I’m not sure if they have it in all of their theaters, but AMC (who I swear I have no connection to) has two programs - free popcorn on Wednesdays, and “Pick 3”, an option to make your own mini-combo with an extra-small popcorn, an extra-small soda and several other options for $7.
So (In Kansas City at least) you can see a film, get your popcorn fix and bring in a bottle of soda for $5. And that is not even considering second-run houses and other specials various chains run. Kerasotas has their “Five Buck Club” where you can see any film that has been playing for longer than two weeks for $5. And the location we visit most often, Kerasotas City North 14 has “$6 Tuesdays” where you can see any film, including brand new ones for six dollars - including a free small popcorn. They don’t have as liberal a outside food policy as AMC, but have never asked to look in my backpack.
Nope, I think I can say that most of the complaints about the cost of the complete “moviegoing experience” are baseless and made by people who are looking for an excuse.
Moderator note: The whole point of Cafe Society is that we believe it is possible for different (intelligent) people to have differing opinions, and to discuss them WITHOUT name calling.
Further: if you find someone engaged in name-calling, please do NOT respond in kind; that makes you as culpable as the original name-caller. Instead, REPORT that post (little ! in red triangle in upper right corner of each post) and let the mods handle it.
In this case, I do apologize that the thread went on so long without the initial insult being seen by a mod, but that’s still no reason for the rest of you to be junior-modding or responding with similar insults.
Well, I hate movie theaters, that’s true. But why are you so devotedly associating the art form with the means of transmission?
Example: say I had a movie theater installed in my mansion, and was able to overcome many of the disadvantages of home viewing (screen size, full surroundsound, popcorn machine, pausing and rewinding, etc.)–would I then be fully restored in your eyes to a lover of movies?
Seems to me you’re mixing up (and badly) two entirely separate issues here.
Even if you had a movie theater size screen and 35mm film projection (as a friend of mine did in the 70s), the ability to pause and re-wind is more than enough on it’s own to pretty much destroy any chance of allowing the film to transport you, as opposed to controlling what the film does.
Because that is what happens during the very best cinema experiences - you get pulled in, transported to a world created by the filmmaker, feeling emotions they wish you to feel. If you can stop it, if you can ignore it, if you can…fold socks…there is little to no chance that will happen.
I once roomed with a guy who could be “transported” into a movie like that. Very few are the movies, even the ones I love, that I’m not 45 minutes to 1 hour into viewing that I’m not wishing for an intermission. I don’t like not having something to do for 2+ hours other than just sitting, watching. I get fidgety.
Paolo Cherchi Usai (one of the leading film preservationists in the world) once told a story about how he unearthed this long-lost silent comedy, which, after much effort, he finally watched on a flatbed in the film lab, only to think “What’s the big deal?” One of the least funniest comedies he’d ever seen.
But since it was a find worth celebrating, he eventually programmed it in a restoration film festival, and felt obliged to see it again, this time in front of a huge audience. And the film transformed into one of the funniest things he’d seen in a long time.
Being so steeped in film and film history, he was still taken aback by the very simple, almost primal, influence the right environment can have on a filmgoing experience. Alone in a lab on a flatbed vs. one of many in the dark in a theater was like Day and Night. A film he was tempted to relegate to historical artifact or curiosity became a living, breathing, vibrant work of art when given the opportunity to be seen in the manner it was meant to.
Well, you can do it that often for that price, but people who aren’t in your exact same situation can’t. AMC theaters and/or Costco aren’t everywhere, so a lot of aren’t able to get those sorts of price breaks.
If I want to see a movie anywhere but my living room, I have 2 options. I can drive up the mountain to the fairly crappy theater outside town, hunt for a parking place, probably have to hike up the hill, and pay $7.50 for about the same picture and sound quality I would have at home. Or I can drive 2 hours to Lexington and pay $8.75 for a chain theater. Neither option includes discount tickets from Costco because the closest one of those is clear up in Louisville. Neither option offers AM cinema programs, though going to a matinee will cut a buck or so off the price in Lexington. I think the chain theater offers lower prices some day through the work week, but a 4-hour round trip plus the time for the movie is only feasible on the weekend, not to mention the cost of gas, wear and tear on the car, etc.
The last movie we saw in the theater was Up! for what I think are fairly self-evident reasons.
I don’t see why people need to eat or drink anything most of the time anyways. I eat three times a day and can normally schedule a meal during a time I’m not in a theater. If you have low blood sugar or a medical issue, that’s one thing, but I’ve got friends who will eat dinner and then also load up on stuff once we get to the theater even though we just ate 15 minutes before. Those same friends also can barely make a 30 minute drive without a “Dew” or a Coke. It’s just the ticket price for me.
I’ve personally never had a problem. But then, I’m not a deep cinema fan. I prefer action and comedy. Usually, when rewinding becomes necessary, it’s because I and my friend are either howling with laughter or going “Holy shit! Did you see that? Play it back again, that was too awesome!”
But who, may I ask, are you to dictate what I may and may not do as I watch a film? If I bring a basketful of unmatched socks to a movie theater and mindlessly fold them as I watch in the dark (amid text-messaging flashes, chit-chat, uncorrected problems with the sound or picture, people getting to and from their seats, urges to void my bladder, and numerous other distractions) you’re arguing that I’m enjoying a movie the correct way, but if I choose to fold the same socks at home, and enjoy the movie in non-sequential fashion (but, I would argue, with unalloyed concentration, just in fits and starts) I am no longer a movie-lover but a movie-hater? Don’t you think you’re privileging a style of movie-going that works for you but doesn’t work for me?
No one is dictating anything. gaffa is describing a different experience and struggling to understand yours. And attempting to explain what he sees as the difference. See? No dictating.
But I agree that sorting socks, or whatever, is to limit the way in which you engage with a film. Imagine watching a silent film while multitasking. You’d miss most of the narrative. In other words, when multitasking you rely more on aural cues than visual ones. Most modern mainstream movies are made with that in mind: nothing is left unexplained. So you’re fine. Kind of like watching Everybody Loves Raymond while knitting: you don’t miss much.
But what about the first part of WALL-E? Knit through that and you miss pretty much the whole thing. The marriage montage in UP? No aural cues at all.
OBVIOUSLY that’s your choice. But you can’t pretend that you’re getting 100% of what the movie’s offering you.
I tend to miss 3-5% of the cinematic experience anyway, what with people walking between me and the screen, conversing, and of course the time I spend in the urinal. Or doesn’t that count as time I miss getting 100% of what the movie’s offering me?
Granted. But all the chains sell discount tickets via their web sites. AMC, Kerasotes, Regal - all are in quantities of 50, but if you’re in an area where the average ticket price is $11, it might be worth it to pool purchases with friends.
The same? I’m a guy with an HD projector and six foot tall speakers, and I don’t get the same picture quality as a 35mm projection in a theater.
My wife and I chose to live in Chicago for many reasons, and access to a wide variety of theaters was a contributing factor (a wide variety of live music venues was an even bigger one).
Obviously movies aren’t as important to you and some other folks as they are to my wife and myself. We both went out to the movies today - different theaters! She saw the most recent Pedro Almodovar, while I saw a Bollywood film. We like having these options.
Pixar films are on our “see first show, a midnight one if available” list.
But seriously, even in 2D, do you honestly believe that the experience of seeing Up! on your home screen matches the experience of seeing it in a theater? When I saw it, with my wife at our favorite theater, when Alpha first spoke, I literally laughed harder than I’ve ever laughed at nearly anything else in my life (the same film moved me to tears as well).
The only thing that topped Up! was seeing Spinal Tap at a sneak preview. And it was made ten times funnier because a good percentage of the crowd had no idea it was a comedy. Seriously! The local rock station, KY-102, had distributed the tickets, and the majority apparently though it was a genuine documentary about a hard rock band that they were pretty sure they had heard of before. The utter cluelessness of the people around me had me laughing so hard that I literally had to run up the aisle to the lobby to catch my breath and avoid passing out.
To turn the subject away from people arguing with other people over how they should see movies, I’d like to ask: in this case quoted above, Paolo Cherchi Usai saw a movie while alone and thought it was not at all funny. Then he saw it with others, and thought it was one of the funniest things he’s seen in a long time. I’ve had the same experience, only it was that the film I saw first in a crowded theater was a lot less funny the second time when there weren’t people surrounding me laughing. (This is why there are laugh tracks on TV.) In the case of Paoli Cherchi Usai’s viewing, which was the movie really? Funny or not? If it’s only funny when everyone else is laughing, but not when you’re alone, is the movie actually funny?
And you’re way too hung up on “pre-existing conditions being necessary to the movie experience.” Suppose for some reason that, instead of movie theaters being designed the way are, it had caught on in the 1920s to have movie-goers stand up in fur-lined coffins throughout the movie, you’d be arguing for that as the standard that I am thumbing my nose at. There’s nothing really enhancing about having people stand up and walk in front of you throughout the movie at will, is there? It doesn’t add to the experience in any way, does it? Yet it’s allowed, encouraged, to happen. It’s simply a tradition that has evolved and taken root, but not something anyone would inherently defend as essential to the experience, correct?
And there are lots of such absurd traditions that have been eliminated over the years. When I was a boy (1950s-1960s) no one ever even looked at a movie clock to see when the film began. We got to the theater, came in in the middle, and sat there until the part we’d seen before came around again. That was normal, I’d guess, for the majority of filmgoers, or at least a huge minority. Would you say that most people before this traditional way of viewing movies changed didn;t ever truly see a movie, or get the “movie experience” ? (which I suggest you’re defining very closely as “your own personal prejudices.”) I think no one, other than maybe the director, knows some films as thoroughly as I do, having seen them exclusively in my living room and classroom, dozens if not hundreds of times, rewinding, pausing, watching straight through from beginning to end, and yes, sometimes while folding socks. Suggesting that I haven’t had the same chance to absorb these films as someone who saw it once but IN A MOVIE THEATER is idiotic.