Slashdot Mirror
Consumers Prefer Movies At Home
Ubergrendle writes "A poll conducted by Ipsos on behalf of the Associated Press and AOL confirmed that 73% of movie viewers prefer to watch movies at home rather than at a theater. This article comes on the heels of a consistently poor box office this year, even despite the presence of the new Star Wars film. Despite this demand for home viewing, only 5% admitted to downloading a movie from the internet."
This is what I have been telling everyone for years!
Let's go over the pros and cons, shall we?
Theater: You lose. You have no control. Don't you go to the bathroom...cause I'm not gonna tell you what you missed.
Theater: You drive x number of miles to be squeezed into a packed, filthy theater with unidentifiable gunk coating the floors and other 'movie patrons' who smell like either really bad milk or really good cheese.
Theater: Public area, public standards of decency apply (barely), see above reason for why you should *never* take off your shoes in a movie theater.
Theater: You are forced to purchase the theater's overpriced, low-quality slop.
Theater: Public restroom. (ick)
Theater: Price of movie anywhere from $2.00 (no more dollar shows anymore, apparently
The choice seems clear.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
No surprise there.
I won't go into a theater anymore. I use Netflix and buy the movies I really want to watch. I've invested in a HD widescreen 52" television and a decent 6.1 surround sound system. Now when I watch a movie:
1. I can get up to go pee without missing any of it.
2. I don't have other people annoying me while I'm trying to watch it. (Well, other then the wife and kids, but what can you do?)
3. I can smoke, and have a glass of scotch.
4. I don't have to watch a half hour of commercials before the movie starts.
And I can do all this from the comfort of my sofa in my boxer shorts.
Oh, and I've never downloaded a feature movie off the net. I've seen them, the quality isn't what I want.
DVD's and home theater systems have made the theater more of a hassle then a special event. Unless you're going by yourself, you're going to spend as much if not more going to the theater then you will buying the DVD. Leave the theaters to the teenyboppers on dates. They're not there to watch the movie anyway.
DeviantArt Page
NSFWHome Theater: Private bathroom (icky)
Theater: Public restroom. (ickier)
It's Fark.com
This exact same story was posted earlier today over there.
Sex is better at home during a movie than in a theater too :)
Why is this a surprise? The surprise should be that people still line up for this tripe, long after the series lost its luster.
P.S. People prefer to have sex at home, shop at home, and do most things at home where possible.
a: not watching at theatre
b: not downloading illegally
Are people really so forgetful of rental services that someone thinks that a and b are mutually exclusive?
Wtf? Over.
::jafomatic
We dont like paying 11$ for a movie!
We all saw what happened to Pee-Wee. Aint't no way that's happening to me again.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Well wonder why?
Movie Theater
Ticket: $9.25 x 2 = $18.50
Popcorn: $3.75 (would you like a large for $2.00 more?)
Beverage: $4.25 (would you like a xxl with free refills for $2.00 more?)
Candy: $3.00
Going home and getting laid: Priceless.
Home Theater
Rental: $4.00
Popcorn: $1.00
12 Pack of Coors Ligh: $9.99 + deposit
Candy: $1.24
Turning Gili off, and getting laid: Priceless.
When 2 tickets cost more than the DVD it becomes a no brainer. The only time I ever go to a theatre anymore is for a movie I *REALLY* don't want to wait for. An example of this would be the LOTR movies. 99% of everything else I have no problem waiting for the DVD release and watching them then.
- Toby
because every movie in my local theatre sucks, but occasionally a decent one is released on DVD.
Why am I not rapping? I am rapping with you in a way.
The main reason my wife and I don't go to the movies a lot are the kids, specifically the teens. They come in, talk the whole time, can't turn off their cell phones, and usually leave a big mess behind.
The price is the second reason, but it's mainly people who can't shut up or at least talk at a whisper. At home I can send my kids to bed if they get noisy.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
What does this even have to do with downloading movies off of the intarweb?
Making a bit of a stretch there, perhaps?
I'm hearing impaired. Captions are required for me to be able to watch movies or TV. Yet theaters do not provide this vital service to their disabled patrons (the only one that does in my area is a science museum with rear-window captioning installed in its IMAX theater).
... stop whining that people bring in their own food when you're putting the screws to people. Oh, and maybe you should go into that Walgreens across the street someday, which is selling "theater size" boxes of candy for HALF what you are!)
This is why I will wait for the DVD unless it is a movie I really can't wait to see, and even then I have to know the basic story first (like LOTR and the Star Wars films). I have no choice but to wait for the DVD release.
Whatever happened to the class-action lawsuit that was planned to force this accomodation to be added under the ADA? This is, I feel, a valid reason to bring suit. If there's space for wheelchairs, they're accomodating the visibly physically handicapped -- but those of us with that invisible disability get stiffed.
(Oh, and the overpriced food is another thing
i am a soviet space shuttle
The last line of the article makes it sound like downloading movies is something that everyone does but just don't 'admit' to.
Could it be that most people would rather spend the $4-$8 on a rental or $10-$18 to buy a movie instead of going through the still complicated steps to find, download and burn a dvd of a low quality bootleg?
Movie piracy over the net in the US is vastly overrated.
D
The first, last, and only tech news site on the net
The only exception I've made is to go see Star Wars. I never want to pay $30 for food and drinks for the family ever again. Plus I can pause the movie and deal with my children as needed, and not have to bite my lip because of someone else's kids.
SYS 64738
Let's see, I can take my family to the theater to watch a movie that may or may not be good, and in doing so spend $8 per person for tickets and $4 per person for snacks (for me, the total comes to $48). Or I can rent a DVD (or watch by PPV) for $5, provide my own (better) snacks at home, and watch the movie on my big screen HDTV. And, if the movie turns out to be really good, I can buy a DVD copy for about $25. If the movie turns out to be not that good(tm) (and 80% of the movies these days fall into this category IMNSHO), then I've not wasted significant dollars (and feel much better about myself cause I wasn't suckered in by some stupid and misleading movie trailer that convinced me to sit in a smelly, sticky theater for 2 hours where the 15 minutes of previews and commercials end up being more entertaining than the main feature).
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
I believe that Mr. Cuban has proposed something like this, but imagine if the movie studios really took off with this idea. What if on the day a movie is released, it's:
1. Available in the theaters
2. Available on DVD
3. Available as a pay-for-download (say either pay-per-view, or an iTunes Video Store kind of idea (granted, that would mean Apple or someone would have to come up with a good home media Tivo like device that's not a whole fricken' computer - say around $300 or so. Tivo should be hopping over that.)
You can go to the movies and see it on the screen, and on your way out buy the DVD if you like. There - theaters and studios just got your money twice!
People (such as myself) with young children who don't attend many movies since small crying children in theaters are bad could either rent the new release (even at a premium of $10 for the rental of a "brand new!" movie release could be worth it), or pick it up in a store for $20 - $25 to own (maybe "new movie" DVD's are a little more, which would be acceptable, then go down in price after six months or so depending on the movies popularity), or tell the machine "I want to buy this movie - go download it" and, if the machine is set up smartly to auto-download certain movies in encrypted format for use (I believe DirectTV was thinking of an idea like this), I'm watching it.
Or use Pay-per-view. Whatever.
The movie industry could drive hugh amounts of revenue. Rather than hand-wringing with "Oh, nos! Teh bad hack0rs will steal our movies if we let them be downloaded", odds are they could see a doubling or tripling of sales the first 48 hours a movie is out. They could have re-releases of the DVD with the cool "Director's cut" (or even offer that the day the movie is released and get around the rating systems in the theaters) and get people to buy it twice.
It's so brain numbingly obvious, it's a mystery to me that nobody's at least tried it. At least maybe on a lesser known title that they don't expect to do well at the box office and see how it goes.
Anyway, this is all just my own opinion. I could be wrong.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
I went to "Revenge of the Sith". In the middle of the movie there was this constant babbling behind me. I turned around and looked and there was this slob on his cell phone and he promptly gave me the finger.
Though I went and got the usher, I still feel inclined that I should have used my own physical force.
MPAA - if people stop going to your movies it's because they might be getting tired of cell phones in theatres.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
It's just too much of a hassle to take the 4 year old to the theater with us, or to try to find a sitter.
For the price of a couple tickets, I get a monthly subscription to NetFlix. There's hundreds of movies I want to watch and I get, on average, about 12 a month assuming I watch them right away.
For the lazy person like myself, it works out great.
I still saw Star Wars and LOTR at the theater, for some movies you still want that cinematic experience, but I don't see the same need to pay $16+ to go see movies like Hitchikers Guide or the latest Batman. They might be good movies, but I'm happy to wait a few months until I can throw them on my queue. In the meantime, I have a few seasons of Six Feet Under to catch up on, the old James Bond.. etc. All things a theater can't provide me.
For me, there are theatre movies, and there are 'renters.' Most comedies, dramas, or any other movie that I'm only somewhat interested in get rented. But although I have a pretty good set up here (5.1 surround, Sony Wega HDTV) it still doesn't compare to the sound or screen in a good theatre. Star Wars, Batman Begins, and other huge movies like that demand a theatre. My home theatre just doesn't compare.
CC Licensed Serialized Story and Podcast: Ingenioustries
I prefer watching a movie at the Alamo drafthouse (www.drafthouse.com).
* No one under 18
* Food
* Beer
What else could you really want?
ChiefArcher
I guess their definition of a 'slow year' is different from mine.. Here are the box office totals for the latest star wars flick,
Domestic: $336,736,523 49.5%
+ Overseas: $344,085,178 50.5%
= Worldwide: $680,821,701
Fuck, it'll hit a billion in a few months probably.
I hate going to the movies for the following reasons:
1.) Cramped legs unless I'm an asshole and put my feet up on the back of the chair in front of me.
2.) I hate other people. They're constantly talking, crumbling paper, taking phone calls, kicking the seat or having sex.
3.) can't use the bathroom and not miss a scene.
4.) Parking.. I fucking hate parking lots.
5.) seat saving. Trying to find a seat in a movie I paid for that doesn't have a whole fucking row reserved to some sorority's get together.
6.) line for the restroom after movie.
7.) overpriced low quality snacks.
All in all home theater beats the shit out of Movie theaters.
my 2c
The road between democracy and tyranny is paved with secrecy in the name of security.
I like the cinema, its a good trip out and movies do look so much better on the big screen.
Downsides are the cost of soda/snacks ($5.00 for a medium coke is blatant extortion) but I can live with it.
The real limiting factor is that now we have a baby we can't go anywhere unless we get a sitter.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2005-06 -15
The point about showing commercials about anti-piracy in a theatre full of people who have just payed to watch the movie is just too much.
Ossus
If you think the numbers are high now, just imagine how high they will be when large flatscreens get cheap...
They don't call theaters "The Big Screen" for nothing.
And besides, in all the rush to have more choices for moviegoers at theaters, the Big Screens you get at theaters are getting smaller while the ones you get at home are getting larger. As theaters make more and more small rooms to watch in that aren't that dissimilar to home, what's the difference other than sharing the room with a lot of noisy strangers.
Eventually, to survive, I predict that theaters will have to go back to the really big screen. Or start featuring other things, like food, just as air conditioning was once a big draw (and might be again if the poor in the US keep getting poorer and return to the days where they can't afford "basic needs" like dvd players and air conditioners).
There may also be a few kinds of specialty movies, like comedies, where a critical mass of people who are smart enough to get the jokes and make others realize it's time to laugh doesn't hurt either...
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
Yes... I don't admit I download movies either...
Normally the population's sense of security can be measured by how many prefer a movie at home versus at the theater.
When the movie-at-home crowd grows larger than the theater crowd it means more people are unwilling to leave their homes for some reason. This comes from a sense of insecurity and fear because the natural human behavior is that of joining crowds.
Broken Hearts are for Assholes. - Frank Zappa
For most of the movies out there I say to mysel Ill wait for the DVD. Because there is no good point watching it at the theator. Unless it is a movie with a lot of good effects Like LotR or Harry Potter or Star Wars. Then it is worth watching it to get the full effect of the movie with surrond sound and the like. But for the other movies where there is no real wow effect from seing it in the theator vs. watching it from home like any lower key non-action movie. Like most comidies or Dramas there is no point in wasing your money for a movie that is just as well experience on a 32" TV. Also for bad movies there is no fun at the theator because people don't like it when you give comitatry durring the show (Like in mistery sciece theator 3000) But at home you can watch B movies and really injoy them by making fun of them out loud. Like in SW Ep. 2 going Bla Bla Bla every time Anigan Talks.
Of course if I had a good home theator I wouldn't probably go the movies.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
5% admitted to downloading a movie from the internet."
And the other 95% are liars.
What?
To me they are somewhat different experiences. Most of the movies I've seen in the past year or two are action-oriented, loud films with a lot going on onscreen. I like to immerse myself in the film and let it command the senses. At home, I can't afford the equipment that might best do that: proper sound, TV/monitor, no distractions in the background, etc. (Not to mention the old couple who lives below me who bangs on their ceiling if it's too noisy after 10 PM.) A comedy or romance I'd prefer at home for the reasons other posters listed, but action is different. If I could properly replicate the pros of the theater environment, then I'd reconsider.
That's the shit that feds me up
Sounds like someone has never had sex. The irony is the commentators name is nerdbuster. Someone got busted! /kidding
Oh, and I've never downloaded a feature movie off the net. I've seen them, the quality isn't what I want.
You can use a website to find the checksum of a file that has high quality. If you download at random, you will mostly get bad copies, but if you use a verified downloads site, you get high quality copies.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
That is very easy for me to believe. Downloading movies online still pretty much sucks. I have a DSL connection, and while I never download anything that is protected by copyright (clear throat) when I use bittorrent to DL files of similar sizes, it can take days and days and days literally, and it slows the rest of my internet use to a crawl. It is a major pain, and it can be faster to buy a movie on ebay, including shipping time!
Then, when I get the file, playing it can be a problem. Not a big problem, but I consider myself to be right in the middle of the technical sophistication curve, and I think anyone less sophisticated than me would find downloading and playing movies to be completely impossible.
San Francisco Photographers
This is something that I finally got my wife to understand, in any given year there is only a small handful of movies that you *have* to see in the theater the first time. For example, Lord of the Rings. On the other hand, there are a whole lot more of "wait until it's out on DVD" movies. For example, oh, any chick-flick ever made.
The bonus to this is by the time they come out on DVD she's usually forgotten about the "must see" chick-flick-du-jour. Even if she remembers she usually waits for a time when I'm not home to watch them. A winning strategy all around.
I wouldn't say I'm a bad gambler but the last time I went to Vegas I even lost a buck on the soda machine.
I saw Sith in my local cinema (I'm British - I go to the cinema to watch a film...), and now that it's a god-knows-how-many screen multiplex the screen was, of course, tiny. The actual auditorium was also undersized; the green emergency exit sign was so close to the screen that it cast a permanent green glow over the bottom right portion of the screen.
So much for the full cinematic experience... I remember the good old days of 1000+ seaters and grainy, still image ads for the curry house "just round the corner"; now that was a decent night out.
Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.
Why can't we be called "people"?
I for one am tired of the implication that my only purpose in life is to mindlessly devour everything marketed at me, and to take on as much debt as possible in doing so.
if you go to a theater people might notice that you have just seen tripple X 2 or something just as vile, eventhogh you only went and saw it becouse your friend loved version 1 and can't watch movies alone and you took pity on the fool /end rant
while you can shamelessly sit and see anything you want at home with actualy tasty snacks and a way better beer than what they serve at the movie theater, and you can do it as dressed or undressed as you want.
Solid Splash design
I've been downloading a shitload of movies. Plus I abuse my Netflix account...I've got lots of films on DVD-R. Who needs all those "special features"? All I want is the film itself!
If the studios would just release a DVD with the film (and English closed captioning) without any of the extra crap (like other languages, commentary or "making of" featurettes) and sell it for, say, half what they charge for these "deluxe special edition" discs I'd probably buy them.
In the meantime, I'll just keep on a-piratin'.
Yaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrr, matey.
When I view a flick at home, I don't have to worry about attendants in night vision goggles trying to take my camcorder. I can just set the camcorder on a tripod, perfectly centered on the screen I might add, although I had to then shift a little right or left to see the movie. Regardless, when filmed at home, there is much less hassle and I don't have ticket collectors asking me if that's a tripod in my pocket.--and I get a perfect miniDV recording of the movie on my 60" TV as it was meant to be seen.
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
I have been collecting DVD's since they first came out (In the mid 90's, DVDs cost $9 ). In our house, we have some odd 600 DVDs. More than half of these, we could have seen in the theatres, but chose to wait until DVD. It cost us less, and we ended up with the movie.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
$10+ a ticket? for two people that is $20 then add on overpriced popcorn and drinks
WHILE you can wait a few months for the flick to come out on DVD and you can own it, and watch it as many times as you want for $15
let me see which i prefer....
but there are some films you have to see in the theater, but more often than not, home works better
I'm beginning to shun theatres based on the unavoidable, loud commercials that play during the 20 minutes before the previews start and the six dollar popcorn. 2 tickets + 1 popcorn + 2 sodas ~= 10 movie rentals, and i can pause the dvd when i get up to go to the bathroom.
The sacred and the propane
1. Dell DLP projector $900
2. Bose compact theatre system from BJ's electronics $500
3. Use ScreenGoo (tm) acrylic wallpaint on your drywall
4. Let paint dry
5. No more listening to Lakeesha Shankeeka Laquita Jackson jabbing on her cellphone while you are trying to watch LOTR.
6.
7. Profit.
I'm sure I wouldn't admit to downloading movies in any 'surveys' either. I'm sure the results would somehow make their way back to the MPAA. :p
Went to see it. Wood *everywhere*, and I'm not talking about the seats.
Produce some good high quality films with decent acting and people will flock.
Deleted
If the movie is going to have a *lot* of special effects and/or looks to be a blockbuster that will benefit from a big screen, then I'll go to the theater and shell out the $8-$9 for tickets, otherwise I'll wait for the VHS to appear.
:(
Terry
tired of watching 15 minutes of commercials at an $8 entry fee
That's pretty much it for me. There are downsides involving ignorant cinema goers making too much noise, but not much else. If I'm taking my wife for a night out, very rare for us now as we have young kids to look after, it's likely we'll go for a film. Whilst I enjoy watching films at home, it simply doesn't feel anywhere near as special.
Cheers,
Ian
$20 for a ticket and popcorn/soda for one movie in NYC is more than basic cable, with movies, costs for a whole month. See only one movie a week, after a year that $1000 can buy a pretty snazzy TV - maybe even bigger than the screen at the multiplex. Which will probably live for at least 5 years.
--
make install -not war
Hmmmmmmm, let's see... movie at the theatre:
Or, movie at home:
Yeah, I'm not sure I get it... why would anyone prefer the theater over watching movies at home?
...as Shirley Bassey and the Propellerheads would put it.
It's funny how the more things change, the more things stay the same. As I wrote in my journal, this is just the latest iteration of a problem that's dogged the movies ever since TV first came into its own in the '50s or thereabouts.
Back then, the ready availability of content, including old movies, on their TV screens was inducing people to stay at home more. So Hollywood tried every new gimmick to come down the pipe to try to pull those damned TV-watchers out of their homes and back to the movies--everything from three different kinds of widescreen, to 3D, to Smell-o-Vision, to Sensurround. Of those gimmicks, the wider screen is the only one that's really stood the test of time.
And now it's deja vu all over again...and filmmaker/entrepreneurs like Lucas, Rodriguez, and Cuban are trying more gimmicks--digital projection, simultaneous release to cinema, cable, and video...and even dragging the hoary old ghost of 3D back out of the closet again.
The more things change, the more things stay the same.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Many people here are complaining about theater food prices. For many theaters, concessions are their only opportunity to earn real money. In my local area, out of an $8 ticket, the theater keeps about $1. ONE DOLLAR. Concessions *require* a huge markup to bring in enough revenue to make the theater profitable enough to exist.
:)
So, the real culprit for high concession prices is Hollywood, for requiring theaters to pay them so much.
This is, however, an excellent reason to eat dinner *before* the movie.
mmmm Scuzzy bathroom. I guess thats where the little hard drives go when they need to barf up a few pages while im playing 3 or 4 movies at once on cheap PC using scavenged parts including Scuzzy drives :)
XML - A clever joke would be here if
Go the theatre on any given night and look at the hordes of teenagers. Then remember (in the US at least) what a huge and growing portion of the population Senior Citizens are. I'm only 26, and I can't stand watching a movie with boatloads of kids, and I imagine that feeling will just get stronger as I get older.
Add to that the incredible price of a ticket, and the incredible lousiness of most new films, and I think the situation gets much clearer.
Home Theater: Currently limited to crappy-ass TV-resolution
Theater: Experience the awesomeness of film.
But yeah, I agree. Movie theaters haven't really got all that stuff going for them these days.
Give me DVDs with full HD-resolution released in a somewhat sane timeframe, and you probably won't see me going to the theaters anytime soon.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
Home: Sub-titles/captioning for those with problems with loss of hearing. Same goes for non-english speakers in an english-speaking market. Theater: What the hell did he say? What's the deal with that, they have seating for the handicaped (almost always in a crappy spot, too far forward or in the last row.) Why can't caption for the deaf and near-deaf? Anyone ready to join me in a class-action suit?
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups. -- 0 1 My two bits
Despite this demand for home viewing, only 5% admitted to downloading a movie from the internet." No kidding. That's because most of the "downlaods" are poor quality. I like watching movies at home, but not crappy copies. I'll wait for the DVD.
This isn't meant to be a troll, but will probably be modded as such. Anyway...
Man, some of you people are the whiniest group of nerds I've ever seen. I don't know where in the world you guys are going to see movies, with the screaming teenagers, the cell phones, the chair kicking, the bad parking, the lines, the wait, the dirty bathrooms, etc...
I have a suggestion. Get out of the fucking ghetto! Damn, if I went to a theatre and encountered any of that shit, I'd find a new theatre. Fortunately, I guess I don't go to the theatre across from the junenille detention center like some of you do.
I hate whiny geeks.
I didn't RTFA, but did they make any distinction between downloading movies "from the internet" illegaly and downloading from legit download sites like Movielink or Cinemanow? Or is it just implied that "downloading from the internet" = "bad" ?
there are advantages to going to the theater.
The main reason for me is that going to the theater is an outing, and more of an event. No one likes being stuck at home all the time. You get to anticipate the release date with all the advertisements adding to the excitement. And all this is worth something.
Furthermore, no one has mentioned the 'superior picture and sound quality' available at the theater. You can spend several thousand dollars on a home system which will compare. But then the money arguement kinda falls apart now doesn't it?
On another note. I'm sure more than 5% of the population downloads movies, but maybe not a LOT more than that do it regularly. Tried telling my parents over the phone how to connect the laptop to the TV and sound system... yeesh. Sending SVCDs from now on.
This is yet another press hit for the MPAA in support of their cry of declining revenues due to "internet freeloading scum".
I am pro-lifechoice.
The prices of high end television sets and surround sound systems are decreasing. More and more consumers are going to watch movies at home instead.
1) Comfort. At home I can eat what I want, drink what i want, prop my feet up, watch the movie in my underwear.
2) Ticket and refreshment prices at theatres are getting stupid-high $5 for a diet coke?
3) Schedule. I can watch the movie on my time, pause, watch half tonight, half tomorrow.
4) Environment control. I find movies houses to be rather chilly and drafty. In my home I control the temperature. I also don't a bunch of noisy kids and lowlifes hanging out in my living room.
Despite this demand for home viewing, only 5% admitted to downloading a movie from the internet."
My, oh my....how did we ever manage to watch movies at home before the Internet came along? I'm not surprised that the industry is blaming (or suggesting) that the downturn in attendance is due to downloading (as seen in countless articles). That explanation must be so much more reassuring to them than the fact that they've been putting out nothing but crap for the past several years.
Ryosen
One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
...is not having to sit next to that fat ugly woman stinking of Walmart perfume whose blubber has completely engulfed the armrest between your seat and hers and is threating to engulf you while she chomps away on the 'family' sized bucket of popcorn laden with the rancid fat based liquid called 'butter' by food manufacturers. Even better, you don't have to have to be smothered by her as she goes off to get her second bucket half way through the movie and then returns attempting (mostly unsuccessfully) to stuff her lipaceous undulations back into her own seat.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
I'd rather see movies in the theater much of the time. There are only a few I'm willing to pay $10 to see, and others I'll watch on DVD. But since all the threads so far have dissed movie theaters, I'll defend them.
The best reason to see a movie in the theater is the size of the screen and the corresponding resolution. Movies that are beautifully shot don't translate well even to a 30"+ screen. Partly that's because of the DVD format with its limited resolution. The beauty is often in the details. A gorgeous landscape is just a blur on a DVD; the best work of an actor comes out in tiny movements.
I saw Hero on the big screen and loved it; I can't help but think that part of the reason I liked House of Flying Daggers less is because I saw it on DVD. I'm sure it's at least as beautiful, but I just can't see it.
On DVD I'll often watch movies in pan&scan rather than widescreen because widescreen costs me even more of my limited scan lines. Often you can cut off part of the picture as less relevant; it ruins the composition but at least I can see what's going on. Sometimes that doesn't work, either. The only way to appreciate the movie is to watch it at the theater.
Maybe I'll change my mind when I start seeing high-definition DVDs. Even then it'll cost me $3,000 for a large TV and new DVD player; I can see a LOT of movies in the theater for that, even if I splurge and get the popcorn with simulated artificial butter-flavored grease.
Yeah, I don't like crying babies and overpriced popcorn and $20 for me and a date, either. But I go because there are things I do like that I just can't get at home.
(Also, it's creepy to invite your date over to your house for a first date. Movie theaters are a nice, neutral place.)
You should have spilled your extra large extra ice coke onto his lap. Works like a charm.
Deleted
I work all day at my computer at home I love to get out of the house and see a movie or anything!
At home, you have your choice from thousands of movies made over the past century, yet at the theater, you have to choose from only 4 or 5 modern PIECES OF COMPLETE AND UTTER SHIT
I dont want to leave the theatre, i'd miss part of the movie. I connect my penis to a hose that goes down my pants leg. This works great because most theaters are on a down hill slant.
Yes, thats right, I'm that guy.
There's one reason, plain and simple, that I won't go to the movies. It has nothing to do with money, not being able to pause the movie, etc. It's the fact that every time I go, it's packed with high school kids acting like children. It doesn't matter what movie I'm watching. Even movies where I'd expect an older crowd, we've got high school kids yelling back and forth at each other, cell phones going off. This is in Naples, Florida too, where the average age is pretty high up there. For one reason or another, the movies are always a shitshow so I'd much rather stay at home where it's quiet.
Finance tutorials and more! Understandfinance
But something else to consider - I'll buy movies I want to see. Why would I spend $20 minimum (me and wife - snacks not included) to see a movie that may or may not be good? I can wait for the DVD and buy it for a few dollars more. I am sick of every movie being overhyped as the "best movie of the year" and a "hit new film". They grab quotes from nobodys, who were probably paid to say them, and hype hype hype. You only have to be burned by this a couple of times before you say "No more!". I haven't been to the theater for about a year, and I am convinced I am not missing anything.
Yes, there is still something cool about seeing a movie on the big screen. But the movie has to be worth it. The last one that I think was worth it was Kill Bill 2. But I ended up buying it anyway. So it isn't like the movie industry is hurting, they are still getting their money - off of an industry that would have never have happened if they had their way. VCRs would have been outlawed, and the home movie market would have been squashed. They are just as short-sighted as the RIAA.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
These numbers tell the story. Ticket sales from theaters provided 100 percent of the studios' revenues in 1948; in 2003, they accounted for less than 20 percent. Instead, home entertainment provided 82 percent of the 2003 revenues. In terms of profits, the studios can make an even larger proportion from home entertainment since most, if not all, of the theatrical revenues go to pay for the prints and advertising required to get audiences into theaters. (Video, DVDs, and TV have much lower marketing costs.)
This profit reality has transformed the way Hollywood operates. Theatrical releases now essentially serve as launching platforms for videos, DVDs, network TV, pay TV, games, and a host of other products. Even so, the box-office totals are losing their traditional influence. Up until a few years ago, the results from the U.S. box office largely drove secondary markets, especially video. If a film had a huge opening, the video chains would order 200,000 or more copies (at $60 or more apiece wholesale) for rentals. But this buying formula ended when consumers began buying DVDs at mass retailers. By 2004, Wal-Mart was accounting for more than one-third of the studios' revenues in video and DVD.
~Edward Jay Epstein for Slate.
So basically the theatrical release is a gimmic to get consumers to buy DVDs and other stuff later.
Granted, movies like Troy and The Day After Tomorrow are ONLY worth seeing in the theater - the only thing these movies have going for them are sweeping, large-scale visuals that don't translate to the smaller screen.
But that's not the only kind of movie that can (nay, *should*) benefit from the large screen treatment.
There are quite a few differences between watching a film in the theater and seeing at "at home on tv". Here are just a few:
1) Focus - when in the theater, there's only one thing to pay attention to: the movie on the screen. When you're watching a movie at home, you can multi-task, the phone can ring, the dog can hump your leg...all things that remove you from entering the world of the film completely. Suspension of disbelief is lower, and it's far less immersive.
2) Contagion - ever notice how some comedies are just a lot funnier in the theater? It's because there are other human beings in there with you, and the laughter is a feedback loop - the more each of you laugh, the more the rest laugh. I watch comedies at home by myself all the time, and rarely laugh out loud (even though they are hysterically funny). But in the theater, my laughing experience is always much higher, and so is my enjoyment.
3) Scale - one thing to remember: on the theater screen, things are larger than life. On your TV, they are *smaller*. A good director has created his work to be shown on the larger screen, not a TV. It's a different experience.
I have seen documentaries in a theater that will blow your mind. Often times the immersive nature of the darkened theater enhances the emotional experience, whereas just watching them on TV relegates them to just that - another thing on TV, like "Friends" or "Everyone Loves Raymond".
Photography, technology, and my dog Scout - http://mattstratton.com
i live in the alps, in the TYROL to be exact. let me sum up what a movie at the theater costs me:
:)
;)
a 50 kilometer ride by car ( ~ 10 dollar fuel )
the cinema ticket for me and my babe ~ dollar 10
some food and the obligatory after-cinema disco-visit ( ~ dollar 30 )
sums up to at least 50 dollar for a shitty flick and i cant even fsck my girlfriend in the theater.
compare that to the bandwidth costs of a downloaded screener and the pleasure of having my girlfriend fallen asleep beside me because of the shitty plot and boring action of most hollywood productions. i can roll a joint and keep on working
i just talked to some girls about the hollywood stuff, they all told me in the first sentence they always fall asleep when watching this sh1t at home.
seems to me, this hollywood stuff is designed that way:
you get her into bed by baiting with Brad Pitt, the subliminal messages in the movie make her fall asleep in your bed. she starts to feel homelike in your bed
to get a reasonable 'home theater' experience you need to make a pretty high initial investment which alot of people just dont want to make. keep in mind we are talking general public who will not fashion their own projection screen combos or much ese for that matter. 46" TV ~$1500 and UP Surround System & Speakers ~$500 and up so thats ~$2000 outlay for a reasonably big picture with surround $2000/$20 per movie ticket = 100 movies not counting popcorn et al w/snacks lets say 2000/40 = 50 movies that's an entire year watching a movie once a week, if we assume the average person goes to the movies 12 times a year it would take 50/12 or a little over four years to save your movie budget to apply to a house setup (not accounting for price changes). I doubt most people could schedule the savings to do this, and/or give up movies for 4 years in the meantime (or at least theater movies). Alot of people I know just dont have a couple of G's laying around to purchase theater equipment. That being said, I have a a home theatre setup and love it, with the DVD being vieable on two screens at the same time.
If I just want to see a movie, forget it. All the advantages other people have posted are overwhelming: I can watch in my bathrobe, the furniture is much more comfortable, Netflix is more convenient, no people sitting behind me repeating the dialogue to each other or kicking my seat, I can pause if I have to use the restroom, I can turn off the subtitles if the movie is in a foreign language I speak, there are often neat DVD extras to watch if I really enjoy the film... the list goes on.
Home video killed drive-in movies in the US; there are a few left here and there, but nowhere near the number I remember when I was a kid. I think it'll do the same to regular theaters, especially as more and more people get large high-def flatscreens and the "better picture and sound" argument becomes less convincing. That's what I did; my TV is a 9-foot-wide screen and a front projector, and the picture quality is better than most of the local movie theaters. And given the price of movie tickets around here, my setup has probably already paid for itself!
Lord of the Rings is an interesting case. I wanted to watch it, but I knew that the DVD version was going to be a more complete version of the story, so I decided I'd wait for that. If the DVD had been going to be the same as the theater version, I probably would have gone to see it in the theater.
Another case where the movie company have only themselves to blame is Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut. I simply won't watch censored movies, so I waited for the uncensored DVD to come out.
This is increasingly happening with movies--another example is Team America World Police, where the theatrical version farcically censored puppets miming sex.
Let's see... shall we pay $18 for the two of us to watch a censored version of the movie, or shall we wait and pay $4 to watch the uncut version? Ooh, that's a tricky one, I don't think.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
...the beer.
I don't feel a bit sorry for theater chains. Greedy bastards did themselves in. And just as soon as the air car is perfected airlines are next on the scrap heap of history. I hate them worse than movie theaters.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
That's because when you have the ability to control and afford a 50in + TV (I think I saw a 72 the other day. jesus) it's basically the same as the movie theater, plus you don't have to deal with people yakkin on cell phones, you don't have to sit next to someone that stinks.. and the popcorn is low-fat.
I still go because I like to see them as soon as possible--I mean, not opening night, but I don't want to wait six months--but I'm going less and less. This is all because of asshole customers who won't turn off their cell phones and bring crying babies to R-rated movies at 10pm. I went to a movie last year and this guy a few seats away--I'm not exaggerating--had his phone ring about 15 times and answered about 10 times. Seriously.
The theaters are comfortable, sound and picture is nice, it's close, they play films I like, and if I wait two weeks I can use the discount tickets they sell at work. Everything is fine except for inconsiderate assholes. Yes, I could go find an usher who might do something but then I'm missing part of the movie. Sucks either way.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
I've always wondered by movie theatres don't all have video rental stores inside, and vice versa.
They could have projection rooms available for groups could watch videos on a hiqh-quality projection screen with a good sound system. There's money to be made, so there's probably a way around that stupid legal construction about private viewing of videos versus public display.
I think the movie-nerd subculture would be attracted by that like flies to cocoa butter.
sigs, as if you care.
You know, I've never understood the mad rush to see a given film the instant it's released...it's a movie..it'll keep...it's not like it'll go bad like milk or something if you don't view it within a given time period.
Yes, like milk, movies might get spoiled... by inconsiderate jerks/dumbasses who think that the first thing to say when giving an opinnion on a movie is to list all punches and twists.
And they are legion, it's even rampant in pop-culture: I knew what the shower scene in Psycho was before watching the movie (that was a punch in the original release, all persons involved in filming had strict contracts stipulating that they couldn't blab about it before it started showing). Worse than that, the Planet of the Apes have the DAMN DIRTY SPOILER right on the freaking cover!!!
So I'm in a rush to see movies before I accidently meet an idiot who'll spoil it, or am exposed to their idiocy through media.
P.S. I can explain the idiot's thought process: They remember the moment in the movie that had the most impact on their impressionable minds, and they say it, thinking "this was the [superlative] part, so this is the part they'll want to know about!"
Depressingly irrational.
You can't take the sky from me...
If you have bought a copy of the DVD, you can legally download another copy where the annoying faetures are removed, under fair use. Well you can in Europe anyway, not sure about other countries.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
Movie theaters only have the sound and large screen. Everything else sucks:
1. Having to sit through 30 mins of advertising if you show up early.
2. Having to watch 20 mins of previews - that includes advertising. Listening to them bitch about music piracy makes me want to violate their copyright. PSA my ass.
3. Having ass-hats with cell phones use them during the movie.
4. Paying way too much for crap food if you want to eat junk. They use to let you bring in food until they realized they couldn't compete.
I can't see paying more than $7.50 USD to see a movie at a theater, ever. Actually, if I go to the movies, then I usually go on the weekend before 5 PM, when it only costs $5 USD.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
These are other reasons:
:)
- Big Screen TV's are getting affordable. I just bought a brand new 46" DLP set for only $1800 - and now it's even lower. It surely won't be long before TV's this size are below $1000.
- The technology is now easy to use/hook-up, readily accessible, and affordable. Back in the days of Laserdisc this wasn't the case.
It doesn't take much to get that theatre experience at home now - and thanks to Netflix, you don't even have to go out of your way to get a DVD to watch. It's true - I've only been to the theatre once this year - care to guess what I saw?
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
over half of movies are just tired rehashing of past successes, very little original material these days: they might be worth $3 to see at home but not $8 + concession stand + wait in line + annoying junveniles. I haven't seen a movie released in the past year I would consider worth seeing in theatre.
The reasons (especially the first post) stated above are very true, but one thing has been left out:
The vast majority of movies released now suck.
No longer do I try to catch a movie on its opening day. Instead, I read review after review, talk to a few friends who saw it, and only then will I consider seeing it in a theater.
But with the turnaround time from theater to DVD being 3-6 months, I usually end up waiting to watch it at home if it's worth watching at all. Instead, I'd rather rent tried and true movies that I haven't seen yet. After 50 years of great film-making, there are still plenty to choose from!
Those that I've seen a few times are those that I'll buy, pre-viewed, from Blockbuster or some place like that for a much reduced cost.
Duh!
You can't watch movies downloaded using BitTorrent at the theater...
It's when I'm paying $10 for a popcorn and a drink that cost the theatre less than 20 cents that I get really ticked off.
But you still go, so you obviously don't mind it that much. If people are willing to pay the high prices, why should they reduce them?
I'll probably be modded down for this...
The Rear Window captioning system does this sort of thing. On the back of the theater, there's an LCD panel that displays the captions. People who want to see the captions get this transparent acrylic panel thing which can attach to the seat in front of them and is adjustable. You attach the thing, adjust the angle right, and you will see the words from behind you superimposed on the screen in front of you. Works great, by all accounts.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
The only time I ever go to a theatre anymore is for a movie I *REALLY* don't want to wait for. An example of this would be the LOTR movies.
Well, I've always had a "big screen worthyness" criteria in movies: There are things that I find to be worth seeing on a really big screen. LOTR being a good example.
You can't take the sky from me...
Home Theater: 20-60in screen
Theater: big honkin screen.
The average moviegoers television is likely rather small, and not nearly theater quality. Family of 4 can go to 50 movies in the theater before they would break even with the ~$2000 home theater quality set...
And then there's plain old me. Nice nice stadium seated theater nearby. The restroom is about as clean as mine, plus I have the bladder control to hold it through even the longest epics. The theater floor is kept relatively clean. Nighttime shows are 8.50, matinee's $6, cheap theater is 2.50, or 1.25 tuesdays, I smuggle in a can of pop if I really want one (going without helps on the nasty restroom issue). Rather than get the nice but still comparatively small hdtv, and watching >6 month old movies on dvd or ppv, I can go to first run movies at the theater >350 times, and earn interest on my money in the meantime, making more showings than that in the end. At the rate that there are movies worth watching, it would be years before it's worth it even if you have to deal with the other crap.
Yeah, and with the 2 largest (and for all intents and purposes ONLY) movie chains in Canada merging, this is just the beginning. The only reason I even go to movies anymore is AMA's $7 coupons, good for any show, any time.
Can you spell m-o-n-o-p-o-l-y? I knew you could! Just wait till we have $25 movie tickets, with 20 commercials before the movie (the fact that ad revenues are by far the largest source of income in a theatre these days was one of the reasons for the merger - now a single chain can deal with advertisers).
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
My single biggest issue these days is the horrible behavior of so many folks at the movies. I went to "The Grudge," a horror movie, and a couple brought their four-year old in, who proceeded to run around the theater for the duration. WTF!
On the other hand, I live near Palo Alto, and the Stanford Theater [stanfordtheater.org] shows old movies, usually long runs around a theme (Bogart, Hitchcock, Romantic Comedies, etc.). They even have an organist play between showings. A $6.00 ticket gets you in to both movies, popcorn and drinks start at $1.00, etc. It really is wonderful.
What is best is that the audiences are great. They're all there becuase of the movie, and they listen. Seeing "Vertigo," on such a big and beautiful screen, and having (warning: spoiler) 800 people gasp when the nun falls off the tower is something that watching at home can't bring.
It's just like in Asimov's robots and empire books where people become more and more isolated, to the point where they don't even want to communicate with their neighbors through holographms because even an image is too icky and uncomfortable.
People don't talk to their neighbors, now they won't go to a movie because other people are making them uncomfortable basically just by being there. I guess the next step would be restaurants that have rooms instead of tables. Maybe a virtual church pew or virtual t-ball?
95% of people dont download movies but rent them or buy them.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
"Despite this demand for home viewing, only 5% admitted to downloading a movie from the internet."
Sounds like a couple of things are going on here:
To be honest, I think that the rental market is entirely driven by the big Media companies not meeting a demand for personalized content delivery.
Since what? The mid to late 70's, the average person has been able to both record TV, and to watch pre-recorded shows at their leisure. And as a result the rental business opened up as the middleman between Hollywood and the home consumer.
People don't rent movies for the sake of renting them though, they do so because there's no other way for them to watch what they want, when they want to. But rather than work towards a pay/delivery market, wherein the media companies offer everything, and charge you for what you use, The market grew up around a similar model as the thetre.
Only now they don't have to pay for theatre lot rent, utilities, movie attendants, movie projectors and such, instead you go to a rental store, and then "borrow" the movie, to watch in the theatre of your choice.
But you're still at their mercy... You pay the prices they set, for the movies they deem to let you see. Only now there's a few more variables in the mix. Instead of several theatres around town, each showing one or two movies, you now have dozens of movie rental places, all showing a portion of the movies which the big media companies have decided to let you view. Additionally, you no longer get a set prices... You get a variety of similar plans, each with their own peculiar business model:
You can have unlimited rentals on a monthly basis from these guys over here, but they only carry 65% of all the released material, and since it's mail order, you have to deal with planning your viewing. You can't just decide on the way home that you want to watch that movie you've had on your mind all day with these guys.
But you can order from their competitor, who charges a bit more, but carries 75% of all the possible releases, meaning you have a larger collection of movies to choose from. Or, you can go down the road to the local video rental place, where the movies are considerably more money, and who only carries about 35% of all possible releases, but where you also have the option of getting something within an hour or so, as opposed to a mail order place.
The point is that all of these differet methods and business's have grown due to the fact that Hollywood has not made it easy to see what you want, when you want to see it, at a reasonable cost. You can argue that this isn't feasible for many reasons also, but technology is no longer on e of these reasons, in theory at least.
And while digital cable & satellite systems are now beginning to offer "view on demand" movies, and PVR tuner units, it's still a case of us, the viewers, only being able to view what the broadcasters have decided to let us view, out of a much larger collection of material.
So while I like my Netflix, and I appreciate being able to go to Blockbuster to pick up something "on the fly", and while I really appreciate finally being able to order that movie via "On Demand" programming, without ever having to get up off the couch (come on... that's almost like excersize. Ick!) neither one make up for the fact that I often can't get what I'd like to see, when I'd like to see it, unless I happened to have purchased it, or recorded it, and have it handily available. Or, of course, unless I've planned ahead and added it to my rental queue, or planned a night around the programs schedule.
The end result, which this study in part proves, is that people prefer to stay home to watch movies, and if Hollywood
Theater: You can watch it on a really BIG screen. Home: You watch it on a smaller screen.
Don't get me wrong, I **love** going to the cinema, but as of late its becoming a horrible experience.
The prices have skyrocketed (where I live its now $10 / ticket). People are rude and inconsiderate (hell, just read a recent experience). Not to mention the crowds. I don't get how the Box Office is not increasingly making a profit, everytime I go (especially during peak hours), there are HORDES of people.....
Either way, thanks to options such as Video on Demand, DVR, and Netflix, I rarely goto the the cinemas now, unless its a movie I can't wait to see, but even to that, I have to wait a week or so, otherwise its ruined....
I think that the best thing I've read on this issue lately is an article in the New Yorker by Louis Menand. It is about the historical perspective (TV robbing movies of their dominance, the rise of the blockbuster, etc.).
r at_atlarge
Here's the url:
http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/?050207c
My favorite quote:
And what is the main cinematic experience? The tickets, including the surcharge for ordering online, cost about the same as the monthly cable bill. A medium popcorn is five dollars; the smallest bottled water is three. The show begins with twenty minutes of commercials, spots promoting the theatre chain, and previews for movies coming out next Memorial Day, sometimes a year from next Memorial Day. The feature includes any combination of the following: wizards; slinky women of few words; men of few words who can expertly drive anything, spectacularly wreck anything, and leap safely from the top of anything; characters from comic books, sixth-grade world-history textbooks, or "Bulfinch's Mythology"; explosions; phenomena unknown to science; a computer whiz with attitude; a brand-name soft drink, running shoe, or candy bar; an incarnation of pure evil; more explosions; and the voice of Robin Williams. The movie feels about twenty minutes too long; the reviews are mixed; nobody really loves it; and it grosses several hundred million dollars.
One cool thing that the theaters in Germany had was a "Baby Booth". It was an enclosed area at the back of the theater with a glass front. It had it's own sound system, and people with small children could watch the movie from there without disturbing the other patrons.
I wish the theaters in my area would add something like that.
Chip H.
Theatre: Watch movie on a 60+ foot television (been in one that was 80-100)
Home: 32 inch TV if you are lucky.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
From my blog entry this morning... saves me retyping it all in.
So the CBC has this story, about a recent poll of Americans which found that 73 per cent of them prefer watching movies at home, whether through DVD, VHS or pay-per-view, rather than in the theatre.
I'm sure Hollywood will get in a panic about this, and the MPAA will claim that piracy is to blame, even though only 5 per cent of those polled said they had downloaded a film.
My response to Hollywood is: can you blame people?
You're paying about $10 to go to the movies these days, just for admission (and even that's likely to get worse in Canada, when you read this about Cineplex Odeon buying Famous Players) to watch the latest crapstravaganza featuring the current flavour of the month actor who can't act their way out of a paper bag. The main character has some token development, and is surrounded by wooden characters brought to dubious life by bit actors. When will Hollywood realise the importance of casting for the small roles? Most of the Hollywood movies I've really enjoyed are the ones that people all of the roles, large or small, with quality character actors. Look at Shawshank Redemption, or even Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings, which didn't win any actors any awards, but were riddled with people who know how to act. And that makes it so much more convincing versus say, garbage like The Fast and the Furious.
So people end up staying home--why get the car out, haul the family down to the theatre, spend $40 on admission and $30 on popcorn and drinks for a feature you're pretty sure, based on track record, is going to be disappointing? Much easier to stay at home and spend a few bucks renting the DVD or watching the pay-per-view.
But appallingly bad films are not the only reason people are staying at home. Look at the difference in the viewing experience.
At the theatre, I'm stuck in a seat that allows limited shifting of body position, the floor is sticky, people beside me talk to each other about other things throughout the movie, the guy behind me is busy explaining the film to his girlfriend (or worse yet, summarising the plot of Episodes I, II, IV, V and VI of Star Wars at the same time as watching and trying to explain RotS), I'm nowhere near the center of the screen because I no longer have the inclination or energy to line up first or barge past everyone else when they open the doors to get a good seat, the picture is grainy, often out of focus, and the sound is turned up so high and the sound system so poor that high-frequency noises like R2D2's beeps, are actively painful...
Contrast that with, say, watching a DVD at home. I get the seat I want (though I can move during the film if I want, as well). I can put my feet up. My seat is right in the center of the screen. I can have the amount of ambient light I want. I can get up and go to the bathroom without missing the only meaningful line of dialogue in the film, the popcorn is cheaper and tastes better, the picture looks great. And as for the sound system (audiophile geekout coming up, you have been warned)...
I have extreme control over the volume. I can boost the center channel volume so as to hear dialogue perfectly, while keeping the rest of the speakers lower. I've got an Arcam AVR100 amp driving the rear speakers, center channel and subwoofer, and a Musical Fidelity A300 dual mono amplifier driving some Monitor Audio Silver 8 speakers on the front, and the whole experience is way better than what you get
Michael Coyne
http://turthalion.blogspot.com
Perhaps because in relation to the topic at hand, a consumer is precisely what you are. The movie industry doesn't give a flying rat what else you do in your life, because your only relation to it is as one who *consumes* their product. Unless you're involved in the production or distribution, of course. See, using "people" would imply every last person on the planet, and a lot of people don't consume movies at all. "Consumers" makes it clear that we're only talking about those who consume the product in question.
And that's how it should be. Language is dependent on context. When a volunteer organization talks about its people, it will discuss "volunteers", even though surely your only purpose in life is not to be a volunteer. However, in relation to the org, a volunteer is exactly what you are. No more, no less.
Be afraid when you see stories like "49% of consumers voted for Bush in the last election".
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
There are other importnat social elements as well. When you go to see a movie with someone, you're getting out of the house. It's an event. If you're doing this with someone you know very well, then it's a change of pace and an opportunity to connect on a different level. If you're doing this with someone you don't know very well then it's a way to connect informally without the connotations that can come from spending two hours alone at your house in a darkened room.
Think of it like eating out. Chances are there's someone in your houshold that can cook far better than the food you'll find at most restaurants. My grilled steaks, for example, routinely beat the hell out of the vast majority of restaurants.
But eating out is a way to connect with friends and loved ones. There are many days that I'd rather have a steak that's meerly good and connect with someone I care about. Going to the movies with my daughter can accomplish much the same thing.
TW
When you say 'admitted' you make it sound like way more than 5% of those polled downloaded a movie from the Internet. I wouldn't be surprised if the number was low. My parents, for example, still use dial-up. They have no idea what the heck a bittorrent is or how one would even go about getting a movie on the Internet. And once they have it they have no idea how they'd watch it on their TV. I would wager most movie-watching folks fall into this camp...
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
So I watch movies at home so I can try to create a more compressed volume level range in order to be able to tolerate the movie. Theaters put me in pain, while my home surround system does not. Now, if only studios would recognize that just because digital movies can "hold" uncompressed soundtracks without distorting, doesn't mean the a human likes to hear that much dynamic range. To some of us, it's very painful.
It's 1980-something and a bunch of my friends want to go see Purple Rain. It's got some dude named Prince in it but I don't know who the fuck that is and I don't care. After the movie we're all going to go do something else anyway and so they pay for my ticket to get me to go. I sat through that piece of shit and it could have been worse. Honestly it was bad but not siezure bad. This was on a Friday night.
Saturday night gets here and I'm with a different group of friends. They all want to go see Purple Rain. I'm thinking "What the fuck is going on here" but again they all say we'll get the ticket and so I willingly walked into a theater for a second time in two days to see Prince. When I walked out of the second viewing I was thinking "I am never going to see this movie again as long as I live.
Sunday afternoon I'm hanging around with three girls I went to school with. One of them I'm trying like hell to sleep with. Guess what they want to do? Yep, Purple Rain. For the third time in three days I sat through that movie but I was hanging on by a very thin thread. We sat in front of a couple who brought their infant.
The infant apparently had several pieces of bamboo stuck under it's toe nails because it didn't stop screaming the entire time they sat there. That amounted to just about 20 minutes or so. That's when I snapped. I stood up and literally shouted at this person at the top of my lungs "IF YOU DON'T GET THAT FUCKING BABY OUT OF HERE I'M GOING TO BEAT YOU TO DEATH WITH IT!"
They got up and just about ran out of the theater. I got serious applause and sat back down to wait for the usher (or the cops) to come run me out of there. Nobody ever came though and sadly I sat through the entire picture....again.
And no, I earned no pussy for this.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
I generally choose to see "bigger" movies, like action and adventure, in the theater when the large screen and surround sound will enhance the experience. I wait to see "smaller" movies at home when the screen size and sound won't really matter as much.
There have been many great movies I have waited to see on DVD, that I wouldn't have paid to see in the theater.
I wish the movie industry would "get this" and not judge a movie's success solely by the opening weekend's box-office returns.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Theaters have the volume set too high.
Everytime when I go to the movies my ears start ringing. If I'm going to need earplugs to go along with the sticky floors and 30 minutes of ads, I can either rent it or skip it.
Here what I want, and I don't understand why they don't have:
I want to go to a theatre and pay my ~$9. Then, when the movie is over and if I liked the movie, I should be able to pay $5 or $6 more bucks to buy it on DVD on the way out.
If ppl can download the movie and burn them on DVDs before it's even out the theatre, then why can't they implement this? Sure, I won't be a repeat customer to the theatre, but I wasn't gonna see it twice in the theatre to begin with! Plus they could work out a deal with the studios to get a cut of the DVD money to recoup costs of losing a repeat customer for the film.
-Valiss
The craftsmen making the movies spend months filming it on 35 mm. film or sometimes HD video cameras, working very hard so it looks and sounds really good on huge screens in theaters.
But apparently, 73% of the people don't give a shit about picture quality. They are happy with the crappy 720 by 576 pixels (and only 720 by 480 and wrong colors with NTSC), on their tiny TV. (And even HDTV is far from the resolution of a good film print).
Of course, at such miserable resolutions, there is no way to convey any emotion with any sort of wide shots, landscapes and such. So it's close-ups and permanent muzak to keep the interest of the viewer...
They must be the same people who don't even notice when the picture is completely deformed because their setup is wrong on their 16/9 TV, or the TV station forgot to de-anamorphose the picture before sending, or whatever. Of course, in a related field, people listen to music on their computer speakers in 128 kb mp3, and call it "CD quality".
If these are really such an overwhelming majority, how depressing for anybody trying to produce quality pictures (or sounds).
I was at a movie a few years ago with my girlfriend, and groups on both sides of us were talking... at first I decdied to ignore it for a while and see if they would settle down on thier own as the movie had just started but the guy next to my girlfriend was really loud. So, she asked him to stop and he said "well the people on the other side of you are talking" (as if that made it OK!). So I right away said to the other people "excuse me, but could you please stop talking" and they did. Then the guy shut up but was fuming the whole time, I think he said something snippy back but I can't remember what.
It's amazing how people that are already being rude will compund the rudeness by being agahst that you would want them to stop talking (like your example of the guy on the cell phone giving you the finger).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It cost to f'in much to take a family of 5 to see anything at the theater. And now the bastards want to charge for every living body including the sleeping 3 month old!.
Before you get your panties in a knot about crying babies in the theater let me tell you we are the first, and it seems only parents to get up and step outside if one of the children act up, plus we go to early shows with all the other parents. And why the hell should I pay eight $&(&^%#&^ dollars for a 3 month old who will not be taking up any space and will be "ask to leave by managment" if she disturbs the other movie viewers? I got in a real good fight when some on tryed to sit in her seat in a packed theater the other day. Screw you we payed for that seat and if you want it back pay me for it!
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
I recently took a trip to Canada and saw two films there. I was absolutely SHOCKED by the level of silence in the theaters. No cell phones ringing, nobody talking full voice on a cell phone, no crying children, no teenagers running in and out of the theater, no one throwing anything, no couples having irrelevant conversations.... Just pure silence. The difference is totally staggering.
I'm really waiting for someone to make a members only theater that has strict rules about behaviour. I'd gladly pay a membership fee AND a viewing fee to have an enjoyable movie experience again. Bring back the ushers!
An explanation of my choices for friends
I don't know where the moderaters are today but I laughed. :-)
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
hell, why wait for a movie to be released in the theatre, when you can download the divx screener leak, burn it, and then watch it @ home.
Not that I support the idea, but it should be addressed.
the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
On top of what you've mentioned, I absolutely hate cramped seats with no legroom, having some asshole kicking the back of my chair through out the entire movie, and having to listen to people cough or laugh obnoxiously the entire time.
Yes, the house is much more comfortable, and I can watch a movie at home for less than $15.
If you have even a moderatley large TV, your angle of view of the screen can often be as good as or better than most seats in a mainstream theater.
As for concentration you just need to let go and enjoy the movie rather than doing a million other things while it's on. Try getting dressed up "for the movie" and dressing down when it's over.
Event status? Kind of like crashing a party you were not invited to with a bunch of people you can't stand. Think I'll skip that event! (though in rare cases, like Star Wars, it really is an event with people that at least share a common interest).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The theatre experience has really been declining in recent years, and the home theatre stuff is getting less expensive. I bought a projector and screen a few months ago for my apartment and, while the screen isn't as big as a regular theatre, the sound quality is usually better just coming from two $100 Creative Labs speakers and a subwoofer.
It's just not worth going to a theatre when prices are being raised to insane amounts of money and the theatres aren't enhancing the experience to reflect the change. Most of the theatres I've been to have blown out speakers and outdated projectors but still keep raising the price of admission. And don't get me started on the 30 minutes of TV commercials they play these days. The trailers and commercials are so long, I forget what movie I'm waiting for.
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
...and that is how much you spent on your home theatre system. Depending on far you took it, that gets expensive mighty fast. I'd be willing to wager you could take your date to the theatre every week for 5 years before you've spent enough money to buy a theatre system.
I'm kidding! :)
Mostly. :D
My approach has changed once I bought a DVD player and a larger TV. With LOTR, we saw the first movie in theatre, got the DVD and later the Extended version. Movie two, we saw in theatre and waited for the Extended DVD. Movie three - we waited for the Extended DVD.
With StarWars, I have I and II on DVD, and bought IV,V,VI the day they (finally) became available. Spend $12 plus junkfood fees PER PERSON to watch Epidural III in a theatre - NO! I will spend $20 or so on the DVD, complete my set - and watch it as many times as I like, with as many friends as I like. And if I need the bathroom or feel hungry, I have a pause button. Movie theatres are so... er... last century.
After reading review for the recent Hitchhikers movie, I might rent it before buying it used.
I agree with you, the social aspect is kind of important. But theatre beats movies for that hands down.
* You and your friends not only have an event to talk about, you have an event that only you saw (every live theatre performance is a little different)
* One word: Intermission (bathroom AND discussion about what's coming next!)
* You know exactly where your money is going because you can SEE actual people and stuff in like 3D or something (OH! THAT'S what reality is!)
* You support LOCAL arts and often even get a voice in what those will be (surveys about upcoming shows, comment cards for the one you just saw, etc.)
* When there are special effects, they are especially interesting because they are decidedly NOT computer generated!
* A movie has to shred your ears and eyes with "CRASH BANG!" and vibrate your seat with 8Hz explosion bass to "immerse" you in the experience. Theatre just uses people which automatically piques your interest and you focus on the event more closely. YOU create your own immersion out of inrigue and desire. You aren't pummeled with "immersion" tactics.
I have seen 3 movies in the theatre in the last 5 years -- LOTR*. The story was important to me because I'd read, nay worshipped, the books for years and years. It's gotta be that big for me to spend my money that way versus supporting a local live show.
I actually remember MORE fondly the experience of watching the LOTR director's cuts at a friend's house with a small gathering of people with whom I usually frequent the live theatre scene!
* I did see one other movie in the theatre during that time frame, but I was on a date with the person who soon became my wife. The movie wasn't really the point.
I'm thinking about it, therefore I might be.
i have a proposition for all of you who claim the movie experience is somehowe better in theaters. if you can pay for my broke college ass to go see movies in theaters, where we have to pay extra for the added bonus of annoying children/phones, loud people, people with big hair/hats and commercials then i'll go. until then, i'll keep what little money i have saved up for an internet connection, burnable dvd's and video games.
The Omen, The Exorcist, Hellraiser, etc...
I know it's been said before but I must vent. I'm tired of being treated like consumer cattle scum. Simple as that. You have no competition so you must listen to what your customers are saying or they will stop spending money in the market entirely.
1. Stop charging so much
2. Stop showing so many commercials
3. Stop treating me like a criminal
Show your customers some respect and profits will boom. I can't even remember how many businesses I spend my money with solely because they're laid back and trust me.
My local health food store lady doesn't try shoving products down my throat. I'm not treated like a criminal. She knows my name. No cameras making me nervous. She even leaves the store unattended sometimes while I'm looking around. She treats me like a normal human being, and she gets my money because of it. I realize absolute faith in humanity doesn't work completely for large businesses but they could learn a thing or two from small Mom & Pop stores. Sure you will lose a few bucks here and there but the money you make from treating your customers like humans will be far greater.
I *like* the trailers. :)
Trailer production is a whole artform of its own.
I don't have an elaborate setup at home, I'm very anti-time wasting. I didn't own a TV until February of this year, and I hate watching it.. But aside from that, I don't care what kind of home theatre setup you have, it doesn't come close to the experience of being in a theatre with a ginormous screen. Now sure there are the downsides.. $8.50 for a ticket (here in Chicago), the last 3 movies I've seen all were screwed up in one way or another (sound going out, half of the picture off of the screen, etc) but still I vastly enjoy the real theatre experience as opposed to an expensive setup at home. People need to get out more, and going to a theatre is one way you can go out.
People like the movie experience as a social event. If Hollywood would make better movies and stop sequels and making movie versions of TV shows, games, cereals and anything else that happens to enter into the public consciousness then people would go more.
Also get rid of the commercials at the beginning of the show. Nobody wants to pay for commercials (even though we do on cable). I think that they should bring back cartoons before a show.
Another problem is the fact that the studios make all of there money in the first few weeks of a release. This means that movies that suck and die on word of mouth don't hurt them anywhere as much as they hurt the theater owners.
Simply give people their money's worth and they will pay. It's not rocket science.
stfu.
you know u did the same shi7 when u were their age or worse.
i know you older generation used to sneek in beer and watch movies
`/0|_| (@|\|'+ |}|@|\/|3 +|-|3 `/0|_|+|-|
I submitted this yesterday, and it was rejected. Oh well.
Full length article mirrored here.. the cbs.ca one cuts things a bit short.
Nah.... I have respect for those who like seeing live theatre/plays. But it's not my "cup of tea". For starters, live productions tend not to even cover some of the genres I like best (such as good sci-fi). They lend themsleves better to love stories, or perhaps "whodunnit" types of drama.
It's really a completely different "art form" than movies, especially nowdays with CGI and everything in the movies. To me, a movie works best when it takes you someplace you couldn't really go in "real life". Plays and theatrical performances are forced to use costumes, small props and painted backdrops to do this. If you're just into the minimalist aspect of it all, great. But if I want to see a story about a mission to Mars, I'd rather have the CGI and everything making it as believable as possible that I'm really watching the story unfold there. People pretending to walk around in low gravity on a stage with some painted "Mars-scape" backdrop behind them isn't going to compare.
I went to see "Return of the King" on opening night. The experience was ruined by a trio of teenage jackasses sitting behind me who insisted on loudly making wiseass comments throughout the film, despite numerous demands from everyone else to shut the fuck up. One furious audience member actually poured his soda drink on them, but even that didn't deter them.
Out-of-focus projectors, shitty sound systems at too low/too high volume, exorbitant prices, loudmouthed assholes in the audience...the theater experience totally sucks.
The only reason I preferred seeing a film in the theater was the large screen. Up until recently I had a 20" standard TV - that's no way to watch a film like "Lord of the Rings". Now I have a nice big plasma EDTV to watch DVD's on, and I will never step foot in a movie theater again. Sure, it's not as big as a theater screen, but I sit much closer to it so it's effectively the same size. And it's always in focus.
Well box office might be slow else where but in Casper, Wyoming it's doing very well indeed. (Insert jokes about nothing to do in Casper here.)
In a city/county of less than 60,000 people we have, count em folks, 17 screens. 13 of those screens are in our downtown core, two are in refitted classic theaters. All of the theaters have new sound and seating. The next closest screens to us are in Cheyenne nearly 200 miles away.
Price of a first run movie is $8.00 here.
Excuse me, there seems to be some sort of mistake. I bought, I bought a drink and some popcorn and now I have no money.
That's how much it costs.
Why, is it special popcorn? Does it produce some sort of dizzying high or...
You guys may be different, but my home theater looks better than my local movie theatre. Out here is rural texas, the movie theater's always have A)Projectors that are out of focus B)Crappy Prints C)Gunk on the screen D)Any combination of the above. I have a MODEST setup (about 2000 dollars) that looks way better, and once I get my projector and finish my HTPC, I probably won't even bother with the movies at all.
Why don't you get an account then? I have one, and I've never seen this "not a script" stuff that people have been complaining about. You can still post anonymously even if you have an account.
In my fair-use rights due to congresscritter-buying freeloading MPAA/RIAA scum?
They have no god-given right to profits. If they can't compete without artificially-enforced monopoly scarcity, then they should shrivel up and die.
Sorry, but no matter how good the home theater is, I'd rather watch a movie in 6144x4096 (Cineon resolution used for the last Matrix film) on a 120-**foot** screen than 1080p on a 120-inch screen.
I go to movies to ESCAPE reality. It's nearly impossible for me to escape reality when I'm sitting in my own home.
I'm a sponsor of a regional film festival, and get several invitations to free screenings every month, especially in the summer months. And yet, I hardly ever go, these days. For years, I went to most of them, even the ones I thought would be dogs. Now, though, I generally wait until they come out on DVD, when I can request them at leisure from online rental services. That's right, I'm happy to pay for the convenience. I'm tired of crowds, of parking lots, of all that. Of course, I have such a huge backlog on my rental lists that I'll never actually get to all of them, anyway, at the rate I keep adding new ones.
Why I hate going to the movie theater:
Give me DVDs any day of the week on my big screen and decent sound system.
The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
I haven't seen the inside of a movie theater since taking my son (who was 4 at the time) to see the first "Toy Story" film in 1995. After the divorce a year later, and the ex moving too far away for me to see my son, I've been perfectly content to wait for the movies to show up on HBO/Showtime/Starz... THEN if I like the movie enough, I'll go out and purchase the DVD. I'm also content to watch movies on my 7 year old 27" Sony Trinitron with my Radio Shack surround sound system. But of course, the facts above could also just mean that I'm the biggest "cheapskate" on the planet....
"A Bird In The Hand Will Poop On Your Wrist"-Benny Hill,1982
Well, I for one go to the movies to see the Movie.
I dont buy popcorn, nor Do I bother with the other overpriced amenities.
I go to see the HUGE screen, absolutely FEEL the music and sound effects.
I dont know about you, but id rather see Episode 3, LOTR:ROTK and any other visually stunning and GOOD movie at a theater where I can get the full experience of the movie vs watching it on my 50 inch widescreen at home.
Yes, I have a nice TV, a great set of speakers, digital everything, but it stil PALES in comparison to the movie theater quality of the movie.
Saying you hate the movies because of CHOICES they offer you, is like saying BMW's stink because they offer a moon roof. You dont have to get it my friend.
I have one good reason why home theater is better than the cinema - Cell Phones.
Nothing I hate more than paying good money to see a movie and then having some assbanger's stupid cell phone go off with the latest gay ringtone while he shoves his arms elbow-deep into his oversized pants trying to find the stupid phone he should have turned off before coming inside the theater.
And if the little assclown decides to actually ANSWER the phone...
...All I can say is that my life is pretty strange...
I would love to love seeing movies in a theater with a big screen. Unfortunately...
I would easily pay $30 a ticket to see a movie if
I know places like this exist, but why not in my population 1 million city?
APPLE + VIDEO STORE.
The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
I brought up this statistic up to my wife last night, and she was just appalled. Think how much good could be done in our country or around the world if we could raise half a billion dollars to house and feed people? Nobody wants higher taxes for social programs (me included), and the government gives you a tax credit on any money you give away to a charity, but getting people to give money to feed poor people is a huge challenge.
A 2 hour movie about space battles though, ooo, that deserves a lot of my money.
This is one reason we don't go to movies often (yes, we went to see Episode 3, ONCE). The whole industry has enough money from other people, and I have better things to spend my money on.
Correction: "public spaces must be accessible".
i am a soviet space shuttle
"only 5% admitted to downloading a movie from the internet"
... ...
... ...
That's right.
If you believe tha MPAA numbers, that figure is closer to
100%
In fact the only reason for physical movie sales
is do to the recent boom in secret shoppers.
Come on people
I can buy a new movie title for around $15 on New Release Tuesday.
If you have a family that likes to eat snacks
That's about 1,000% cheaper then the movie theaters.
And that figure leaps in logarythmic proportions if you factor in multiple viewings.
cheers,
-- duderino
Theatre: Big ass screen. Some screens are more big ass than others. see: IMAX Dome.
Home Theatre: Not quite. And the initial investment for proper equipment is high. DvD's aren't up to the quality of theatres. High Def dvd's will close the gap some.
Theatre: Accomidates large groups.
Home Theatre: Again, unless somebody has invested big cash into their home setup there is limited quality seating. Forget about company outings, class trips or large birthday parties.
Theatre: Great sound quality (usually).
Home Theatre: Can be good with sizeable initial investment. Don't keep the neighbours up.
Theatre: A few films are 3D! IMAX 3D is great. Movies should ALL be 3D.
Home Theatre: flat, 2d screen. Blue-red 3D glasses don't count.
Also you can't simply look at the benefits to comsumers, you have to look at the benefits to movie producers.
Theater: Remains a great way to suck gazillions of dollars out of the pockets of viewers while the movie is hot.
Home Theatre: DVD's are also profitable, but they are are easily copied and shared (legally or not).
on those who do want to use those accomodations
i am a soviet space shuttle
Both home-theatres AND your local cineplex have their place IMHO. Since most of the arguments are AGAINST the cineplex I'll argue for it. - Cell phones may be annoying, but are you suggesting that you don't get calls at home? - Sure you can pause the movie for a potty break, but is there a reason MOST people can't hold it for roughly 2 hours? - Besides, I see movies as an escape. Pausing the movie just snaps me back to reality. - Seeing a popular movie with hundreds of other people can be a GOOD thing too! I usually enjoy comedies more when watching with a large group. - If you have a visual/audio setup that matches a theatre, then I think your $$$-saving argument goes out the window.
It's an event.
That's exactly what it is for me. I don't go to the movies a lot for the very reasons that many other posters have mentioned here (high prices, noisy crowd, etc) but when I actually go I try to make it an event.
Gather the family together, grab a bite to eat (we don't eat out much, either, so that's an event in itself), get to the movie early, buy some snacks and just try to enjoy ourselves. I try to get there 1/2 hour early or so. That way we get good seats and there's time to relax before the show.
It's a special event for us. If it was something we did all the time or last-minute I don't think I'd enjoy it and we'd just stay home and rent something.
Let's be honest.
The food and drinks at the movies cost so much because that is the only way the theater makes money. I know because I know theater employees and a franchise owner. Whenever we show interest in a movie they will let us in for free, but it's understood that you buy something at the concession stand. Even though tickets are $8 to $9 dollars, the theater only sees a few pennies, and as we can see volume isn't what it used to be.
It isn't the greed of the theater owners, it's the greed of the MPAA or whatever cartel controls the ticket prices and profit disembursments.
If the theater workers are polite and clean, buy some Sno-caps or something.
I think I misspelled 10 words in this post... I'm to lazy to look words up today.
Get your Unix fortune now!
We live in the suburbs. We only have 1 or 2 cineplexes to choose from. We prefer going to the movies, but it's their own damn fault we don't go as often as we wish.
We see a movie advertised, that we want to see. 3 weeks later, it's no longer even being played because so many other movies have been released, our little multiplex (little? It has 12 screens!) has to rotate movies too soon.
There are like 3 or 4 movies we wanted to see last month that ALL disappeared so fast we will end up seeing them on DVD.
So there ya go. yes people are watching more movies at home, but it's the fault of the movie studios.
thanks for putting a picture in my head of a live sci-fi production, i wasn't planning on getting a restful sleep tonight anyway
http://www.agbell.com/ Hard-of-hearing doesn't mean "can't hear anything." Even deaf, in most cases, doesn't mean that. I have a moderate hearing loss and I'm listening to iTunes right now. I just need to know the lyrics if the music doesn't have really clear vocals.
For one I can't imagine taking a woman out... to your house. First off she might take it as... presumptuous and secondly, what is she to expect next? That dinner's going to be some mac n' cheese you just threw in the microwave? That she's going to have to clear a space for herself from your couch (and not there because that's where the cat sits)? Girl might be game and if so, more power to you. But she'll grow bored mighty quick if this is what all evenings' plans entail. Going Out is an expense but it's done for all the intangibles and the luxury of the evening. Good company, a good meal, a good movie, a good club can add up to a good evening. Of course that might involve dressing up a bit and talking to other people.
Also there are many non-megaplex theaters catering to adult sensibilities that offer alcohol (usually wine or bottled beer but you can wait until after if getting shitfaced is the order of business). It's pretty standard for art-house theaters. If there isn't a Landmark Theater near you, there is probably something similar. They even sell Pocky if you lack for a topic for the evening (leading well into bringing up Pocari Sweat).
What is music when you despise all sound?
duh, sit closer
Of course I prefer watching movies at home. I have my own private bathroom and can pause the movie so I don't miss anything. My sound system sounds just as good as any movie theatre. For the price of the movie tickets, I can rent the movie, buy candy, popcorn and sodas or beer. Best of all, I can make out with my girlfriend and not piss off other movie go-ers.
You cannot recreate the theater experience without a projector. It ain't home theater (true) without same. I'd agree with you COMPLETELY that it is not the same to watch a blockbuster movie on a measly 40-50-60 inch set. You need 100 plus to get recreate the bigscreen drama. Benq 6200: Approx. $1200 Projector Screen: White wall $0 Not having to deal with crappy theaters: Priceless
This ain't no upwardly mobile freeway This is the road to hell
You could in the same way compare home-cooking to a restaurant, as eating-out:
- Costs more
- Is less personalized
- Less available spices, etc
- Can have a noisy environment
- Smokers
- Etc etc
Of course, you can order in, or cook at home. The point is that some people prefer eating out, or going to a theatre, and are willing to pay for it. I'm guessing that quite a few of these people don't have big-screen TV's and wall-shaking home theatre systems, but others just go because there are some conveniences to it, and in a way it's a social phenomenoa much like (though less interactive) bowling or going to a pub, etc.
My sentiments exactly. I have a moderate hearing loss and only one (expensive/fancy-pants) theater has rear-window captioning in my area, aside from the IMAX theater. This thread is a good example, judging by the ignorant replies, that invisible disabilities have a long way to go. As if your entire post should be disregarded because you BOUGHT AN IPOD. Well, damn, I'm listening to iTunes. http://www.agbell.org/ Education combats ignorance!
I've always been curious as to how much movie ticket prices have gone up over the years. Here's a quick analysis taken from
http://www.natoonline.org/statisticstickets.htm
and then adjusted for inflation at:
http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm in 2004 dollars:
2004: $6.21
2002: $6.09
2000: $5.91
1998: $5.44
1996: $5.32
1994: $5.20
1992: $5.59
1990: $6.10
1988: $6.56
1986: $6.39
1984: $6.11
1982: $5.72
1980: $6.17
1978: $6.78
1976: $7.07
1974: $7.24
1971: $7.70
1967: $6.90
1963: $5.31
1958: $4.44
1954: $3.44
1948: $2.82
Which is very interesting. What's not at all clear is if this data is from all first run theaters, or all theaters. These prices are obviously the average price, though I don't know any first run, non-matinee theater around my area (Minneapolis) that's only $6.21. Around here typically ticket prices for first run theaters are around $8. The matinee is $6.00.
Can anyone find any more conclusive prices that are only first-run theaters?
AccountKiller
Just because something is loud, doesn't mean it's easier to hear. Depending on a person's hearing loss, a certain frequency can be missing entirely. Hearing aids also amplify everything, unless you have the thousands of $ for newer digitally programmed ones that can filter out non-voice noise (but then you have everything else muffled out into the background and kind of funky at a movie), not covered by health insurance.
I haven't been to a movie theater in a few years. Here's what they'll have to do to get me to come back:
1. Clean the place up. The last time I went to a movie theater, it smelled of urine. That was exceptional, but almost every time I've gone, the floor's been sticky. Popcorn butter? Soda? I don't know, but it's everywhere, and it's disgusting.
2. Get rid of the ads. I actually like the trailers, but there's no excuse for any other kind of ad when we're paying to get in. And speaking of paying...
3. Cut the ticket price. Make it up in volume -- get everyone to come, instead of mostly teenagers. Or you could trim your insanely bloated movie budgets.
Share and Enjoy: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Home Theatre: You make a large capital investment (I've seen staggering costs). Cinema: You make an ongoing payment (so, depending on how much stuff you watch, how often you change it, YMMV). Home Theatre: The phone works, the doorbell works, you get distracted by the things in the room. Cinema: None of the above. (the exception is irritating other patrons. Although I find that avoiding weekend showings means that you avoid teenagers with cellphones) Home Theatre: 625 lines (here in the UK) Cinema: much higher resolution. For "event movies" like Spider-Man, Batman Begins etc., I definitely prefer the cinema. For comedy, drama, art house stuff, DVD/small screen does me fine. And for those, I can live without a DTS 5:1 system.
This summer, there are only two movies I want to see in the theater...Batman Beings and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. All of the rest (including that Star Wars one) just don't interest me enough to want to fork out the money to see them. I'll just wait for the DVD to come out and then rent it, and if I like it, buy them.
Computers are like Old Testament gods; lots of rules and no mercy.
-Home Theater: Beer.
Theater: soda, for which you pay more than alcohol
That's the theater's choice. The local independant/non-national chain theatre in my town sells alcohol (then again that might be because they also carry beers brewed by the brewery next door).
I've seen several tons of people lamenting the $40 tickets (family of 4) plus $20 snacks ($5/per) for a movie out. Granted $60 is no small number. But the cost of home theater viewing can get very, very large too.
My HT, which I do love and prefer to going out, cost a relatively economical $4400 for the TV, DVD player, VCR, 7.1 receiver, speakers, cables, and in-wall wiring in new construction. Add another $900 for 60 or so DVDs. That's the one-time charges. I could take the whole family out to 88.3 movies for that same money. That's one movie a week for 1.5 years
My "HT" is also my family room, so I didn't go all out on gear. When I build a dedicated room in my unfinished basement, I'm estimating $25,000-$28,000 for equipment and furniture, plus $10,000 construction for a 14x20x9 room. (And then there's the other basement rooms...)
For recurring charges, add another $30+ (beyond basic charges) per month, or ~$400/year, for HD cable, DVR, and 2 movie channel groupings. And maybe $4/month for the rare DVD rental. That's ~$450/year, or another 7 1/2 movies/year I could go out for.
Finally, food and drink at home is, of course, much cheaper than at a theater, but it isn't free. I won't bother estimating how much gets consumed during movies in my house, but it would be considerable.
So, yes, theaters gouge, but HT costs aren't trivial.
I eat my dinner DURING the movie. At home.
My wife is deaf, so we almost never go to the theater. Waiting for movies to come out on DVD isn't a problem. Having enough money to see all the movies we'd like to see is.
"That's so plausible, I can't believe it!" - Leela
Like they used to. But now they think they're in their livingroom and blahblahblah. Or they take their kids to R movies and the kid constantly asks, "what's that" or "what's going on" and on andonandonandonandonandon.
Common decency and politeness is quite uncommon nowdays.
After nearly getting into an unintentional fight with someone who would not shut up despite repeated admonishments by those around him he finally snapped at me (perhaps the fifth person to ask). Yay. So left, got my money back, and waited for the DVD.
Theaters in the US should follow suit with those in Europe and have assigned seating, and monitors who will actually toss rude people out.
Until then: My home theater, on my time, on my sofa.
Theater owners can bitch all they want, but until they really try to cure the disease, the symptoms are going to be the only opes going to their establishments.
Throughout this thread there seems to be a consensus that a movie ticket costs, if not a straight $10, at least more than $8.50. That doesn't have to be the case.
Go to a matinee. Find somewhere with a lower cost of living, even. If time's not an issue, find a small town with a dollar (or four-dollar) theater - it may not be Week 1, but you'll see it.
I've seen Episode III twice and paid a grand total of $10.50. Even non-matinee prices are still below $8.50. But then, I live in Iowa, an "uncool" place to be.
Who could imagine a year of crappy movies, including yet another crappy star wars movie could result in a bad box office year!?
Well we can try to blame people for wanting to watch movies at home...
No, no. It must be piracy, I'm sorry...
I wonder what it'll take for them to realize people don't want to pay $20 (ticket+munchies) to see crap.
beer
Excuse me? Since when have geeks had a problem with beer? You're telling me the members of your local Linux Users Group don't geek-out over saccharomyces cerevisiae?
"Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries!"
Of why home entertainment rocks. If the movie sucks, and you know it one hour in, you can just turn it off, instead of tripping over legs, feet and bags on a mad scurry to end the pain. I'm sure my friends and I pissed a few people off trying to get away from that crapfest.
The reason I love going to the theatre is that I get to see a movie with an audience. Not just a few friends, but a bunch of people I don't know.
A comedy is always so much funnier when there are other people laughing -- it's contagious. And during a good thriller, the collective tension in the room really adds to the suspense.
I was lucky enough to attend an advanced SERENITY screening, and let me tell you, the experience of being in a crowd that CHEERS so loudly for it's heroes is thrilling.
Agreed, it's expensive and there are numerous annoyances, but I hope there will always be large audiences who want to sit down and enjoy a movie together.
"But the cars are all flashing me, bright lights are passing me, I feel life passing me by" - Stiff Little Fingers
Yeah, It couldn't possibly be because Hollywood is putting out nothing but garbage. I could care less about seeing the stuff that gets released these days. They don't have any idea who we as American's are. All they care about is pushing some liberal agenda down our throats or making movies on the intellectual and sense of humor level of someone in Junior High School. Yes - I'd rather rent a movie and watch it at home, but I'd be more than happy to go to the theater if they actually could make a movie I was interested in seeing.
My wife's deaf, plus her hearing aid broke. But she still "listens" to the music in the truck. She just turns the bass up.
I actually blew my doctors out of the water with how well I can actually function with this hearing loss. When they talk to me, then look at my audiogram, they can't believe I barely have the "accent" that deaf people do.
Sounds like my wife. She lost her hearing when she was a little over a year old. Most people don't realize she's deaf, unless we tell them. (a necessity at times, as I'm sure you know) With her hearing aid, she has pretty good hearing, even able to talk on the phone a little. But without it, she's almost completely deaf.
She does have a "deaf accent" in that she tends to pronounce words as they're spelled, not as they're commonly said. (ie: "science" = "sky-ens" and "chef" = "ch-ef" (It took a while for me to realize she was saying "ch" instead of "sh"))
"That's so plausible, I can't believe it!" - Leela
Make that "Stupid Lazy American Consumers Prefer Movies At Home".
that was the shittiest ass review i ever read in my life.
the guy didnt do jack shit to the fuckers? all he did was immatate them poorly? and then he wines and bitches thru the rest of the "review" without saying anythign meaningful. dotn link shit like that because shit like that is shit.
shit.
Is the problem with the drop in sales at the box office really due to more people staying home to watch movies? Or is it the fact that the movies being pumped out by Hollywood just aren't as good as they used to be? Don't get me wrong there are certainly some excellent movies that do come out and are more than worth seeing, but compared to how often I used to go to the movies there just doesn't seem to be as much in the way of decent entertaining movies being put out anymore.
The theatres are already complaining that DVDs are killing their sales. And I'd bet that most people would only go to the theatre because they're not patient enough to wait a year for it to come out on DVD. If you could buy the DVD NOW, even at an inflated cost, it'd flat out kill the theatre sales. If they want to double dip, they'll leave it the way it is.
The other option I could see them doing though, is to realease a "pre-DVD" at twice the cost, ($40) and none of the extras. Then a year later, sell the DVD again with the extras included at $20.
How many people would pay $40 to watch a movie at home as it's released in theatre? Anyone with kids, for one. (2 adults @ $9.50 + 3 kids @ $6.50 = $38.50 + snacks, and you KNOW the kids will want to watch it more then once. Unless it realy sucks)
"That's so plausible, I can't believe it!" - Leela
Rip the DVD down with DVD Shrink (it's shareware -- go get it now!) and you are back in charge.
You have two options:
1) remove the button-disabling crap but keep the commercials, FBI warning, etc. (Why you would want this stuff, I have no idea...) If you don't have a dual-layer burner, you may have to recompress the content. DVD Shrink will handle all this for you. It's a one-click process.
-or-
2) Remaster the disk. You choose what to keep and the amount of compression to use (if necessary). Throw away the marketing crap and you can fit most movies onto a single layer blank (read: "cheap!") DVD at full quality without recompression! Yes another reason to do away with commercials.
Put the original away and use the copy. When (if?) the copy becomes too scratched up to work, throw it in the trash and repeat.
I prefer to see a movie in a theatre, but only when the experience is pleasant, which it rarely is anymore. To really enjoy a movie at a theatre I need the following:
- Not having my earsdrums crushed for the first twenty minutes of every movie, until enough people have complained about speakers crackling under the strain that the management makes the projectionist turn the volume down.
- Not having to listen to every bang and boom in the theatre next door which is too loud for the cheap walls - although I admit this problem isn't as bad in theatres built in the last several years.
- Not having to watch "The 2wenty" followed by another half-hour of commercials and trailers.
- Not getting there 30 minutes before the movie and not being able to get a decent seat because management will let one or two teenagers hold a dozen seats for friends who won't arrive until halfway through the trailer.
- Not being interrupted by repeatedly by the same assholes using cellular phones during movies.
Of course, since none of this is likely to change any time soon, I'm just going to keep watching most of my movies via Netflix and HBO.
I know this is Slashdot, but c'mon people! Watching movies with significant others is often a thinly veiled excuse for the opportunity to sit close to each other in the dark, especially when you're in that beginning, uncontrollable lust phase of dating someone. Watching that movie in the comfort of your home gives you certain options not available to you in a public place like a theater. Does no one else see that as a major point in the pro column?
On the other hand, if you're living with your parents in a single-television home, I suppose that'd be a reason to opt for the relative privacy of a theater.
1. Going to the cinema and watching movies at home are close to perfect substitutes. 2. Staying at home is more convenient. 3. Watching movies at home is less expensive. 4. The cinema experience is better in some ways (better screen, better sound), but inferior in others (no pause button when going to the can). Consequently, most consumers prefer to stay home. The single best way to change this is to bring back neighborhood theatres that show films at low prices. If you could walk down the street and pay $2 a head instead of driving twenty minutes and paying $10 a head and movies on tape or disk cost $10 to rent, then most people would prefer to go the cinema.
I don't have a fancy home theater set-up. I still like to watch movies like starwars on the big screen.
But, for most movies, I'm fine the tube; and I don't mind waiting six months for the DVD.
Frankly, I can hardly imagine somebody paying $9 for admission, and another $10 for consessions; to see the movie versions of "Bewitched" or the "Honeymooners."
Someone mentioned going to the theater being a social event, and talking to people about a movie "I just saw on DVD" is not as exciting. Well personally, since becoming a member of the "older generation" I find a lot more interesting (and intelligent) things to talk about besides the latest flick.
Many theater defenders used the TOTAL HOME COST > the NUMBER OF MOVIES ATTENDED in a year. Once again I think those of the "older generation" see a different kind of cost then the "younger generation" would. For me to get to a movie I have to: (1) carve out time in my schedule, (2) find a baby sitter with the same schedule, (3) lose X hours driving, parking, standing in line, watching the commercials, etc. (All just to put up with a bunch of noisy people and a messy theater -- I can get that, and never leave the house). These things may not really cost me financially; but as a parent, home owner, employee, and husband, they are a lot more costly then any dollar amount would be.
That is not to say we (to project my thoughts again to my age/social group) do not like going to the movies. I still go about twice a year with my wife. It is a nice date, away from the hustle of home. But we almost always wait 4+ weeks when the movie is about to leave the theaters so we don't have to put up with all the crap.
What I want to see is this same survey done, but broken down by age. I would be willing to bet what I mentioned at the beginning of this whole thing. I also don't think that theaters are going to suddenly disappear, it is still an EVENT. And going out to an event is always nice, no matter what your age/income/family status/relationship status happens to be.
"This article comes on the heels of a consistently poor box office this year, even despite the presence of the new Star Wars film."
You misspelled "because of."
"Well, why go to a fine restaurant, when you can just stick something in the microwave? Why go to the park and fly a kite, when you can just pop a pill?"
That makes us sound like a bunch of liars. So they won't like the figure until it's high enough for them? What if 99% people said they did, but they wanted 100%? Would they say "only 99% admitted to..."? In this case, are they saying the other 95% of us lied?
They don't get the numbers they wanted, so they have to call us liars who didn't admit to it and ignore the possibility that we simply don't do it.
Back when the Apex 1500 came out 4 of us at work rushed to Circuit City to get one because of the price and firmware upgrades that were available, etc. 1 of us got a good one the first try, 2 of us got a good one the second try, and the other poor slob got a good one on his 4th try. Mine then proceeded to work good for a little over a year. Now, if it plays anything at all, it will almost always freeze or pixellate sometime during the movie, requiring a power-cycle at the least to finsh the movie.
Don't know if is was the model, the brand, or just a bad palletful, but since then I got my 2 kids those $39 at Walmart Cyberhome DVD players. Got good ones the first try there, but they both quit playing reliably after less than a year. Maybe there's something to be said for the more expensive DVD players?
In contrast my cheap VHS player is about 10 years old and plays like it was new...
(Stolen sig) Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus", a "Microsoft worm", not a "computer worm
The guy in a reply above seems to have a local theater that plays volumes way too low. Loud or soft or too much dynamic range...whatever (though there is a dynamic range issue just like how cassetes were compressed audio while CDs allowed for more dynamic range between soft and loud passages)...that's yet another reason people might prefer to watch movies at home. The volume and clarity ain't what you expect in a theater...particulary for the amount of cash you lay out to see a flick on the "big screen". At home you can dial it in to suit your tastes.
At any rate, I like you, set up my home theater to equalize things a bit.
Star Wars hasn't opened yet in my country yet you insensitive clod!
Let's say a family of 4 goes to the movie theater.
That's 4 times
$8 for tickets
$6 for popcorn
$4 for a large soda
$2 for mike and ikes
For a grand total for the night of: $80
or $20 per person.
Versus a night at home with same family of 4 and 8 friends over:
$1 for tonights netflix movie.
$5 for a few tubs of homemade popcorn
$7 for a 24 pack of soda.
$20 for a few pizza's
for a grand total of $33, or $2.75 per person. And you aren't annoyed by the crying babies and the idiots pulling candy out of the crinkly wrappers for a half an hour during every quiet part of the movie.
...and a high-quality progressive-scan component-output DVD player, the advantage of film over TV is dramatically reduced.
This is especially true with LCD, HD-ILA and DLP non-CRT rear-projection TV's when fed a 480p signal from DVD player. I've seen Finding Nemo and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King Extended Edition projected on a Samsung HL-5067W 50-inch (diagonal) DLP RPTV and the picture quality is nothing short of amazing. It's even more so when the same RPTV is fed a true ATSC high-definition signal through the HDMI connector.
...for DVD releases, I think it really could happen. Don't be surprised that the minimum for DVD release after first day of theatrical release is 180 days, probably agreed upon within the next year or so.
That show, in my humble opinion, was a hugely bad influence because it gave the green light for moviegoers to do a running "mocking" commentary when the movie is showing. Many moviegoers find that EXTREMELY annoying, and small wonder why sales of rear-projection TV's and home theater sound systems have boomed lately.
Whoops! The title in the previous message should say "Mystery Science Theater 3000."
There is something amazing about being in a room holding 1,000 Star Wars fans who whoop and yell as the Lucasfilm logo appears. Gives you chills.
Wow. I hate people like that.
Movie Exhibition has become a market research and promotional vehicle for video sales and rental. If it does well at the box office it generally will do well in rental and that opening promotion gets the word out. Even well done Home Theaters do not have as large a screen as a standard cinema. Some movies are made for a large screen and should be seen on one. Anyone that saw 2001 when it came out and then eagerly watched it on television understands the difference. Now if only film producers and directors understood that!