Originally Posted by Fanboyz
the hardware is merely the cineophile's vehicle to the movies.
Possibly, ambiguity of the statement bars absolutely ruling it out, but my point was that the movies are merely the vehicle to a sensory experience. That sensory experience must entice, otherwise there is no easily identifiable raison de-etre for a given production, save vanity.
Show me an adequate sensory experience, and I'll show you a movie that succeeds. Now folks may quibble about whether an obselete sensory experience such as is provided by GONE WITH THE WIND, for example, surpasses the success of STARSHIP TROOPERS II, again as example, but in my mind, there is no contest. I'll watch one, not the other.
Would I necessarily advocate the destruction/elimination of films whose technical achievements have been supplanted long ago? Not at all -- to each his own, there may well be seniors and others who are frightened or confused by sensory overload, to whom past limitations appeal.
Nothing wrong with a difference in preference to that sensory experience sought by moviegoers of all persuasions, but let's remember that before any consideration of plot, dialogue, characters, pacing, story, et al, you need two things: a system to purvey these elements AND a sensory experience package enticing enough to persuade someone to watch your little collection of revelations or events, otherwise you got zip.