your wallet or how you treat the movie.
There is dedication there.

I find myself disagreeing with a lot of what Stone has said here.
DVD may turn movies into a commodity, but that damage was done long
ago, when studios started releasing 16mm prints for private use. On
the other hand, the practicality of the small shiny disc has allowed
people to re-visit and reflect upon their old movies at will, with no
loss in quality.

And why fault technology for advancing? The technology that creates
movies didn't stay stagnant for the last century, why would the technology
that shows them be any different?



--

Aaron J. Bossig

http://www.GodsLabRat.com
http://www.dvdverdict.com

Aaron J. Bossig