I used to enjoy going to the movies but honestly enjoy watching them more at home. Tickets are super expensive, popcorn and soda even more pricey, then you have to deal with being crowded in, disrespectful moviegoers and the possibility of bringing BED BUGS HOME!!!!!! I'm all set.
4
Besides being afraid of catching the flu, the main reason I have avoided actual movie theaters for years is the cellphone phenomenon. I am talking about the screen, not the ringer. I saw Lawrence of Arabia and 2001: A Space Odyssey and Fanny and Alexander and Swept Away and you-name-it on big or huge screens. There is no comparison at all. Oklahoma!, Carousel, An American in Paris, Dr. Zhivago, etc. etc. Years ago I saw a Marx Brothers movie at a revival house on 8th Avenue (remember those?) and was astonished at how much funnier it was than on TV. But the social parts that used to be good have become kind of bad. People are rude and will not shut up and men stretch their legs into your space--it's just too painful and eventually not worth it. So I gave up and now watch almost everything at home, but not really by choice.
8
Absolutely there are some movies that MUST be seen on a big screen. A few years ago a restored version of West Side Story was run for one night in theaters. I saw detail I had never seen before and sat among throngs of middle schoolers watching it for the first time - enthralled by the music and message. I would love to see Lawrence of Arabia and Doctor Zhivago like that as well. I also just watched Black Panther on the back of an airplane seat on a screen smaller than an iPad. That is a movie with visual detail that begs to be seen in a big screen. So my not so short answer is YES.
2
KitKat,
I saw the TCM sponsored revival of the restored 'Lawrence of Arabia' when it played at cinemas across the U.S. for one day back in the Fall 2012. I had originally seen the film in a small town theater during its nation wide release in the summer of '63. That last theater viewing in '12 was astonishing. The big screen offered incredible detail :the immensity of those desert landscapes, the vast interiors of palace hallways, the thundering hooves of horses and camels, the shimmering desert sands and the arid terrain reaching for miles, all of it so palpably real as viewed in a restored print and digitally projected on a large screen was an unforgettable viewing experience. Films such as 'Lawrence','West Side Story','Doctor Zhivago' and '2001: A Space Odyssey' among other landmark film epics are bigger than life and require bigger than life screens to match.
2
Going to theaters is no longer fun. It’s people crunching popcorn, planning weddings, texting so much it’s like sitting near a firefly, return customers proudly “sharing” major plot points to their seat mates, ringing cellphones, noise from adjacent theaters bleeding through, late arrivers crawling over you, and loud theater cleaning crews charging in as soon as the credits start to roll. I complained about the last and was told there was no break between showings so they had to clean before the movie ended and why did I want to see the credits anyway? I’ll watch at home.
5
Dunkirk? I have great respect for money, but I walked out of that movie.
2
It is rare for me to go to a theater and not encounter one or more people who cannot be quiet. I went to a Met Opera Live in HD broadcast and the couple behind me talked through almost the whole thing. I've often said I should open a "theater" that charges people a fee to sit in a darkened room. Then they could talk, text, and whatever as much as they want.
Unquestionably, there are movies, such as the ones cited in this article, that are much more spectacular in the theater experience. But unless one lives in a town with an art cinema, there are movies that don't make it to general distribution -- or are there for a week or less -- and if one is to see them it is at home by buying a DVD or subscribing to a service that offers them. Seeing a film at home is in most cases way better than not seeing it at all.
3
As a former movie theater employee, I was skeptical of the conversion from film to digital presentation. But in reality most number crunching theater operators had been allowing horrible presentations. High school kids were popping corn, cleaning toilets,tearing tickets and threading film, usually scratching it and letting it run for weeks. Or they would set the aperture, focus and masking wrong. And the old joke about the sound was to just act concerned about the complaints and lie to the customer that "we fixed it." Aside from the minimum wage high school and college kids, we had an older projectionist who wouldn't admit his vision and hearing were less than perfect, but since he was in the business 30 plus years, he was not listening to criticism and making adjustments - even to the paying customers who refused to come back. Overall, digital now looks better on the big screen, but I still miss the days when a professional (sometimes union trained) film projectionist would flawlessly present the richness of an actual 35mm film print. A curtain would open, the silver screen wouldl be revealed and the audience would respect each other without the intrusion of electronic devices and endless chatter.
5
"At their best, movies are also a social activity, and that’s as true today as in 1895." Hardly. In the 1950s-1960s, the local premier of a new movie was an event. The theatre had one Giant Screen, and everyone was there for the same attraction. The modern multiplex destroys that shared experience completely. You're in a room, one of several, not that much bigger than your living room, often sparsely populated by a few dozen people watching a screen not much bigger than you might have at home. It all feels more like getting your weekly fix of packaged entertainment, than participating in an event.
3
With cost and convenience equal, watching movies in a theatre is hugely better. Why wouldn’t I rather watch a movie using equipment that costs thousands of dollars? I think that should be the bottom line.
As a former movie reviewer I found myself knodding in agreement with Mr. Bailey's deft argument of theory versus practice of watching films in theater. As a critic I never had to sit through 15 minutes of pregame drival (hello, Noovies) and 3x too many trailers to get to the film.
1
The digital conversion by theatres has definitely made me want to come back, but even in my town, where the crowd is small and very polite, if, say, you have two adults and two kids you can't get out of there for less than a hundred bucks. (I'm sure in NYC you guys pay even more..) I have to believe most Americans think that's just too much money for too little return.
3
I've been seeing more movies in theaters since getting a MoviePass, but generally, I've made home vs. theater decisions by (1) whether the movie really needs to be seen in a theater to be fully appreciated, and (2) whether friends or family want to make a social occasion of it. I have a very nice video set up at home, so it's not really a sacrifice to watch there. And it may be my imagination, but it feels as though movie audiences have been behaving *better* recently. I hope that is a trend.
1
If a movie is an "action movie" I try to see it on the big screen. I use the term action loosely, it can mean action, adventure, suspense, sci-fi, etc. Anything with a lot going on or sweeping visual backgrounds. I just saw Avengers: Infinity War this weekend and it was amazing on the big screen. Anyone who waits to see a movie like this at home is missing out on half the movie experience of seeing it.
That's not to say I see all movies in the theatres. I end up seeing most comedies and dramas at home. Because in the majority of these movies big screen or small screen
it really doesn't matter and as they're mainly dialogue based and the screen size doesn't enhance the view experience.
Thankfully, movies theatres have moved forward by leaps and bounds in the past decade with the advent of VIP theatres, pre-reserved seats, and better chairs and leg room. This combined with more in theatre amenities and better sound systems has made going to the movies a very enjoyable night out for my wife and I. We can't wait to go see our next movie on the big screen, SOLO, already have tickets.
2
A lot of the problems with going to the movies I can circumvent by going to early non-weekend showings (I’m retired) which avoids high ticket prices, not as many people texting and talking, not interrupting dinner times, etc. But the one thing I can’t control is the volume of the movies.
I went to a Star Trek movie last year at a local IMAX theater and had to keep plugging my ears with my fingers because it was so loud. I complained to management who said they would turn it down a little. After the movie I talked to them again since I couldn’t tell that the sound was turned down. They told me they had reduced the sound a little but the IMAX reps were pushing them to increase the sound even more so they gave me a free movie pass. The non-IMAX movies are also too loud but not quite as bad. Earplugs save your hearing but who wants to hear muffled sound for $10+ a pop.
Maybe a lot of younger people like it this loud but they would probably still come if the sound was turned down 10 decibels and maybe older people could enjoy it too. I will never go to another IMAX movie after that experience. Hopefully some of the movie theater owners are reading these comments.
4
Agree completely but I can match you on this one. Some years ago I talked a non-movie-going friend into accompanying me to a foreign film in a language far beyond our ken (Russian?). After a few minutes it became clear that there was no sound. No one seemed to be making any effort so I leaped to my feet, ran out, found a manager, and demanded that it be started again, with soundtrack. They added the sound but refused to start over.
Another time I went to see a documentary at the IFC Center and it was obvious to me that the WRONG soundtrack was being played. Yes, from a different movie. I was 'way inside a row and started shouting about it but no one budged. I turned to a woman on the aisle and asked her to go tell them. She just stared. So I jumped up, climbed over her, and ran out of the theater for a manager.
Another time I arrived at a different theater several minutes before the film was supposed to start, but it had already started. There was no way to know whether I had missed half a minute or half an hour. Like Woody Allen I refuse to miss the beginning of a movie and ran upstairs to the projectionist's room. It was a robot!
3
It made me laugh, to read your description of the "hush" that falls over an audience in a theater. I wish I knew which theater you're going to; the ones I go to are filled with people constantly chatting on their phones, texting, or checking for texts, or the time, or a reason to live, whatever-- lighting up the row in front of or beside me, taking me out of the film, repeatedly. These theaters are also filled with people who chat with one another during the movie; not at a whisper, just an "it's just us here" running commentary. I can buy good headphones, and save myself the agita of trying to watch a film I'm interested in while surrounded by people who think they're watching at home, by watching it at home.
6
Of course there is nothing like seeing that great film in a good Theater. For all the reasons cited.
But just like movies, Baseball, Basketball - all sports & almost all kinds of entertainment are becoming almost out of reach - price wise - for the "average" person / family. Can you even imagine what that 4 person family shells out for a baseball game in the big city ? Or just an average movie ? Eye popping bill. Add onto that huge cost for a small family the rotten traffic getting there for many.
And then - the latest "modern" development - the rudeness and self serving attitude of many many patrons. Not to mention the statistically realistic possibility of being sprayed with automatic gunfire. All this and more are closing the lid on the coffin of public entertainment.
But the final, absolute nail in the deal is:
Almost universally now - The Popcorn stinks ! It is almost impossible to find a decent, fresh bucket of popcorn. Anywhere. ( not to mention getting sick from it) A experience I have personally had more then once.)
1
One glance at the plastic jug o' bilge poured over popcorn in lieu of butter decades ago turned my stomach to the extent that I was never able to eat movie popcorn again. Just as well.
1
Every time I want to have that theater experience and go, I remember the reasons why I quit going.
The sound volume is consistently WAY to loud. While the big screen gives a better visual presentation than my 70" flat screen, the seats aren't as comfortable as my big leather chair. I can make popcorn the proper way, and have a glass of wine instead of a soda (and not worry about driving home).
I get enough negative reinforcement from the theater experience that I can count on one hand the number of times it will happen again in my lifetime.
5
I largely agree with the sentiment that seeing a film in a big theatrical screen is special.
Here’s the problem:
More often than not, when I go to the theater, the projection is subpar. Too many projectors with dull colors that are definitely not what the filmmakers expected. Digital projection was supposed to usher in an era of flawless projection; the opposite has happened.
Texting and cell phone use is now common in essentially all but the stodgiest arthouse theaters. The distracting glow of the cell phone screen is akin to turning on a flashlight in the theater.
And, at least in New York, audiences are increasingly selfishly indifferent to others. At a recent screening of A QUIET PLACE in Manhattan - a film in which silence is a major component - the crowd whispered and carried side-conversations throughout the film.
I’m willing to concede that the third point might only apply to NYC. The other two points apply across the country.
And as the theater experience gets decidedly worse, theater prices keep going up! I understand that technology and changing audience tastes are partly to blame for the decline of cinema-going, but theaters themselves bear a significant portion of the blame. They’ve let the theatrical experience deteriorate to the point where this life-long movie lover increasingly prefers to watch films at home - at least on my TV, the colors are crisp, the sound isn’t muddy, and there’s no cell phone use during the film.
7
We run an outdoor cinema and show a wide variety of free outdoor movies at various museums, parks, the botanical garden and even on an old drive-in screen. The beauty of the outdoor cinema is it is a shared, one-of-a-kind experience every time, dependent on crowd, location, weather, movie selection and even political climate. I think movies are best on a big screen, and always feel like I’m doing them and myself a disservice when I watch on my tv at home.
I hope you use 35mm. I used to love the social aspect of watching films outdoors on balmy nights but once they (and the library) began using DVDs, the picture became distorted and I stopped going.
High cost and loud (as well as often high) audiences condemn the theater experience. Not to mention feet sticking on the popcorn floor and overcrowding at popular showtimes. I'll suffer those when the dynamics indicate (2001, for example), but otherwise I'm happily ensconced in my recliner enjoying my own 6.1 dolby sound and HDTV on a 50-inch screen for $6 or less.
1
The last Theater Show in company was 'Nebraska' which had nearly been forgotten by Hollywood when Oscar Season was nearing. Thinking that nobody would notice, I posted an essay on the above in The Amazon Jungle. Only nine reviewers at the time and the above was considered depressing. My point of view was different. When the movie was remembered, I was the only filly in the race, galloping on the heels of the third top contender and I bolted.
'Austria' and I have been going to the movies for decades and choose more carefully and less often. The large Splashes are fun in company, but today I take in on occasion a movie alone in a small eclectic theater with four choices; the height of decadence. When telling an acquaintance of this novel experience, he always gives me a nudge, adding 'that's because nobody wants to see it' causing us to laugh, while I know that in New York the theater line is squirreling around the block.
To Get to The Weekend, I prefer in this day and age, watching movies solo on 'Netflix', and the T.V. remains silent. But what if I were young again, would I feel the same way? It is an abstract thought but drawing from the memory bank, 'Ryan's Daughter' in London on a Friday night date, followed by 'Ryan's Daughter' on the Saturday with another, was delightful. It was a question of not mixing up the dates.
Perhaps it is a matter of temperament.
Sadly, going to see a movie in most theatres is a painful experience for me; first the smell of rancid butter in the air, dirty carpet and isles, often remnants of previous viewers snacks on the seat or gum on the cup holder, then the 'guests' with gallon buckets of popcorn, candy bars and nuts, rustling paper wrappers, chomping and slurping. Comments during the film and crying children, or adults commenting on the dialog on the screen... Forget the often, quality of the sound or picture, at this point it becomes secondary to all the human distractions, I want to leave!
Going to a movie has long ago become a painful experience.
7
My wife and I stopped going to the cinema even before the advent of Netflix and the quality of our current screen and surround sound. This is for primarily three reasons: First, the schedule: Movie times invariably coincide with dinner time or way too early or way too late. At home, we intentionally have dinner and a movie simultaneously and enjoy our wine without having to worry about driving home afterward. Also our cannabis, now that it's legal. Second, the sound levels gradually increased over the years until they became ear-splitting. I refuse to wear my concert ear plugs in the cinema. Third, movie prices at the cinema are outrageous.
6
The commentary regarding watching movies in theaters or at home missed several key points. which favor homes viewing.
First, home viewing can be done at the date/time of convenience for the viewers (using either streaming or on-demand services).
Second, home viewing allows for the use of captions, which are critical for elderly viewers who are hard-of-hearing. I am not hard-of-hearing, but I still find that captions enrich my understanding in movies with heavily accented dialogue, and with music whose lyrics enrich the story.
We sometimes watch movies at home with friends, which is a compromise situation. We do have a very large screen and surround sound. I believe the trend is toward home viewing.
4
I prefer to watch films at home on my large screen TV. I can control the sound, if needed.
No one is talking near me.
No food on seats of floor.
Ticket prices high.
If I need anything I can stop the film. Then come back to it.
My room at home is just better for me.
6
Two big reasons why I prefer to watch films at home: the Aurora shooting and Curtis Reeves
2
I much prefer to watch movies at home than go to a theater where I must pay outrageous ticket prices then even more outrageous prices for a bit of soda and popcorn. Theaters have priced themselves out of reach of too many families.
4
Movie going at a theater is most definitely superior. Going to see a film at an expansive venue with terracotta statues was a ritual. Attendance cued you and fellow patrons that this was a public place for entertainment and art, and set your mind to the notion of stepping into another world. The process enhanced the aesthetic experience to almost transcendent levels.
The multiplex does not do this; the crass, commercial, plastic nature of the place; the palpable proximity of philistines and oafs; projection and sound which are vastly inferior to 35mm to 70mm film and Voice of the Theater speakers.
But as others have commented, the big problem is the hyper-egalitarian, instant nature of the mobile digital device epoch. People talking fortissimo in movie houses has been my pet peeve for the past 45 years.
Now with smart phones, the situation is exponential worse. There is light pollution which vitiates the screen. Bells, whistles, and talking more stentorian than ever.
So why go to the movie theater at all? I have modest means and a decent home theater.
Watching film at a theater is no longer viable. It is synecdoche for the larger problem of the digital mob (nee social network) which has overtaken public life and basic human decency.
Hyperbole? Well, they fixed the election for the rest of us. Perhaps an economic depression or detonation of a thermonuclear device will convince the rest of you.
3
You nailed it Wordsworth. And your last paragraph ( or something equivalent - the day/week/month our power grid is hacked ) is exactly what it is going to take for many to believe anything you say.
Oh so stunningly well said. Bravo. I agree totally.
1
I think that if Netflix wants to be eligible for these festivals, they need to release theatrically. I'm not sure what the numbers are but they can do the theatrical release and then release it on their platform. Television is television and film is film.c and never they twin shall meet. Albeit episodic television right now had the writing character depth that film use to have. Oscars\Emmys oil and water. Two different animals. I think Netflix should dabble in brick and mortar movie houses. Hell . . . . they're big enough to open their own brick and mortar movie houses
Movies that I need to see on the BIG screen, I do, and all others I watch streaming or wait for the DVD to arrive at the Public Library, which is most of them. My 32" screen is small by today's standards, but so is my living room, so for most films it is perfect. And then there's the Pause button. And what about a large popcorn for about a dime?
8
"And what about a large popcorn for about a dime?"
Not to mention Popcorn that actually tastes good and won't make you sick 4-6 hours later ...
I use to run a meet up group that went to the movies .All kinds of movies .Cult, independent, blockbusters,film festives .I love going out and watching the movies in a theater You know people should put the megaplex theaters down. I go to the first show( usually discounted) get my butter popcorn, soda, and surround myself in whatever I'm watching. Today is discount movie day and I'll be there. Most of what is shown on Netflix I've seen already. Like Angela said, There are certain movies that should only be seen on the big screen --i.e. "Lawrence of Arabia," "Doctor Zhivago," "2001" most musicals, and newer tech popcorn movies like "Star Wars."
3
I'll go to the theaters (instead of watching on my 75" 4K HDR TV) when the projectionists are willing to pause while I go to the bathroom.
1
i prefer watching movies on my 120" 4K HDR projection-Dolby Atmos sound sound system with my dog.
Unless the movie is ideally seen on the big screen (Dunkirk, for example), I will watch on my mini-big screen at home, thank you. I simply don't find it to be a good value to spend $12 (or more) for a ticket and another $10 (or more) for a box of popcorn and a soft drink.
And that is before I walk into the theater itself. Once settled into my seat, I need to contend with the group of four people in front of me talking about last night's adventure and the person next to me who neglected to turn his cell phone off. And let's not forget the two behind me who evidently take great pleasure in crinkling the plastic wrap on whatever goodies they purchased at the concession stand just as critical dialog is happening on the big screen.
No thanks. I made my decision to watch at home based on overall value of the experience....not just the movie itself.
10
The exhibitors and the movie studios need to get their act together. Movies look and sound far better on my TV than they do on movie house digital projectors. And don't get me started on 3D. It's a blatant cash grab that makes movies look even worse. Most 3D movies are dimmer, fuzzier and have very few noticeable 3D shots.
This has been going on for years, and the industry ought to be ashamed at their lousy stewardship of this artform.
4
My feet don't stick to the floor at home.
10
Mr. Kenigsberg and Mr. Bailey neglect one of the most unpleasant aspects of seeing a movie out: 15 minutes of previews. This distracts you from what you want to see. It drags out the evening (especially irritating if you have kids to get home to after the show). Worst of all, it makes your brain feel like hamburger, especially if you're going to see a popular movie and the theater turns the volume up during the previews.
I take earplugs.
12
"Some movies...have more imagination, more poetry, more intensity than the usual fare. They can leave us feeling simultaneously elated and wiped out." So Pauline Kael opened her New Yorker review of DePalma's Casualities of War. Home screens--not to mention ever smaller, ever-more-portable ones--unquestionably dilute this vision and intensity. I can't imagine experiencing a film like Pan's Labyrinth or La La Land for the first time at home or on a small screen and experiencing it in the same way as a theatre. Other films like Girls' Trip can be enjoyed both at the multiplex and at home.
2
I agree with most of the pros and cons as outlined by both reviewers in the article. But this is NOT the issue at heart, as the French want everyone to believe.
The issue (Cannes vs. Netflix spat) would be moot if Netflix would be a company invented and run by the French. The French cultural snobbishness and (in their mind) cultural superiority has always been apparent, in so far that they have always claimed that the Lumirere Bros are solely responsible for inventing cinema, a fact that most would agree is preposterous.
1
I can remember seeing Ben Hur when it premiered in 1959. Auditorium music cued the audience to get to their seats, house lights dimmed, side lights dimmed and curtain lights dramatically dimmed as the curtain opened. During intermission, a large white rose was projected onto the closed curtains. That was what we used to call showmanship. Few venues continue this great exhibition tradition (The Coolidge Cinema in my town tries valiantly to remind audiences of what the movie experience an be like).
Today we endure endless advertising, dim projection (due to theater owners squeezing the last few lumens out of their expensive projector lamps) and audiences who too often act as though they were home watching a ball game. Why go to the movies? I guess the shared experience is still the major reason.
6
Sure matters to me - I would see a movie in the theater over at home any day of the week.
2
Yes, there's something to be said in favor of the big screen. But when it all comes down, I'd much rather watch "All About Eve" or "Elevator to the Gallows" on my tablet than trek to a nearby multiplex to sit through the latest Marvel comics 'blockbuster' movie.
As far as "2001: A Space Odyssey" goes, I didn't particularly get it back when the film was released and I still don't get the big whoop decades later, to be perfectly honest - no matter how humongous the screen or earsplitting the sound system. In my view, Kubrick peaked when he directed "Paths of Glory" and "The Killing." It was pretty much downhill from there.
1
One of my all-time favorite movies is Thursday's Game. It is a quiet little thing, sweet and hilarious, with an all-star cast: Gene Wilder, Bob Newhart, Ellen Burstyn, Cloris Leachman, Rob Reiner, Valerie Harper, etc. etc.
It was written by the great James Brooks.
It never appeared in a theater. It was shown two years after filming in 1974--on TV.
It would not have been eligible for an Academy Award, yet it should have been considered for several.
Where a movie is seen should not dictate whether it has the quality needed to win an Academy Award.
2
I watch way more at home than in the theater but enjoy both. However, unlike many here, the movies I watch at our local indie theater are exactly the ones I can't get streaming. Its an old-timie theater with 500 seats and when full, no home experience can match the vibe. May the movie theater live on forever.
That said .. with a 9-foot wide projector-screen at home and a public library full of Criterion Collection DVD/Blu-ray .. that's pretty sweet too.
2
The discussion in this article ignores the reality that unless you live in a major media market many films are simply not available for viewing in theatres. For example, I live in a relatively major metro area where The Phantom Thread wasn’t even released till well after other, yet larger cities.
For fun sometime your panel should look at the theatre listings for non-NYC-LA areas. It is a sea of unwatchable dreck.
And then there is the gross theatre experience itself. And the cost. And the effort. For what? Kung Fu Panda or one of the cartoon/video game movies? As if.
12
I used to think that watching films in a theatre was the only way to experience what directors intended for their works. Over the last several years, however, our independent cinemas closed, and the local multiplexes took to mostly showing tentpole pap at both earth-shaking volume and eyebrow-raising prices. I ventured there for the most recent Bladerunner film, hoping the Imax screen would do it justice (or is that the director would do the Imax screen justice?). The duration of the film was spent being aggravated by a 60+-year-old man, chewing home-made popcorn from a rather crinkly bag with his mouth open, explaining to his wife (who checked her phone every 3 minutes) every little reference to the previous film. It was a long film, one I later enjoyed immensely on BluRay in 16:9 on my 58" UHD TV and surround sound system. I'll stay home from now on, thanks.
4
1. A movie has to stand on its own merits regardless of where it is seen. Regardless of the size of the screen or the fidelity of the sound (and yes, audio bleed in multiplexes is an inexcusable disgrace), it's still the story, stupid.
2. Unfortunately, the market economy dictates limited choices. For most releases the consumer has a pretty narrow window of opportunity before the picture is pulled from the theaters. And heaven help us when those summer blockbusters take over all the neighborhood screens.
3. There's only one thing I'm nostalgic for as far as the movie theater experience goes; that beautiful cone of projected light that sadly went away the day theaters banned smoking (No I'm not advocating public smoking. I'm happy not to be around it.)
4
Most movies today are schlock. I rather watch it at home for free so that I know I didn't waste any money at the theater.
2
If I had to watch movies in a theatre, I'd see very few movies and ruin it for anyone stuck in there with me. AT HOME: If I miss something in the dialogue, I can just "rewind." If I need coffee, cokes, or the bathroom, the movie waits for me. And finally, I can watch in anything or nothing, have a bad hair day, have on makeup or a facial mask, and who cares?!? Quadra phonic anything can't beat comfort.
5
"the staff kicks out smartphone users" I have never, ever, ever, in my life been in a theater where staff are present when the movie is showing. Where are these magical places? No, it is always my voice I hear telling people "Please stop talking." It has become hard for me to enjoy movies, as I am just waiting for someone to talk.
10
Not to mention the increasing possibility of your being shot for attempting to get them to stop. Very dangerous ...
1
I prefer to view my movies at home. I just seem to have a difficult time getting to the movie theater. Parking and the lines are the issue for me. I refuse to pay a fee for an online advance movie ticket. What I like best is that I can view the movie on my schedule and pause it if I need to take a break. The prices have gotten ridiculous even for senior discounts and matinees. There just isn't value for me to pay $10+ for a movie ticket and more if I want IMAX or 3D.
The selection of movie themes and subject matter leave a lot to be desired as well. Most movies are made for teens. Too many screeching car chases, explosions and bang, bang shoot 'em ups. Not enough sophisticated comedies and
more adult fare.
There are a few movies that I do like to watch in the theater - ones with very special effects or panoramic scenery. Those are few an far between.
3
I still love the movie theater experience. The minute I walk into the lobby, the smell and feel gives me a rush of nostalgia. I have so many happy memories from my childhood in the 80's and teenage years in the 90's associated with theaters. Now, I am making memories with my teenage children. We have so much fun, and it just isn't the same at home. We also have a local chain here that does a pretty good job of projection and has great popcorn (never stale or terrible tasting like so many national chains). I am occasionally bothered by a mobile phone, talking, or loud candy wrappers. But, if you avoid children's movies, the average movie goer knows how to behave and I find the payoff well worth it when a good movie comes along.
3
I used to love going out to see a movie, now I can't remember the last time I did. Lights and sounds from cellphones, people chatting away cheerfully during the movie, the crunch of candy wrappers, rancid popcorn under my feet, crying children who should be home with a babysitter, defeated me. Sure I'd rather see some movies on a big screen, but only if I was alone in the theater.
4
I love going to movie theaters. But as Kenigsberg pointed out, go to the right ones! There's some great indie cinemas out there, and not all of them are found in the cities. Personally, I seldom go to, say, an AMC Theater anymore, but when I'm in Boston, I love going to the Coolidge Corner Theater and the Brattle Theater. Both attract audiences interested in the films, and I hardly find myself distracted by other people during these screenings. Being able to see films like "Phantom Thread" in 70MM - yes, 70MM! - is worth the extra effort.
2
Movies with sweeping, panoramic scenes, or intense visual or auditory moments -- like Star Wars or Avengers -- probably would be a little more fun when seen on the big screen. And it was worth seeing Titanic and The Hunger Games in the theater as well. But there are just as many other movies -- romantic comedies, feel good family flicks -- that don't have those moments and are often just as good when seen on a tv at home. And I don't have to shell out for a babysitter to watch a movie at home.
And for people commenting about those singular, collective moments you have at the theater, you can have those at home, too. Everyone in the theater clapped when Rose spat on Cal in Titanic, but when my husband and I saw Storks at home, we both burst out laughing during the scene where Tulip and Junior can't get the baby to go to sleep.
1
As an addendum to my prior comment, back when comedies were funny (Pink Panther series, early Woody Allen, Abbott & Costello, etc.) the experience of communal laughter was wonderful. This is a moot point, because later filmmakers' idea of funny is a mystery to me. But I still enjoy my memory of the roar of the audience when in a Pink Panther film Clouset and Kato went crashing through a wall during their "practice" fighting into a body of water outside.
2
Funny now means increasing nastiness, mean or just plain ugliness
We no longer go to the movies. My love for film has not stopped but my tolerance for watching a film with the masses has reached a point of no return. Audience texting and talking with feet slung over the seat next to me doesn't compare to my last movie experience. Two adults walked into the movie theater, at first glance they appeared to have walked off the set of Lawrence of Arabia but these two movie patrons wore head and face covering burkas, military style desert clothes and back packs - larger back pack on their backs with small back packs cover their chest. These two covered up individuals walked back and forth in the front row several times without taking a seat. I'm an ex hippie from Northern California without cultural prejudice but I turned to my spouse and asked if I was being paranoid or are these two ticket holding audience members trying to tell us something. Our desert storm clad friends never did take seat. As the theater lights dimmed, they walked out the exit doors along with our hopes of ever returning to a public movie theater and feeling safe.
10
Given the advancements in in-home viewing, I should think some of this debate is rendered moot. I used to be an avowed theatergoer, and frankly, still advocate for independent theaters, and viewing certain films on the "large" screen. However, having recently attended a film festival surrounded, ostensibly, by film lovers and aficionados, I experienced numerous distractions that interfered with my concentration and enjoyment of the films: in one instance, my seatmate had a nervous tic - which meant he audibly flicked his fingernail throughout the screening (imagine sitting next to someone who is clipping their nails on a train). In another, restless leg syndrome seemed to be an issue - not to mention countless "sneaky" instances of the glare of phone screens.
On the other hand, investing in a 65" curved HDTV screen with Dolby surround sound in my home, assures a wonderful viewing experience. This was a misguided call on the part of Cannes. The argument against streaming services sounds much like the argument against digital vs. celluloid film. And we all know how that turned out.
5
I have always loved movies in movie theaters and wish they would expand the limited practice of showing old and famous films on the large screen. I have little or no interest in most of the new films that are released these days - I gave up transformers and comix a few years ago! - but really appreciate oldies and goodies that I have seen twice or even more. After all, we reread books and listen to music repetitively: why not films from the past? And the place to see them is the movie theatre, not the small screen!
1
We stopped going out to the movies long ago. The public has lost its sense of decency, and it's no longer an enjoyable experience. Noisy people who don't pay attention to the movie. Too many phone screens light up the theater. I'd much rather watch a film on my large screen TV, where it's quiet and we can actually pay rapt attention. Not to mention the expense of seeing a film in a theater.
4
"Theater or Home -- Does It Matter?"
Does it matter whether the script was written on a typewriter or on an iPad?
Only to old-guys.
Change is uncomfortable.
"Radio" today is not the same as radio was in the 1970s. Or the 1960s. Or the 1930s.
"Movies" today? They're on your home-screen. Or in your pocket.
And one thing of which you may be absolutely certain -- in the year 2050... "movies" will be somewhere new again.
And the old-guys... will say "it's just not the same."
2
I love going to the theater, and do so nearly every week now that I have a movie pass. But concerns about quality of home presentation are overstated. The sound and picture in my home theater (living room) are better than pretty much any cinema. I have a 70 inch 4k TV that I sit 7 feet away from, fully encompassing my view. I have a sound system that has 11 speakers and 2 subwoofers, offering full surround and Dolby Atmos sound, which none of my local theaters have.
2
I find that in the local theater and in NYC when we go to theater the sound is too loud and I have a very difficult time understanding. I do need subtitles and I prefer home with my 65” LED screen with DVD. The show also cost me about 9.00 vs 35 -40 for the two of us.
2
I don't like going to the movies anymore . It's dirty, and the volume is much too loud. The last time I went, people were coughing one after another the whole time, which was quite distracting. All in all, it was a disappointing experience, not worth the price of admission.
4
I like to wait until the movie comes out on DVD and then I see it twice at home: once straight, the second time with the commentary. Well worth it.
That way I don't have to put up with their food choices and the pre- movie commercials and previews for movies I have no interest in seeing. Plus I can stop the show and use the facilities when I need to.
My dogs like to hand out when I watch movies too. That's not happening in a commercial establishment.
I do admit that then our local JCC and the Jewish Film Festival puts on Israeli movies, it's worth seeing them in the theaters because not only are the films not readily available but also because the previews are usually a scream. I enjoy reading the subtitles while listening to the actual spoken text and comparing the content.
Finally, thank you Scarecrow Video for existing. What a great way to see stuff that I missed during the all too brief initial runs or that never bothered playing in the theaters here.
1
I have a membership to my local independent theatre, which shows independent and unusual films and the occasional blockbuster ("Dunkirk" in 70mm, for example). Most years, I've seen the majority of movies nominated for Best Picture Oscars there. My livingroom just doesn't measure up.
But, I know not everyone has my kind of option: a restored Art Deco theater where the popcorn has real butter, there are both 35/70mm and digital projection systems, film buff staffers and special programs. I might stream a lot from Netflix if all I had as alternative was a megaplex with action movies, rude patrons and bad popcorn.
11
You gave MA as your location. Where is this theater Seabiscute?
I only go to independent cinemas because of the ridiculous pricing of films, indy cinemas are often, though not always, less. But the main reason I avoid the chain theaters is that, after paying a hefty sum, you are insulted with commercials non-stop and loud, for garbage like soda, tv shows, and cars. That's where I draw the line. And that's why I don't watch tv. We're being commercialized to death.
7
There are certain movies that should only be seen on the big screen --i.e. "Lawrence of Arabia," "Doctor Zhivago," "2001" most musicals, and newer tech popcorn movies like "Star Wars." While appreciate the ability when watching a movie at home to rewind to hear missed dialogue, I think one adverse effect of watching movies at home is that it has destroyed most people's, especially those of a younger generation, the ability to sit quietly and be transported into another world, without incessant talking, texting, eating and other obnoxious habits. This bad behavior and lack of concentration has now spilled over from movie theaters to concerts, plays and other live performances. People need to relearn how to shut up, shut off devices, and concentrate on the ephemeral performance.
4
These people that can't not sit quietly can be removed .You get up from your seat and you get a manager to remove them. People who eat loudly do the same thing every where they go. It's a habit no one has corrected since they were feeding themselves. For the most part the local movie theater does not allow children in without an adult for G. PG and Pg-13 movies and ID is checked on R rated movies for everyone .Even me! I laugh every time they do it.
I'm not going to get up from my seat and miss part of the movie to search for a manager and try to persuade him to get rid of the annoying person. The last movie in the theatre I went to, I would have had to search for a manager dozens of times. I'm not the movie police. That's why I watch movies at home.
1
Many more people eat at McDonald's than eat at slow food and arguably better restaurants. Does not mean there is not room for both. But both settings are different. Seeing a film on a big screen has its magic. Until technology catches up and provides the same experience, I will prefer slow food (the proper kind) anytime.
1
Tucson has a wonderful independent movie theater called The Loft, which has none of the problems the theater chains have. The three screening rooms are separate (the newest screen is in a separate building), and with the recent renovations the seats are very comfortable. The sound is very good and the projection quality is excellent.
And they have a 70mm projector! Now _that_ is the way to see a film. “Spartacus,” “Lawrence of Arabia” and especially “2001: A Space Odyssey” are different movies in that format. (Seeing them at home on DVD is totally wrong!)
“2001” is coming back in June, and I can’t wait to take my 10-year-old son to see it as it was meant to be seen.
2
Reading the comments makes me appreciate being members of the non-profit Princeton Garden Theatre. Members buy discounted tickets. The staff is wonderful. There is good local coffee and cookies plus popcorn and candy. The "turn your cellphone off" reminders feature local celebrities including Ethan Hawke. Compliance isn't perfect but it is not too bad. The theatre is a real community center where you run into people you know and discuss the movie with them in the lobby.
1
Why pay $21 to see a film in NYC to hear people talk during the film, text, scroll through Facebook, have 30 minutes of commercials and coming attractions (which are commercials by another name) when I can watch the same film in the quiet of my living room at a fraction of the cost on a Hi-Def screen with a excellent sound system that I can control the loudness. Recently I experienced a group of adults who had to be literally thrown out of the theater because they refused to cede their reserved seats to the people who actually reserved them. I have my couch at home; I don't need a reclining chair in the theater. The same movie at home, with none of the annoyances. This is why I've pretty much given up going out to the movies.
11
Coming attractions have always been around. Why do you have problems with them now?
The amount of and nature have greatly changed.
And now there is always a show BEFORE the commercials that tells you what you will be seeing in the commercial. It is approx 15 mins long, and at the end they reiterate - "You have just seen etc etc etc ..."
This is even before - the upcoming commercials start.
Not to mention the extra pennies they make from having local business commercials. When their production values get better you will be seeing many more locals.
The answer is simple.
In a movie theater.
With no one else in it.
Including you.
3
In case it escaped everyone’s notice distributors and exhibitors essentially run the Cannes Film Festival. Netflix cuts into their income so, of course, they “persuade” festival organizers and its governing board to boycott it. “I’m shocked, shocked, to see there’s gambling going on here!” (Quick! Name the movie!).
I would like to point out that the chief culprit in exhibitors’ falling income is the problematic quality of the theatergoing experience itself. As anyone who must force them-self to go will attest, it has become a miserable experience.
The simple fact is the art of exhibition itself, the tried-&-true rules that made theatergoing special during the “Early Talkie Era” (1930-1965, roughly) were slowly discarded by exhibitors to wring every last possible nickle from every corner of the theater. About the only abomination exhibitors haven’t adopted is installing pay toilets, and if they ever stoop to that it won’t surprise me.
8
Kinda like flying, isn't it?
Multiplex theatres are like shopping malls, a bleak future ... technology keeps moving forward, I’m writing this posting on a phone, a computer that would filled a room a decade ago .. every “innovation” drives me further away from theatres, especially reserved seats!!!
You cannot fight tidal waves, you can ride the wave
4
"The streaming service responded by boycotting Cannes altogether,..." And exactly how has that effected the Festival??? Not at all. Netflix played the part of the big American bully barging into Cannes and basically telling the organizers that there was a "new sheriff in town". We all know how that worked out. Red envelope in hand, Netflix streamed back to the U.S.
2
The experience of some movies is just so much better on the big screen. Dunkirk and Kubo and the Two Strings are two examples.
Baby Driver was not the type of movie I would normally choose, but the sound effects and score in the theater made it a truly fun experience.
2
I simply don't want to be caged in a theater when yet another nut blows a fuse and opens fire with an AR-15. Home is better.
5
Gee that's a depressing sentence to read.
5
I much prefer watching movies at home to watching them at theaters. In theaters, I encounter:
– Rude audience members who talk, text, slurp food, fidget with cellophane wrappers, push their knees into my seat, etc.
– Technical problems: sound too loud or soft; temperature too hot or cold
– Uncomfortable seats
– Bathrooms far from viewing areas
– Inconvenient show times
Having said all that, there's one major problem with watching at home: the offerings from Netflix and Hulu are mostly junk (Hulu's "The Handmaid's Tale" and "The Looming Tower" excepted).
13
Critics disagree with you about Netflix and Hulu. Why are NYT readers such pop culture haters?
1
With a state of the art 75" screen and 150 watts per channel in an Atmos sound field, and incorporating both a 12" and an 18" commercially powered subwoofers, I have no need to support my local single theater. Yet, my wife and I do, since it really a local social program. In addition, that theater does a good job with 3D. When an action packed movie is showing, the crowd can, indeed, add to the thrill. HOWEVER, any other kind of movie, where there might be soft or no dialog, the crowd becomes a very negative effect. The artists' original intents are lost with the continuous highway to the concession, those cell phones, and even basic group communication. My wife and I enjoy seeing all movies, uninterrupted. Thus, we do not allow home interruptions, like those that are discussed. We are old fashioned and set aside a true showtime for the movie. There are no errands, food prep, outside communications, et al, while we are in showtime. I have been at those other houses, where they are supposed to be watching a movie. I saw no attention given to story line, no thought of the total picture. But, I did see constant interruption, visually and with audio. I feel sorry for a artist who is good at screenplay and cinematography, if that is the only way that their film is seen. If it were not for the social duty of supporting the single community theater...here, I would watch everything at home. The delivery system would be 2018. The theater social control would be ala 1950s.
3
The problem addressed by the commenters seems to be more one of image/sound (i.e., technical) quality and viewer convenience/choice than it is an issue of public viewing and the commitment it entails - a diminishing element of our digital, screen-intensive culture. The assumption for many (most?) readers is that the discussion is about a chosen or selected film, and the ancillary elements that enhance or inhibit reception (bad sound, image brightness, distracting patrons, the capacity to pause the image for breaks, etc.). Despite all the spongy, romantic language that surrounds theatrical viewing ('magical' comes up frequently), there are two profound advantages the public theater retains over home viewing, and each boosts the intensity of reception: The audience can see itself, sharing the same space, time, and object of interest. This cannot help but enhance the act of viewing/listening, for the simple reason that the act is multiplied and found in others (we're social animals, after all). Second, but no less important, the moviegoer has made a physical (and financial) investment in the act of viewing a particular title. Disappointing, troubling, electrifying, confusing, or stupefyingly dull, viewers are less likely to walk out of the room if it's a theater, and they can't change the channel. Plush recliners, cup holders, and teen tastemakers aside, film is about alternate views, considered carefully, among strangers. Social media? Reality TV? Look what those gave us.
1
We go on "date night" just to get out without the kids for a few hours. But if you want to take the kids to a movie, it's easily $100 by the time you get tickets and food. How can most Americans afford that? Now with Cinepolis and other "fancy" chains, if you don't reserve a seat ahead of time for a popular film, you end up sitting in the front row. And Fandango sticks a service charge on that, making the tickets even more expensive. Lastly, in some places the art film are too far a drive to see when they are first released - I rely on either the DVD from my library or hope one of the streaming services will pick it up (God's Own Country, and Call Me By Your Name were two that I read about extensively but had to wait months to see).
4
You don't have to use Fandango, but otherwise, you have a point.
When I went to avengers, it was a half hour of promos. When I went to Black Panther, they didn't have anyone who could check tickets, they just moved that to the cash register line. I don't think there's an answer, I think it's dying, it will be a relic, like theatres. Still an event, but not a real business.
There's actually a third way and I'm surprised it's not mentioned here. We love the selection of blu-rays on Netflix's DVD service. I still go to the movie theater to see releases like Blade Runner or to share an experience with friends like Isle of Dogs. But we find DVDs a great way to get better selection AND the comfort of home for releases we couldn't get to in the movie theatre.
3
I've yet to see a single person kicked out for using a cell phone or talking through a movie. Until that happens, I'll be doing most of my viewing at home. Part of the reason is that, since ushers are a thing of the past, reporting an obnoxious moviegoers requires me to leave my seat to do so. The burden should not be on the moviegoer; theater-owners should take responsibility.
44
How are you going to know when it happens if you are at home?
I have a very good home theater setup, with sound and picture unmistakably better than at my local multiplex. When I do go to see a movie in a theater, I bring earplugs because the sound is often 90-100 db (measured with a sound level meter)) and the fidelity is mediocre. Why would I drive a half hour to the theater to watch under inferior conditions, pay more, and have to cope with all the ads and distractions? Even my popcorn is better.
14
And what exactly is your problem with our free enterprise system? You'd be paying $20 a ticket if it wasn't for those ads.
I prefer home. I have surround sound, a 3D high definition screen, a private home theater, large reclining chairs for up to six people and an attached recreational room with a bar, pool table, and a great music setup. I've not been to any theaters with the equivalent.
3
The problem with typical theaters in these days of "television in public" is that people are used to seeing movies and TV at home, where they are talking, eating, getting up, texting, phoning, letting the kids talk, scream, or just mansplaining the movie all during the movie. And so they just continue to do the same in theaters just like they are in their own living room. With little or no mitigation or consideration for the film or for others.
So while I prefer to see a movie in a MOVIE theater, and I still do, it is becoming ever more annoying to do so.
And the local theaters are now searching people like criminals. And this is in a very nice suburb Littleton, Ma.
The breakdown of civility is the reason so many enjoyable things are taken or
forced away.
32
Ah - Mansplainers - the bane of all existence. If we got rid of them all, it would definitely be silent throughout all movies, wouldn't it ? Not to mention there would be no more sneaking cellphone looks by any addicts ...
1
I for one would prefer all movies to be available on demand on TV right away. Very few movies are worth going to the theaters. The only exception for me now is going to theaters like Alamo draft-house where I can order better food with a beer while watching the movie.
1
I have no preference between either choice, unless the context of the movie itself seems more geared towards one or the other. Film has been marketed as a spectacle event, almost since its inception, and movies that follow in that mold, like Spielberg’s Ready Player One, usually feel more appropriate to watch on a big screen, if only for a more “cinematic” quality. Watching at home can be just as intimate and memorable (if not more), as having a massive screen blast speeding images in your face.
Still, considering the glut of media content on every device imaginable today, I think that’s just something we’ll need to adapt to according to individual preference
2
I agree more with Mr. Kenigsberg than Mr. Bailey. The theatrical viewing experience, even in theaters of modest size, is visually a more enveloping experience , especially far more satisfying and the communal feeling with other moviegoers is a tradition that adds to the excitement of watching a movie. I recently saw the acclaimed British film "God's Own Country" on NETFLIX, and as much as I was impressed with its presentation on my 50 inch monitor, the austere beauty and poignancy of the drama would be even more impressive at a cinema, I am certain. Unfortunately that masterful film received few, if any theatrical playdates here in The U.S. On the other hand I saw the acclaimed indie film "Lean On Pete" at my local Art House Cinema, and the big screen projection only added to the movie's brilliant images of the American South Western landscapes as background to a deeply moving story. Bottom line: go for the theater experience, while it lasts!
4
Loved that film. I, too, watched it at home. I wonder what those beautiful countryside scenes would have looked like all large and in the dark.
2
Whether someone chooses to watch a movie at home or theatrically is not the point. What is the point is what kind of distinctions do we make for festivals and awards? And I believe that if a movie is not released theatrically, it's not a movie - it's a television show.
I believe the Motion Picture Academy is making such a distinction for this year's show: producers have to decide whether they want to submit their "films" for an OSCAR or an EMMY, but they can't submit to both. I think that makes a lot of sense.
Now if Cannes wants to have separate categories for non-theatrical productions, that's fine. I would have no problem with a Cannes awarding a show like Game of Thrones or Westworld. In some ways, such productions are superior to what we're currently getting in theaters. But those are films and (most) films aren't TV shows.
And I agree with those who feel that watching a film in a theater, even a multiplex, is a completely different experience than watching a film at home, especially since most home installations are uncalibrated and have a soundbar at best. Without full range, multichannel audio, one is missing arguably at least 25% of the movie and that's aside from the differences in watching a 20 to 50 foot image vs. a 55" (most popular size) TV vs. watching on a phone or tablet.
Funny that one should mention the social aspect as a plus to going to theaters. Humans are becoming more and more obnoxious in public the more their interactions are dictated by technology. I've been a cinephile most of my life and haven't been in a movie theatre in over two years. Both my wallet and my impatience towards my fellow humans have appreciated the change.
14
It is pretty telling that folks are not talking about the elephant in the room in terms of Netflix-- ie, excluding a competitor.
We can argue all we want about preferences. Personally, I have not been inside a theatre in decades and apparently had bad luck when I last did. It seemed that someone was always coming down with a head cold just behind me and/or eating popcorn loudly to my side.
I have good (not the best) home theatre equipment and enjoy the quietude of my own home. But if a theatre floats your boat-- go for it.
What is inane is pretending that the exclusion is about anything other than limiting the field. A movie is a movie.
6
A good home theater setup with better sound than most theaters is far more comfortable and quiet than a public theater, you can control the volume, you don't have to sit through endless previews, you can pause it when someone needs to get a snack or go to the bathroom, and you can buy the movie or opera for less than the cost of two theater tickets.
9
I would rather go to a movie theater to see a movie, but at home I can use closed captioning. I'm not bothered by other people in the theater, I'm trying too hard to keep the story line going. Making the dialogue louder doesn't help broken speakers; it sounds even worse. The same is true for my ears. People with hearing loss and deafness are just not considered in the movie going experience. Open captioning would be a great boon to so many people - not just with hearing loss, but non-native English speakers as well. Even hearing people sometimes rely on captioning. Captioning embedded into the movie, that's the ticket!
4
I want to see a new film in a building surrounded by scores of people who are total strangers. Old fashioned, I know, and if this this funny old idea disappears I'll adapt, because I'm a survivor.
But honestly, I think it's part of a worldwide malaise: people stay at home to do almost everything nowadays and are more isolated and depressed than ever. And that is not good.
Of course I watch films and TV series at home and I love doing that, and I don't worry about the future of cinema. Cinemas, however, are another story.
6
One thing that has been ignored here is that movie critics usually get to go either to special "screening rooms" where the projection is top-notch with bright lamp-houses to enhance the picture, the sound is great, there are no commercials, and the environment is of professional standards. Or they get to go to special showings at major movie-plexes' best auditoriums where, again, there are no commercials, bleeding sound from a neighboring mini-auditorium, a relatively-large screen, and the professionalism of paid critics -- only at the special screenings held exclusively for them. (I've been a critic; I know the game.)
The current critics should be made to view movies under the same conditions we civilians have to, and then perhaps they'd be more sympathetic to what the general public suffers through in local multiplexes. The critics too often live in a fantasy world of special showings where foodstuffs, drinks, children and non-locked cell phones aren't even allowed in the screening room.
The New York Times' late, great critic Vincent Canby used to hustle himself uptown to the old Thalia art-films/revival-house Theatre (replaced by a new joint with the same name but different management) to see rare screenings shown only a few times, and he'd have to sit, like the rest of us, in those spots where the seats weren't broken or the view blocked by the pillars that held the building up. He could write against a deadline -- for too many critics, that's a lost art.
10
Actually, outside of Hollywood, most screening rooms have very small screens and are far from the ideal way of seeing a movie and critics screenings at movie theaters are likewise, usually on the smallest screens.
Even the Dolby Screening Room on 6th avenue, although well equipped with Dolby Atmos sound, has a much smaller screen than the Dolby Vision screen at the AMC Empire.
20th Century Fox used to have a great screening room on the west side of Manhattan (maybe 9th or 10th avenue). As I remember it, I think we sat in bleachers, but the screen was probably at least 50' wide and the sound was phenomenal. But it's long gone.
3
Your allegations are at issue with the facts. New York City, for instance, has many great screening auditoriums, including the Directors Guild Theatre on West 57th Street.
And you are distorting the issues here; there are no commercials, trailers, bleeding sound, food or cell phone distractions at screenings held for critics, be those screenings in large halls, small ones or small-town ones.
As for your mention of 20th Century Fox's screening theater on Manhattan's far-West Side, I recall it well, having first met then-Fox CEO Dennis Stanfill there at a screening of "The Panic in Needle Park" in 1971. It had no bleachers; it was a very wide theater, with a second-generation CinemaScope screen which was slightly curved. But it was not a very deep theater and was on one level. Mr. Stanfill and "Needle Park's" director are both very-much alive and can speak to the specifics of that hall, if they choose to.
Why assert things that are not accurate?
Uh, Jason Bailey did say "And too often, those who most loudly advocate for preserving the magic of the theatrical experience aren’t having the same experience as the average moviegoer; filmmakers, industry executives, and (yes) critics see movies for free, at premieres and festivals and media screenings, in spiffed-up venues, cozy private screening rooms, or even (gasp) fancy home cinemas." Don't you read?
1
I used to love the communal experience of movie theaters. These days I hardly ever venture out. It feels less communal now, and more of an individual experience that you happen to be having in a crowd. People behave as if they are at home and unaware of others around them. I am no longer able to get lost in a story with all the audience distractions. I don't know if it's always been this bad, or perhaps age has made me more sensitive to talking. But the phones add a whole 'nother level that I cannot tolerate. I'd rather watch online and really enjoy it even if it means not getting the full visual experience. I suppose it helps that I'm more interested in stories/dialogue rather than the blockbusters.
41
I agree and think that people have become more course. Cell phones and trump have contributed.
4
With streaming, I actually end up watching more films than I normally have in the past. When confronted with options at home, I often opt for a film (which requires only a 2 hour commitment) rather than starting a show I will be tempted to binge watch over endless hours for days on end. Paying $4-$8 for a movie rental at home makes me more likely to take a chance on a movie I’m only mildly interested in or have only vaguely heard about, thus leading me to watch films I never would have paid to see in the theaters.
I usually categorize new movies as “must see on big screen” or “I can wait for it to be available on-demand at home.” For me, the “must see” on big screen are usually blockbuster films I don’t want to wait for and must be seen on the big screen because they are grand or epic. Everything else, I can usually wait to see at home unless dinner and a movie is a date night or group night. The bottom line is if you make a film people want to see, they will pay for it and endure the downsides of the theater experience for it. If you make a mediocre film, people will shrug, stay in and see what’s available for the comfort of their own home.
Seems to me that the criticism of streaming is essentially a lament that a past practice is now in the decline. But that’s the way of life—times change and mainstays die out with the advent of new technology. Just ask brick and mortar bookstores, photo film manufacturers and (soon) taxi companies.
7
Going to a movie theater to see what? Another superhero/comic book film? You may invoke the big screen epics of the past, but nothing now compares to them. Most Hollywood films are made by children for children, and of little artistic merit. I would rather watch a movie at home so if I choose to ignore it if the film is an empty exercise in CGI, I can do something else. I would love to great films on the big screen. When they are made again, give me a tweet.
10
You're calling Steven Spielberg a child? George Lucas? CLINT EASTWOOD?
In The Last Jedi there is a scene where one ship rams another as it jumps to hyperspace. It was done in silence and at least half the people in a packed theater went "Whooooh" it was a collective experience that was quite amazing. Just as you thought you've seen everything that can be done in special effects, they throw something you have never seen before and it's experienced with the crowd as an awesome moment.
3
I'm still a sucker for the experience of seeing a film in a movie theater, with all that it entails, the good and the bad. Like all of us, I've experienced everything: films projected with the reels out of order, foreing films where a reel is missing the subtitles, babies crying, loud talkers, loud coughers, loud eaters, loud snorers, obnoxious laughers, people loudly explaining the movie to their friend, people on the phone, people texting, people walking in ten minutes late and standing in front of you while talking and looking for a seat, people making out right next to you, sound that's too loud, sound that's too low, sticky seats, sticky floors...I've also had the communal experience of 300 people laughing in unison at the same joke, screaming at the same terrifying scene, cheering when the villain gets their comeuppance, collectively having the "aha" moment when that twist is revealed, the pin-drop silence that comes over a large group of people during a that one heartbreaking scene and you hear the one person sobbing in two rows away from you.
None of that happens at home.
5
It is a lot different to have King Kong towering over you or seeing what appears to be a stuffed toy on a TV screen.
3
I value the theater experience far more, if the theater has the right equipment etc. I led a project several years ago which brought back one of the first Star Wars films to the big screen. The audience, most of whom had only seen it on television ,was amazed at the visual and sound difference. I do use Netflix also. However, I think they are not offering the same quality material for viewing except for their original works. They are stupid for not releasing some of these in movie theaters.
7
One basic decision is whether a movie needs to be seen in a theater. If it has special effects or lots of panoramic scenes it is worth seeing it in a theater. If it is a romantic comedy or buddy film who cares about seeing it on a big screen? I only go to theaters if I feel movie must be seen in a theater like Blade Runner 2049 or something like that where you know you can't replace that experience at home.
5
The comments here show that most of the readers used to like to go to the theater but don't go anymore because of the negatives of move theaters today: people talking, sound bleeding over from the next theater, small size screens. Years ago I was at a screening and the film was out of focus. I waited five minutes and after no one complained I finally left (and there were many rows of people closer to the door than I) to tell the projectionist it was out of focus. So much for the mystique that seeing a film on a big screen is superior--the viewers didn't even care if it was out of focus. One good point in the article: industry people go to special screenings which don't have these bad aspects. I used to be a film critic and can attest to that. Personally, I care little about the communal experience. I do care about image and sound quality (I was a studio projectionist for several years). I have more control over that when I view films at home. But ultimately everything boils down to the skills of the viewer. If, like me, your film school education taught you to pay intense attention to every square inch of the screen, every sound, every word, never move your eyes away to look at a cellphone call, etc, then you will get immense pleasure and information from a film no matter how you view it. A stupid viewer can see a film in the best conditions in the best movie theater in the world and get little more than if he or she had seen it on a cellphone.
12
Markets evolve from the behaviour of consumers and like the Malls before them, theaters will either adapt or disappear. Once upon a time I asked the man who in 1940 created America's most dominate theater chain if choosing a hit movie was the most important ingredient to his business's success ... "Kiddo" he replied ... "if I could squeeze another nickle out of popcorn, the movie wouldn't matter one bit". Over the years, this has reminded me that delivery systems and quality are merely parts of the big picture.
6
Hey guys, what about Fandor?
I used to love the theater experience, but I agree with many of the commentators. The sound is far too loud, and makes one wonder why they give away awards for sound editing and mixing, and then turn everything into a 90-100 db mosh pit. (Not to mention the bleed over from the movies next door, which happens constantly.)
And the 15 minutes of commercials that precede every movie are simply unacceptable. We used to get a couple of previews, which are fun, but now the studios and the distributors take brutal advantage of the captive audience and blast us with commercials that only serve to anger so many of us that the film starts on a really bad personal note. Kind of like between innings at a baseball game--teeth on edge all around as the commercials blast away--and as Roger Ebert used to say, I hated it, hated it, hated it. And then, of course, the cell phones, etc, with the idiot texters and yackers.
Another thing that goes unmentioned is the fact that so many of the theaters are absolutely filthy. I'm not a neatnick, but I have seen bathrooms at the theaters that are worse than ball parks in the 50s-60s during a double header, featuring a disgusting mix of water and urine all over the floor. And the new "easy chairs" at the movies look really difficult to clean, so you can assume that they are pretty gross. My buddy's wife used to say that movie theaters are like a very large gym shoe these days, and I quite agree.
10
In every NYC theater I've been in, the commercials (not the trailers) before the movie are played at a relatively low sound level with the house lights on and can easily be ignored. They're really not a big deal.
The trailers are another matter: they're mixed at top volume and cannot be ignored. Cell phones used to be a big problem, but it's seldom that I see people take them out during the movie anymore and no one is talking on them - those that do take them out use them to read texts. If anyone does that near me, I call them on it, usually saying, "give me a break" and they'll usually put them away, but as I said, it's rare.
And maybe the theaters are filthy in Indiana, but the theaters I go to in NYC are quite clean.
1
There are a fair number of people (I've heard tell) who pirate movies online and watch them whenever and wherever they like, free of charge. I imagine it's nice actually being able to see all the best picture nominees before the Oscars are televised without subjecting oneself to boorish theatergoers talking, crinkling cellophane (cello-phone?) or, god forbid, firing semi-automatic rifles.
1
Live music is better than recorded. Vinyl is better than CD's. Headphones are best. Streaming limits sound. The more pixels the better for your phone camera. Medium format beats 35 mm. Print books are better than audio tapes. Blah, blah, blah. Just do the best you can, and let this nonsense go.
2
I have largely given up on movies in the theater because the social acceptance of cellphones and texts makes it nearly impossible to lose oneself in the dream that any good film is. If you can't get thirty-somethings at the Museum of Moving Image to "take it outside" with their flashing screens -- just gotta check my messages! -- then public forums for films are all but lost. They apparently believe that their flashing white screens have no effect on those behind them.
You're not in your living room watching a DVD: it's the gosh-almighty Museum of Moving Image showing film as art. That's film as total immersion, like in a dream.
12
I hate going to the movies. The other people talk, crunch, look at their phones, and otherwise act as if they were in their own living rooms.
6
Several years ago we rented the video of The Rocketeer - it was fun, but on our television screen it left little impact. Later, we saw it in a National Forest ampitheater with a full house. The size of the projection made an impact, but the gasps from the audience (tilting to a slightly older age set) of the pseudo-Nazi cartoon of their invasion using back-pack rockets left a lasting impression. So did the side-glances between the mob-figures and the FBI working together to get the bad guys.
You don't get that at home, all by your little-self.
1
Pay for a movie ticket in a theater, and then get to watch TV commercials on a big screen? No, thanks!
7
That don't interrupt the movie, run before the announced starting time and keep ticket prices down. Or do you just hate our free enterprise system?
Unfortunately we see less snd less in the theater due to too many people being inconsiderate, talking, using their cellphones, flashlight on there cell phone, or texting, or babies crying. I have left a lot of movies in the last 10 years and ask for credit on my way out. Never let it spoil my day and I'm alwats nice about it. Just don't set there anymore and be annoyed, I simply leave.
4
It wasn't always so, but at some point going to the movies meant sitting next to someone dressed like a slob, talking on a cell phone, talking during the movie, talking just to hear himself talk, gorging on a battery of snacks, dropping food and garbage everywhere, kicking the back of the seat in front of him.
I stopped going years ago. You couldn't pay me to go back. Thank goodness for large screen tv's.
8
I love to see films in theaters. But haven't been to one in years. The trashy people, their bringing children to totally inappropriate movies for children and letting them run amuck, cell phones ringing, phone conversations. texting, the phones lighting up the whole time, talking out loud like they're watching netflix at home, bringing in really smelly food, showing up late, showing up half way through the movie because their movie let out and the theater won't stop the practice of dropping in on other movies, etc. etc. etc. Those nitwits all think they're at home but they're not so I'll actually stay home.
7
Movie theaters are few and far between, I have to venture thousands of miles away to Seattle or LA to find a decent theater as the local ones are frankly pathetic. I can create a decent atmosphere at home with a large screen TV and a receiver and sound system. Of course I'd prefer to go to a theater that is old school like the Gild in Seattle, etc, where your not bombarded with 20 minutes of loud previews of movies you have no interest in before the movie even starts. Very few have access to the right theaters to truly enjoy a movie nowadays.
4
McDonalds v. a fine French meal. Movies at home are McDonalds....Mcdonalds is just dandy, but for a new movie, a big important movie, movies in the theater with popcorn, soda, and the people around you gasping, crying, enjoying the acting with you....give me a big theater and turn out the lights!!!
I think you have that backwards - the differences (apart from the obnoxious behavior of your communal participants, which have been well-described in these comments) being that a small popcorn and soda at home don’t cost $12.00 and a ticket at least that much (although it sounds like you would miss the glop they
refer to as “butter”), you really can have fine food at home while you’re watching, as opposed to the collection of barely edible candy and - yes, popcorn- at the movies, and if you really feel the need for the “communal” aspect of the movies, invite some friends to share the show with, and have an intelligent discuss with afterwards. The dessert to the fine meal at home is to watch on a 60” screen and a 7- channel audio system dialed in to match the acoustics of your room and adjusted any way you prefer to control volume and mix. I understand sentimentality but and preference but the home experience can be far better if you want to make it so.
Cannes is totally right. Watching at home kills the movie theatre--another way in which community is sacrificed to capitalism.
I go to the movie theater on Saturday mornings; the earlier the better. This way you avoid the boorish crowd, the annoying crunch of popcorn, and the smell of nacho cheese. Usually, there are serious cinephiles only in the morning. And it's a lot cheaper!
6
It is a bit odd to quote Quentin Tarantino to advocate for a theater experience when he admittedly built most of his film knowledge by binge watching movies on Laserdiscs and VHS while working at a video store in the 80's and early 90's.
To the point of “television in public,” I will take a DCP any day. I watched “Dunkirk” at home on Blu-ray recently and it buried my poor (overpriced) 70mm viewing of the film in theaters. Though, watching “Vertigo” in a three-strip Technicolor projection was a treat that only the theater can offer.
Overall, I'd much rather stay at home and watch Netflix, Amazon, or just buy Blu-rays. With a decent projection system and sound equipment, the technical quality of the experience is near rivaling that of the theater for whatever difference the layman can tell. And choice pertains to content not to 15 minute increments at which youcan see a blockbuster.
The communal experience is also largely overrated. There definitely are patron courtesy issues, but I also recently saw “Ready Player One” in a large theater on a week night with probably 17 people in the 300 seat auditorium.
Lastly, going out means going out to see/do something. And by that token, I'd rather go see a play over a movie that makes you instantly wonder if you shouldn't have spent that babysitting money on a few bottles of wine instead.
The irony is that the system seems to be reverting back to a pre-anti-trust era where studios owned production and distribution means.
2
....not to mention the commercials I am forced to watch BEFORE the feature film in theaters. At home, commercial- free. It annoys me to pay 10$ and then be forced to watch commercials.
3
I pretty much gave up on going to see movies in a theater because of cell phones. I'd end up being so distracted by the idiots playing with their phones that I couldn't tell you what was going on in the movie. Add to that the super high prices and the 20 minutes of commercials before the movie starts and that's why I'd rather stay home and watch.
6
The culture that make going to the movies with friends and neighbors -- even neighbors you didn't know but who largely shared your values, laughed and cried at the same things -- seems to be gone. That, and people in theaters seem to think they're in their living rooms, where talking, phoning, open-mouth eating and dandling infant children are perfectly okay. Cheap big-screen TVs make the home experience preferable.
3
There is no doubt that theaters are better, but until they come up with the technology for optional captions for the hearing impaired, I will have to stay home.
2
Theaters do offer assisted listening devices. I am not hearing impaired, but have wondered if this would help dampen the audience noises for those of us sensitive to that. I keep meaning to try it out, but it's just so comfortable watching movies at home that I almost never go anymore.
In New York City, I have been to AMC theaters that give you special glasses that show the captions. The independent theaters; The Paris and Cinema 123 have a device you can stick in the cup rest that shows captions.
The AMC thearters in Florida may have the same technology.
I also see a lot of foreign films as they come with subtitles.
Good luck.
1
Not mentioned in this piece is the abominable rudeness of many contemporary movie goers. I don't care how good the sound is and how dazzling the big-screen experience is, the viewing experience is often degraded by others who continually crunch on food, talk incessantly, fiddle with (and sometimes answer) cell phones, and bring children who fidget and run around unattended.
7
Rude or obnoxious behavior in movie theaters is not a new phenomenon. Watch Preston Sturges's "Sullivan's Travels" (perfectly enjoyable on the home screen BTW). Sturges offers a wonderfully spot on send-up of the many annoying habits of the theater attending public more than 60 years before cell phones entered the scene.
at home, cast onto the television screen.
1
To my mind it depends. What I like to call a "Movie"; that is, a big action production with effects etc. (Or with a cast of thousands) are of course best viewed in a theater with great sound and a big screen. An IMAX experience cannot yet be replicated at home. (We'll see once VR gets itself going, but not yet.) Wonder Woman would just not have been the same on a home theater. Nor would Ghandi.
What I like to call "Cinema" can easily be enjoyed at home with a decent setup. Or even on a plain ole TV. It is the drama and the story that draws one in. Sometime a home experience can be even better in a way. In a theater a riveting drama or a tense psycho thriller can be sandbagged by an idiot yakking or checking their smartphone. IMHO Hidden Figures is a good example of a film that would suffer little with home viewing.
So Netflix. If they have sense then Netflix will produce content that will thrive on a smaller screen. As they have done. (VR may change the game for home viewing.) As for the theater industry axing Netflix from award consideration. Understandable. Well it is the theater industry, after all. If Netflix presents its content in theaters no one will bar them from competition. But you cannot make something for the small screen and call it a 'Movie'
I started attending films in theaters, by myself, in 1952. Screens were relatively huge at the old New York City chains once known as Fox Metropolitan Playhouses, most Times Square theaters and other fine venues.
With CinemaScope, the licensing agreement with the theaters required increased illumination of the new, very-wide screens, and with 70 MM projection (often licensed under the Cinerama or Todd-AO trademarks), the three-dimensional effect was astounding. And then movie houses were split up, smaller screens were used, projection lamp-houses were adjusted to lower the theaters' electrical bills, TV-commercials were introduced, broken, worn-out seats were not replaced.
The goal was clearly the maximization of the theater-chains' stock prices via higher earnings, at the expense of treating the paying customer like trash. Well, the chains shot themselves in the head. I finally stopped attending and have no kind words for the theater-chains executives.
Either give me a huge screen for my $20-or-higher admission fee, and sound that does not bleed from the next auditorium that is separated from the one I'm in by only some wallboard, or grow mushrooms in your theaters.
The movie-exhibition industry is killing itself. So be it. I will be here to read about the funeral, but I won't attend. They are getting what they richly deserve.
8
I used to love going to the cinema but those cell phones all lit up, even if no one is talking or texting, are a distraction.
Oh -- and that red laser pointer on the screen never gets old. Keep it up kids, you're hysterical.
Stream Stream Stream.
3
VR devices such as Oculus Go will put this debate to bed in the near future. People will have both easy access at low cost to a wide ranging number of titles - and perfect immersive experience. Have the same conversation 5 years from now, and please bring in the great tech reviewers from the NY Times !!
Thirty minutes (no joke) of ads and trailers at a movie last summer kinda' made me hot under the collar. But my local cinema has reclining and reserved seating which helps keep me coming back.
1
The studios have bitten the hand that feeds them. They demand such a large cut that the theaters must charge an outrageous fee, and still make money only from concessions. That drives volume in both theater capacity and volume to cover up the noise of the larger crowd, which makes the experience worse.
So, what am I missing from the theater experience? Is the "immersive experience" of Dunkirk the captivating music or is it just way too loud? I'll see IMAX films, but for most, the quality doesn't justify the price of the theater "experience", and frankly, the theater experience is, in itself, a major part of the problem.
1
It's an urban legend that the studios take most of the box-office revenue. I saw statements in publications claiming that in the opening weeks of a film (and these days, with short exclusive theatrical windows, there are only opening weeks to most films), the studio took 95% and I believe it. But it's not accurate.
AMC is the largest theater chain in the U.S. and in 2017, their film exhibition cost was 49.7%, giving them a 50.3% gross margin. They did make far higher margins on concessions, at 83.7%, and they did lose money overall ($487 million loss), but that was mainly due to debt and acquisitions.
Total concession revenue, at $1.548 billion was less than half of admissions revenue at $3.3 billion. Gross margin was closer: $1.625 billion on exhibition vs. $1.296 billion on concessions.
1
I love going to the theater but rarely do. Almost all underproject to save on the bulbs (they are expensive!) so the movie is too dark. The sound system in most is mediocre at best. And then there is the audience. In a dark theater, yes, everyone else DOES see when you pull out your phone and illuminate your screen and it IS distracting. At least that's quiet; there's almost always someone near me talking over the movie as well. Theaters do nothing about this because it's apparently just the norm now.
I agree with the critics in theory about all the reasons for wanting to see things in the theater. When reality meets theory, I'll go back. For now, I'll watch in my living room.
3
It’s "both". Spending upwards of $25 to see a movie that we may or may not like, my wife and I will just wait until it’s streamable on our 60” LED at home. But if we know it’s something we are really going to enjoy the we pull out all stops and reserve Luxe Level seats where we can even get a beer in a real glass (wink wink Quentin T.).
So you pick a movie that you really want to see--you go at a time that you think will be least crowded--your immersed in the film--then a baby starts crying--the guy behind you is eating popcorn producing a sound like a --well you know the sound--and then the phones----to me its the extraneous noises that demean the movie going experience--maybe if they at least had a no phones policy-- and no food in the theaters--it would be a start to maybe bringing me back to the theater and I'm guessing many more like me!!
2
There is nothing wrong with watching movies in TV. I do it all the time. But nothing compares to watching in one in a theater. You’re there with a group of strangers. The preview lights go down. All of you then enter a two-hour collective dream. Nothing beats this thrill, even if the movie is bad.
Let's see. People with guns, mobile phones, and generally horrible manners. Filthy bathrooms. Exorbitant ticket prices. Hmmm. I think I'll stay at home with Netflix.
2
In order to get me to go out to the movies, the film needs to be something big and amazing enough to make the travel, annoyances, and expense worthwhile. Dunkirk, Star Wars, and Jumanji all fit the bill. any typical cartoon movie (Pets, Moana, etc) do not. Why would I take the time and expense when my 65 inch UHD screen and home theater sound do just as well. Plus my popcorn only costs pennies, and I can pause and use the bathroom whenever I want.
1
Movies are always better in the theater. Really, the only problem I have with the movie theater is the long sequence of commercials and movie trailers before the movie begins, and it isn't easy to necessarily game that timewise in my experience and arrive X many minutes late, because some movies have waaaay more trailers than others.
Going to see a movie has become so stressful that my wife and I gave it up two years ago. Critics love to talk about the "theatre-going experience", but to me that means cell phone texters, people who talk through the movie (and get antagonistic when you ask them to be quiet), sticky floors, 20+ minutes of ads and trailers of movies you're never going to see, and sound systems that are WAY TOO LOUD!
Besides, we live in a small town, so that means we get superhero movie followed by another superhero movie followed by another superhero movie. Frankly, TV is consistently better than modern cinema anyway. I'm much more excited about Westworld and Stranger Things than I am about how many infinity eggs Thanos gets to keep or who the current mayor of Wakanda is.
1
I am torn between the irritation of needless noise in a cinema - and, well, my suggestion here in Hove that a Brighton cinema show Val Guest's 1962 film Jigsaw - set in Brighton, adapted from Hillary Waugh's New-Jersey-based novel - and it was a delight to hear the gasps at the twists this took (not to mention such sultry dialogue as "know him? I've still got the scars!").
I live in a small town with a clean theater that shows the big box films. The seats are comfy and the audience for the most part is well behaved. However, I have a big new smart TV with great sound. I can rent a film for under two bucks as opposed to the seven dollars it costs to go to the theater. Popcorn is affordable at home. I can rewatch the film and pause it at the tasty parts. I don’t have to sit thru half an hour of boring trailers or bowling alley ads. We don’t get indie films here so the Amazon service provides. I will on occasion go to the theater but I find the home experience far superior.
3
I cannot remember the last film that I saw in a traditional theater. The glow of cell phones in the dark is distracting to me. I also dislike the distraction of hearing the residual sounds of other films being shown. No thank you. The cost of one movie ticket will pay for a month of movies on Netflix. I also agree that the ability to use captioning and to hit PAUSE for bathroom breaks is a plus!
5
I love to see films on the big screen, but one thing that has discouraged me in recent years is this business of having to plan way ahead to see them, as if they were best-selling plays. We've usually been fairly spontaneous ("Hey, wanna go see a movie?") but the reduction in the size of the theatres, so that they can be more "home-like" with their recliners, means you can't count on a seat.
There's nothing like experiencing a wonderful audience reaction--the best I ever had was seeing Keaton's "The General," with an audience that was about half made up of kids, at the AFI in Silver Spring, MD (restored traditional theatre with 400 seats). Magical! But hey, there's nothing as depressing as a rowdy audience that makes fun of a classic--TCM's screening of "The Wizard of Oz" a few years back was ruined for me by cynics.
As someone above said: it's all down to what the individual wants, what the public or private theatres offer, and what's going on that particular day. But reading people's comments, I think it might be a worthwhile theatre investment to return to firm, politeness-enforcer ushers!
3
I have noticed that theatre audiences of all ages now are more likely to talk throughout the film because they have become accustomed to watching at home. It's incredibly annoying.
3
When NTLive starts putting their broadcasts on Blu-Ray, that will be the day I stop going to movie theaters. It will be so much better than driving 80 miles to see them.
I am a dual screen watcher, in my own home.
Have not gone to a movie in a theater in over three years.
Reason, mobil phones, people have to take back control of their lives.
When the announcement is made to turn off your phones, turn off your phones.
4
I have been hosting a movie night almost every Friday for over eight years. While I still enjoy going to a movie theater, I much prefer watching a film at home in the company of friends. At the theater the only advantage is the size of the screen, with many other disadvantages, including unwanted conversations, the disagreeable smell of artificial butter on popcorn, sticky floors, and sound systems that rely on brute force to impress but have none of the fidelity, refinement, subtlety, dynamic range, surround-sound effects, and fine detail of my home system. The brightness of my large-screen monitor is better than that of theaters, and in many instances so is the color fidelity, color balance, saturation, contrast, deep blacks, and resolution.
6
I am deaf so there is one big difference between theatre and at home and it is closed captioning. I never see movies in the theatre because even though I read lips very well the way they shoot the movies I loose too much dialog.
2
With a run of ads, murky digital projections, sound bleeding from next door, theaters that are actually quite small, elevated ticket prices, crummy concessions or the obverse people munching on meals, people talking throughout the screening, cellphones ringing, what's not to like about theaters these days.
Theaters rarely offer the showing of actual film prints, and besides all movies these days are digital whether they originate on film or not. All theatrical releases go through a digital intermediate process. There are few experiences to match the first Star Wars in 70mm or the 70mm first edition of Apocalypse Now or Lawrence of Arabia but . . . where are you going to see those now?
Compared to large TV screens at home with sound systems as good as people wish and can afford.
If you want an analogy with the past, instead of theaters, how about families gathered around the radio for a radio drama or one of Roosevlt's fireside chats.
2
The last time I was in a packed movie theater was for a screening of Gravity and I was unable to concentrate on the movie because someone nearby had doused himself in cologne. At home there are no such inconveniences and I am also less likely to wind up as a victim of a mass shooting.
On the other hand, small arthouse and revival cinema should be supported (shoutout to Cambridge, MA's Brattle Theatre).
4
Wow, really, less likely to get killed in a mass shooting? That's a reason you don't go to movie theaters?
Have you run the numbers? I suspect if you go back 20 years and add up how many people have been shot or killed in movie theaters, then add up how many have been shot or killed in home-invasion robberies, you might not feel so safe.
Can't help you with the cologne, though. Some people are really sensitive to those things. Maybe you do need to stay home in a bubble. Just remember to lock those doors!
It's mostly about the cologne. Lord help me if an axe wielding home invader dripping with Axe body spray busts into my fortress of solitude.
2
There are a few important points that Kenigsberg and Bailey are ignoring. First, when discussing the selections on Netflix, they refer only to streaming. Netflix offers a lot more movies on blue-ray, and that is how I find indie, foreign, and classic films. This is to say nothing of other streaming services and purchasing my own movies, which can be very affordable. Another point that they do not address is that the quality of home viewing is now very good. Many of us have home theaters with surround sound, and it is possible to set these up for a reasonable price. I put together a screen, short-throw HD projector, and blue-ray smart surround system for under $1000. It rocks! High definition televisions and surround systems also create a great viewing experience. At home, we do not have interruptions. We watch movies that we want to watch and do so on our schedule. We choose the company, and the movie—snacks included—is much, much cheaper. For my family of six, we had to view maybe fifteen movies before the savings offset the cost of our home theater.
2
I live in Austin, the heart of Alamo Drafthouse. If every theater existed by the same rules AD lives by, the movie-going experience would be amazing. As is, if Alamo isn't an option, I won't go.
1
A few local observations from a mid-tier city slightly west of the East Coast. We have both a local independent presence as well as the national chains.
1. No wonder Avengers had such a huge opening. In our town, Avengers was on nearly all of the chains screens. Even the local independent devoted two screens to Avengers. These films become cash cows that no theater owner in their right mind would turn their nose up to. Talk about lack of diversity.
2. The local independent has tried to show a few classics. But they struggle with the technical demands of proper projection and sound, and don't quite get it right (sound from the side of the theater instead of the front). Plus the strangest experience I have ever had, where the audience treated Hitchcock's "The Birds" as if it were a comedy.
3. The national chain. Talk about taking up all of the air in the room. They call anything showing on the screen or issuing from the speakers a quality showing. The sound is too loud, close to 90 decibels on my smartphone sound meter. When asked about it, the local and national management is indifferent and non-responsive. Plus the Avengers glut. But hey, we have all sorts of food, booze, 3D and recliners (the better to add premium charges). My question - is there any room in all of that for a movie?
4. At home. Well, it's something. That the current crop of movies are lacking makes it bearable. I can at least see classics otherwise not shown these days. Thank god for TCM.
3
I grew up surrounded by theaters called movie palaces. Along Flatbush Avenue were names like The Loews Kings, The RKO Kenmore and an art theater called the Astor. Sitting in the dark, in the children's section, manned by a matron with a flashlight, are some of my greatest memories. Of course, at the time, I didn't know that the cavernous , red -velvet walled , gold gilt décor along the walls of the velvet covered staircase, all lit by gigantic crystal chandeliers weren't the norm. The Astor theater showed only foreign films, always in black and white. Bergman, Rosselini, Korda and Pressburger. Actors named Donat, Mangano, Olivier, Sim and Gielgud became familiar references in conversations.
It was also the time of the double bill. Two movies plus news or a cartoon.I might be seated for almost 5 hours! But it became the Saturday activity in 1950's Brooklyn. So my preference is seeing a movie in a theater. The dark, cozy, anonymous, silent (you breathe loud in the Angelika and everyone turns around!) environment. I used to buy Peanut Butter Chews or Bon-Bons but today I prefer a root beer drop or a few tic tacs. I love the big screen and the Stereo sound.Yes, at home you can go to the kitchen or bathroom if you pause the film but there are too many distractions. You could also see the rest later or tomorrow. So many choices-so much time.I'll take the movie house and some tic tacs every time.
2
I see about one or two movies a month (thanks Movie pass!). With travel time, previews, and run time, the film has to be worth the four or so hours out of my weekend. To my surprise this means I'll only go see visually epic and fun movies in the theatre, because I need to leave feeling good. Thought-provoking, emotionally complex films are purely Netflix material, to give me the option to bail or pause until I'm ready to continue. As others have mentioned, I've worn earplugs in the theater for at least the last five years. So that only leaves bright phone screens as my main irritant, but even that I can block effectively with my hand.
1
My family over the last 3 years has gotten accustomed to watching all of our movies at home. Between a large screen and improved sound quality we do not miss being in a theater environment. The ability to be comfortable in our own home is a major plus for us.
4
I have ceased going to theaters because I abhor and resent the 15 minutes of advertising and the 10+ minutes of trailers for upcoming films that I am forced to sit through. All at extra high volume necessitating earplugs. I sat through 80 percent of Dunkirk with my fingers in my ears. I also live 80 miles from an Indie theater. The only reason I will drive to a theater is for a one time cinecast or special presentation of a live performance.
5
For most movies it is a better experience by far to see them in a traditional theater. However, with the trend toward theaters which serve food in the viewing space the advantage is completely lost. My wife and I avoid these new theaters at all cost.
4
Does it matter if you see a film in a theater or at home? Consider that the nearest theater is an hour away and mostly shows film versions of video games and comics. Consider that I purchased almost all of the Oscar nominated best picture films before the awards broadcast, but they became available to stream months later, after interest and time to watch them subsided. I suppose that means watch whatever you wish by whatever means whenever you can. Just sit back and enjoy the show.
1
For me, with a hearing disorder, seeing a film at home allows for “closed captioning.”
For me, a theater is TOO LOUD! Loudness does not assist me to decode the words. It’s just aversive.
Unfortunately, closed captioning makes it harder to watch the facial expressions and other nuances. And it’s especially difficult when there’s a lot of dialogue - too much to read before the next bunch of captioning. And it’s a little strange at times to see the “words” before they are actually spoken.
I prefer reading! I can read at my own pace. And imagine the story.
3
Netflix wins in my opinion, since they offer a quality of experience for a monthly subscription instead of an individual ticket that costs just as much as a single ticket to the theatre.
I can browse a constantly improving library of high quality original films or series at my convenience, whereas, I have to sit down and watch a half hour of advertisements just to get to a film I may or may not like in a theatre that demands I conform to their schedule.
The average movie goer doesn't care about elitist awards, they just want to be entertained.
Good luck Hollywood, between videogames and Netflix, you will soon be irrelevant.
4
I have a 100" projector screen in my apartment, so from a pure "immersion" standpoint the experience is very similar. I don't think that's the case with a smaller screen. There's something primal about seeing people and things depicted physically larger than yourself. The one huge difference is that at home it's far easier to succumb to either a) bailing on a movie and starting a different one and b) being tempted to pull out my phone during a "slow" part -- which I'd never do in a movie theater because I'm not a monster.
4
". . . has imagery too dark and a sound design too layered for their full complexity to register on a TV, tablet or computer." Precisely , but this is an argument that implicates a lazy viewer, not the potential of the home viewing experience. I have a friend who is 30 years younger to whom I've recommended movies only to have him tell me they made no impact. Then I find out that he watched them with his girlfriend, sitting on a couch with a laptop balanced between them on their knees, or on his phone on a plane. I tried to point out the problem by showing him the beach landing scene in Band of Brothers on a 55" plasma with a great home-theater sound system, but I'm not sure it sunk in.
I can't concentrate on the movie in a theater with all the candy-rattling and talking going on around me. Even in my favorite tiny artsy theater a talker drove me nuts last week. My spouse, on the other hand, can't concentrate at home, constantly finding a reason to get up (e.g., to put something in the dryer), or check her tablet to make a play in Words With Friends, or worst of all, slumping on the couch and falling asleep. She needs the theater to focus.
I don't think this debate can be won by either side. It depends on the viewer, what they put into the experience, and what they want to get from it.
21
It just depends on the movie. Sure, any good film is more truly appreciated in a good theater, but unless the movie is exceptionally visual it usually doesn't make that much of a difference. The real movie, like a book, takes place in your mind.
3
I would add a few points to the comments already left.
IMO, digital projections suffer MORE on large screens. A 4K HDR image on a 65" screen looks quite spectacular, and we can enjoy a film without distractions, control lighting and audio to our satisfaction.
I'm also puzzled by the complaint by Mr. Bailey and Mr. Kenigsberg regarding the availability of small/independent content. They mention the dearth of classic material on Netflix as if subscription services are the only sources available. I can't tell you how many titles we've purchased that we've only watched once, and we're fine with that - $20-30 is still half the cost for the two of us to go see a film in a theater, if we total up tickets and a couple of beverages and crummy snacks.
Suggesting that we 'vote with our wallets' to punish theaters who don't provide a better experience seems to ignore the fact that cinemas are struggling - most can't afford to eject the unruly customers who make up a significant slice of their income.
2
Loved going to the theater as a kid and even as an adult but now I can't stand the experience. Pre-cellphone days were much better, but now people are ruder, the movies are louder, and the cost nearly prohibitive.
I'll take Netflix over the theater.
7
I think this is one discussion in which your age is totally relevant so just for the record I'm in my 60's.
At home I have a 50" plasma, 5.1 sound and a blu-ray player and that gives me a better experience than what I've had the last few times I've been in a movie theater. No, watching Lawrence of Arabia, though satisfying, isn't nearly as overwhelming as seeing it properly presented in a movie theater. Unfortunately I've come to the conclusion that "properly presented" is a lost cause. Even if the picture is projected properly chances are the sound is going to be terrible. Loud and distorted is not my idea of a good time. I shouldn't have to put tissue in my ears just to listen two people have a normal conversation on the screen.
12
As a lover of films, I love movie theaters. There can be great moments of communality at showings of campy, funny, or classic movies (like Wizard of Oz or Casablanca). Often, the size of the screen itself can make all the difference. I like awful popcorn. However, I also agree with the many legitimate complaints voiced in these comments about the current experiences in such theaters.
For me, however, the absolute worst aspect is how little adept we now seem to be at handling the more emotionally-challenging moments (perhaps that's partly because the vast majority of American movies are merely cartoonish and infantile). So, when a difficult emotional (or intellectual) moment comes - i.e., right when you most need quiet and concentration to take it in - someone nearby in the audience has to speak out in some manner so as to break the tension and make the moment less fraught and less powerful. For this reason, I generally prefer to see serious movies at home. This isn't that much of a problem, however, since most movie theaters rarely ever show serious movies.
13
A film is made to be appreciated in a theater.
As for festivals, etc. that has to be decided by them.
The most prevalent reason to NOT see movies in theaters still is, of course, the behavior of many of the patrons, who all believe they are in their living rooms and act like it.
Decades ago, people dressed up to go to movies and behaved themselves. Now, if you want quiet and room to enjoy yourself, you have to go to an early morning screening, but that still doesn't guarantee anything.
3
Mr. Kenigsberg writes about: “ the absence of the distractions of home viewing)” and “The hush that falls over a crowd during the largely dialogue-free “A Quiet Place” Clearly Mr. Kenigsberg has not been in a New York City movie theatre for many, many years.
At home I can control, even eliminate, distractions. Going to a theatre is now like going to a night club, replete with hoots, hollers, loud conversations, phone calls, constant trips to the concession stand/rest rooms and so on. The only time a hush can be heard in a NYC theatre is when the projectionist locks up.
Pfui on theatres!
20
New 4K TV and true surround sound setup. Maybe not quite the experience of well setup movie theater, but pretty good.
2
I live in NYC where movie theaters are nearby and I can get to one in 5 minutes, so getting there is not an issue. I enjoy watching a movie in a theater, BUT I hardly ever do that any longer, due to the following:
- insane ticket prices
- 20 minutes worth of trainers for dreck (often violent dreck)
- sound levels that can damage my hearing
- inability to bring my own snacks (and I'm not paying $6 for a hot dog or popcorn; it's just not going to happen). Also I'm not interested in junk food, which is what's available at the "concession stand."
- other audience members: I don't know why they go to the movies if they're going to spend the whole time talking or texting on their phones. The intrusiveness of this cannot be underestimated.
Now I watch movies at home, where the movie starts when I want it to, where I can sit comfortably & snack on my own food, where I'm not subjected to people talking & texting; and where I control the sound volume.
I can also hit "pause" if necessary, and I can re-run the credits if I want to see something particular in them, or go back and re-watch a specific scene.
The only advantage the movie theaters have is the nice reclining seats, but at some point I'll just buy a recliner for my living room.
77
For older folks, for whom the "dating" experience is not a big part of going to the movies, there are many, many advantages to seeing a movie on a good flat screen TV (60" or larger) while running the sound through your stereo system.
First, you can adjust the sound level to your needs and preferences, and use subtitles so age related hearing losses don't make you miss the dialogue.
Bathroom breaks are available at your convenience and discretion. You aren't distracted by inattentive children and adults who feel they must comment to one another during the dramatic landing on the beaches in D-Day. If you're a talker yourself, you don't have to disturb others.
You get to sit where you want at home, in a comfortable chair, with no one's head blocking your view, and no sticky floor underfoot, and no smell of stale popcorn permeating the room.
I can stream a new movie from my cable company for $7.00 and the wife and I can watch it for the price of a single ticket with no charge for parking.
With few exceptions, the experience of watching the Blu-Ray version of a movie at home, while skipping the ads and 30 minutes of coming attractions for films we aren't interested in, beats going to a theater every time.
33
As someone with a very short attention span I have to be locked in a theater or else I'll be taking breaks every ten minutes. That said the movie theater experience away from NYC is much different. I can't recall the last time I had a bad experience due to talkers or texters.
1
The difference between venues affects content. Theater is clearly preferable for dramatic narrative, but home allows for art at its highest levels where a single viewing is insufficient to fully plumb the depths of the expression.
The distinctions are relatively easy to discern on qualitative criteria. Narratives change significantly when plot lines are revealed. Art at its highest levels has visual and aural complexities that dominate the narrative well beyond plot line. I would use Koyaanisqatsi as an example.
We can understand the distinctions comparatively when the abstract qualities of music are used as a reference. If you hear a compelling piece of music, it can reside in the home theater or portable device indefinitely. One does not return with the same frequency or with equivalent reward in a narrative fiction.
There could be an inflection point in motion pictures that pivots on the availability of home and portable media which afford infinite repetitions. The expert opinions espoused here do not fathom this distinction, because they draw from conventional cinema. A better set of critics would speak from knowledge of how to enjoy music or fine art. Public venues are good, but thank god for recorded media.
1
Ben Kenigsberg has it correct.
I grew up sitting in dark rooms absorbing terrific stories in a comfortable chair. I still enjoy the feeling tremendously, and do from time to time go to a theater.
What has happened over the past two decades, though, is absolutely shocking. Theater companies have essentially worked tirelessly to ruin the experience. From a terrible ticket buying process, with fees, even though you still aren't sure you will get a good seat, to waiting on lines, to sitting through 20 minutes of double-volume ads just to make it to showtime -- it's just not pleasurable any more.
At the same time, my home experience has gotten to be amazing. My own sofa, great sound, everything on demand, and pause if I need to go to the bathroom. It's a worse experience, but a "far, far better" worse experience.
38
Great debate ... and/but I'm afraid that the "AT HOME" pros way outweigh any cons with the opposite being the case in theaters. And not by a little!
The point about rude patrons is unanswerable - saying that "people should realize how rude they're being" is ... beyond naive. The notion that theaters can/will address the problem beyond a 10 second "this is rude" message is even more so.
There are industries that had it too good too long and just can't seem to get past that. True, the current "bigs" at AMC or Regal and smaller and non-chains KNOW the gate is shrinking, but so far, they've tried things that sure don't work for me.
First and foremost, 90% of their focus has been on the short-term how-do-we-boost-our-revenue.... Which, however understandable, is similar to health care the last 10 years. (In the absence of lots of young, health people, premiums go up, driving more of the "desired" people away, etc. - ye olde "death spiral.")
Here, adding a buck or 2 to already crazy concession prices ALIENATES patrons; ditto, running commercials for up to 1/2 hour pre-show.
I'm sure there are some people who LOVE loungers enough to rent one for $5-10 an hour. I'm not one of them.
Face it - most people are not cinephiles. They want "a good movie," and while they KNOW the sound MIGHT be better in a theater, that doesn't move the needle for 99% of them.
What your pitiable - so terrible is the hand he was dealt - "critic" calls (at home) distractions, most of us call amenities!
11
In most cases, no, it doesn't matter. But in certain rare cases like at a premiere of a popular movie, it can be a lot of fun to be part of it. To wait outside and enjoy the movie as a group of fans, to ooh and ahh and clap together. There's an energy and an openness at these events that invite camaraderie and the easy making of acquaintances.
Aside from these few instances, it doesn't matter, although there's always a certain value in having a place to step out to even if you don't mutter a word to anyone else. Just going out in public and seeing other people can be a relief sometimes. I think that's important especially for older people or people who don't get out much period.
2
The commendable attention to audio and video quality among many film producers means only folks with high end equipment can experience genuine home immersion. Yet, the latter disparity is less disappointing than a cheap cinema that does not have (or fails to maintain) the audio or video equipment to maximize an audience's experience.
1
Last movie I saw was played so loud that the speakers were being over driven.
1
For starters, the presented "choice" is entirely false. I can't remember the last time I had an option to stay home and watch a new release blockbuster or go to the theater to watch a beloved classic. I enjoy both. The difference is I can control my experience at home, while in the theater I am riding a theatrical cattle car. You may romanticize the experience, but for the most part the only reason I fork over the extra money and put up with rubbing elbows with strangers chewing popcorn with their mouths open is that I don't want to wait. It's that simple. And frankly, the only thing I miss in Netflix direct releases is the hubbub of press telling me what to expect ahead of time so I can make an informed choice about what to try.
4
You just haven't found the right theater. I hate the mall style fiascoes too. I honestly miss my home town theaters but I've found several good alternatives here. Between Broadway Cinema, Brewvies, and Tower Theater, I can scratch basically any itch I'm feeling. We also have Sundance too. We walked to see "Death of Stalin" at Grand Theater. Now that was a fun experience. I might even go see the film a second time at Broadway. That's how good it was. That's where I caught "I, Toyna." You don't really have to worry about rubbing elbows in that crowd. Brewvies recently screened "Dr. Strangelove" as well. I think they're doing a "Super Troopers" re-visit now. 21+ only as the theater serves alcohol.
Sure, I could watch these movies at home but where's the fun in that? I'm not racing to see "Avengers." I don't care. There are some truly worthwhile cinematic endeavors worth seeing in the theater though. And remember, the experience is part of the experience.
I live walking distance from the fabulous BAM Rose Cinema, but I have to admit to attending fewer and fewer films there since I got a huge new TV. BAM is still essential for the movies you can't see elsewhere, and for the professional dedication of their programing, which does so much to bring films to New York that would never be shown otherwise, or in thematic groupings that make you see them in a new light. Still, audiences at BAM -- sigh -- have grown less sophisticated over the years and often do not seem to understand what they're looking at. And unfortunately for some of us specialists, BAM has entirely dumped its once-unique silent film programing, while the curatorship is not always what it once was in the days of Florence and Jake. For all of these reasons I'm most often content to see films, large and small, at home.
Denied entry because we arrived too late after the start of the first run of 2001: A Space Odyssey in 1968 Manhattan? Good thing, too. Now, that's entertainment.
5
You're joking, of course.
Wireless and Cloud providers are spending tens of billions on infrastructure capable of delivering movies and other content to smartphones, laptops, and tablets, and you're asking whether a home theater or a multiplex provides a better viewing experience?
But, now that I think about it, The Times is still invested in its print operations.
3
Just because large corporations are spending big bucks on streaming to various devices doesn't mean that provides a superior viewing experience anymore than large corporations spending big bucks on fast food joints means that McDonalds is a superior eating experience to a fine restaurant or home cooked meal.
I'm not saying that streaming and fast food don't have their place and can't be worthwhile and even preferable for some people, but there is no way they can be described as a superior experience.
2
I recently viewed "A Quiet Place" in my local theater.
The most quiet place in the room was on the screen.
Sad!
16
.
My dog is much happier if I watch at home. So that's what I usually do.
40
My dog actually watches the movie (if it has dogs in it)! To allow him the big screen experience we hit the drive-in. Two paws up for Cats vs Dogs. We'll see what he thinks of Isle of Dogs....
1
I worked at a movie theater throughout high school. The establishment was a small four screen affair. Maybe 750 seats total. The theater was actually part of an old chain of studio owned theaters. My location originally opened in 1922 screening D.W. Griffith's "Orphans of the Storm." Take what you will from that information. By the time I worked there, they had weekly screenings of "Rocky Horror Picture Show" complete with theatrical accompaniment. More generally though, there was a mix. You'd get Oscar films and blockbusters at the same time.
The theater experience is definitely different. Even the nicest home theater doesn't really compare with experiencing a film surrounded by 200 hundred of your closest strangers. Picture and sound quality aside, a film like "Dunkirk" is more visceral when the experience is shared. There's definitely a place for home theater but it's not the same thing.
Personally, my favorite theater experiences were the night before a film was released. The projectionist had to tape the film together before opening. He or she had to run the film to make sure they had done the job right. The staff was always invited. If you don't mind starting a film at three in the morning, this was the best option in my opinion. A room full friends, no children, and outside food and beverages encouraged. Some managers even allowed smoking after hours. That's definitely my favorite way to experience film. You get the best of both worlds.
2
Most of the movies I enjoy are small character pieces emphasizing human elements, sans the chases, explosions and violence that fuel multiplex profits. Occasionally a film is such a visual miracle or a glorious portrayal of nature and place that it must be seen in a theater. Going to the movies is expensive and involves driving and parking. We reserve the experience for the second type. Most new movies that look interesting go in our Netflix queue.
2
We are now enjoying movies at the theaters since reserved and reclining seats have been introduced. They’re not cheap, but for some reason, they do cut down on the chatter. Still, there’s no substitute for the quiet and comfort of your own home.
1
I used to see 2-3 movies a week, new and old. Since the change to digital I only see a handful a year, mostly in Atlanta when I go back to visit. Here in Portland theaters either have projection systems that still present a grotty, digital-noise laden image or don't bother masking the screen for the image. If I'm going to look at black bars on the top or bottom, or the sides, I'd rather see it on a TV, where it will take me out of the film less. God forbid the motorized curtains that were always employed before should be kept up and used...I've talked to theater managers and it's often actual company policy to be lazy about bothering to provide the immersive escape a properly masked image provides.
1
The lack of ushers to maintain quiet and decorum, the price and selection of the food, the presence of commercials, the small screens, the extinction of the double feature and the sneak preview, booming sound bleeding in from the theater next door, the nickel and diming for 3D and Imax. Fix these, and I'll come to the movies more often. I promise.
30
Watching movies on a big movie screen is a treat.
On the other hand US movie theaters are awful.
Netflix was actually very disappointing. I could never find much which interested me.
3
Too many ill mannered people. Not to mention 18.2%, or 42 million adults in this country (not including adolescents), currently have a mental illness (SAMHSA data). By age 40, half of all people in this country have or have had a mental illness. Me and mine enjoy our movies at home.
1
I only go to a movie theater on Christmas when everything else is closed. It’s too loud and someone is always on their phone and I find the light distracting. I have a 60 inch screen and surround sound in my living room and a cat to keep me company. And cheap popcorn and candy.
3
The problem is that so many people grew up watching movies on their VCRs, DVDs and now streaming, that they act the same in the theater as they do on their couch: eating, talking, and generally unawares that they are in a public setting. The line has been muddied and there's no going back. No question that the sound and picture are superior in a movie theater, but if the trade-off is to be distracted by continuous munching, talking, and texting I'll stay home.
7
When prices come down, I can choose were to sit, do not have to deal with screaming children, chomping popcorn eaters, and texting teens, I might consider returning to a movie theater. Even the viewers at the local independent theaters have become more ill mannered, ruining the viewing experience. I agree that theater viewing for most films is preferable, but, at present, if it's a choice between watching in a theater or not watching, I will not watch. Let's be honest, chain theater owners goal is not the comfort or enjoyment of the patron, but the ability to gouge from each as much money as possible.
8
I have had a Netflix account since they started issuing films through the postal service. Since they have switched their emphasis to making/producing movies I now have to wait longer for titles in the DVD collection - which used to be the only way I could obtain the more esoteric titles I was looking for. They have few watchable titles on streaming. In my opinion they are a purveyor of some of the worst movies (mediocre at best) in the industry and should rightly be blacklisted from any prestigious film festival. It would be an outrage to have to schlep to a movie theater to see one of their abominations. Good for you Cannes!
4
The last few times I have been to the movies with my 15-year old son and his friends, it has been barely half full. With most of us now owning huge flat-screen TVs, and with Netflix, Prime and Hulu, etc providing a great range of original and mainstream movies and TV shows, to say nothing of specialty streaming services like Filmstruck, I can't help feeling the cinema is going the way of the shopping mall and the newspaper.
2
We gave up viewing movies in theatres several years ago because the volume was painfully loud. It was suggested that we wear ear plugs to solve the problem. It did not make sense to us to pay movie theatre prices and have to wear earplugs to enjoy the experience.
26
Haven't been to a movie theater in years. As an older person with bad hearing, I must have subtitles. No subtitles - no movies. Another benefit of watching at home is that I can put the film on hold for a minute or an hour or even a day. And if I want to I can watch it again, or I can watch part of it again.
So home it is.
16
For must-see films, I go to Sunshine Landmark, Angelika, IFC, and The Paris Theater. IFC is a particular favorite during awards season and it also has amazing themed programming, for example, Nordic Noir, that marathons films in a given genre.
Mostly, I watch other films at home. I invested in a big TV, a decent sound system, and a Blu-Ray player. Netflix and Amazon, and recently even HBO and Showtime have shortened the waiting time for mainstream movies before they acquire the license to broadcast them so I don't suffer the FOMO of stupid big budget summer films. The number of foreign films on Netflix is enough to justify the monthly subscription fee. The player is for my DVD.com subscription that is free via Netflix, whose waiting time for mainstream films is even shorter than the streaming version. It's also for all The Criterion Collection that could be borrowed via the New York Public Library. Yep, free films if you do this citizenship thingy by getting a library card.
While the cinematic experience is amazing for films singularly made for the silver screen (Dunkirk, The Hateful Eight, Blade Runner 2049, etc.) the comfort of my own couch is something to be reckoned with. No annoying texters, access to clean bathrooms, my choice of screening time. Plus, I can open a bottle of Rioja.
7
When I was single, I watched over a hundred films a year in theaters. The quality of film projection far surpassed videotape, of course. Even when DVDs came along it was obvious they couldn't match the rich depth of film.
But if you factor in having children; a top quality, very large plasma TV with a good sound system; the expense of modern movies; and most critically the Netflix disc service, there is no comparison in terms of value. I don't get to see movies when they are released, but in return I don't have to drive and park, wait in lines, risk sub-par projection, and be annoyed by other movie goers.
5
I was a serious film buff for many years, starting in college, where there were maybe a dozen film societies on campus and an inexpensive theater in the student union. Those were great experiences, not ruined by rude behavior. It is wonderful to see the Marx Brothers with an audience: the pacing allows for audience reaction and on TV, it’s not effective. I saw just about everything made by Keaton and Chaplin with an audience, without the often random-seeming musical accompaniment that plagues televised showings of these films. Again, a truly wonderful experience. When I moved to NYC in the mid 70s, there were lots of great foreign films being made and a fair number of small theaters willing to show them. The opening of “Aguirre, der Zorn Gottes” is spectacular in a theater, inevitably far less so when reduced to a small screen. Where are the reasonably priced Carnegie Hall Cinemas in NYC today?
The last two movies I saw in a movie theater are “Saving Private Ryan” and “Master and Commander”. I went to both during the afternoon to reduce the likelihood of encountering obnoxious behavior. I can’t imagine bothering to watch either on TV.
That said, I can’t imagine dealing with the theater experience anymore. It’s sad and a bit ironic that far too many people behave in theaters as if they were home in front of their TVs.
26
Of course it matters but, in any case, it shouldn't be an either/or proposition. Netflix and other streaming sites should- MUST!- allow for theatrical distribution of their movies for those who prefer watching them in that format. Personally, I don't have the time or the funds to see everything I want to see on the big screen, and so I make use of Netflix for rental purposes. Still, it's ridiculous to suggest that the preferable format is a home video system unless you've got your own private screening room.
1
Why MUST streaming sites show their movies in theaters? That is not their business plan any more than it is cable TVs business plan, and cable TV companies (HBO a prime example) make their own movies and don't show them in theaters either. These days, many of the best movies are not shown in theaters but on TV (or computers or phones if you are streaming). It is telling that most of the dicussion about seeing movies in theaters is about the big blockbusters. I haven't been to a chain movie theater in years because it is too loud and I am not interested in comic book series. I only go for special events (Allegiance on the big screen) and a few things that are at art houses. Some of the rude behavior has even penetrated to the art houses, though.
1
I definitely prefer to watch them at home. I can do it at my convenience, I dom't have the crowds and no on ill sit next to me and cough. Nothing would make me go back to seeing a movie at a cinema.
7
I only attend IMAX films at the theater. Audiences are rude, with constant cell phones going off, coughing and jockeying for seats. That's why I stopped going to movie theaters.
16
It was with a mixture of envy and sympathy that years ago, I read that Howard Hughes watched his movies alone in a private theater. I don't watch Netflix but I approach today's theater experience with a sense of huge foreboding. How can I buy in to the spell of a well told tale when I am surrounded by people gnawing on popcorn, grubbing around in the crackling liner of a Junior MInt box, leaning over to their partner to hiss...why is he going into that dark room when we all know there's a woman with a sharp knife waiting for him? A few weeks ago I went to a small local theater to see Deathe of Stalin. It was with a tremendous sense of glee that I saw I was the only one in the theater. I would finally have my Howard Hughes experience! Then just when the movie began a couple came in, both lugging their gallon troughs of popcorn and yes, of course, sat directly behind me in a theater with 200 available seats
25
I will never understand that bizarre physics experiment where people will come in and sit directly behind you when the whole theater is empty! Funniest time was when it happened to me and a friend once when we were there to watch Being There. Four people came in with grocery bags of peanuts in shells. When we moved laughing hysterically the people seemed completely confused.
11
That was probably me. I love having some heads in front of me. It's the theater experience.
1
I've actually given a lot of thought to that phenomenon of people sitting too close to the only other people in a nearly empty theater and this is what I've come up with to explain it.
When I walk into a theater I think "There's no one here. This is a good spot." Other people walk in and they think "Someone's sitting here. This must be a good spot."
1
Home viewing is preferable due to convenience, less expense and good selection of current run and older films. It helps having a 4K HD 75 inch Sony screen for viewing.
3
The economics are almost undeniable. As home theatre systems improve, character-driven dialogue-based movies are going to migrate to outlets like Netflix. People will still pay to see big-budget special effects filled movies in theaters, but a much smaller number will be willing to go to a theater to see a movie that will look and sound almost as good at home.
This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. There has been an explosion in quality TV fueled by outlets whose financial model isn’t driven by attracting 18-30 year olds. Film needs to embrace the new marketplace as an opportunity and move past the outdated notion that movies are superior to TV.
7
While I agree with Mr. Kenigsberg that the communal, theatrical experience is far preferable, the fact is exhibitors have raised the barrier to entry, while that of seeing films on personal screens, at home (or in one's pocket) has been dramatically lowered.
The exhibition industry has backed itself into a corner with the same hyper-financialization that has turned other industries from customer facing enterprises to hostages of Wall Street, favoring stock price over all else. As attendance falls with the ease, and increasing quality, of home viewing exhibitors, wait for it... raise prices!
By concentrating solely on the "enhanced" experience, 3D, IMAX, business class seats, essentially the luxury market, theater chains alienate generations of potential theatrical audience, young people with little cash, but a connection to virtually everything that's ever been filmed on a device in their hands.
Blaming Netflix, or other OTT video services, for the deterioration of theatrical attendance is misguided. Broadband content delivery and new generations of digital natives are simply a reality. The AMCs of the world, along with the studios concentrating more resources on loud, bloated, franchises geared toward filling multiplexes on weekend nights, need to adapt. That means finding innovative ways to actually reduce the cost of theatrical attendance. The current" too big to fail" approach is a movie we've seen before and we know exactly how that one ends.
4
With the "new" OLED screens home theater has entered the "better" than the movies age. Sound wise my old setup (12 years) is better than the movies (except IMAX). I'm waiting for OLED prices to drop. We still do go to the movies at our local ART cinema.
Where to watch is a secondary concern, as I am yet to find a Netflix produced movie which is watchable from start to finish.
2
Decades ago, I loved to go to the local movie theater. I appreciated the big screen immersion and the communal sharing of the movie experience. But I agree that the price of tickets and boorish behavior of other audience members has seriously hurt my movie going. But the final straw driving me to home viewing was my physical disabilities. Theaters, in general, do not make reasonable accommodations for the physically handicapped. They barely meet legal standards, but seats are in terrible areas -- too far forward or in the very rear of the theater. The other problem I have is that movie seats are rarely comfortable enough for me to watch a 2+ hour movie plus trailers and advertisements. Only one theater, in my experience, the AMC Marlton (New Jersey) had large, comfortable, reclining seats that made movie going possible. And those handicapped seats were reserved and in the center of the theater. I have only been to movie theaters 2 times since I moved to Georgia two years ago and both times I had to leave the theater before the movie was over. I now limit myself to home viewing on a large screen T.V. Movie theaters have to reform if they want anyone other than healthy tweens coming to their venues.
27
I mentally put films into two categories - visually big enough to earn a theater visit, or smaller more dialogue driven films that work fine at home. Having a decent screen and sound system at home makes this choice pretty easy most nights, and watching with a glass of wine and a remote with a pause button seems better and better the older I get. However, two things have changed this decision process for me recently. My son has become a film buff and insists on theatrical viewing, and one of our local theaters upgraded their screens and added reserved reclining lounge chair seating and options for real food and a full bar. Having a reserved seat and the ability to get a snack beyond popcorn and candy makes a lot of difference. So yes, we’re going out to the theater more often. But my bladder still misses my remote with the pause button.
24
Cineastes will favor the theater experience, and I suppose that they are right. But for most of us, it is not a close call. The theater experience requires a big investment for tickets. Transportation time adds maybe 30 minutes each way. If applicable, parking may be a challenge and expense. Babysitters too.
The combination of time and money, coupled with the occasional social friction encountered in the theater experience, leaves most of us nestled in the comfort of our couch or bed, starting the film of our choice at exactly when it is convenient, and pausing the viewing when the popcorn or toilet beckons.
16
I haven't been to a movie theater in some years for a number of reasons, in this order:
1. Guns
2. The smell of the popcorn
3. The talking by others
4. The inability to pause; the inability to go back for a missed bit of dialogue
5. The off-line viewing angles, the sound volume and the bad distribution of sound from off-line seats, which all generally detracts from the immersive experience.
60
I should add that my wonderful non-profit local theater has no commercials, no guns (we are in Massachusetts) and respectful, quiet fellow movie-goers. Also truly big screens in the two main theaters, and soft drinks that have cane sugar, not high-fructose corn syrup.
If you come to greater Boston, come to the Coolidge Corner Theater!
6
I can take my family of four to the theater and spend $70 with snacks or I can rent it on Amazon or watch it on Netflix for $10 or less. If you're not a cinephile, which would you choose?
53
A strong deterrent from seeing films in theaters is the current, unfortunate trend of elevating the sound volume to intolerable levels.
96
Yes the current digital sound systems have enormous dynamic range that permit loud parts without compression to be ear shattering for effect. Either you appreciate it, or you don't.
4
Agree very much. During the coming attractions, I must hold my fingers in my ears or go deaf. Why is this?
5
The theater may seem a more genuine, experiential way to watch a movie, but remember that movies had separated audiences from actors when the medium was developed. The medium itself, with all its illusions, is not necessarily genuine theater.
But in no way do I promote Netflix, which cuts movies so badly they are hardly worth watching. For example, in "The Truman Show," Truman never once tucks his pant leg into his sock though that was an intriguing part of the original.
2
I am happily watching last year’s best films at home for free - obtained through local CT library’s InterLibraryLoan system. When I am intrigued by a preview, I look for the title on on-line catalog.
38
I feel particularly qualified to have an opinion on this topic.
I see movies in a theater at least once a week, often several times in a week. And I watch Netflix at home on most nights when I do not go to a movie in a theater.
They are different experiences and I find both enjoyable. I go to movies with friends and afterwards we usually stop afterward for something to eat or drink. At home I watch Netflix on a 27" computer, I don't own a TV. It is a way to relax for a while, without consuming as much time as an entire evening out.
11
I have tried Netflix and Amazon and cannot find the Oscar nominated and Oscar winning foreign films. Any recommendations would be helpful.
2
Filmstruck is a great subscription service that features the Criterion Collection along with an eclectic selection of foreign and independent films.
3
Filmstruck / Criterion Channel are fantastic sources.
filmstruck.com
Enjoy!
What your discussion ignores is the reality that many people still enjoy watching films regardless of where they view them (especially today's youth), and more importantly, you dismiss the creative process required to produce such a film. Why should a film produced exclusively for home viewing (like a Netflix movie) be disqualified in a competition, when creatively it required a vision, a script, production (and production dollars) and the same artistic criteria that a film with a theatrical release requires?
42
It's like the difference between reading a play & seeing it performed. Sitting in a theatre, close enough so that you experience your self in relation to the image as if it were a work of architecture you were inhabiting, observing or conversing with strangers afterward, valuing the experience as part of a shared culture rather than a bit of private consumerism . . . they're not remotely comparable. I do sometimes watch old films at home, but I find I feel constantly distracted from the experience. I put it into the context of my other interactions with the screen, stopping the film to look up a bit of info, to check or answer emails or texts, etc. I also find that I forget much of what I watch at home rather quickly.
3
As there used to be no substitute for the sound surrounded big screen, there now is -- at home. Only theater popcorn remains; despite Orville and Act II claims.
I recently watched Le Girls, again. The technicolor and like formats -- enhanced today as never before, still give the colors such vibrancy, that you don't want to turn away for fear you'll miss something. As the vividness stops just short of being larger than life; not easy to forget. Factor in the convenience of pause ....