Please don't do that! Sequels and Remakes you did not see coming... (1 Viewer)

[Winston T. Boogie]

However, starting with the James Bond films in the 60s the process seems to be milked more and more each year, far more than those pre-1960 film series ever were. Almost to the point where every "new" film is a extension of a series/franchise with series being planned even before it's known if the "parent" film is any good.

The risk takers seem far fewer between now than ever before, much to the detriment of the industry.

The difference with the pre 1960s pictures you mention was they were not "franchises" and were not being made to be cash cows that the studios dumped huge amounts of cash into. They were no to low budget stuff meant to be dumped onto double or triple bills around a feature. So, not at all the same thing that happens now. You can't lump making those films into how they do things now.

Bond does seem to be the birth of the modern "formula" film designed to lure larger audiences with each successive film by giving them what they expect and trying to make it bigger, more funny, more outrageous as they went. And the Bond creators were successful doing so. However, the Bond films did not seem to cause the avalanche of sequels that would become the norm in the 1980s and filmmakers in the 1970s seemed to mostly attempt to avoid the sequel.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

So, something that I think is important to consider about where we are with films now as opposed to prior to 1980, as an example, is one giant trend with pictures after 1980 is the rise of MOVIES ABOUT MOVIES.

So, to define that idea I would say to look at Quentin Tarantino's work. His films are basically just films about his love of movies. In his case mostly cheesy films he loved. He really only makes pictures about his love of movies. His "WWII" film has nothing to do with WWII. His Django film is not even a western it is a film about loving Spaghetti westerns. Now Tarantino makes it very obvious that he is not making films about anything except his love of movies and making movies.

However, if you look at Disney's new Star Wars films...they are not about anything except the other Star Wars films. The plots, what happens in the films, everything is not designed to be about anything...except reminding us that we love Star Wars films.

This has become more of the thrust of a lot of today's pictures. They are not about creating characters or good stories or original work...they are about making movies about other movies, that remind us of other movies. So much of what they are churning out is only all about saying "Hey, this film is all about the fact that you loved that film."

 

[TravisR]

However, if you look at Disney's new Star Wars films...they are not about anything except the other Star Wars films. The plots, what happens in the films, everything is not designed to be about anything...except reminding us that we love Star Wars films.

This has become more of the thrust of a lot of today's pictures. They are not about creating characters or good stories or original work...they are about making movies about other movies, that remind us of other movies. So much of what they are churning out is only all about saying "Hey, this film is all about the fact that you loved that film."

I'll give you that the new Star Wars movies heavily rely on the older movies but there's always been duality in the Star Wars movies so I think having 'history repeat itself' works in The Force Awakens BUT I'm hopeful that Rian Johnson isn't going to do that with The Last Jedi. The only problem there is that since it's the middle part of a trilogy, it seems kind of inevitable that it won't have the characters reach a low point which will make people draw parallels between TLJ and The Empire Strikes Back.

I was surprised by how much and how quickly I liked the new characters in The Force Awakens and they are beloved by some fans so I think Abrams, Kasdan & the actors managed to pull that off pretty well. All the more impressive is that I cared enough about Rey and Finn that I wasn't bothered that Luke Skywalker barely appears in the movie. Rogue One was a different kind of thing for me where I became fascinated by the characters because there was so little characterization in the movie that I want to know more about them.

As for Tarantino, I feel he uses older genres that he loves as a springboard to do his own version of those kinds of movies. To me, that's the way to do a throwback movie rather than the people that just to slavishly duplicate an older genre movie.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Yes, I am not knocking what Tarantino does, in fact the cool thing about his pictures is he cares more about dialogue and characters than action. He basically is about the total opposite of what most films do today. Where most films will cut long dialogue or reduce it to something stupid...Tarantino just keeps expanding the dialogue and could give fuck all about the action. The action in his films is just the period on the sentence. It makes what he does seem refreshing. His films might be bat shit nutty but you are always going to get big characters with lots of interaction between them and a ship load of dialogue.

I mean when I watch Blow Out by De Palma that is also a movie about movies but it is also about other things and it is brilliantly done.

 

[Brent Reid]

Ha, from one grumpy old man to all you others: you know 'twas ever thus, right? Nothing's changed; that you're now noticing is just a sign of advancing years and that you relate better to the then-current versions of your relative youth. Whenever I feel a moan about remade or rebooted (urgh! Hate that word) songs, TV programmes or films, I stop and remind myself it's been exactly the same for as long as we've had recorded media – and waaay beyond. Songwriters, composers, playwrights, authors and artists, etc. have always remade, reimagined or at least mined past works for 'inspiration'.

Certainly, since the beginning of the gramophone era, there would often be literally dozens of 'remakes' of a single song cluttering up the charts on both sides of the Atlantic. Less common now, granted, but it persisted well into the 1960s/early 1970s.

Again, since the dawn of film there were literally dozens of remakes and competing versions of popular stage and literary properties. Most of those from the silent era are, sadly, now lost – but they still happened. Which brings me to... When the talkies came in, there was a massive rush to remake sound versions of successful silents, many of which were barely months old – really. And they kept on remaking them. To cite just one example, currently being discussed elsewhere in these forums: according to Wikipedia, there are at least eight film and TV adaptations of Hecht and MacArthur's 1928 play, The Front page aka His Girl Friday. To say nothing of various radio recordings. What's more, the basic plot was also recycled, with acknowledgement, for Cary Grant's Gunga Din (1939). Not enough? Then which of the four film versions of Dashiell Hammett's novel, The Maltese Falcon, is your favourite? Just how many remakes of Shakespeare's plays do we need, or can his timeless tales stand constant reinvention for each new generation? I certainly think so.

You can bet your sweet patootie that not one of the above works – or any others – were created in a vacuum. Their architects were just remaking, recycling and building on the past. You can also bet that throughout the 20th century, audiences and consumers complained constantly about the newfangled plethora of remakes – just as they'll continue to complain throughout the next few centuries.

On a genuinely positive note, once I'm done rolling my eyes at the the latest film or TV rehash, I know I can then often look forward to... (insert your earlier version of choice) being released in a high quality edition, to capitalise on the renewed publicity. Meanwhile, if I wish, I can choose to simply ignore the latest version, safe in the smug knowledge that I have better taste than all the plebs rushing to see it.

Collectors rejoice – and vive le remakes!

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

While it is true that there have always been remakes and different versions...it was not like it is now. Now the major productions are ALL remakes, reboots, sequels and anything original has to scrape to get funding or support. That is not how it always was. Not even way back when. So, I think it is common for people to say this is always how it has been but the people that say that are wrong.

The huge difference now is that given the choice ALL THEY WANT TO MAKE IS SOMETHING THAT WAS MADE BEFORE AND THEY WILL THROW OUTRAGEOUS SUMS OF CASH AT IT.

In the past they would do a series of films or a remake as a quickie and on the cheap. They would often use these smaller films as bait to lure you in to see the main feature. They were not the be all end all of the business though. Now, they are.

And with something like His Girl Friday/The Front Page they did a new version every so many years because nobody had seen the original film in years. So, it was not the total assault it is now.

 

[EricSchulz]

I think one of the major differences between the "then vs. now" argument is that there seem to be far fewer big studio movies made that are "original" ideas than there were in the previous decades (pre-1980). So many of the reboots/franchises/remakes are going for the "recognition factor" of concepts that we all grew up on (Bewitched, Star Trek, 21 Jump Street) to help sell the idea and tickets. The other thing that is QUITE different is that pre-1955 the only way to see the originals was if they got re-released as there was no TV/cable/home video option to see them. Remakes made a heck of a lot more sense then.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

The other thing that is QUITE different is that pre-1955 the only way to see the originals was if they got re-released as there was no TV/cable/home video option to see them. Remakes made a heck of a lot more sense then.

Exactly. Now there are several outlets already available to see the original films or earlier remakes. Back then they did a remake because the film they were remaking had no outlet to be seen. Now, the idea is not to do a remake because people have NOT seen the original...now the idea is to do a remake because people HAVE seen the original.

When Howard Hawks remade Rio Bravo ten years later as El Dorado that was because people had not seen Rio Bravo in ten years.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I think 12 is too high a bar. A lot of this is to appeal to a global audience -- since the cratering of the home video market, global releases, fueled by digital distribution, are the standard for blockbusters. Less talk and more action is the rule because it translates better. These films are making twice their domestic gross from international markets, which is why these films are really a genre unto themselves.

I definitely think that the dialogue in these films is meant to be as basic as possible. Watching Dr. Strange I felt like the film was made to have the dialogue be basically anything at all. I mean you could dub the thing into another language with ease and it would make no difference if the lines they were saying meant the same thing they did in English.

The film was visually very stimulating...loads of bright colors all over the place. Lots of silly action. Things flying every which way on the screen. And the villain Space Face...I forget his actual name but he was just a giant grimace floating in space with a deep voice that was always angry...was hilarious and amorphous enough to be just about anything to anybody.

 

[cinemiracle]

TONI ERDMANN -the recent Academy Award Oscar nominated for Best Foreign Film is about to be remade with Jack Nicholson in the leading role. Why do have to continually endure remakes of highly acclaimed Foreign movies?The USA are doing the same with TRAIN TO BUSMAN-the hugely acclaimed and most successful Korean film from last year.The Koreans are already planning a sequel.

 

[EricSchulz]

TONI ERDMANN -the recent Academy Award Oscar nominated for Best Foreign Film is about to be remade with Jack Nicholson in the leading role. Why do have to continually endure remakes of highly acclaimed Foreign movies?The USA are doing the same with TRAIN TO BUSMAN-the hugely acclaimed and most successful Korean film from last year.The Koreans are already planning a sequel.

I'm a bit less bothered by foreign language movies being remade in English. Let's face it: a LOT of people cannot handle "reading" a movie for 90 or more minutes! I take issue with "Americanizing" the movie and killing the very thing that made the original so worthwhile (case in point, The Vanishing).

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I completely respect and admire your passion here, but on the whole, I find many of the beloved 1970s auteur films to be unbearable. They remind me of a certain type of independent filmmaking today, where the goal seems to be about intentionally alienating your audience and intentionally being unpleasant or difficult to watch, which no deeper meaning beyond that.

Can you give some specific examples of the 1970s films you don't like and some of the independents of today that do this? I'd like to determine if these are films I like or films I may also dislike. I am not sure if there are filmmakers that set out to intentionally alienate their audience as they would have a rather brief career if they did that. Often difficult to watch films are difficult for a specific reason...generally the subject matter they are addressing...and to give an example I would cite something like Aronofsky's Requiem for a Dream, which I found a vastly unpleasant film to watch but...it is a film about severe drug addiction so I did not walk into it thinking it would be a Disney film. While I did not have a desire to revisit it I do not believe in any way Darren's goal was to "alienate" the audience. I believe his goal was to allow his audience to visit a place that they would not want to visit in the real world. Essentially it is a horror film but the horror rather than being a ridiculous monster is something truly horrifying...addiction. That is not something that should be "pleasant" to watch. The director however is doing the same thing as any director making a film, taking you to a "world" you may otherwise not want to visit to allow you the experience...in this case without having to actually become a drug addict.

If you suffer watching it, it's a good movie. If it's fun to watch, it's a bad movie. I can't get behind that ethos. Obviously when you're watching these movies you're not suffering, so I don't think it's literally that

Actually that is a ridiculous statement and not at all true. If you suffer watching something...because you don't like it, find it unpleasant, find it too frightening...then chances are it is not a film for you. You should not suffer watching it. I do think that films attempt to communicate intense emotions and feelings and so sometimes the feelings communicated may be deep sadness, anger, anxiety, or fear, not things we enjoy feeling in many cases but very much a part of our human experience. I know that most people will say "Well, I don't go to a movie to feel those things, I go to escape them." and interestingly when that statement is made it says something about that person...that their real life is likely too difficult for them to handle. I think a more accurate way to say what you are saying above is "If a film makes me feel too much, think too much, it is unpleasant for me." but "If a film just allows me to escape feeling it is a good film and I have fun."

I do think it is true that most people do not want to actually be made to feel anything when they watch a film. They want to sit back and turn off. They want, as the advertising goes, to just go for a ride. One that may be a little scary or strange but where they always feel safe...and hopefully with an ending that makes them feel happy. Nothing wrong with that...we all find different things entertaining.

I do think films can make us suffer. I've suffered many times watching films. From something like the Aronofsky film I mentioned above to the second Captain America film which I just found awful so I felt like I was horribly wasting my time watching it. However, the way I suffered watching something like Requiem or say a film like Salo is inspired by the art...I still may not like it but it is part of the message of the film. The chances are I won't return to these films because...ha...I feel like I suffered enough watching them but the filmmaker was attempting to make me feel something and generally something only a grown-up could truly comprehend. These are films which traffic in adult emotional space...which is sometimes a very difficult place to be.

I think that a lot of directors at the time were jerks shows up in the films - some were honestly jerks, and in the case of at least some of them, the jerkiness was chemically induced But hey, being a nice person is not a prerequisite for making a great film. By many accounts, John Ford was a jerk, but I don't think that aspect of his personality is something that became a signature in his filmmaking.

Yes, cocaine often fueled the people making the films but really that is not what is important. What matters is the work itself. And we don't know if these films could have been made if the people making them did not push themselves and the people they were working with as hard as they did. It was a totally different time when the artists had control and could do and get away with things that you would just get fired for today. Recently the only filmmaker I am aware of that has pushed like a director from the 1970s is Inarritu on The Revenant. As I read about what he was doing I was surprised they did not just fire him or shut down the film. However, any time they have to weigh a decision like that they are pondering losing money. Not a good thing. He finished the film and he does seem like he is probably a pompous dick but the resulting film was pretty darn good. We'll see I guess how well he does getting other projects off the ground because now he is a known pain in the ass. I am not saying that you need to be an asshole to make a great film but I think you do need to be driven to see your vision through. I think Paul Thomas Anderson is a great filmmaker but he also seems to get the job done while being a very nice guy.

I love movies from many genres and many time periods, so I feel pretty comfortable in saying that I'm not just a fan of modern films because they're "easy". I feel that a lot of 1970s films are obtuse simply for the sake of being obtuse, and that makes them very difficult for me to enjoy. I see a lot of the same tendencies in the independent film movement today.

Yes, I don't think you should take any comments I make as directed at you. I am just giving my observations on films made today or this era of filmmaking. I've read your comments in other threads about all kinds of films. I think you are an interesting and thoughtful guy. Josh. In no way do I want you to take my criticism of today's pictures as a slight against you but I also don't want my thoughts written off as I'm just an old fogey or just a guy that dislikes comic book films. I think there just seem to be far fewer "artists" now and much more "product" assembled to generate profit. Basically, I don't think films should be assembled like an air conditioner. My feeling is that it is better to allow the artists to put their stamp on what they are doing. It provides, to me anyway, a better and much more interesting experience. And you CAN do this with a comic book film. It is just that the people paying for them don't really want to risk that. In fact I think the greatest thing they could do with a comic book film is to make one that is utterly bizarre and challenging...but they likely won't do this. I don't totally avoid comic book films. I watched both the first and second Captain America films. I watched the first Iron Man film. I watched Dr. Strange. I watched the first two of Nolan's Batman films. I don't avoid them and I will tell you which I think work and which don't and I believe I can discuss why and it is not about me just hating a comic book film.

I will say this though, and again this is not meant as a slam on anybody except those making the films, I think people born post 1980 have grown up in a time when films have more and more become formula films and product designed not for artistic merit but for profit and studios walk away from anything that is not "assembled" to line their pockets. Profit has even become a way that the audience has "learned" to judge a film and they read the box office numbers as a way to gauge if a film is worth seeing. The amount of money a film makes has nothing to do with the quality of the picture...nothing. MacDonald's has made a mint selling hamburgers but that says nothing about the quality of their food...which we know is crap. Profit does not determine quality just how good a job they did selling it to you.

However, I hear many people say today that they will go to a picture like a Marvel film because "they know what they are going to get" which is oddly the same reason many people will chose to eat at a MacDonald's rather than the restaurant next door that they have never heard of...they know what they are going to get at MacDonald's...a lousy burger but it tastes, smells, and looks like the burger they get at any other MacDonald's. This, maybe oddly to some, is not a reason for me to eat at a restaurant or to go to a movie. I just can't get into the assembly line approach to filmmaking.

I do not say this because I just want to be different...life is short...I am looking for an experience not the same thing again and again. I am not attempting to be a film snob here because I personally think there is room for all kinds of pictures but just like you if I am going to a film I don't want to suffer and I feel like I am suffering when a film is obviously just attempting to be a film I have already seen...and not in the remake sense but in the formula sense. If I walk into a remake I know what I am getting myself into.

Assuming that's not hyperbole, the two films are wildly different. If you're talking about the second Captain America film (Captain America: The Winter Soldier) and the first Iron Man film, the second CA film is pretty much Three Days Of The Condor with superheroes, and the first Iron Man film is a classic hero's journey origin story. It's like saying that Stagecoach is the same movie as The Searchers; they're both John Ford-John Wayne westerns, but beyond that, they couldn't be more different.

I don't see Winter Soldier as being at all Three Days of the Condor. Outside of both films having Redford in them (and he is wonderful in Condor and rancid in Soldier) they share nothing else. Winter Soldier to me appears to desperately want to be just like an Iron Man film and there is nothing pleasing about the film, story, or characters. Nothing about how the film is made says "Oh yes, this is the work of (name your director here)." but with Condor we get a wonderful story, great characters, and commentary on the way the world works and the direction it is headed in...and all that with movie stars. Condor is both fun and thought provoking and it is wonderfully directed and imagined by Sydney Pollack and has his stamp all over it. Condor feels like a person made it. Winter Soldier feels like it fell off an assembly line and the same line that Iron Man fell off of. I have not done it but you could probably run the stopwatch on both Iron Man and Winter Soldier and the space between action sequences, explosions and gags will time out to the same 2 and a half to three minutes. Condor is not working on that stopwatch. Max von Sydow's wonderful hitman character in a film today would slaughter at least 30 people probably by machine gun and nuclear device, kill at least one puppy in the cruelest manner possible and be shot dead by the Redford character after a stunning chase sequence where at least three cars explode. Why? Because there is a stopwatch to obey today and the action needs to be huge and simplistic.

I don't say that to be an asshole...watch John Wick. Today, Three Days of the Condor would be an art house film that would struggle to get financing, and if it got made and released get dumped into theaters in February when theater owners would not complain as much that a waste of time like that is taking up their screen when they could be showing a Marvel film. That's the reality. I don't like it.

If the genre doesn't appeal to you enough to want to watch them or enjoy them, I can't (and wouldn't try to) argue with that. But I find they're pretty easy to tell apart.

It's not a genre thing it is a filmmaking thing. There is a sad blandness to many of today's pictures that makes them appear to have been scripted, directed, edited, and at times acted by a machine. Not just comic book films, comedies, science fiction, even the awards season films seem to be following a non-negotiable formula. I admit generally my preference is not going to be to watch a guy in a funny suit save the world...but I don't hate the genre. I hate the formula. Sure I skip the ones that even the comic book film fans say are awful...Batman vs. Superman, no thanks...but I have made the effort to watch some of these.

I did like the Joe Johnston's Captain America film which I guess I have to credit to him because he also made The Rocketeer another comic book adventure done well and also a period piece. I would have liked to see a follow-up directed by Johnston that kept the film in the World War II setting where, to me, the story belongs. Plus Johnston even within the realm of having to make a big studio production managed to make the whole thing feel like it was made by a person.

I just finished a series of John Wayne films from the late 1930s where he played the same character eight times over a short stretch. Is that really so different than Robert Downey Jr playing Iron Man more than once?

I think you should step back and think about that question and put into context why and how those Wayne films were made and that they were not even considered features and the why and how of Iron Man films being made now and how they mean EVERYTHING to the studio and if their fiscal year will be seen as successful and who might get fired or get a massive bonus.

So, my answer would be it is a world of difference between the two. Those things are so far apart they are not even on the same planet.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

And just as a weird and out of left field announcement of a sequel that I sure did not see coming...just read an article at Cinema Retro that says The Man from U.N.C.L.E. is likely to get a sequel.

 

[Brent Reid]

Well, what began as a general rant against remakes has diverged into an in-depth analysis of the whys, wherefores and economics of the global film industry. Yes, massive, expensive, homogenised tentpole flicks increasingly abound. Films like this have existed since the mid-1910s and the commercial performance of a single one had the power to make or break a studio – and many often did.

So it's a long-established principle that the public would turn out en masse to see a standalone feature, rather than demanding an entire bill's worth of entertainment. However, you can thank that beloved ol' shark Jaws for the current put-all-your-eggs-in-one-huge-basket film landscape. It's acknowledged that particular commercial juggernaut was the turning point that made single-film bills the norm. RIP to routinely seeing cartoons, shorts and B-movies alongside the main event.

What's fascinating to note is that, without going into a lengthy digression on film history, for over 100 years major studios really have been attempting to do exactly what they're doing today. It seems two factors are allowing them to be more successful at it than ever before: digital technology and the way it's changed filmmaking, and increasing globalisation. Look at the effect the opening up of the Chinese market and financing is already having on Hollywood. Assuming we're not headed for WWIII, just wait until the Russians join the cinematic party... One day you'll be nostalgic for the relative simplicity and cottage-industry feel of today's films – mark my words!

Thanks everyone for a very interesting and stimulating thread thus far. Keep it rolling!

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

So it's a long-established principle that the public would turn out en masse to see a standalone feature, rather than demanding an entire bill's worth of entertainment. However, you can thank that beloved ol' shark Jaws for the current put-all-your-eggs-in-one-huge-basket film landscape. It's acknowledged that particular commercial juggernaut was the turning point that made single-film bills the norm. RIP to routinely seeing cartoons, shorts and B-movies alongside the main event.

Here's a funny thing about Jaws...it is actually a good film and a character driven film not a special effects extravaganza. When you think of Jaws what stands out are Scheider, Dreyfuss, and Shaw...not the big rubber shark. It is all the character moments and interactions we, or I maybe, remember and love. That long drunk they go on while they compare scars and Shaw tells the Indianapolis story, that would be totally chopped down today. It would be all about more shark, more effects, less characters.

So, while Spielberg gets the blame, he did not make a big empty film that was all about the special effects. In fact the shark was so crappy they showed it as little as possible...the actors carry the picture.

And think of Close Encounters which today would be an art house film! I have seen younger reviewers rake this picture over the coals calling it horrible, slow, and a mess...because again it is a character driven film. It is about Roy Neary and his journey more than aliens. That was a huge blockbuster at the time but today's "blockbusters" are the total opposite of those Spielberg films.

 

[Brent Reid]

Exactly: that's my view of Jaws too, of course. When I said "beloved", I meant primarily by me; everyone else second.

But just as surely as Michael Jackson's Thriller and its seven hit singles broke the record industry's established hit single/album/tour/hit single/etc annual-to-biannual cycle, so Jaws too was a game-changer. Of course, Close Encounters and other blockbusters merely cemented it. Another one, just two years later, was Star Wars – and its offspring are still ruling the roost 40 years on.

Therefore, it's not fair to say "Spielberg gets the blame" as the industry had been gearing up to it for a long time. It was just a matter of timing; if it hadn't been Jaws then another tentpole, perhaps Star Wars, would have taken the (dubious) honour.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I guess my point on Jaws and Close Encounters is that they are not actually the models of present day blockbusters. Those Spielberg films were about the characters and story first and the effects were just complimentary. Today's blockbusters are the opposite of that...the films are about the special effects first (they are the true star of the show) and the characters are nonexistent and the story is the same story over and over again. I think in part people say now that everything has already been done and there is nothing original BECAUSE over the last few decades they have got a lot of the same 4 or 5 stories over and over and over again.

 

[Keith Cobby]

I see modern franchisees (don't you just hate that word!) as similar to 1930/40's serials. Instead of weekly instalments the next film follows on in a few months. Similar content and characters. People prefer the familiar, that is what they will pay for, and that is what they get.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I completely agree with Keith.

I know I've said this over and over, and at the risk of being a broken record - streaming services like Netflix and Amazon Prime, add-ons like HBO Go, and cable VOD is teaching people that content should basically be free. (I'm not saying I agree with that, but the general takeaway is that the huge amounts of content those services offer for a low cost is resetting people's expectations of what content should cost.) They're also showing that high quality dramatic programming is available at home.

Meanwhile, at the movies, the cost of entertainment is at an all-time high. I know I live in the most expensive market in the country, so my price of $54 for two movie tickets isn't as high as other people pay. But even in lower-cost markets, the price of seeing a movie opening weekend (not counting second run and discount theaters) has skyrocketed over the past decade. Multiplexes are generally improving the quality in one or two auditoriums per complex and charging a premium price for those rooms, while the standard auditoriums are generally left with inferior equipment and smaller screens. Etiquette isn't what it once was, and many people are bothered when others use cell phones, talk during the movie, etc. That's not to say that going to the movies isn't worthwhile anymore. But I think it is shifting people towards only going to a movie when they're sure in advance that it's something they'll like, very similar to a shift we've seen with live theatre on Broadway in recent years. It costs so much to go that most people can't or won't take a chance on something that they might not like. Especially when television at home is better than ever, and premium content on there rivals the best of what's at the movies. Even your home TV is probably significantly more impressive than anything you would have imagined twenty years ago. Why should you spend $50 to see a movie, not to mention any transportation costs and hassles, finding a babysitter if you need one, etc., etc., to go to something that you might not like? Especially if you could sample a show at home for free, and when that movie will be available to watch at home in 2-3 months anyway. Movies also disappear so quickly from the theaters these days - if you don't see something in the first 2-3 weeks, it's gone in most places.

I really think that's the reason that franchises are doing so well right now. When Marvel puts out a new movie, I know I'm going to enjoy it. I know it's going to play on the biggest and best screens and that visually and aurally, I'll get my money's worth out of the presentation.

When Regal did their Best Picture Nominee marathon this year, where you could see all nine nominees as many times as you wanted over a ten day stretch, I decided to do it. It cost $35 for the pass for the entire festival, and came with a coupon to allow you to get a large popcorn and soda combination each day for only $5. I saw movies that I would have never seen in the theater (and frankly, probably not at all) because it was no longer a major purchasing decision to go. I liked some, I disliked others, but I enjoyed the experience. It reminded me of the days when going to the movies wasn't a major investment, and I could just go see something every week just for the sake of going out to the movies. With how expensive it is, along with how quickly everything disappears, each trip out is now a much bigger deal. And granted, like I said, I know I'm in the most expensive market. But I can't help but believe that these things are factoring into people's experiences across the board.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I know I live in the most expensive market in the country, so my price of $54 for two movie tickets isn't as high as other people pay.

What market are you in that it costs $27.00 for a movie ticket? I mean I've been to a movie in many different places across the country but I do not believe I have paid that much. $24.00 maybe for an IMAX showing but I think $16.00 is about the average and I believe that is even what I pay in downtown Manhattan.

I admit I don't go often, not because of price or bad experiences at the theater, but because there just are not a lot of movies I want to see being released. At present there are two pictures out I want to try to get to at a theater...Free Fire and The Lost City of Z...so I will try to catch these but I probably have to do so quickly because they both fall into the category where they are more for adults so they probably won't play very long in a theater.

On all of the people that claim bad experiences at the theater, I guess I count myself lucky that I do not have these. However, it may be the films I go to see mostly draw older crowds. I have never gone to see a super hero film in a theater (unless you go back to the Reeves Superman film) and I don't go to see animated films. I don't go to see much that would appeal to families so pretty much if I am in a theater I seem to be there with polite and respectful crowds.

The last really big films I saw with a huge mixed audience were The Force Awakens and the most recent Star Trek film but in neither case did I have any issue. I did get run into by a giant person in a Wookiee costume at the Star Wars showing but took that as more a comic moment that added to the entire experience.

I like seeing a film with a crowd because often I end up in conversations with strangers and I enjoy seeing and hearing their reaction. It has led to some hilarious moments such as when I saw No Country for Old Men and a crowd of angry viewers gathered outside the entrance to the theater that were discussing how horrible the film was--"Worst film I have ever seen!"--and were discussing going as a group to management to demand a refund and I was asked as I exited by them what I thought of the film.

"Best film I have seen in years!" I said as they all looked at me with disgust.

"Well, we want our money back that was terrible!" a woman said to me.

"That's idiotic." I said "You paid to watch a film and you watched it. Why should they give you your money back? They don't guarantee you will like the film you paid to see. You don't deserve your money back."

I thought they were going to collectively spit at me they looked so full of rage and disgust but instead they all stormed off together. I guess to lynch the manager.