Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The OT' started by David Bott, Jun 1, 2013.
It must be ten years since I went to a movie
When I was growing up I went to movie theatres and drive-ins all the time. By the time a movie was shown on TV, I'd seen it in a theatre-sometimes more than once if it was a good movie. But back then movie theatres were huge single-screen affairs with inexpensive admission and an affordable snack bar (and comfortable seats too!) And television was a half-dozen over the air channels in black & white.
Now, they are little multi-screen boxes with seats jammed together, rude obnoxious noisy patrons, outrageous prices both for admission and at the refreshment counter, etc. Why would you subject yourself to this when you can have a much nicer experience at home for a fraction of the cost? A sign on a big DVD display at Wal-Mart pretty much sums it all up: "Cheaper than one admission at the theatre"!!!
Voted. Hardly ever go to the movies, mostly out of protest. I think ticket prices are way too high!
We rarely go to the theater anymore. The exceptions are as a group outing, at the request of a parent (dad still loves the big screen), or if the movie would greatly benefit from the large screen. Otherwise we are perfectly content to watch at home (our city library has a great DVD collection).
I go often to see movies in theaters, so its about 50/50.
I go to a theater once or twice a year. I've been going at that slow rate for a long, long time. FWIW, I hardly ever rent a DVD although I might buy one.
My daughter worked at a movie theater for the last 10 years. I have not had to purchase a movie ticket since she has worked there.
She started a new job yesterday so I lose my movie privileges. Thats OK, I really don't like a majority of what is being produced now a days anyway. Renting a movie via Redbox is how we watch most movies.
Actually I will be going to a movie this Saturday. Wife and daughter have tickets to see Wicked so I have 2 choices: 1) Go to a movie, or 2) Go to the Apple Store and Tommy Bahama. Option 1 is much cheaper.
Thinking about Hangover III. I know it sort of got panned, but wife has no interest in seeing it and I want to see it simply because I know it will have few good laughs.
I love going to the movies and I do it as often as I can. However I have 3 kids under 6 so that means I normally see about 1-2 movies on the big screen per year.
I think the last time I went to a movie theatre was around 1995 approx.
One reason I stopped going was a lack of movie titles I tell what they were about from the coming attractions or TV advertising.
The other was after getting some slobs chewing gum on my pants from under the seat and the floor being sticky, forget it!
Last movie I watched in a theatre (emphasis on THE LAST) was Skyfall when it first came out. Some douchebag with a Bluetooth was narrating the entire movie to someone off-site. Never again.
Maybe go to the theatre once or twice a year, more just to get out than anything else.
I go all the time! I still like the big screen, the loud volume etc. I'll bet I havent bought a movie I didn't see first on the big screen.
I'm getting spoiled.
The theater on the base here showed Star Trek: Into Darkness a week before it opened - for free.
This Saturday there's another free showing - "Man of Steel".
Sounds like I do the same as most people, I only see blockbusters in the theater, all others, on Blu-Ray.
Given the outrageous costs of going to a movie theater these day with a family, I just wait and watch the majority of my movies at my home.
I'm wondering why this exact same poll is also at Home Theater Forum also to win prizes????
Being single and a senior the cost difference is just around a dollar for me.
Other than a home theatre only crowd, it's hard to find a group more into home theatre than right here.....
The way we view movies has changed dramatically over the years. I remember, when growing up in the 1970s and 1980s, the only way to watch a film was either in the theater or on television, and it was years between the film release in the theater and on television, and then the films were edited for both content and time (See 1964's Fistful of Dollars. When the movie premiered on ABC in August, 1977, the network insisted in a prologue being filmed to offset some of the content issues. Also, see this hilarious edit of a memorable line from Snakes On A Plane). Because films only aired once a year or so, it because a "event" (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wizard_of_Oz_on_television]Wizard of Oz[/url] on televison, also The Sound of Music and The Ten Commandments). In addition, FCC regulations at the time prohibited letterboxing on broadcast television, thus the pan and scan.
In the 1970s, there were even advertising against pay TV, and the movie studios even fought against releasing films on video until they realized how much money they could make. I was an early adopter of DVDs back in 1998 because of the higher quality of DVDs (480i) verses VHS (240i-ish) plus the multiple audio tracks, plus the films were released in their original aspect ratios. It used to be that we waited years between the theater release and the home video release. Now, it's just a matter of months. I have a whole closet full of DVDs and BluRays collected. Some of them are well-known films (how many different versions of The Matrix do I have?) while others are little-known, limited-release, and unknown beyond certain certain groups. The $20 that I pay for a new release or the less than $10 if I wait for it to go on sale is much cheaper than a group of friends going out to the theater.
Movie theaters are now converting over to a digital format from the previous film format. It used to be that theaters had dedicated projectionists that took care of the film. But that was years ago. In many theaters, the film projection system was fully automated, or run by some kid who also worked the snack bar, thus the print got well worn, leading to a negative experience.