What is Digg?153 Comments
- BadassCheese, on 10/12/2007, -19/+164Too bad, I've had Saving Private Ryan on my iPod for a year. Suck it Steven.
- seanalltogether, on 10/12/2007, -6/+49'"Steven Spielberg says, 'He doesn't want his Movies to be viewed on iPods'"
Seems like an odd thing for Steven to say. Maybe he's just losing it.'
Its the same reason alot of directors hate formating their movies for 4:3 aspect ratios. Alot of directors view their movies as art and want to make sure it's presented with high quality. - hipnerd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+41That is funny.
What's even funnier is that Spielberg had nothing to do with Star Wars. - sockpuppets, on 10/12/2007, -8/+47I've had Saving Ryan's Privates on my ipod for over a year. It makes people on the bus uncomfortable when I watch it.
- anonynous2_, on 10/12/2007, -0/+33Feh... he's not saying that he doesn't want people to watch his movies on their iPods, he's saying that he's not going to change the way he shoots his movies so that they will look better on iPods.
Boo misleading digg title, hooray beer! - shiftt, on 10/12/2007, -5/+38I'd love to see Steven Spielberg and Steve Jobs duke it out UFC style.
Anyway, Spielberg should wake up and realize that consumers will get his movies on their iPods whether he wants them to or not.. it's just a question of whether he'll be getting paid for it or not. - iomegaboy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+32Viewing movies on an Ipod is like standing 200 feet away from your 27" tv.
- skellingtonjr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21Dude, that is George Lucas not Steven Speilberg. Nice try.
- BuddyDoQ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19"Spielberg has more money that you now. Spielberg may talk in the third person now." -S. Spielberg
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18Once again, Cliffy makes an inaccurate title, but gets to the front page becuase of gaming.,
Spielberg did NOT say he doesn't want you to watch his movies on an iPod. So all you idiots who are saying "***** you Steve. I watched Saving Private Ryan on my iPod" are just proving that you digg, and comment on articels that you did not read.
That is bad enough normally, but even worse to do with a Cliffy submission.
Now...I know this is Digg, but is there anyone who wants FACTS to slip into the conversation, or should we stick to the usual "Hey, he is sort of attacking apple! Let's GIT 'em!"
Well, the facts are, he said that when he directs a movie, he has to consider how it will appear not just in the movies on widescreen, but how it will appear formatted for TV. He said he will NOT give a flying ***** if scenes lose meaning when shrunk down to a 3 inch screen. That is not his problem, and he will not direct in such a way to make it better.
But absolutely NO place in the article does he suggest that he is against anyone wathcing his films on an iPod.
Nice job Cliffy. Your reputation remains intact. (You DO realize what quotation marks are used for, right? they are NOT for paraphrasing. And certainly not for putting words in someone's mouth that they didn't say.) - Seidoger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16Steven Spielberg says, 'He doesn't want his Movies to be viewed on iPods'
Is he really talking about himself at the 3rd person? - joaob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16Directors hate Full Screen/Pan & Scan versions of their movies so I don't see this coming as a suprise...even if the iPod retains the original dimensions...it kind of ruins their work once it is scaled down.
- dvddesign, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Try finding an anamorphic widescreen Kubrick movie other than 2001 or Spartacus, you'll see that some people are CRAZY about the aspect ratio.
- Matt2k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Bill Watterson did the same thing when he refused to draw any more Calvin and Hobbes until newspapers adopted his half-page format. He was quite adamant about needing enough area to express his art.
- Sp4nk, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17It has everything to do with the topic, schmuck. Did you or any of the other idiots who dugg him down actually read the article? The person who posted this on Digg sure as hell didn't.
- BassCadet, on 10/12/2007, -10/+23He's the artist, he should decide how his work is exhibited.
If you don't like that philosophy, don't watch his movies. Simple as that.
How anybody can watch a movie on that ***** little screen is beyond me. I travel 75% of each month for my career, and believe me, I've tried on mine. It just RUINS the experience. It's like reading a book and skipping every sentence. You're LOSING detail. - cleverboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Um, yeah... wtf.
It's a good article, but the person submitting the story completely misread what Speilberg said. Although, why ANYONE would suggest shooting a film for a "3 inch screen" is beyond me. The article is written in such a way as to mask that fact that he was answering a question that no doubt seeded the stupid idea in the first place. iPod was created to play existing aspect ratios. When most iPod 5G owners don't actually play videos, its a bit silly to imply award winning directors should be thinking about them as a target market. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Are you all really that bad at reading comprehension?
Where is he saying YOU shouldn't watch his movies on an iPod?
He is simpky saying that is not not going to give one iota of consideration for the fact that social lepers will be viewing it on a 2 inch screen to avoid interacting with society when he is directing. - oxyrubber, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10What is your kid doing watching football anyway? I played football for 8 years and I think it's pretty violent. In fact, I would have to say that the double standard you have shown in your "commercials during football games" example is pretty amazing. Your kid should be watching Nickelodian or the Cartoon Network.
It is your responsibility as a parent to explain things to your kid (even if you thing (s)he is too young to get the point) when (s)he sees/experiences something new. That applies with TV shows, that applies with movies, that applies with anything sexual, and that applies outside the household too. Simply denying your child permission to new experiences is probably not the best way to raise a child.
The V-Chip was installed in every new TV since 2000 or so. Cable stations and many broadcast networks supply you with information about the shows when they start and after each commercial. Many people in the US have already been able to restrict what is shown on network TV (and basic cable stations).
And another point: if you are complaining about "not enough people in Entertainment asking to tone it down", you are certainly asking to the wrong crowd. These are people that make money whether a show/movie is violent or not (and from box-office records, you could generally infer that more violence = more profit). You are seriously going to sit there and ask the very people who make money off of violence in movies to stand up and ask for less violence?
Speilberg has always been an exception in the industry: his movies are typically only violent to convey a feeling or senitment and even then it's typically becuase the movie is portaying a historical event (i.e. Saving Private Ryan and Munich). You should be targeting anyone with influence and a like mind to stand for your cause, not the Entertainment Industry as a whole. - dolemite5005, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Unless you hold it right up to your eyes, then it's like being at a movie theater!
- orientis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10RTFA YFR
- ronintetsuro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7It's more about his view of his work (however egotistical) than him taking a swipe at fair use.
And I sincerely pity all of you 'I can't NOT be entertained unless I am sleeping' types. Speaks volumes about your ability to cope with the world around you. - kagelump, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14yes
welcome to america - MikeCerm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I don't think that he means to insult the people who want movies on an iPod, he just doesn't think that's the best way to view his movies.
To some extent, what Spielberg does is art. I'm sure that Edward Hopper, when he made huge paintings, probably had a similar mindset. If he wanted his art on a postcard, he would have painted it that size.
Artists would prefer if you view their art in the way that they choose. It doesn't mean that you can find Edward Hopper on a postcard, it just means that it's not the ideal way to view it. - adam84a, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8It didn't sound to me like he was saying his movies will not be available on iPods, he just stated that he wouldn't cater to the small screen format.
- mikev, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Anyone think it's because most people who have movies on their iPod got it off of bitorrent?
- LuCiFer6, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Not a big loss since most of his most recent movies were flops anyway...
- igneon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This is why spielberg is upset about people watching his movies on an iPod. It really is an artistic thing; go ask any musical artist if he would mind if his work were being played on a speaker that could only reproduce two tones, one being 2KHz and the other being 10KHz.
- Mirag3, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7seriously, we'll just rip the dvd. He's not going to get rid of DVDs is he?
- DigeratiPrime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Directors want to retain the best possible quality for their work.
Steven Spielberg was also the director to premier DTS Audio.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Theater_System
"One of the company's initial investors was film director Steven Spielberg, who felt that theatrical sound formats up until the company's founding were no longer state of the art, and as a result were no longer optimal for use on projects where quality sound reproduction was of the utmost importance." - Bootes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5He never says that he doesn't want his movies to be viewed on iPods. He says that he won't tailor his films to fit the small screen. This is very different and I agree completely. Just make regular movies/shows. Those 1 minute mini episodes for cell phones are the stupidest things I've ever heard of.
- DDRSkata, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I love how the title and description have nothing to do with nearly all of the article and only really relates to the last paragraph.
- lustre, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Commercials or promos? I can't recall having ever seeing a gun in a commercial unless it was for Remington. No, wait, I've never seen a commercial for a gun, either.
- tobsterius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The chances of this comment getting read will probably be slim, but here goes...
This might surprise some of you, and might even sound a bit elitest, but films are mean't to be viewed on big screens. Every shot is planned for it, every director and cinematographer knows this and purposely blocks the shots to take advange of the wide screen as well as the giant projection screen.
Watching a film on a giant screen does one important thing: it emerses you.. completely. It draws you into the story. As an artist, Spielberg doesn't want to lose that.
Yes, you lose it too when you watch it on a TV, but the TV is still big enough to make an emotional connection to the images that are shown on the screen. It's not going to do that on the iPod...
Some of you have already put Spielberg films on the iPod... good for you. I'm pretty sure he's not saying "I don't want my films on the iPod, nor will I allow people to do it if they rip it from the DVD and encode it. I just won't allow that to happen!" He just simply doesn't want anything to do with the iTS or the iPod(. He want to protect his content. Imagine that?
I agree with Spielber 100%. I think video on the iPod is just plain stupid. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4My question is: who really watches movies on their iPod, unless they are REALLY desparate?
I'd sooner poke red hot melting plastic forks in my eyes than watch a movie on an ipod unless I REALLY had to. - 66traveller, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7RTFA. Tagged as inaccurate for the title.
- rynoon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Spielberg said iPod video may be all the rage but count his films out from TAILORING his films to fit the small screen."
""That's one medium where I have to draw the line," he said. "We'll SHOOT FOR television and the movies and let there be a wide gap" between that and the small 3-inch screen."
Sensationalist headlines = diggers foaming from the mouth
He never said he doesn't want his movies viewed on an iPod. He said he wasn't going to produce specialized content for screens that small.
Headlines are just for drawing attention, don't count on them for factual information. It's too bad that people have to lie in order to make the front page of digg. I guess digg is the closest thing some people have to a life, sadly. - DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I just did the math on this because I am bored.
Assuming you hold the iPod at about 12" from your face, it is equivalent to watching a 27" TV at 13 feet away. This is pretty much the distance we sit from our 27" TV in our living room. - chesterjosiah, on 10/12/2007, -12/+15He's old.
- prophet6, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I don't think the aspect ratio or the screen size are the problems - it's the growing attitude that you can suck art dry of any context of presentation and still enjoy it.
I hold that anybody who can bear to watch a movie on thier iPod while waiting in line at the DMV has simply forgotten how to enjoy movies at all.
You can't put the movie-watching *experience* in your pocket, and it would be silly for any artist to make any effort to accomidate that. - folkher, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4And this is where he decides to draw the line???? Where was this "line drawing" when he decided to produce MEN IN BLACK 2???
- skellener, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2> He also said that he felt that people are social animals
> who will choose to go out to a movie rather than watch a
> show on widescreen.
Sure - I'd rather go out to a movie, but over $10 per ticket and so many bad movies being released, the couch and a nice HD set up at home starts looking very attractive. - littlesquall, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I've never understood why anyone would want to watch video on such a puny screen like those found on iPods, PSPs, cellphones, etc. Video on the go just isn't really all that appealing to me.
- nace33, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Man, these hollywood types don't get it. Just make your damn movies and we'll decide how we want to watch them, where we want to watch them and when we want to watch them.
What is next, is the creator of hot pockets going to tell me I can't have the for breakfast anymore because they were made to be eaten at lunch and dinner? - WiZZLa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It's his art...how can you even view a movie on such a small screen? The thing doesn't even have a great audio output and video output is lacking quality.
- oxyrubber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Lucas didn't want to cave into DVD for the longest time. The Beatles just finally released digital version of their albums. Artists love to be able to control the quality of their work, but don't always get the chance.
Distributors typically get the decision-making powers when it comes to what formats are distributed, unless the artist was smart/influential enough to get those rights in their contract(s).
And BTW - has Speilberg ever made a similar statement about the UMD format (the one for PSP)? It's basically the same situation as the iPod. Double standard or was that statement just glazed over? - skellener, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That's *****. If you bought it, it's yours. Period. Use it on any device you like.
- CamperBob, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@DiggDtw: "But did you just give me parenting advice?"
Why not? By calling for censorship, you gave the rest of us plenty of it in your earlier post. - Kale, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2plus Netflix! If you have a good setup, you can get way more bang for your buck.
- DiggDtw, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Really? I didn't realize that complaining about the level of violence on TV and in our culture was giving parenting advice. Then again, you learn something new everyday. Flame away. I'm done.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 148 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is