I'm watching movies at home from now on. (1 Viewer)

[JamieD]

I went to see Signs last night. There were four brain dead idiots behind us making "wind noises" (I'm not elaborating), a kid the next row down who was having a popcorn war, and two cell phones and a pager went off.

This is standard theater fare.

It is VERY rare I'll go see a movie vs. wait, which I think is just a sign of the times. People seem less inclined to respect other people's ability to enjoy a comfortable evening.

As for the astute recognition that watching a movie on a television is .. you know, TELEVISION, suprise. I've disagreed with you on these types of things before Vickie. As far as I'm concerned, movies are movies. Home Theater and Cinema are both valid ways to watch, enjoy, and appreciate a movie. However, that's something that is steering this far off topic, so I'm done now. *L*

 

[Vickie_M]

As far as I'm concerned, movies are movies. Home Theater and Cinema are both valid ways to watch, enjoy, and appreciate a movie.

I agree, but I think the main difference between us (and Grant too) is that, even if we did experience the bad times you and others list (which we don't, through a combination of, I think, the movies we choose to see and times we choose to see them, plus a little luck), it would all be worth it for us to not have to wait to see films we really want to see. Above and beyond the technical aspects of real theater vs. home theater (film vs. video, sound), the waiting would be the most excruciating thing for me. For the movies, number one, but it also kills me to see a lot of people talking about a really good movie that I haven't seen yet. I try to avoid spoilers so I can't participate or lurk anywhere near the conversation.
Movies are movies, true, I just don't want to wait to have to see them. I'm way too impatient. As I said in another thread, as an example, I liked the fact that when the Academy Award nominations were announced, I had already seen all 5 Best Picture nominations and many of the films in most of the other categories too. Not that that was all that important, experiencing the movies themselves was more important, but it's an example.
Now, if video-on-demand or somesuch (ha!) were to become available so that we could see brand new films on opening day streamed into to our home, OAR and with full sound, we'd still go out often for the theater experience, though might choose to watch some of those films at home. Having the choice would be nice, especially for those who DO want to see movies ASAP but can't get out, though that will probably never happen.
I'm sorry that morons, idiots and dickheads are ruining the movie-going experience for so many people. May they go to a special hell where they'll be forced to watch "Pokemon" over and over again for the rest of eternity, their voices taken away and with a baby crying and an invisible cell phone ringing in their ear every second of every hour of every day.
(Yeah, deja vu!)
Ok, I'll shut up now.

 

[JamieD]

I have to say, I'm very impressed by that post Vickie. I can understand the waiting being the hardest part. That's why I DID go to see Signs and Minority Report recently. You just seem so much more open to other people's viewing preferences in that post. And I like your Cinema Hell idea. 8)
Oh yes, and another point, with the exception of the larger screen size, there is nothing technical that makes me want to go see a movie in the main theater here in town. The display is dim, fuzzy, and often skewed;sound is usually muffled and a little bit overloud. (Though perhaps I just have sensitive ears.. after all, I DO hear a lot of cell phones *L*).. Heh.. reminds me of when I thought I would be smart and see a weekday matinee showing of SW:ep 2, figuring there'd be less people. And indeed there was. Just three kids and their dad, who chanted whenever they recognized a character. There's only so much "yoDAyoDAyoDA!" you can take.
I will say, I'm envious of those who can still have a nice night at the local cinema.

 

[Charles J P]

I feel bad for some of the people here. I have truly never had as bad of a theater experience as some here claim to have had, however I still choose to view most of my movies at home. Why? Cost mostly. If I go to a movie with my fiance its going to cost $13-$15 for tickets (I live in the midwest, I'm sure its $20 and up for two tickets in some places) plus another $10 for concessions. By then, I could just buy the DVD. The only thing I really miss is the big screen because when you see a movie in relation to its release date really has no meaning to me. I only have a 32" tv and I really wish I had an 80-100" screen, but some day I will, and my next big HT purchase will surely be a projector. In fact, if I had it all to do over again, I would have went with much lower end audio and a much bigger screen. Right now my audio totally dominates the system.

I'm sure when I have kids the situation will change. I'll be going to the movies more, but kid movies, and by the time I shell out all that money to take them to the movies, I will probably end up seeing NONE of the movies I want to see in the theaters.

The only thing that really bugs me about this thread and others like it is the incredibly rude assumption that if you dont see movies at the theater, then your not a movie buff. This is assinine and insulting and seems like a way for the people who frequent the theater to justify their monitary bleeding. People are always making comments about how you cant enjoy a comedy unless your surrounded by other people laughing, or if you dont see an epic on the big screen, you havent seen it. This is absurd, and I would offer the rebuttle that if you havent seen a comedy or epic in a relaxed state because your so pissed at the asshole loud mouth or attention drawing teens then you werent able to enjoy it and therefore havent really "seen it". Anyone who would tolerate such interferance with their movie watching experiance is clearly not a movie buff!

 

[Jason Seaver]

The only thing that really bugs me about this thread and others like it is the incredibly rude assumption that if you dont see movies at the theater, then your not a movie buff. This is assinine and insulting and seems like a way for the people who frequent the theater to justify their monitary bleeding

It's not an unreasonable assumption. The artists do call themselves "filmmakers" as opposed to "videomakers", after all. As nice as watching something alone or in a small group on one's HT can be, good HT is still second-best to good theatrical exhibition, and while directors are probably thinking about the eventual video release more, these things are generally built to be communal experiences.

You say you don't mind waiting to see a movie in an inferior format, but to me that indicates that you're not terribly enthusiastic about movies, that they aren't often something you've been eagerly awaiting or want to be able to discuss with fellow enthusiasts. That you like movies, but in a somewhat passive way, not in the same passionate manner as a "buff" or enthusiast.

And I don't feel any need to justify my "monitary (sic) bleeding" to anyone. It's money well-spent, as far as I'm concerned, and it's not really all that much money. I go to matinees on the weekend, buy books of discount tickets for Monday-Thursday, have a membership at the local rep house, and get on mailing lists for free screenings. I've taken the time to become familiar with the local theaters, so that I know when I'm likely to get the best price, presentation, and audience. I generally don't buy food and drinks because, hey, what's stuffing your face got to do with enjoying what's on-screen?

This may sound like a lot of effort just to see a movie, but, you see, I'm a movie buff. I love them, and thus feel that it's worth the effort.

 

[JamieD]

Can't we all just get along.
Either way, the studio gets our hard earned cash. I don't look down at those who choose to go to theaters, I've never understood why people feel the need to do the opposite.
Can't we all just be united in our passion for the Motion Picture Medium? We believe in vibrant cinematography, clear and crisp sound, the boom of a subwoofer, and the smell of butter on fresh popcorn (I'm on a Bull Durham-like run, so I apologize for the popcorn usage for those who don't like it, or otherwise, like it butter free). I believe that someone can be a movie fan regardless of social grouping, viewing preferences, or desire to play a movie at below reference level. I believe the most important part of a good viewing experience is to respect those around you and hope that they will do the same.
I've watched movies at home out of necessity, and movies in theaters simply to please others. I've seen award winners and flops, career bottoms and tops, and I enjoy discussing a film with anyone. But the day that I'll be looked down on within that conversation for viewing the movie at home, that's when I'll know that some people need to feel superior, and that the problem that plagues so many of my hobbies will have tainted another one. I'm hoping that won't happen.
Sorry for the somewhat oversappy post.. I'm just tired of elitism.

 

[Howard Williams]

Gee, I always thought the main reason for having a Home Theater was to watch/rewatch the movie I wanted to watch, when I want to watch it.

 

[Charles J P]

Jason

Quote:

Again, I agree.
I dont know what else to say. I grant certain concessions to the arguement that a movie is better seen theatrically, but mostly under ideal conditions which are rare in a public theater. But I wont concede this underlying issue about the degree of fanaticism. To me someone who is a true movie buff will be open-minded yet analytical, passionate yet objective, someone who is still thinking about a movie or even a single scene days later, someone who thinks about how they would have done something differenly, someone who thinks about what happens after the credits roll, someone who gets upset because a movie has a "hollywood" ending. I am all of these. A movie in a theater is often little more than a date to me. Home is where I do my critical watching.

 

[Grant B]

If you don't scan the movie page every day, you wont have to 'wait'.
It'll be as fresh as the crappy popcorn in the theater they sell for $8

 

[Vickie_M]

Well, Jason said everything I would have said, only better.

Grant B: If you don't scan the movie page every day, you wont have to 'wait'.

 

[Jared_B]

I agree 100% with Charles. Vickie and Jason, you two are sounding incredibly snobbish and close-minded.

Charles has the perfect definition of a "movie-buff":

a true movie buff will be open-minded yet analytical, passionate yet objective, someone who is still thinking about a movie or even a single scene days later, someone who thinks about how they would have done something differenly, someone who thinks about what happens after the credits roll, someone who gets upset because a movie has a "hollywood" ending

 

[Vickie_M]

Vickie and Jason, you two are sounding incredibly snobbish and close-minded

No, we're not, but our love of movies and impatience to see them seems to make us look like money-squandering masochists. Really, that's much sillier than our confusion at people who choose to wait to see a film.
Each to their own. I REALLY believe that. But I can still wonder at those who are more into their system than movies themselves, or who say they're movie buffs but don't even feel upset that there's good/great movies that they could be seeing RIGHT NOW, but prefer (as opposed to being forced by circumstance) to wait several months to see them.
Then again, I just realized that I'm totally full of crap, because I had a chance to see Vertigo on a big screen, free, last night (at the Chicago Outdoor Film Festival) and passed it up because I had a toothache and didn't feel like going out. I may never get a chance to see it on film again, so there you go. Some movie buff I am. Sigh.
I know that in the end, they'll all be released on DVD, and years from now it won't matter if a person saw Frailty or My Big Fat Greek Wedding on DVD first or in the theater first.

 

[Charles J P]

but our love of movies and impatience to see them seems to make us look like money-squandering masochists.

I didnt really say that. Your personal choices are just that, personal, mine too. I am just venting some frustration about people who try to narrowly define a movie buff as someone who sees everything while its in the theaters and is smart enough to know that while HT is nice it is a woefully inadequate presentation of all but the worst films :frowning: I stand by my definition of the movie buff, and certainly dont "value my system more than the movie". I dont prefer to see movies months later either, but just like you stated, I'm often forced by circumstances, usually time and money. I dont hold illusions that my HT is objectively better than a real theater, but that doesnt mean I cant enjoy the overall experience as much or more.
Well, anyway, I hope your tooth feels better. I missed a (non-free) show of A Clockwork Orange at the one "arthouse" theater in town once because I was too tired to go. Damn!

 

[Todd Hochard]

but our love of movies and impatience

It would seem that the impatience is what separates the self-proclaimed "buffs" from the labeled "likers."

I'm patient, so I guess I'm the latter. I'm not fond of paying for the same thing multiple times, which is generally why I wait.

Todd

 

[David Berry]

I have not read this entire thread, but my wife and our 4 year old son went to the movies last weekend (we usually go once a year). There were about 16 video games there as well and almost all of them had shotguns or handguns to interact with the video display. I wrote a brief letter stating my concern about this to Famous Players. What the hell ever happened to Pacman?

 

[Jason Seaver]

There were about 16 video games there as well and almost all of them had shotguns or handguns to interact with the video display. I wrote a brief letter stating my concern about this to Famous Players. What the hell ever happened to Pacman?

That'd be an interesting thread in the Video Games area. Actually, the GCCAMC theater in Boston does at least have a Ms Pac-Man/Galaga machine, which is always in use when I have some time to kill there.
I'm not terribly surprised. Over the past 10-15 years or so, home and arcade games have veered drastically toward being simulations as opposed to games, in part because fancy graphics don't add a whole lot to something as abstract as Pac-Man, and it's the flashy stuff that gets noticed.
And, yeah, it's a bummer.

 

[Tom_Mack]

I'll go to the theater only for movies I really want to see right away and usually only in our megaplex's 2 THX theaters.

Last time, though, I had a problem will, of all people, the manager. We always get there early to get a good center seat, halfway back. We got to the 'plex about 1 hour and 15 minutes ahead of the starting time for 'Signs' opening day and asked the ticket taker and manager where we could wait to be let in first, we were told to wait in a specific area and form a line. At about 45 minutes to show there were about 50 of us early birds in line. Well, at minutes to show the manager decides to let in the people waiting from a different enterance (no they were not there first) and tells them to form a line IN FRONT OF OURS, then opened our line 5 minutes later and told us to get in line behind them. I reminded the manager that I had asked him before about where to wait to be let in first and he replied and I quote "oh well, too bad". There was already 100-200 people in the line and they were letting friends and family in as they arrived. Luckily I found another manager who agreed that they messed up and moved us to the front of the line. If we stayed back in line, half the theater would have been full by the time we got in.

I can usually deal with the people around me, but recently there has been a lot of cell phones, out loud talking, crackling wrappers to the point where I have less of an urge to see the film in the theater.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Interesting range of opinions. Let's keep cool under the collars, though. Thanks.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Tom, the only movie I've experienced that in was Austin Powers 3 at KOP, there were a bunch of kids behind us who were slightly annoying

 

[Ryan Wright]

The movie theater is where these films are best. Star Wars at home is nothing like Star Wars in the theater.

Speak for yourself. I've got sixty five inches of widescreen DVD, progressive scanned @ 60fps and 12 feet from my face. Turned to the volume level of my choice, in the company of my choice, with the liquor of my choice and the food of my choice. On a big, soft couch, where I can put my feet up in front of me should I so choose.

Better picture quality? Check.
Better sound? Check.
Better company? Check.
Better refreshments? Check.
Better seating? Check.

Commercial theaters? They're nothing more than overpriced establishments where one can watch inferior sneak previews of upcoming DVDs in the company of mostly rude strangers.

I'll take my home theater any day.