Part of the incentive for the subscription model is that they are losing less money to pirated versions of their software because it's time consuming to keep those pirated versions up to date. It allows someone who only needs Photoshop for a week to get just one month, instead of torrenting some older version.
I had to drive home with the radio off so I could recap the whole plot in my head. I think I'll need to see it again as well.
In my regular theater, I was more getting distracted by some structural scaffolding behind the screen that kept squeakily resonating when those loud sections would come around in the mid-upper frequencies. It seems like most theaters these days don't care about maintaining a clean sound environment when it comes to building maintenance. I wish I had a Dolby theater anywhere remotely close to me.
Paraphrasing one of my professors back in Prague, but "The camera should always have movement, unless it shouldn't."
My logic is that we don't see the world through our eyes without any movement. Even when we are sitting, our breathing moves out head's perspective slightly back and forth. When we are interested in something, we move in closer to get a better look, afraid we pull away. These are all motivations to guide camera movement in film, or to lock shots down for emotional impact. There are no rules to how a camera should move, it can be to emphasize a situation, or specific thing, or it can be for the spectacle of the movement itself. It's all a creative tool to make visual decisions with.
I personally like to always have some subtle movement in the stuff I shoot. Whether it's a slow zoom, slight dolly movement, or big fast tracking shots.
If you watch the BTS, when they show the raw and final versions, you can see that it's being illuminated by continuous large light sources on either side of the set, and the strobe soft boxes are CGI or comped in for the final version.
Yep, I've shot up to 960fps at 1/2000th with a 120T as my source with zero flicker.