I work in a nonprofit, art house cinema, but okay.

I have a big tv, this way of watching is strictly voluntary.

I don't have anything to add except I remember that interview and it was great.

I wouldn't say that I'm not missing anything, nor that the experiences of the film are identical between my laptop and the cinema. But I don't think that those things I'm missing constitute the "actual film" in a way that's significant to what I watch movies for.

If I have this right, and I might not: image and sound are recorded separately, and the image is 65mm when filmed, but is printed on 70mm stock for projection. The image still only takes up 65mm, the extra 5mm on the stock goes to six-track analog sound, which wouldn't fit on 35mm projection stock. So it has nothing…

Agreed, and I think spectacle is certain something to consider when talking about movies. I definitely enjoy it, and I still go to the theater. But I don't think a cinephile's desire for spectacle and scale is any different from the "average moviegoer's," and I think the cinephilic obsession with 70mm runs on the…

You definitely don't have to engage, and feel free to ignore this, but just to explain my use of "data": one of the distinguishing features of digital cinema, as opposed to film, is that images are basically editable metadata. Film negatives have generation loss, but digital has data compression. So when we talk about…

That's my point, though, I don't think there's a "proper experience" of a movie.

For sure. Godard takes this to his own idiosyncratic extremes, of course. Steven Soderbergh, too. Fincher takes advantage of the post-production possibilities digital offers, even if his "look" remains basically filmic.

I'm with you, but at the same time, I think digital stuff looks great as often as film did. It has a different texture than film, for sure, but so do different film stocks, different pulldowns, etc. I don't really know what people are referring to when they say we should make digital look better. I think the bigger…

I tried to refrain from reverse snobbery—looking over my comment, I'm not sure where you're seeing it. People get to like 70mm, and I'm going to see Hateful Eight in it if I can, but I reject the notion that there is a "pure" way of engaging with a movie.

lol I know, but my screen has a high resolution, and it allows me to see everything going on in the frame at once, but I can look at little details as desired.

I prefer watching movies on my 15" laptop screen with good speakers than literally any other arrangement. I don't get this belief that movies have some irreducible identity only discoverable in "the cinema," or that my ability to think about film is impeded/invalid if I don't have money or access. This whole thing is…

TOP 10 ALBUMS
1. Carly Rae Jepsen — Emotion
2. Hop Along — Painted Shut
3. Bully — Feels Like
4. Heems — Eat Pray Thug
5. Ezra Furman — Perpetual Motion People
6. Miguel — Wildheart
7. Courtney Barnett — Sometimes I Sit and Think, Sometimes I Just Sit
8. US Girls — Half Free
9. Selena Gomez — Revival
10. Tal National — Zoy Zoy

I think Emotion was my fave album of the year.

That's gross to say

Carly Rae Jepsen and Selena Gomez put out great albums.

*whispers* "That's like me and No Cities to Love."

Honestly, I don't think you're a predatory pedophile. In fact, I've gotten into some pretty uncomfortable situations making a similar claim that we cannot and should not determine children's experience of life for them. That is, we should accept them as fully human and more capable of understanding their own life than…

mmmmmm cappadocius had the right idea. I don't know what's at stake in this argument for you and I'm not sure I want to.