Why pay $30-50 to rent a movie for 2 hours this model is better suited for families and big gatherings. Like when you watch a live ppv or on demand sporting event or boxing match. You invite as many people over as you can to make it worth it
I pesonaly hate the theatre, theres nothing that ruins a movie more for me that people who cheer or clap hands or abruptly stand infront of me, Fuck !!!!, I've probably only been to an actual cinema maybe 5 times in my entire life and the last time I went to watch something I just had to experience with other people was MJ's "This Is It" and thankfully no one ruined that for me, I got the discs later and it was even more enjoyable. I think an experience that requires you to actually get all dressed up and leave you're house had better be all kinds of awesome, something that can't be recreated at home, with a kickass 120 inch , AVETAR was crazy with a "k", and that should be the only type of experiences that people should leave their houses for.
You sound like the stereotypical 30-year-old that stills lives in his parents basement. Do you melt in the sun?
As for me, living in the Phoenix area, we have Harkins Theaters which is a great chain of cinemas. I can get discount tickets from work so that a movie for the wife and I comes in around $20, including a soda and snack for each of us. The theaters (and even the bathrooms!) are clean and comfortable. I'm in the minority on this one, but I'll take watching a new release film in a theater any day over watching it at home, even though I have 7 channel sound and a 70 inch screen.
Be careful what you wish for. Day and date or direct to streaming services and skipping theaters will be the end of the movie business as we know it today. Everything will be the equivalent of "direct to video" quality. Go onto Netflix or one of the other streaming services and look at the majority of movies on there: it's mostly cheap crap with titles that sound similar to mainstream movies. They're the sort of movies that used to play Pulp houses and drive-ins.
Obviously, it's cheaper watching a movie at home. But I think most people who complain about theaters exaggerate their dissatisfaction. Obviously, if one lives in a crappy place and all that's around is a cinderblock theater in a shoddy environment with crappy picture and sound, I understand the hate. But most large format theaters (even Lie-Max), theaters with Dolby Atmos and especially Dolby Cinema are actually quite spectacular. 89 U.S. theaters played Dunkirk in 70mm/5 perf and another 26 played it in IMAX 70mm/15 perf.
Murder On the Orient Express is also going to be presented in 70mm in many theaters.
You cannot replicate that experience at home. And you especially cannot replicate it watching on a computer screen, iPad or phone. Even if you have a large screen TV, most people have a soundbar at best. But different strokes for different folks and if you're happy, you're happy.
So, paying $50 to stay home to see the same movie sounds like a bargain. And the more people you add to the mix the cheaper it becomes (relative to going out).
And so romantic. You know you could save even more money by consuming protein slop instead of food. Restaurants are too pricey, right?
I've wondered if boutique theaters might pop up. Have a nice "home" theater set up for rental. UHDTVs are now available in yooge sizes, and while pricey by consumer standards, maybe not by commercial standards. Throw in a sound system. Now the cool part: streaming devices galore. Bring your own content, login and play.
A dozen or so barcaloungers, a wet bar in the back. Offer catering. Heck, the next room is a little play pen for kiddos.
Lots of opportunity here. Just takes someone with some financing and a vision. You're welcome.
Sure, you can even put it in an RV and park it. Sounds, uh, lovely.
So, paying $50 to stay home to see the same movie sounds like a bargain. And the more people you add to the mix the cheaper it becomes (relative to going out).
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the theater experience and would go more frequently if I could. But for me and my situation this option would be more affordable most of the time.
And so romantic. You know you could save even more money by consuming protein slop instead of food. Restaurants are too pricey, right?
I may be wrong but your selective quoting seems to be an attempt to make me as cheap.
I added in part of my quote that you left out. I enjoy going to theater and I haven't once said it's too expensive. The part that gets ridiculous is paying for childcare. If I can stay home and enjoy first run movies, with my wife (who hates it when she hears others eating popcorn, I never notice that myself) and stay close to our child this is a good option.
We also enjoy going out to dinner, which we do frequently, and it's easy to bring along a toddler so there isn't a childcare issue with that. But we eat at home much more frequently (for me it's usually 3 meals a day) than we go out, and we aren't relegated to "protein slop".
And, FWIW, my at home viewing experience can't really be compared to the experience of eating "protein slop" either. Do you not watch any movies at home and only go to the theater? Do you only go out to restaurants?
One of the side-effects of this, if/ when it comes to pass, is that the quality of movie torrents is going to dramatically improve during the pre-home video phase of a movie.
I don't think it will move the needle in any significant way, it's just an observation.
The question is, how many people will opt for this? Would it cause some significant changes to theatre footfalls? Most of the regulars here are more tech-savvy than the average movie-goer and probably have some kind of a streaming box at home. But is that number going to change the revenues that theatres get?
I still enjoy watching movies in the theatre and there are experiences like Dunkirk that will never capture the same effect at home.
There is something communal about watching a film with a lot of people, akin to watching sports in a bar.
The one thing that I absolutely abhor is the prices for snacks. It's criminal, the prices they charge.
Comments
As for me, living in the Phoenix area, we have Harkins Theaters which is a great chain of cinemas. I can get discount tickets from work so that a movie for the wife and I comes in around $20, including a soda and snack for each of us. The theaters (and even the bathrooms!) are clean and comfortable. I'm in the minority on this one, but I'll take watching a new release film in a theater any day over watching it at home, even though I have 7 channel sound and a 70 inch screen.
Obviously, it's cheaper watching a movie at home. But I think most people who complain about theaters exaggerate their dissatisfaction. Obviously, if one lives in a crappy place and all that's around is a cinderblock theater in a shoddy environment with crappy picture and sound, I understand the hate. But most large format theaters (even Lie-Max), theaters with Dolby Atmos and especially Dolby Cinema are actually quite spectacular. 89 U.S. theaters played Dunkirk in 70mm/5 perf and another 26 played it in IMAX 70mm/15 perf.
Murder On the Orient Express is also going to be presented in 70mm in many theaters.
You cannot replicate that experience at home. And you especially cannot replicate it watching on a computer screen, iPad or phone. Even if you have a large screen TV, most people have a soundbar at best. But different strokes for different folks and if you're happy, you're happy.
Sure, you can even put it in an RV and park it. Sounds, uh, lovely.
I added in part of my quote that you left out. I enjoy going to theater and I haven't once said it's too expensive. The part that gets ridiculous is paying for childcare. If I can stay home and enjoy first run movies, with my wife (who hates it when she hears others eating popcorn, I never notice that myself) and stay close to our child this is a good option.
We also enjoy going out to dinner, which we do frequently, and it's easy to bring along a toddler so there isn't a childcare issue with that. But we eat at home much more frequently (for me it's usually 3 meals a day) than we go out, and we aren't relegated to "protein slop".
And, FWIW, my at home viewing experience can't really be compared to the experience of eating "protein slop" either. Do you not watch any movies at home and only go to the theater? Do you only go out to restaurants?
One of the side-effects of this, if/ when it comes to pass, is that the quality of movie torrents is going to dramatically improve during the pre-home video phase of a movie.
I don't think it will move the needle in any significant way, it's just an observation.
The question is, how many people will opt for this? Would it cause some significant changes to theatre footfalls? Most of the regulars here are more tech-savvy than the average movie-goer and probably have some kind of a streaming box at home. But is that number going to change the revenues that theatres get?
I still enjoy watching movies in the theatre and there are experiences like Dunkirk that will never capture the same effect at home.
There is something communal about watching a film with a lot of people, akin to watching sports in a bar.
The one thing that I absolutely abhor is the prices for snacks. It's criminal, the prices they charge.