Sony Reminds Me That I'm a Home Theater Moron
Filed under: Home Entertainment
In the new movie Extract, writer-director Mike Judge includes an uncommented-on visual joke that speaks to America's TV and home-theater obsession. In the tiny living room of a small, rundown house owned by a pair of trucker-cap wearing, rusted-pickup-driving, Texas-drawling losers is an absolutely enormous flat-screen television. Their furniture is crap, their clothes are torn, and they probably can't spell ... but they have the biggest TV that'll fit through the door, placed about three feet from their stained sofa.It instantly reminded me of all the people I've visited over the past year who have ginormous televisions -- people who don't make much more money than I do or live considerably better than me, but who made the decision to fill one wall of their home with a TV monitor. I've yet to make that leap.
I admit to occasionally feeling like a home theater Luddite. My DVD player's about eight years old, and occasionally refuses to play discs out of sheer elderly cussedness. My Sharp 27" TV seemed huge when I bought it six years ago, upgrading as I did from a 17-inch model. When I moved a few months back, I wished for the first time that I had a fancy flat-screen, mainly because it would have been easier to carry and would have taken up a lot less space in the van.
I know I'm behind the times, I do. And this was driven home further when I saw a press release from Sony about their new generation of AV receivers. Part of their ES line (ES standing for Elevated Standard, they say), these babies are designed to work with home theater sound systems, support all the latest HD formats, and allow "multizone operation for whole-house entertainment." I have no idea what that means. It sounds like it'll let you play your Xbox in the bathroom while streaming YouTube in the bedroom, which I'm sure is important to someone.
Sony also promises that I can stream video, audio and photos from the Internet. I could also listen to Internet radio with it. And I could use the picture-in-picture option to stream video from two different sources, so "you can enjoy a movie while also keeping an eye on the sports scores or the news." Why would I want to do that? If I had a giant TV and a brilliant sound system and all this awesome HD video wizardry, I'd want to totally enjoy the movie. Is this something people do a lot, watch movies and the news at the same time? Where's the fun in that?
But even more baffling to me is Sony's announcement of their BDP-CX7000ES, due early next year, featuring a 400-disc Blu-ray/DVD/CD "mega-changer." Is it really so much work to put in a movie or a CD when you want to play it, you have to keep everything stored inside the damn machine? And how do you know which slot your movie's in? Would I have to create a master list of titles, so that I know that Army of Darkness is disc 264? That sounds like more work than just getting off the couch to load the DVD. Plus, it's $1900. I suppose if I was really rich and even lazier than I am now, I could see the appeal. But ... no.
At some point, I know I'll get the bigger, fancier TV. And yeah, I've been yearning for a Blu-ray player. But until these things pop my popcorn, chill my sodas and have an auto-shush function for talkative guests, I think I'll stick with the DVD player I've got. Until the damn thing finally breaks completely, anyway.
Sundance Announces the 2010 US and World Competition Lineups!
3D Sequels for 'Zombieland' and 'Jackass' Confirmed_thumbnail.jpg)
Everything You Need to Know About Peter Berg's 'Battleship'_thumbnail.jpg)
Celebs Return to Their Most Iconic Roles for Photo Shoot
Check Out Concept Art From Marvel's Futuristic Theme Park
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
9-02-2009 @ 5:45PM
shadowracer said...
That's it I've had enough, and I'm putting the whole Cinematical staff on Notice.
Everyone here is a film Buff right?
If you have the cash you need to invest in at least a 40inch HDTV(no LGs), a $300 Onkyo receiver, a set of reasonable 5.1speakers, and a $200 Blu-ray player.
You really have no idea what kind of theater experience your are missing in your home, even with a modest set up.
Once you see old school Disney animation on Blu-ray you will kick yourself for waiting so long to invest.
Adjust the cinematical budget to buy all of the staffers Blu-ray players, please.
Reply
9-02-2009 @ 5:48PM
Erik Davis said...
Hey, most of us have blu-ray players (I've had one for awhile now) ... but Dawn ... well, what can we do with Dawn?
9-02-2009 @ 6:29PM
Rich said...
Give Dawn a raise? :P
9-02-2009 @ 7:11PM
Wayne said...
Shadowracer, televisions should be sized based on available room size, not some random number you throw out. A 40-inch set is too large for anyone who doesn't have at least 7-feet or so of room from the television. Too many idiots buy the largest TV they can afford then complain that HD doesn't look good. When you sit 8-feet away from a 65-inch screen you are going to see pixelation. You should be roughly 11- to 13.5-feet from a 65-inch television.
9-02-2009 @ 7:30PM
shadowracer said...
You're right Wayne. Distance and size are just one fraction of the process of setting up a proper HT experience.
40in screens tend to be the best compromise between size and price...and it's really easy to find a place for them. That's why I threw that out.
Surely you wouldn't watch 2001 on a 30" or smaller screen. In fact I recommend 100" for that movie - damn I need a PJ.
9-02-2009 @ 5:51PM
LordPaul said...
^^^
That!
Although I'd swap the Blu-Ray for a PS3 (I have both, but the PS3 kicks the ass of my Sony BDP350)
Although, I guess this place is called "Cinematical" Not "BluRaymatical"
Reply
9-02-2009 @ 6:18PM
tyler said...
It's nice to know I'm not the only one that doesn't have a blu-ray player. And Guess what? You can be a film buff without owning a blu-ray player or a home theater system because the movies are the important things not what we play them on. I am so sick of tech people making you feel like a leper if you don't have a blu-ray player that may go back to my vcr
(By the way i'm 28 not an old geezer)
Reply
9-02-2009 @ 6:17PM
Sparkus said...
I think Dawn should not be allowed to post about her confusion of electronics. Most people who visit here care about movies and how they see them. Its time for HD dawn...Move on from your crappy tv, you are participating in a Movie blog. It would be like If i wrote for Racing blog but drove a Camry around the track. Yeah you are on the track and moving, but it really is wasting your time and us watching (reading)
You will enjoy it, I promise it will be okay.
Reply
9-02-2009 @ 6:17PM
L1A said...
mega cd/dvd changer isn't anything new. all dvd's are named, they are sorted in alphabetical order or any order you choose. it has a interface similar to tv guide so that you don't have to as you said remember the dvd's number and you can also search for the movie you want. i love these mega dvd changers as they are really great space savers. just don't forget to recycle the dvd cases =D
Reply
9-02-2009 @ 6:17PM
Brak55 said...
I think the best feature of the BDP-CX7000ES will be its shuffle capabilities. Now you'll be able to randomly watch Chapter 12 of Gangs of New York followed flawlessly by Chapter 3 of The 40-Year-Old Virgin, Chapter 5 Episode 12 Season 3 of Gilmore Girls, the ad for the soundtrack of Sex and the City the Movie and Chapter 15 of Citizen Kane.
Reply
9-02-2009 @ 6:35PM
Sigfried said...
Dawn,
Your ok with the 27 inch tv, and an DVD player.
I agree with the jones keeping up BS, it's not worth it. Nor is HD. I'm a filmmaker and work with film and HD everyday. HD looks great is just a headache at 1080, and is not worth the upgrade from what you have. Until it gets to 4k, where it looks like film. Digital projectors right now in theaters shoot to 2k to 4k. Just wait till your tv dies, then upgrade. Now having a good sound system should be a priority. You need dolbly digital 5.1. and all speakers and sub. Now bluray is bs, anyone should ignore it until they have to upgrade their set and a 400 plus blue Ray is fucking antiquated. Buy a harddrrive and store it.
Now I admit I own a 301 DVD player, I bought it 9 years ago and works nice....but it was great cause I'm limited on space living on a houseboat, and I got a modern arhitecture thing going on. But now I use my 300hr TiVo more, cause it user friendly.
Spend money on a nice system. A 36 inch crt, an exspensive user friendly 300w or more 5.1 sound system ( I own a marantz) Good thx
speakers...none of that Bose shit. And upgrade to HD or 16x9
or blu Ray if you really need to. Like gun to the head you have to.
Now a little secret, I shoot live sports, and some special news programs. We shoot in HD, but the studios the sat truck broadcast to, takes up too much bandwith, that it shows at 720. So in otherwords you bought an exspensive 16x9 HD 1080 flat screen and were broadcasting in the quality of your 27 inch CRT 4:3 set.
From,
Sigfried
ps this doesn't excuse dawn from not watching shindlers list and Aaron not watching shawshank.
Reply
9-02-2009 @ 7:35PM
shadowracer said...
I disagree with everything you just said...except the Bose comment.
Whenever 4k screens and media show up, I'll be there with bells on.
Sigfried what's your opinion on 3D then? Both at home and in the theaters?
9-02-2009 @ 7:38PM
ZeosPantera said...
Yeah My parents still have their old 27" Akai in the livingroom. But in their bedroom I just got them a 25.5" 1080P Samsung for ~$350. They couldn't believe the difference with crappy HD from cablevision. Its not the size of the tv as much as the quality. Although according to several charts you need to sit 2.7 feet away from a 25.5" 1080p screen to take advantage of its high resolution.. Which you can only really take advantage of with blu-ray or a pc.
If I were you I would grab a blu-ray/PS3slim or up the graphics card in your PC and get a 720P projector (720 are cheaper, have better lumens then 1080's and 80% of the time you will sit too far back to appreciate 1080 on your 70+" screen!).
Reply
9-02-2009 @ 7:41PM
shadowracer said...
"Sony also promises that I can stream video, audio and photos from the Internet. I could also listen to Internet radio with it. And I could use the picture-in-picture option to stream video from two different sources, so "you can enjoy a movie while also keeping an eye on the sports scores or the news." Why would I want to do that? If I had a giant TV and a brilliant sound system and all this awesome HD video wizardry, I'd want to totally enjoy the movie. Is this something people do a lot, watch movies and the news at the same time? Where's the fun in that?"
Ok you can keep the DVD player, I agree with that 100%.
No one needs BD and HD to be a film buff, that's fair. But I think everyone needs at least one dedicated room with a modest set up for big screen movie watching with surround sound.
A lot of hometheater setups now, tend to give you a better experience than going to the theater.
Reply
9-03-2009 @ 12:44AM
YouFaceTheTick said...
I consider myself a movie buff - I've watched well in excess of 6000 films. But really I don't think the screen or the sound system add or detract from the experience. When I was younger I thought it mattered greatly. I moved on DVD immediately - refusing to watch a pan and scan version of anything ever again. I hooked up a 5.1 receiver via optical as soon as I could find one. By 2002 I had a 55 inch HDTV and an even better 5.1 surround system. As the years went by I kept upgrading. I thought it mattered. It didn't and it doesn't make a bad movie better or really improve a good movie all that much.
By the time Blu ray hit I had realized I never bothered to rewatch any of the hundreds of DVDs in my collection - what exactly was I collecting them for anyway? To prove which movies I thought were good? to loan them to other people - as if giving them some sort of insight into something I found special? Money wasted.
In the end the TV, the sound system, the medium (DVD, BR, digital, OTA) does little for a movie. Good movies are good because the story is good. You watch Bringing up Baby or The Thin Man and the picture is awful, the sound's wretched but they're good because the story/acting/writing is good. Bad movies may at times be prettier with a 1080p picture but really they won't make bad movies something you will want to tell your friends about. Sharp sound is amazing in the moment but you never really pause and say, "I'll rewatch Master and Commander BECAUSE of the sound."
Stick with what you have. A classic movie will always be great because the story touches you. The hardware...it just masks or amplifies things that really don't matter.
Reply
9-03-2009 @ 2:16AM
shadowracer said...
Good Photography and Sound Design/Mixing are just as integral to a good movie as a good story is.
9-03-2009 @ 2:02PM
Sigfried said...
It depends on the movie, you try to as much as possible watch how the director intended. Watching a great film on your iPhone or on a 12 inch tv.....go kill yourself.
Films are much more than that, you need to have a great leveler to enjoy the film. I'm not enjoying 2001 on a pan and scan 12 inch set in mono. It's a disservice if you watch a film.
My opinions on 3d
Real d Digital 3d is great, but 2d digital projection sucks a bag of cocks. But 2d film is better than 2d digital projection. 2d digital projection has a problem, it ladders in vertical movement, and according to TI/Christie it makes some people lull to sleep. yeah it has to do with the rhythm of the video. It boggled me also. But 3d real d digital is differnt and flies at differnt 60 framerate and at 2k. I enjoy it with a silver screen, but the theater can't have any ambient light on, the projector shines through a split lens with a splitter, and with polorized glasses, you see one lens spin in one eye and another spin in the other eye. It works pretty well. But difficult to reproduce at home, for home theater....aka no ambient light, and a silver screen.
The dolby 3d is amazing, but you have to have motorized gglasses, kinda spendy. The process is what's being designed for the Sony sets coming in 2010.
The core of the story is, respect. Respect the filmmakers, try to see on a 40ft screen. Then watch it on home, but try to accomodate.
Reply
9-03-2009 @ 9:54AM
Ben said...
I've got what I think may be like a 30"+ at home and had it for about 6+ years. Still works great and HD. Mind you I do have some quality 5.1 and have upgraded my receiver and DVD player at least twice in that time, but still not to Blu-Ray because supposedly the TV can't work with it(something my Dad keeps claiming but I haven't cared to look into) Though I do have the HD-DVD drive with my Xbox 360 so some HD from the movies that came out before the collapse.
Though I can't enjoy that now as I'm at college, but on campus I have like a 25" HDTV and got the Xbox hooked up there and my roommate's PS3. Though no sound system, we still(occasionally) get yelled at by RA's for playing the TV at full volume during movies like Boondock Saints so it would be a kinda bad idea to add more sound power until we can find some way todampen the sound.
Reply
9-03-2009 @ 3:29PM
MikePF said...
I can't believe there are people in this blog that think presentation doesn't affect how you feel about the movie. Go to a movie theater with a crappy, incorrect screen ration, crappy sound, and a poorly (improperly lit) picture and tell me it doesn't matter. It sure as hell does if you're a movie lover. Your home theater doesn't have to be the latest and greatest, but if you truly loves movies (and I assume that's why you're reading this blog), it should at least be as good as you can afford.
Reply
9-03-2009 @ 9:06PM
YouFaceTheTick said...
Mike, to each his own. If you love old movies that will always look horrible and have poor FX then you realize it's not the shot composition, or the sound editing or the CGI that make or break a movie. In the end, tell a story people connect to and the rest is irrelevant.
Clerks is loved. Nothing the Weinsteins did to it could change the fact it was made on a shoestring with a crap camera manned by a man with no visual skills. The sounds wretched, the acting's bad and the editing is all over the place... yet still people love it.
Nobody watches Clerks and declares, "I am done with this movie because it's got lousy sound!"
You don't watch The Thin Man because it features contemporary acting or sharp action. In the end it's the story.
Filmmaking is storytelling. Yes, some directors spice things up with nice images and great FX but in the end if the story/script are poor, the movie is poor (for instance Benjamin Button). Some directors depend on their visual language to tell a story (Tim Burton) or some ape a time/style (Tarantino) or some are all style (Tony Scott) but in the end their movies either capture an audience's attention (Edward Scissorhands) or become forgotten wastes (Planet of the Apes, Corpse Bride).
Storytelling is what makes a movie last.