Hollywood's message to the world - go back to the movies
Mar 6, 2006 at 9:26 PM Post #46 of 61
I've never even considered going to the main theatres to see a movie. There's no way I can justify spending the $12 or whatever it is. If there's a movie I'd really like to see, I wait until it hits the cheap theatre (they play movies that have just moved out of the main theatres, I don't know if you have those in America) and see it for $3-4. Are people so impatient that they can't just wait a while and watch it at a way more reasonable price without any other sacrifice?
 
Mar 6, 2006 at 9:28 PM Post #47 of 61
Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenja
Are people so impatient that they can't just wait a while and watch it at a way more reasonable price without any other sacrifice?


Yes, at least here in America. We're not exactly known for our patience.
tongue.gif
 
Mar 6, 2006 at 11:32 PM Post #49 of 61
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirosia
I despise the sound and video quality of theaters, as well as the insane cost. But my biggest beef is that whenever I go, there's an 80% chance I'll have to deal with racists, skinheads, weirdos, or outright arses. They always ruin my day/night. This crud happens more than not.



x2... on top of that MOVIES lately (generally) SUCK.

message to hollywood... provide a quality product and people will follow. I'll gladly wait for some typically stupid release to come out on DVD and watch in the comfort of my own home.

Garrett
 
Mar 7, 2006 at 12:13 AM Post #50 of 61
Seeing movies in a movie theatre is not going away, until people stop wanting to look at each other out in public. Problem with this is, once you're in the theatre, many people think that the sole point is to watch movie, others think it is to disdainfully watch the movie and talk with the people they came with. I am in the former group, which is one of the prime reasons I don't bother with the movies anymore.

The paradigm of the completely darkened box with the only light coming from the screen is a dead one. People aren't interested in focusing only on the movie, so why continue in that direction? Make movies whose express intent it to have people be able to talk during the film and, possibly, interact with it. Instead of having long rows of seats, have couches, individual seats, tables, etc. and allow people to make calls, order food and beverages, plug in lap tops, etc., all while a film is playing. If you want to focus on the film, fine, if not, do something else. This is the only way I see that they can really keep a large cross section of people continuing to come to the movies.

Hollywood however seems to be going with the hyperniche paradigm, making small budget films targeted for very specific audiences, which don't make big bucks, but as a percentage of their costs they make lots of money. That's one way to go, but one of the nice things about the movies is about how they bring people together to have a shared experience. Others have noted that because of the internet, Ipod and Tivo we can now all have content that is exclusively geared to our own personal tastes with no information that would contradict or offend our sensibilities. That is a loss for keeping a society together when it becomes so fragmented.
 
Mar 7, 2006 at 12:23 AM Post #51 of 61
Quote:

Originally Posted by Shizelbs
The theater experience sucks. At home I can eat what I want, piss when I want, play it as loud as I want, watch the nudie scenes as many times as I want, get far better sound quality, sit in a comfortable stain-free couch, wear my dumpy sweats, make smart assed comments that the whole audience laughs at (just me), and have access to a full bar that never stops serving you.

Or I can drive to the theater and watch teenagers text message on their cell phones and peel my shoes off the floor when its time to leave.

Time to adapt to the future and quit pressing the past Hollywood.



agreed, man i sneak all kinds of food and drinks up in the theater when i do go, you can't even truely relax, who wants popcorn for a million bucks? when you can eat a good ol home cooked meal or something while watching the movie for free, plus you don't have to hear crying babies all the time, yelling kids, people laughing obnoxiously, cell phones going off when they clearly tell you to turn off etc get a baby sitter for the damn kids for goodness sakes or don't bring them to the movies
icon10.gif
 
Mar 7, 2006 at 2:36 AM Post #52 of 61
I have to drive 1/2 hour to get to a cinema. 8 rooms of "stereo", and only 2 of those are 2.35:1 screens. Then I pay $8/ticket (which is a minimum of 2 people). Then they bend you over the concession stand and rut you to the tune of $12 for a medium soda & small popcorn.

Then its into the theater. with crusty "lowest price possible" plastic chairs, many of which have been damaged and never repaired in the 20+ years the mall has been open, they are all very small and don't recline. Then the commercials start (5 minutes after the films advertised start time). About 12 minutes of so of Coke & BuyTicketsOverTheInternet.com, followed by 13 minutes of previews.

Then the movie, if you're lucky the print will look nice, I saw The Ringer opening day and it had a big black line right down the center of the frame for at least hal the movie.

Hollywood shot itself in the foot. First it was cheap VHS/DVDs (remember when tapes were $100 and laserdisk's $250?), then came Big-screen TVs & 5.1 surround sound, followed lastly by really-big cheap digital home projectors (Having a CRT front projector meant you were very rich and liked to calibrate your ray-guns every 5 hours).

So I have my Netflix account, and my Paradigm/SVS surround sound system. Now all I need is a front projector (I'm waiting for 1080p models with HDMI 1.3 & a Blu*Ray player) and I can kiss the cinema goodbye at last. Right now I only go every year on Christmas (a tradition since Highschool), and my wife makes me take her to all the Harry Potter films. Soon, soon I shall forget all abou the evils of Hoyts/Regal .... muahahahahahahaha!
 
Mar 7, 2006 at 3:24 AM Post #53 of 61
Last time I went it was for King Kong. It was the first show of the day and the floor was covered with sticky pop. How often do they clean these things? Once a month.

I also had the opportunity to sit through 30 minutes of comercials (we timed them) before the start, many of them not even for movies but for video games and cleaning detergents.

I have also seen many shows with film/sound/screen problems. I usually just go if I have time to kill.
 
Mar 7, 2006 at 3:46 AM Post #54 of 61
Aw, come one, who here actually doesn't want to pay $10.00 to watch the next installment in Scary Movie or George Lucas's next attempt at proving that he is a director? Who doesn't want to sit somewhere surrounded by fat heads munching on pop corn... crunch, crunch, crunch... Who doesn't want to be kicked in the back of the seat repeatedly, listen to inane comments from the 12 year old behind them, hear the teenagers making out noisily two seats away, and the baby crying in the front row? Who actually minds peeling their shoes away from the floor and scraping wads of gum out of their bootsoles afterwards?

It's all part of the moviegoing experience, man!
 
Mar 7, 2006 at 3:48 AM Post #55 of 61
The last (and I mean probably the last ever) movie I saw in a theater was the Doom movie. I'm not a huge fan of movies, but I went to see this because I loved the game back in the day. The film itself was ok, but the theater was aweful. The sound was turned up WAY too loud, and it seemed like the treble was cranked to the max. Luckily I had my Etymotics with me to use as earplugs. I can appreciate people wanting their action movies to be loud, but this volume level was just uncalled for.

I'm with the majority here, I'd rather view a DVD on my LCD with a beer and a decent volume level
smily_headphones1.gif
 
Mar 7, 2006 at 9:56 AM Post #56 of 61
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasper994
Check out the campus cashier's office and see if they offer reduced price tickets for college students. I know I can get them for $6/ticket. Funny thing is, I'd still rather get the DVD. Even at $6/ticket it's still cheaper to buy the DVD when you consider that you can get used DVD's for around $8 and snacks at home are WAY cheaper than at the theater. Factor in the comfort of your own home, choice seating, better sound (with volume you can control), and lack of annoying audience members and it's an all together more satisfying experience to watch it at home.


Yeah - student discounts get me in for 8 bucks but that's only me. It 10 bucks for everyone else and it usually comes from my wallet.

Hollywood - no thanks - I will wait for the DVD.
rolleyes.gif
 
Mar 7, 2006 at 9:57 AM Post #57 of 61
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyson
Ever since I got a front projector and 92 inch wide screen High Def setup, theaters have become obsolete. I simply have no reason to go to one anymore, since I've dialed in the picture quality to a much higher standard than I see at local theaters, and since I sit only 9 feet back from the screen, the visual impact at home is huge. And the whole setup cost me less than my non-HDTV 42" Toshiba did 7 years ago. Really big screens with high visual impact are a reality now, and they are only gonna get cheaper and better as more people buy them. Throw in blu-ray or hd-dvd and there is truly very little reason to ever go to a theater. Maybe people will watch movies at home and do other things like seeing live plays or musical performances on the weekends for fun instead of hitting the theater.


Tyson - what front projector are you using?
 
Mar 7, 2006 at 1:20 PM Post #58 of 61
Oh, i forgot to mention: Around here you have to wait for DVD to watch all the good movies anyway. Broken Flowers, High Tension, Crash, Serenity, Requiem for a Dream, etc etc etc never make it to our multiplex (of how I wish I lived in NYC or LA sometimes). The theater only gets the most banal lowest-common-denominator "films" that oozes out of California every three weeks.

Why would anyone pay $10/ticket to watch an Uwe Boll film?
 
Mar 7, 2006 at 3:57 PM Post #59 of 61
Hollywood is motivated by money...not artistic expression by and large. Just look at the terrible movies that are coming out and you'll agree. This was the worst Oscars yet b/c it dealt with the worst content yet. I mean come on, 3 Six Mafia winning an Oscar? It's an embarassment. Hollwood is laughing their way to the bank.

Knowing this, accept it and tie actor's pay to the success of the film so they have some sense of stewardship and incentive to make the film as best as they can.

Actors probably don't even read scripts anymore. They rent themselves out to the highest bidder/studio regarless of the script's merits in most cases.
 
Mar 7, 2006 at 11:25 PM Post #60 of 61
Quote:

Originally Posted by SennFan
Hollywood is motivated by money...not artistic expression by and large. Just look at the terrible movies that are coming out and you'll agree.


But no Uwe Boll film has ever turned a profit! And still they come to the cineplex!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top