Tom Hanks Discusses 'Heartbreaking' Shift of WWII Film Greyhound From Theatrical Blockbuster to Apple TV+ Exclusive

[rwxx]

Not everyone shares your subjective experience. In fact, it is arguable that most people do not, which is why fewer people are going to the theaters these days, minus the current virus impact. Your argument reminds me of young film photographers of today extolling the virtues of film, amazingly even to experienced old film era photographers. Meanwhile the vast majority of those old film era photographers gladly switched to superior digital cameras years ago.

Well, you're talking to someone who still shoots film, so...

I think I made it pretty clear that not everyone shares my subjective experience. In fact, I even commented that many people on this thread clearly don't. But that changes nothing. You're likely correct that fewer people go to theaters these days. But I'm not sure that has to do with rejecting the subjective theater experience as much as it does with the price of a night out at the movies.

Bottom line, if you value the theater experience, which most creatives like Hanks do, no amount of home theater tech is going to change that.

 

[vipergts2207]

Yes but then you're stuck watching movies in an environment that takes you out of the story. How do people even watch movies at home with distracting noise and light everywhere? It's just not an enjoyable experience watching movies in places that aren't built for movies.

If you're going to spend money for a home theatre, spend it on the room, not the TV. The TV is the LEAST beneficial. A room designed for theatre is better than a 4k screen with surround sound.

Surround sound is wasted in a room that wasn't designed for it.

Theaters also have distracting noises coming from the 100 other people in there with you, so you don’t escape that. The noises I encounter in my own home are much less likely to annoy me than what I find in a theater too, as they’re noises I live with daily and probably mentally filter out at this point. As far as lights go, turn them off?

The bar to quality surround audio isn’t as high as you make it out to be. Your room doesn’t have to be perfect to get spatially directed audio to work as intended. When I watched A Quiet Place, during a certain scene a waterfall sounded like it was directly over my head thanks to Atmos, and my room is far from perfect. Obviously better environments and better equipment lead to better results, but calling surround sound a waste except for purpose-designed rooms is laughable.

 

[Bob Br]

Yes but then you're stuck watching movies in an environment that takes you out of the story. How do people even watch movies at home with distracting noise and light everywhere? It's just not an enjoyable experience watching movies in places that aren't built for movies.

If you're going to spend money for a home theatre, spend it on the room, not the TV. The TV is the LEAST beneficial. A room designed for theatre is better than a 4k screen with surround sound.

Surround sound is wasted in a room that wasn't designed for it.

Being able to pause to go empty his bladder or get another drink and snack while not missing any part of the movie objectively let’s him be in the story much better than in a regular theater. A home theater also allows one to have total control in preventing any distractions, again keeping you in the movie much better than a theater. A dark living room is no less darker than a regular theater. In fact it’s darker in most cases.

A dedicated room also isn’t necessary. Placement of speakers for surround sound is not difficult.

 

[GrumpyCoder]

Movie theaters are these interesting transitory communal spaces. You can't replicate that at home. The very fact that you are home changes the overall experience. When you enter a movie theater, you leave reality and you take an emotional journey with your random fellow travelers.

Ah, I don't want that. I want the best possible audio and video quality in a dark room. Most people do, including those in the movie industry. I've been in touch with several custom installers around the world, including those that built the home theaters for Johnny Depp and Peter Jackson. They seem to like the same, so I won't complain and bother with people making phone calls, throwing popcorn around and come late / leave early.
Here's a video from Peter Jacksons custom installation done by Guy Singleton:

.
It's old, so it might have changed. Visually it's not my style, but I understand why some people are going for it.
Here's some info on Rob Hahn's theater (former Hollywood cinematographer) done by Keith Yates: http://keithyates.com/portfolio/hahn-theater/.

If I ever build another room from scratch, I'm pretty sure I'll have him do the design.

How do people even watch movies at home with distracting noise and light everywhere? It's just not an enjoyable experience watching movies in places that aren't built for movies.

You don't, you watch it at home in a dedicated room which is acoustically and visually optimized. Build a room first, then put the equipment in. And if you have to, start with a simple setup and upgrade later. For some reason in the last few years, people started to believe they can just put a tiny TV (and yes, I mean 65" or 85" TVs) with some speakers in a room and have a high quality movie experience. 1. Room, 2. Room, 3. Room, 4. Equipment.

 

[Bob Br]

Ah, I don't want that. I want the best possible audio and video quality in a dark room. Most people do, including those in the movie industry. I've been in touch with several custom installers around the world, including those that built the home theaters for Johnny Depp and Peter Jackson. They seem to like the same, so I won't complain and bother with people making phone calls, throwing popcorn around and come late / leave early.
Here's a video from Peter Jacksons custom installation done by Guy Singleton:

.
It's old, so it might have changed. Visually it's not my style, but I understand why some people are going for it.
Here's some info on Rob Hahn's theater (former Hollywood cinematographer) done by Keith Yates: http://keithyates.com/portfolio/hahn-theater/.

If I ever build another room from scratch, I'm pretty sure I'll have him do the design.



You don't, you watch it at home in a dedicated room which is acoustically and visually optimized. Build a room first, then put the equipment in. And if you have to, start with a simple setup and upgrade later. For some reason in the last few years, people started to believe they can just put a tiny TV (and yes, I mean 65" or 85" TVs) with some speakers in a room and have a high quality movie experience. 1. Room, 2. Room, 3. Room, 4. Equipment.

Assuming the resolution is the same, all that matters visually is viewing distances. The field of view can be the same with smaller displays.

 

[Darf Nader]

Mr. Hanks, as much as I respect him, needs to wake up and smell the future present even a modest investment in a properly configured surround sound system and UHD TV will make a movie theatre feel like slumming it. Also, you can pause for pee and popcorn breaks! The only benefit of the theatre experience is if you’re watching a cult film where you really need the audience.

 

[GrumpyCoder]

Assuming the resolution is the same, all that matters visually is viewing distances.

No it doesn't. This has been discussed up and down for decades, ever since the old CompuServe CEVIDEO days. Pretty sure there are still countless threads about this over the hometheater forum and AVS. I won't be part of a discussion that digs this up for the millionth time. If that's the way you do it, good for you, enjoy!

 

[vipergts2207]

Well, you're talking to someone who still shoots film, so...

I think I made it pretty clear that not everyone shares my subjective experience. In fact, I even commented that many people on this thread clearly don't. But that changes nothing. You're likely correct that fewer people go to theaters these days. But I'm not sure that has to do with rejecting the subjective theater experience as much as it does with the price of a night out at the movies.

Bottom line, if you value the theater experience, which most creatives like Hanks do, no amount of home theater tech is going to change that.

Outside of exclusive Hollywood premiers full of A-listers in attendance, I very much doubt Tom goes out to the theater very often, if at all. Like most wealthy cinema buffs (I assume he is, being an actor), he likely has a high-end purpose-built theater at home where he doesn’t have to watch movies with us plebs. Rich people don’t spend tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars just to obtain an inferior experience. Maybe some people absolutely must have the experience of being surrounded by a bunch of strangers when seeing a movie “for the full experience” lol, but I’m perfectly happy to only be surrounded by friends and family. Having random Chads, Karens, and their brats with a seemingly endless supply of noisy snacks is not a necessary or even desired part of the movie experience for me. Not to mention I’ve always got the best seat in the house at home. Ever been to a packed movie and been relegated to sitting in one of the front few rows? No thank you!

 

[Bob Br]

Ah, I don't want that. I want the best possible audio and video quality in a dark room. Most people do, including those in the movie industry. I've been in touch with several custom installers around the world, including those that built the home theaters for Johnny Depp and Peter Jackson. They seem to like the same, so I won't complain and bother with people making phone calls, throwing popcorn around and come late / leave early.
Here's a video from Peter Jacksons custom installation done by Guy Singleton:

.
It's old, so it might have changed. Visually it's not my style, but I understand why some people are going for it.
Here's some info on Rob Hahn's theater (former Hollywood cinematographer) done by Keith Yates: http://keithyates.com/portfolio/hahn-theater/.

If I ever build another room from scratch, I'm pretty sure I'll have him do the design.



You don't, you watch it at home in a dedicated room which is acoustically and visually optimized. Build a room first, then put the equipment in. And if you have to, start with a simple setup and upgrade later. For some reason in the last few years, people started to believe they can just put a tiny TV (and yes, I mean 65" or 85" TVs) with some speakers in a room and have a high quality movie experience. 1. Room, 2. Room, 3. Room, 4. Equipment.

I also forgot to add that emissive displays are also objectively superior to projection in all the traditional and objective measures of image quality. You'll never get the same levels of contrast and deep blacks, for example. It's physically impossible. That's why movies shown in the best regular theaters still look weak and dull in contrast compared to an LCD, older plasmas, and of course OLED.

 

[Boardiesboi]

I don’t understand why he’s saying stuff like this when he should be promoting the film and thanking Apple.
He approved its distribution to Apple TV+ himself. He could’ve just waited for the virus to die down (maybe in a year) and release it then?

 

[Darf Nader]

[QUou don't, you watch it at home in a dedicated room which is acoustically and visually optimized. Build a room first, then put the equipment in. And if you have to, start with a simple setup and upgrade later. For some reason in the last few years, people started to believe they can just put a tiny TV (and yes, I mean 65" or 85" TVs) with some speakers in a room and have a high quality movie experience. 1. Room, 2. Room, 3. Room, 4. Equipment.
[/QUOTE]

So true. And the annoying thing is that the cost of things like fancy “sound bars“, Sonos, and anything sold by Bose is outrageously overpriced for what you get. Plus, a “SmartTV” will have Built-in technology that will stay as fresh as a tamagotchi. However, with a little know-how, you can make a smashing home theatre with Individual components like a gigantic “dumb” TV, your own favorite streaming box platform (or computer), and a home theatre receiver that you’d also use for music. You can ever get great stuff used as long as you know what you’re doing. Find one of your audiophile nerd friends and see how excited they will be to help you! (I actually love doing this for friends.)

 

[GrumpyCoder]

That's why movies shown in the best regular theaters still look weak and dull in contrast compared to an LCD, older plasmas, and of course OLED.

The reason movies look like crap in theaters is because they're optimized for max light output which comes at the cost of raised black level. You can easily avoid this at home with a proper setup. You prefer emissive because it's brighter for less money. Compare it (and measure) it with a Sony VW5000, depending on screen size, you can double stack those or use a stack of four. At $60k per projector, that puts you at $240k for the full stack. You can also look at the Christie Eclipse, starting at just over $300k, more if you want more light output. Or you can use the Sony Crystal LED if you want to stick to emisisve, the 16' version is available for $720k. For a reference home theater, not super crazy. Just remember the times when we paid $150k+ for a 8"/9" CRT projector with dedicated video processor and the source was a laserdisc, because nothing better was available. Later there was the good old MUSE laserdisc, which brought a major jump in quality, but came at the price of $300 to $400 per movie. Good old times, eh?

 

[JosephAW]

“I don’t mean to make angry my Apple overlords, but there is a difference in picture and sound quality.”

Not at my house Tom. 4K HDR with 5.2.2 surround sound. I’ll take my setup over a movie theater with sticky floors and overpriced snacks any day.

All you need is an audience with you talking and fidgeting with phone and munching on popcorn.
Maybe a few good laugh tracks and gasps where necessary and you'll have to sound he was talking about.
[automerge]1594073289[/automerge]
Well Apple he's talking to you, create Apple stores with theaters so we can go there to watch on the big screen.
Or better yet, when We are all wearing our Apple glass and AirPods Pro when we sit down to watch a movie we can look around and see others with us in a virtual experience. Now next in line Apple popcorn smell generator.

 

[Bandaman]

Hanks may have had a contractual interest in “points”, etc which would be a further source of income based on theatrical performance. Unconfirmed, but your assertion is not necessarily true. Keep being a negative know-it-all for no reason.

Or you could just believe him that he wants this movie on the big screen. He's not exactly hurting for money. The dude is worth half a billion dollars. There doesn't have to be a negative motive for everything.

 

[GrumpyCoder]

The real issue here is simple. Movie studios are charging theaters quite a large fee for blockbusters. That's easily in the five-figure range per week. Movie theaters don't make money with the movies, they make money with softdrinks and popcorn. The studios are making the money with movies. I don't know what deal Hanks and the production company made with Apple, but it'll be much harder to make those $50 million back and make a nice profit. Hanks probably doesn't care about the money, he probably cares about what he could have done if that movie made $500 million in theaters. And that's other projects that won't happen otherwise. Happens a lot, why did George Clooney sign up for the Ocean movies? Not because they're so great, not because of the money, but because he was allowed to pursue his own film projects financed by the studio in addition to the Ocean deal. Gary Oldman did the same, so did many others. And that's the real power here. Hanks could put $100 million of his own money in his next project and won't get anywhere if no studio picks it up.

 

[fairuz]

Ah, I don't want that. I want the best possible audio and video quality in a dark room. Most people do, including those in the movie industry. I've been in touch with several custom installers around the world, including those that built the home theaters for Johnny Depp and Peter Jackson. They seem to like the same, so I won't complain and bother with people making phone calls, throwing popcorn around and come late / leave early.
Here's a video from Peter Jacksons custom installation done by Guy Singleton:

.
It's old, so it might have changed. Visually it's not my style, but I understand why some people are going for it.
Here's some info on Rob Hahn's theater (former Hollywood cinematographer) done by Keith Yates: http://keithyates.com/portfolio/hahn-theater/.

If I ever build another room from scratch, I'm pretty sure I'll have him do the design.



You don't, you watch it at home in a dedicated room which is acoustically and visually optimized. Build a room first, then put the equipment in. And if you have to, start with a simple setup and upgrade later. For some reason in the last few years, people started to believe they can just put a tiny TV (and yes, I mean 65" or 85" TVs) with some speakers in a room and have a high quality movie experience. 1. Room, 2. Room, 3. Room, 4. Equipment.

Look, I've been in a dozen such rooms, it's not the same. Sure they're better in ways, and it's great to have your own, but the public theater is a different and worthwhile experience. And it's not the A/V quality that matters.

 

[cfurlin]

“Heartbreaking”...doesn’t Tom mean he’s sad he won’t make as much from it? Maybe he has a real skill that he can contribute to society then.

First he loses his pal Jeffrey Epstein and now this. One heartbreak after another...

Many, many people are suffering from this pandemic. Get in line, Tom.

Apparently it’s worse when you’re a pampered actor.

 

[fairuz]

Many, many people are suffering from this pandemic. Get in line, Tom.

This is old. He's not asking for the theaters to open.
[automerge]1594074231[/automerge]

Assuming the resolution is the same, all that matters visually is viewing distances. The field of view can be the same with smaller displays.

The first thing you'll encounter down this rabbit hole is lossy video compression. The final thing you'll encounter is that nobody cares about slight differences in video quality except for nerds.

 

[arkmannj]

Make you media quality enough that I WANT to go buy a 4k blu-ray even though I can stream it “free” on Apple TV.
I hope this movie is that kind of quality but we will see.

Truthfully for our family the last few years we’ve gone down to only seeing one or two movies a year in theatres anyway. It’s the one thing COVID-19 hasn’t really affected us with personally. (but O do sincerely feel for the theatre workers, and industries negatively impacted)

 

[bluespark]

It doesn't seem to me that he was "bitching." I mean he worked on a epic war film that would be great to see in a theater and no one is going to get to. Obviously, as some have stated, he could have waited for theaters to open, he chose not to. Some theaters here ARE open even.

Think of it like my daughter who had her 13th birthday yesterday. Was she heartbroken that she couldn't have her friends over? Absolutely. But was she understanding and knew that was the right choice? Also yes. Should I yell at her for "bitching" because she was "heartbroken?" No.

Good analogy. Part of the issue here may be that Hanks' droll sense of humor can come off differently in print. I'm sure he's happy that the film is streaming and still heartbroken that it didn't get the rollout he imagined.

Happy birthday to your daughter!

 

[Apple_Robert]

I am looking forward to the movie. I prefer to watch it at home on my 85” 4K tv, versus paying to see it in the theater.

 

[Juicy Box]

I am surprised at all the negative posts about Hanks.

Being very careful with the projects he picks, he seems to really care about the overall experience of his movies. It is understanding why he feels the way he feels.

“Heartbreaking”...doesn’t Tom mean he’s sad he won’t make as much from it?

I am sure this has nothing to do with it.

 

[Bob Br]

No it doesn't. This has been discussed up and down for decades, ever since the old CompuServe CEVIDEO days. Pretty sure there are still countless threads about this over the hometheater forum and AVS. I won't be part of a discussion that digs this up for the millionth time. If that's the way you do it, good for you, enjoy!

Sorry, but saying "no it doesn’t" and "I won’t be a part of" such a discussion doesn’t support anything you say. No need to refer to other threads. You could simply in a sentence or two try and justify your claim.

I would even go so far as to say movies on my iPad and my old plasma look better than they do in regular theaters. Many, if not most people, who I have asked, agreed. Brighter image, much better contrast and deeper blackS, and even better apparently detail.

 

[rwxx]

Outside of exclusive Hollywood premiers full of A-listers in attendance, I very much doubt Tom goes out to the theater very often, if at all. Like most wealthy cinema buffs (I assume he is, being an actor), he likely has a high-end purpose-built theater at home where he doesn’t have to watch movies with us plebs. Rich people don’t spend tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars just to obtain an inferior experience. Maybe some people absolutely must have the experience of being surrounded by a bunch of strangers when seeing a movie “for the full experience” lol, but I’m perfectly happy to only be surrounded by friends and family. Having random Chads, Karens, and their brats with a seemingly endless supply of noisy snacks is not a necessary or even desired part of the movie experience for me. Not to mention I’ve always got the best seat in the house at home. Ever been to a packed movie and been relegated to sitting in one of the front few rows? No thank you!

You're welcome to your opinion, but I've seen some pretty famous people at the movies in LA and these weren't premieres. I think you're jumping to a lot of conclusions with no evidence whatsoever. I have no idea how often Tom Hanks goes to the movies in a theater and neither do you. The thing about living in LA is, you see celebrities everywhere. It's no big deal. And yes, some even go to movies in regular theaters.

I don't know what kind of theaters you go to, or what kind of movies you see, but I rarely encounter rude people. I'm not much for blockbusters and superhero movies, so maybe the films I like simply attract a more civilized demographic.
[automerge]1594077772[/automerge]

Ah, I don't want that. I want the best possible audio and video quality in a dark room. Most people do, including those in the movie industry. I've been in touch with several custom installers around the world, including those that built the home theaters for Johnny Depp and Peter Jackson. They seem to like the same, so I won't complain and bother with people making phone calls, throwing popcorn around and come late / leave early.

Fair enough. I already acknowledged as much in my previous comments. It's obvious that many people in this thread don't care one bit for the theater experience. I appreciate that, but that doesn't change the fact that going to a movie theater with strangers, being amped up to see the movie, sharing that energetic connection and experience with others...that's all part of the theater experience. It's democratizing and communal. You're not sequestered in your home with only your hand-picked people, but you're out in the real world sharing the journey and experience with others.

I realize you don't get it and honestly it makes me a little sad that so many people don't these days. Everyone just wants to silo themselves, in their homes, in their thoughts, in their beliefs. Going to the theater is the exact opposite of that and, to me, sharing the experience of a performance (cinema, stage, music, whatever) with random strangers is a powerful human experience and will never be replaced by any kind of home theater, no matter how amazing the tech.

Here's a video from Peter Jacksons custom installation done by Guy Singleton:

.
It's old, so it might have changed. Visually it's not my style, but I understand why some people are going for it.
Here's some info on Rob Hahn's theater (former Hollywood cinematographer) done by Keith Yates: http://keithyates.com/portfolio/hahn-theater/.

If I ever build another room from scratch, I'm pretty sure I'll have him do the design.

There are definitely some insane home theaters out there, and it doesn't surprise me at all that a CGI geek like Jackson would have an impressive setup. It's also nice that you can afford to have an A-list designer/installer build you a home theater, but most people can't.

 

[erniefairchild1]

Or you could just believe him that he wants this movie on the big screen. He's not exactly hurting for money. The dude is worth half a billion dollars. There doesn't have to be a negative motive for everything.

Correct. But the smugness of the comment I responded to, which seems to be the default on this site unfortunately, had to be answered.

It’s not unreasonable to wonder if Hanks is annoyed because of a further financial interest if the movie were release in theaters (the argument that he is already wealthy, so that couldn’t be it, doesn’t pass, given how many people in our society complain about “rich people” just mindlessly wanting more and more money that they could never even spend, for no reason).

It’s also not unreasonable to believe he was upset because he wanted the movie to be experienced in a theater setting (I happen to love going to the movies, sadly the experience is often ruined by disgusting slobs who can’t turn their bright phone screens off or shut up).

In the end, I suppose, who cares?