Should there be standards for screen size and sound volume when rating films? Movie goers recently rated Disney’s “A Christmas Carol” higher when viewed in 3D versus 2D. How much does sense stimulation interfere with critics ability to judge cinematic quality, and does that even matter? Watching something on a small screen is sort of like an equalizer, where the ‘wow’ effect is minimized and viewers may be better at judging content quality. But when do you accept that content quality depends on the manner it is viewed? Because it most certainly does. Take any film, watch it on a dirty 12″ screen with poor speakers and I have no doubt that viewers would rate it lower than average. A good analogy is a roller coaster. Two groups of people ride the same roller coaster, one at full speed the other at half speed. The slow group rates the ride as less fun than the fast group, even though they went on the exact same roller coaster. That is a fair judgment, the roller coaster was designed to be experienced a certain way. Why then am I worried about films that suddenly get better when you watch them on a giant HD screen with surround sound?
To get a more accurate film rating, different audiences should be shown the film at different venues, some at the no holds barred IMAX joint, others in a living room. My guess is that quality films, like ‘The Battle of Algiers,’ ‘Blade Runner,’ or ‘Jaws,’ would have much less of a ratings difference between venues than something like an effects heavy film like ’300′ or ‘Transformers.’
