PDA

View Full Version : Why are there still movies?


TonySinclair
02-24-2014, 01:12 PM
On 60 Minutes last night, they said that Liam Neeson was being paid $50 million for Taken 3, and he didn't deny it.

I don't get it. The Taken movies were OK for light escapist fluff, but IMO far inferior to an above-average episode of a good TV drama like Homeland or Justified.

Same with comedies. I'm having trouble thinking of movies by SNL alums that were half as funny as their best work on SNL. Yeah, I liked Bill Murray in Stripes, but it wasn't as good as Il Returno de Hercules on SNL, which made me laugh so hard my sides hurt. Yet somebody like Adam Sandler gets $20 million for a 90 minute movie, while he probably got about 1% of that for a whole season of SNL. And those are actually funny people. How about the millions per movie made by Chevy Chase, let alone Pauly Shore?

A big name director who turns in an absolutely terrible 90 minute movie still gets paid more than a big name director of a great TV series will get for a season.

And of course, the TV shows are free, and the movies cost what, 15 bucks now? And the seats are uncomfortable, and if you have to use the bathroom you miss five minutes and there's no rewind, and half the time the picture is too dark or the sound is too loud or out of sync, and the people next to you are on the phone, and the people next to them shoot them for being on the phone.

How do they keep this scam going? In the days before TV, when movies were all we had, most of the stars got paid amazingly low salaries. Now that there's all kinds of free (and often better) competition, they get paid astronomical salaries.

How do they stay in business?

Boyo Jim
02-24-2014, 01:16 PM
When movies don't do well, they're a tax shelter. When they do do well, they make hundreds of millions of dollars.

What's the mystery?

Rodgers01
02-24-2014, 01:16 PM
Moviegoing is an event. You get out of the house, maybe you get dinner beforehand, you take a date, you feel like you're going somewhere. The lights lower, you know you're not going to be distracted or flip the channel or check your e-mail...I still enjoy the process of seeing the movies on the big screen.

Left Hand of Dorkness
02-24-2014, 01:28 PM
Moviegoing is an event. You get out of the house, maybe you get dinner beforehand, you take a date, you feel like you're going somewhere. The lights lower, you know you're not going to be distracted or flip the channel or check your e-mail...I still enjoy the process of seeing the movies on the big screen.This is totally true. My wife and I can watch a TV show any old day we want--but we go to the movies a couple of times a year, and it's a big honkin deal for us to go.

RealityChuck
02-24-2014, 01:28 PM
People pay to go see them. In addition, there is money to be made in streaming them and showing them on TV and Pay per view. A successful movie makes far more money more quickly (though a TV show can be very lucrative over time).

enalzi
02-24-2014, 01:28 PM
And of course, the TV shows are free, and the movies cost what, 15 bucks now?

Except they aren't free, unless they're on broadcast channels. And then you still have commercials every 8 minutes.

Hampshire
02-24-2014, 01:47 PM
While 60" screens are getting common at home these days the 60' ones are pretty hard to come by.

drewtwo99
02-24-2014, 01:49 PM
Because people like things you don't like. It's a crazy world, isn't it, OP?

jimbuff314
02-24-2014, 03:45 PM
OP - I cannot emphasize how strongly I empathize with every point you made in your OP. They are the reasons I do my best to avoid going out to movies. (Yes, I am aware of how ludicrously insignificant my not doing so is in the overall scheme of anything.) That said, your thread title is pretty much guaranteed to bring the piranha swarming. Just sayin' (predicting?)

Procrustus
02-24-2014, 03:51 PM
I don't go to movies that often, but I don't see why you would call it a "scam." Everyone knows the deal.

friedo
02-24-2014, 03:57 PM
They are the reasons I do my best to avoid going out to movies.

Why is it so difficult not to go somewhere?

drastic_quench
02-24-2014, 04:02 PM
People have been fretting and alternately proclaiming the death of the silver screen since the beginning. What keeps it going is the unmatched experience and immersion.

Amateur Barbarian
02-24-2014, 04:24 PM
While 60" screens are getting common at home these days the 60' ones are pretty hard to come by.
OTOH, if you're not there to see the latest roman-numeral tentpole, your home screen is likely bigger than the one you'll get in the far-end theater.

friedo
02-24-2014, 05:43 PM
Shows what you know. They never use Roman numerals any more.

Do Not Taunt
02-24-2014, 05:52 PM
Because people like things you don't like. It's a crazy world, isn't it, OP?OP opines that he sees no value in movies over serial TV shows and wonders why there's still a market for them. Several posters provide reasons. Interesting conversation happens. Can we drop the tiresome meme that any thread inquiring about why others see value in x is somehow invalid or can be simply answered with "people like things you don't like"?

Amateur Barbarian
02-24-2014, 06:18 PM
Shows what you know. They never use Roman numerals any more.
Well, I really don't care because I have an LXXX-inch TV. (It's a pretentious brand, so it's marketed as XXC.)

I must be thinking of Super Bowls and video games. :)


I really have an LIV-inch screen, but the joke was funnier as above.

Equipoise
02-24-2014, 06:23 PM
Yeah, but come on. Why are there still MOVIES? That's a ridiculous question. I don't watch TV. Why are there still TV shows? I don't go to or watch sports events. Why are there still sports? I don't listen to 99% of the music out there. Why does it all still keep getting made? If he can be a special snowflake, why can't I?

Because people like things you don't like. It's a crazy world, isn't it, OP?Yep. I LIKE movies. I LIKE seeing movies in the theater. That's my main reason. What's it to the OP?

marshmallow
02-24-2014, 06:25 PM
Movies make more money than TV because they have higher budgets, take less time to watch, have more bankable actors, and people across the whole world go to see them.

Taken budget: 25 million
Box office: 226 million

Taken 2 budget: 45 million
Box office: 376 million

So they spent 70 million and got back 600 million. Nice trick. Liam Neeson better get paid. You could watch all three Taken movies and barely scratch a Homeland season, so there's much less commitment. And way better spectacles than anything Homeland does, which usually involves fast walking, shouting, Carrie's googly eyes, and maybe every dozen episodes there's an explosion. I can't remember anything approaching the badassery of the "particular set of skills" phonecall either.

Now you can argue it's still better, and I'd probably agree, but it's like trying to argue McDonalds shouldn't exist because they have shit food and you can make a burger at home that blows them away. True, but kinda beside the point.

jrepka
02-24-2014, 06:50 PM
I kind of agree with OP -- Why are movies still there? Mostly inertia...

There are few movies anymore that are so grand in scope that they lose much in the translation to a mere 40"-60" screen. The available TV bandwidth is restricted to three channels any longer. Streaming opens things up even more, though streaming bandwidth will continue to be an issue, at least in America.

Theaters now make you sit through commercials (unless you arrive at the last minute and are willing to sit against the far right wall in the 2nd or 3rd row), though not during the movie (yet).

Once TV was a wasteland occupied by bad actors, mediocre writers and lowest common denominator producers. All of that still exists, but shorter season runs and 2nd tier networks willing to experiment have given us Mad Men, Louis, Breaking Bad, The Americans, and The Shield, not to mention the brilliance that premium channels offer (The Wire, The Sopranos, Rome, Deadwood, Game of Thrones, and True Detective, to name but a few).

Shows like these have the same advantage over movies that movies once had over television -- They can take their time to develop characters and tell a story. And movie actors who once disdained television the way stage actors disdain movies are now willing to do series television.

Simplicio
02-24-2014, 06:56 PM
OP opines that he sees no value in movies over serial TV shows and wonders why there's still a market for them. Several posters provide reasons. Interesting conversation happens. Can we drop the tiresome meme that any thread inquiring about why others see value in x is somehow invalid or can be simply answered with "people like things you don't like"?

It's doubly annoying in this case since its a strawman. The OP isn't saying he dislikes movies, he's saying TV shows are more enjoyable, but that movies manage to make much more money despite that.

I think it's an interesting question. For the price of two tickets to a two hour movie I can get twelve hours of season of one of Rome. Or two months of a Netflix account, which has both more good TV series and movies then I have hours in a day to watch them.

GuanoLad
02-24-2014, 07:09 PM
It's a very carefully managed racket that still seems to be working. But there are rumblings, so it may not do so forever.

Nothing wrong with movies, they should continue forever and ever. It's the absurd economics that keeps Hollywood* circulating that needs to be stripped out and rebooted.

*Only Hollywood. All other countries struggle to find money to make their films

silenus
02-24-2014, 07:11 PM
OP opines that he sees no value in movies over serial TV shows and wonders why there's still a market for them. Several posters provide reasons. Interesting conversation happens. Can we drop the tiresome meme that any thread inquiring about why others see value in x is somehow invalid or can be simply answered with "people like things you don't like"?

Just because you think the truth is tiresome doesn't make it any less true.

Little Nemo
02-24-2014, 07:17 PM
As others have said, movies continue to get made because they generally make a profit. When movies stop making a profit, people will stop making them.

jimbuff314
02-24-2014, 07:36 PM
Why is it so difficult not to go somewhere?

My SO occasionally likes to go see a movie. I STFU and enjoy the film.
(Ha! Bet you didn't think I'd have an answer, did you?)

Do Not Taunt
02-24-2014, 07:38 PM
Yeah, but come on. Why are there still MOVIES? That's a ridiculous question. I don't watch TV. Why are there still TV shows? I don't go to or watch sports events. Why are there still sports? I don't listen to 99% of the music out there. Why does it all still keep getting made? If he can be a special snowflake, why can't I?Is this directed to me? Be a special snowflake all you want. If you want to start a thread saying, "hey, I don't get why there are sports. Ballet has everything sports has but is better because of x, y, and z," go for it. If you can get people to participate, you may have a interesting conversation about the value people find in sports. You may learn something.

Yep. I LIKE movies. I LIKE seeing movies in the theater. That's my main reason. What's it to the OP?You're welcome to. No one's stopping you. If you have much to add about why, you could even have an interesting discussion about it. Here. In this thread.

Just because you think the truth is tiresome doesn't make it any less true.Just because you think something is the truth don't make it so.

msmith537
02-24-2014, 07:43 PM
People like them?

Granted, there are series like Game of Thrones or Black Sails that have near movie quality production values. But people don't always want to or have time to get engrossed in 10 to 22 episodes of an entire season.

TonySinclair
02-24-2014, 07:52 PM
It's doubly annoying in this case since its a strawman. The OP isn't saying he dislikes movies, he's saying TV shows are more enjoyable, but that movies manage to make much more money despite that.

Thank you for that. Also, I didn't say there should be no movies, and I didn't tell anyone not to go to them, or that they are stupid if they do. I just ASKED for an explanation of why the IMO better product gets paid so much less. It just doesn't seem like an economically viable situation.

Beats me why I'm getting so much hostility. And I do thank the many who have answered my question with some thought.

Jim's Son
02-24-2014, 07:55 PM
Aren't there still a whole lot of people who can't afford or won't get cable or buy a dvd player out of technical inertia but will once or twice a year go to a theater?

Simplicio
02-24-2014, 08:10 PM
I think cultural inertia, and the fact that movies fill a certain social "niche", has a lot to do with it. "Dinner and a movie" is the proto-typical first date for a reason, after all.

Movies are useful since they're a sort of social activity, but they don't actually require a lot of socializing with the person you're with. Similarly, if you want to get out of the house, but there's bad weather or you just don't feel up to doing anything particularly energetic, movies are a pretty good default activity.

So they serve a purpose beyond just their pure (entertainment value)/dollar. As such, people are willing to shell out 12 bucks a pop, even though they could get probably watch something just as interesting at home for much less money.

And of course, for movies that are big special-effect filled blockbusters, the big screen and large production values do add a lot. But its pretty hard to argue that watching Lliam Neeson growel at the camera, or Adam Sandler make jokes about bodily functions is any more compelling when they're on a big screen.

Equipoise
02-24-2014, 11:51 PM
Is this directed to me? Be a special snowflake all you want. If you want to start a thread saying, "hey, I don't get why there are sports. Ballet has everything sports has but is better because of x, y, and z," go for it. If you can get people to participate, you may have a interesting conversation about the value people find in sports. You may learn something.
Why would I make threads like that? I already know people find sports and TV and ballet and whatnot enjoyable and find value in spending their time with such interests. And that's perfectly fine. I don't start threads about things I'm not into just to bash those things. If I wanted to learn more details about why someone likes something I'd use the Subject Line "Why do you like ____?" which would be a better way to start a conversation about the merits of whateveritis than asking why whateveritis still exists.

If you have much to add about why, you could even have an interesting discussion about it. Here. In this thread.Talking about movies I like and why I like movies in a thread that's already predisposed to movie/theater bashing? No. I saw 302 movies in the theater in 2013, (which is actually down from the previous 3 years). I enjoyed the majority of them on one level or another because I don't go see movies I don't think I'll like. I just made my schedule for the month-long European Union Film Festival where I'll be seeing 63 of the 64 films. I expect to like or at least find some value in most of them because of the story, the directing, the acting, the setting. The OP would not find any of that the least bit interesting. I saw a fantastic documentary today called Tim's Vermeer (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3089388/reference) about an inventor who discovered how Vermeer most likely got his paintings to look they way they did using technology of the time (mirrors!). The OP would not find discussion about that the least bit interesting. Why bother?

Martini Enfield
02-25-2014, 12:09 AM
It's worth bearing in mind that outside the US (and possibly Canada), most people don't have Pay TV.

I'm assuming the OP is referring exclusively to Hollywood films, because the question is going to have different answers in different places - vast numbers of people in India don't have televisions, so a trip to the movies is a major source of entertainment (and, I'm told, one of the reasons Bollywood produces so many "masala" films with a mixture of elements in them - there has to be something for almost literally everyone in there).

For me, going to the movies is an event - it requires some planning and there's a (often mild) sense of occasion. Lots of people feel the same way, which is why there's still a film industry and probably will be for as long as human civilisation is presenting stories in an audio-visual medium.

Alessan
02-25-2014, 12:33 AM
Why does rock exist when we have hip-hop? Why does sculpture exist when we have painting? Movies and TV shows are different art forms, with different merits. Sometimes I want to see a long, episodic story unfolding across 22 hours, and sometimes I want to see something more self-contained. Both are perfectly legitimate options.

Rodgers01
02-25-2014, 02:45 AM
And of course, for movies that are big special-effect filled blockbusters, the big screen and large production values do add a lot. But its pretty hard to argue that watching Lliam Neeson growel at the camera, or Adam Sandler make jokes about bodily functions is any more compelling when they're on a big screen.

The big screen by itself may not make a Liam Neeson or Adam Sandler movie more compelling, but watching one of their movies on a big screen with a large, appreciative audience certainly does. Lots of movies work best as communal events. Comedies seem funnier when a whole theater erupts in laughter; tragedies seem sadder when someone starts to cry. One of my best moviegoing experiences was seeing "The Hangover" in a packed theater in Times Square. It was hilarious. If I saw that movie sitting at home alone late one night I probably would have chuckled, may even have laughed out loud, but it would not have been remotely the same experience.

Granted, you can sometimes get the same effect at home if you have a big screen and you throw a movie night and a bunch of friends come over and you have enough seats that everyone can watch comfortably. That can be great. But that also takes planning, and it's prone to interruptions that ruin the effect - "Pause it for a few minutes while I go to the bathroom," "Let's put something else in, this is boring," "The pizza's here, let's watch the rest later," etc.

j666
02-25-2014, 05:40 AM
On 60 Minutes last night, they said that Liam Neeson was being paid $50 million for Taken 3, and he didn't deny it.

I don't get it. The Taken movies were OK for light escapist fluff, but IMO far inferior to an above-average episode of a good TV drama like Homeland or Justified.

Same with comedies. ...
Look at what you are comparing - big visuals with works requiring more subtlety - timing and tone and expression and dialog. Big and small screens are diverging - one is all visual and flash and color and splendor and the other more subtle.

Why should people get paid so much more for the product you do not prefer? I may be mistaken, by I think foreign releases - explosions, car chases, and other visual extravagances don't require translation.

DrFidelius
02-25-2014, 07:00 AM
I do not own a big screen TV. I do not own a HDTV or a Blu-Ray player. I subscribe to basic cable. Television is not important to me and I cannot see myself investing the time needed to appreciate the more involved TV shows. I am an entertainment industry Luddite. I am not alone.

I can go to a movie with my Wife a couple of times a month, if there is anything that catches our interest.

Sam Lowry
02-25-2014, 09:08 AM
Why does rock exist when we have hip-hop? Why does sculpture exist when we have painting? Movies and TV shows are different art forms, with different merits. Sometimes I want to see a long, episodic story unfolding across 22 hours, and sometimes I want to see something more self-contained. Both are perfectly legitimate options.

Right, TV and movies are similar have major differences. Sometimes you want to make the time commitment to something, sometimes you just want to have one evening's entertainment. I've never seen Deadwood, but I bought the DVD box set last year, but I've never gotten around to watching it, since it's many hours of show. If it was just a 2 hour movie, I'd probably have watched it by now.

Look at what you are comparing - big visuals with works requiring more subtlety - timing and tone and expression and dialog. Big and small screens are diverging - one is all visual and flash and color and splendor and the other more subtle.

Why should people get paid so much more for the product you do not prefer? I may be mistaken, by I think foreign releases - explosions, car chases, and other visual extravagances don't require translation.

Right, the big action movies are successful everywhere. The prestige TV dramas might travel as well, but not nearly as big of an audience everywhere, and definitely not making as much money.

Speaking of audiences though, look at the audiences for Taken compared to Homeland and Justified. Taken made $145 million in the US, Taken 2 made $139 million in the US. Dividing by the average ticket costs per year ($7.50 in 2009, $7.96 in 2012) that means that around 19 million people in the US went to see Taken, and around 17 million people went to Taken 2. While Homeland had 2.4 million viewers for its third season finale, and Justified had 3.82 million people for its "live +7" viewers for its fourth season finale.

There is a lot of very high quality entertainment on TV these days. But it's still niche entertainment, seen by a fairly small percentage of the population. It just seems like they have bigger audiences, since the audience that does watch Homeland and Justified and the other prestige dramas are the same people that are online and talking about the shows and writing articles about them.

Charlie Wayne
02-25-2014, 09:11 AM
This is totally true. My wife and I can watch a TV show any old day we want--but we go to the movies a couple of times a year, and it's a big honkin deal for us to go.

A big honkin deal ... Hmmm ....

Charlie Wayne
02-25-2014, 09:17 AM
There are so many other reasons to avoid going to movies.

. The sound level is almost always way too loud or way too low and you have no control over the sound level.

. There are almost always some inconsiderate jerks who disrupt the experience by talking, snorting, smoking, getting up and sitting down several times during the show.

. There are many, many commercials forced on you. One of the big complaints about TV used to be all the commercials and movies were said to be so much better because they are commercial free. Well, who knew?

. Extra costs like parking, baby sitting, food sold by the theatre. Just try to bring your own food into a movie. The ushers react with horror as if there is something wrong with anyone who doesn't want their awful popcorn and soda.

There are many other reasons. But I just hate going to the movies so much that I can't force myself to list them all.

Hampshire
02-25-2014, 09:22 AM
Even though network TV and the pay cable stations are getting better and better with the quality of their programming they're still very restricted by their budgets and simply can't do some of the things movies can do with their enormous budgets.
As much as I love Game of Thrones they're still very restricted as to what they can show and have to work the stroy around it. They simply don't have the budget to put massive battles on screen so we are often limited to more intimate off the battlefield stuff. Where something like the LOTR movies or Braveheart can afford to create epic set pieces.
Great storytelling and characters are great and the networks are embracing that. But sometime you want a little spectale to go along with it.

Lucas Jackson
02-25-2014, 09:44 AM
I kind of agree with OP -- Why are movies still there? Mostly inertia...
I think cultural inertia, and the fact that movies fill a certain social "niche", has a lot to do with it.
Inertia has nothing to do with it. People like them and film producers can make tons of cash producing them. You need to rid yourself of this notion that producers of movies like taken are trying to produce art. It's a business and a darn good one:

Taken budget: 25 million
Box office: 226 million

Taken 2 budget: 45 million
Box office: 376 million

As long as profits are potentially that high, movies will continue.

Rodgers01
02-25-2014, 10:37 AM
You need to rid yourself of this notion that producers of movies like taken are trying to produce art. It's a business and a darn good one:

Many are trying to do both, if your definition of art can include simple fun and entertainment.

Kimballkid
02-25-2014, 11:27 AM
Well, I really don't care because I have an LXXX-inch TV. (It's a pretentious brand, so it's marketed as XXC.)

Fie on your pretentious brand! Mine's a XXXVVIIV-inch and the brand is so pretentious it doesn't have a name.

Actually it's a Sony.

Steve MB
02-25-2014, 11:47 AM
While 60" screens are getting common at home these days the 60' ones are pretty hard to come by.

You should have made Frank an offer for his old one before he traded up to the 2000" model (http://weirdal.wikia.com/wiki/Lyrics:Frank's_2000%22_TV).

Voyager
02-25-2014, 12:28 PM
Top of the line movies don't have the deadline and budget pressures TV shows have. You can take a lot longer to shoot a page of script in a movie, which means more control over the location, more rehearsal and more takes. While limited series can have character development, episodic television has to keep things static for fear of changing the chemistry. If ST:TNG had been inherently a movie Riker would have had his own command ages ago.
I'm not knocking TV, but there are plenty of good reasons for people to pay to go to the movies in terms of quality.

PSXer
02-25-2014, 12:47 PM
Going to the cinema is the only way I watch movies (and even that is rare) because I don't even own a TV

Dewey Finn
02-25-2014, 01:37 PM
You don't own a TV? Then how do you watch your vast laserdisc collection (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12653319#post12653319)?

PSXer
02-25-2014, 01:53 PM
I had to leave it at my mom's house (she does have a TV)

ZipperJJ
02-25-2014, 03:33 PM
There are many other reasons. But I just hate going to the movies so much that I can't force myself to list them all.

Do you ever end up watching movies rented from the library, from Netflix or Amazon, or when they are on TV? If so then you're still part of the reason why movies are made. Even if you can't bear to go to a theater, if you (or your library) are willing to give up a few pennies to the movie and are part of the reason why movies keep being made.

Whether or not people like going to theaters is not really the be-all-end-all argument for why movies are still being made. Movie revenue doesn't end at the ticket booth.

TonySinclair
02-25-2014, 04:11 PM
I saw a fantastic documentary today called Tim's Vermeer about an inventor who discovered how Vermeer most likely got his paintings to look they way they did using technology of the time (mirrors!). The OP would not find discussion about that the least bit interesting. Why bother?

Well, you've certainly taught me a valuable lesson about how unappealing it is to be too judgemental. I apologize for the temerity of my OP.

By the way, Tim (of the movie) and Teller (of Penn and Teller) were on Charlie Rose (a TV show) recently, discussing the film, and I found it fascinating. When it comes out on DVD, I'll watch it, because then I'll be able to pause it as long as I want when something interesting is shown, and to back up and replay it when something I didn't quite fully appreciate the first time is said.

I'm so happy that you are setting all kinds of records for the numbers of movies you see, but your approach would never work for me. I'm just not smart enough to get everything in one take. I have to go over stuff a few times before I feel like I really understand it.

j666
02-25-2014, 05:34 PM
I'm just not smart enough to get everything in one take. I have to go over stuff a few times before I feel like I really understand it.
Gasp! I bet you read a book more than once, too, don't you?

drewtwo99
02-25-2014, 08:46 PM
OP opines that he sees no value in movies over serial TV shows and wonders why there's still a market for them. Several posters provide reasons. Interesting conversation happens. Can we drop the tiresome meme that any thread inquiring about why others see value in x is somehow invalid or can be simply answered with "people like things you don't like"?

Everyone's answer simply comes down to "I like movies" or "people like movies." Trivial questions demand trivial answers.

Askance
02-25-2014, 09:22 PM
Why are there still movies?
Beats me. Why are there moving pictures?

BrokenBriton
02-26-2014, 01:32 AM
I guess the big clue is in the multiplex demographic. I certainly don't feel films are aimed at me, but if I were 18-30 then, yeah, loads of explosions andd car chases for me, and throw in some romance for the girlfriend.

It obv. still works.

Do Not Taunt
02-26-2014, 09:15 PM
Everyone's answer simply comes down to "I like movies" or "people like movies." Trivial questions demand trivial answers.I'm baffled how you found my post to respond to, since it doesn't look like you've read this thread. Multiple posters have called out reasons that they - or others they know - like the movie experience or feel it offers something that TV serials do that goes beyond "I like movies" or "people like movies."

Roadfood
02-27-2014, 04:17 AM
Moviegoing is an event. You get out of the house, maybe you get dinner beforehand, you take a date, you feel like you're going somewhere. The lights lower, you know you're not going to be distracted or flip the channel or check your e-mail...I still enjoy the process of seeing the movies on the big screen.It used to be, years ago, that I could go to a movie theater and there were few to no distractions and I could enjoy the immersive experience. But in recent years it has been the rare exception when there hasn't been near constant chatter from other movie-goers around me. Far fewer distractions at home. That's why I've given up going to movies in the theater.

That's why I share the OP's puzzlement. Am I just particularly cursed? Particularly sensitive? Has the culture just changed so that no one expects quiet in movie theaters anymore? Do people just not care? Have most people become so social that other people talking during a movie is just part of the expected experience? I don't get it.

Alessan
02-27-2014, 04:21 AM
Have you started going to different theaters? Because personally, there are several movie theaters here I prefer, and several I have sworn to avoid, solely based on the quality of its typical patrons.

Ellis Dee
02-27-2014, 12:46 PM
What a silly question. Because they make money. Duh.

LarkingPot
02-27-2014, 02:32 PM
In the days before TV, when movies were all we had, most of the stars got paid amazingly low salaries. Now that there's all kinds of free (and often better) competition, they get paid astronomical salaries.

How do they stay in business?

That first sentence quoted is a lie. This board is supposedly dedicated to fighting ignorance, yet here you are trying to spread it.

Contrary to your lie film actors and actresses in Hollywood have always been paid amazingly HIGH amounts of money. Charlie Chaplin, aside from the likes of Rockefeller and Henry Ford was the highest paid person in the United States during the height of his career. Who exactly do you think lived in all of those Hollywood and Beverly Hills mansions in the 1920's and 1930's homeless bums?

j666
02-27-2014, 06:58 PM
That first sentence quoted is a lie. This board is supposedly dedicated to fighting ignorance, yet here you are trying to spread it.

Contrary to your lie film actors and actresses in Hollywood have always been paid amazingly HIGH amounts of money. Charlie Chaplin, aside from the likes of Rockefeller and Henry Ford was the highest paid person in the United States during the height of his career.
Charlie Chaplin was not "most' actors; he was one of the most successful, and, I believe, owned a production company with his wife and other successful actors. (I'm sure there are others better informed that I on that issue.) I don't think we can use Chaplin as a measure of the salary of most of the stars.



Isn't "lie" a little strong for this board?

ISiddiqui
02-27-2014, 10:48 PM
It used to be, years ago, that I could go to a movie theater and there were few to no distractions and I could enjoy the immersive experience. But in recent years it has been the rare exception when there hasn't been near constant chatter from other movie-goers around me. Far fewer distractions at home. That's why I've given up going to movies in the theater.

That's why I share the OP's puzzlement. Am I just particularly cursed? Particularly sensitive? Has the culture just changed so that no one expects quiet in movie theaters anymore? Do people just not care? Have most people become so social that other people talking during a movie is just part of the expected experience? I don't get it.

Have you started going to different theaters? Because personally, there are several movie theaters here I prefer, and several I have sworn to avoid, solely based on the quality of its typical patrons.

Agreed with Alessan on maybe you should try to go to different theaters. I rarely have the issue with people being disruptive. Constant chatter is something I couldn't stand.

Personally I love the massive screen and great soundsystem. The big screen experience is something I gladly will pay for. I saw "Gravity" in IMAX 3D and it was an utterly amazing cinematic experience that I can never get on TV.

Also, when I watch a movie at home, my girlfriend wants to freaking pause the movie 3-4 times to get a snack or go to the bathroom interrupting the flow of the film - that doesn't happen at the theater.

TonySinclair
02-28-2014, 01:59 AM
That first sentence quoted is a lie. This board is supposedly dedicated to fighting ignorance, yet here you are trying to spread it.

Contrary to your lie film actors and actresses in Hollywood have always been paid amazingly HIGH amounts of money. Charlie Chaplin, aside from the likes of Rockefeller and Henry Ford was the highest paid person in the United States during the height of his career. Who exactly do you think lived in all of those Hollywood and Beverly Hills mansions in the 1920's and 1930's homeless bums?

Christ, of course I meant amazingly low compared to a movie star today, not compared to a Depression-era ditch digger.

For example, Bogart was paid around $36K for Casablanca. Jimmy Stewart was paid about $20K for The Philadelphia Story. John Wayne made $3700 for Stagecoach. True, they weren't at their peaks then, but they were leading men in starring roles in major studio films.

And true, $36K would buy a very nice house in 1942. But it's still only about half a million in today's dollars.

Even the biggest star ever, in the biggest movie ever, Clark Gable in GWTW, was paid only $120K. Sure, that would be worth maybe $2 million today, but he was Clark Fucking Gable. Meanwhile, Liam Neeson gets $50 million for Taken 3. Comparing Taken to GWTW, and Neeson to Gable, I consider Gable's salary amazingly low.

And if you think I'm cherry picking with Neeson's one big score, then fine, take Adam Sandler. According to IMDB (where all of the salary info in this post is from), he got $20 million or more for at least 7 different movies, all forgettable fluff, and their list (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001191/bio#salary) is missing some of his movies, so it's probably more than that.

Adam Sandler's AVERAGE salary for seven crappy movies is over ten times as much as Gable got for GWTW, in today's dollars. That's just wrong.

But I wasn't even thinking of household names, I was thinking of stars who were on contract before they got top billing, and were paid just a few hundred a week. There were many more of them than leading men like Bogart, and there were many more leading men like Bogart than there were HUGE stars like Clark Gable.

By the way, you could not have picked a worse counterexample than Chaplin. Yes, he made tons of money at his peak, but he was not a salaried actor then. He typically, wrote, directed, and produced his films, so he got way more than a simple actor would --- although he was probably one of the two or three highest paid actors even before that.

But thanks for not spreading ignorance.

TonySinclair
02-28-2014, 02:09 AM
Also, when I watch a movie at home, my girlfriend wants to freaking pause the movie 3-4 times to get a snack or go to the bathroom interrupting the flow of the film - that doesn't happen at the theater.

Well, there you go. You just listed all the advantages of not going to movies. I have no problems with the "flow" of a paused movie, but I have all kinds of problems with the flow of a movie where I've missed some dialog.

And it doesn't have to be rude people who are talking or rustling bags of chips or whatever. If a comedy is actually funny, you almost always miss stuff when the audience is laughing out loud.

And to everyone who considers my OP an attack, you can assume that every sentence in every post of mine contains an implicit "in my opinion."

shijinn
02-28-2014, 05:43 AM
comparing it to ancient movies aren't very helpful. if you want, you could perhaps compare an actor's salary as a percentage of a tv or movie's budget and profit. you could also factor in the time commitment. how much is an actor earning per hour for tv vs movies?

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.