Go over town to the first-run chain theater – $25 for tickets & snacks, but excellent sound and picture.
Wait 1-3 months, and go to the local small theater – $15 for tickets & snacks, good sound and picture, + colorful folk and events. Last week the projectionist had to be woken up after reel 1.
Wait 6-12 months for the DVD – rent for $3, excellent sound and picture, DVD extras, comfort of home.
Some films I see all three ways. Very few get option 1, and my reasons for going the expensive route are the same as the OP. I see most films at my local small theater. It shows independent and art films Tuesday, Wednesday & Thursday, and major releases on the weekends. Films I otherwise wouldn’t even likely find on the local video store shelves show at the theater – before going to DVD.
I buy a lot of DVD’s, the ones I rent are generally movies I somehow missed in the theaters, or am just curious about.
In addition to the cost of the sound system, the screen, and the projector, there is also the cost of the room itself. This is difficult to put an exact price on, but I think it’s safe to say that many people do not have an extra room in their house that can be turned into a home theatre.
I have no real criteria and just go to the movies when bored or I have nothing better to do. It helps that it’s only $8 for me since I don’t buy any snacks and generally go on weeknights when most people are at home though.
There are three categories of movies I see in the theater:
“Spectacle” movies. The Lord of the Rings movies fit in that category, as does stuff like The Incredibles and Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow and Spider-man 2. The theater definitely does make a difference. It’s not just the bigger screen and better sound system, but the whole experience of being there when the lights go down, watching the trailers, etc. I’m still meaning to see House of Flying Daggers and I hope it hasn’t already left the theaters around here.
When I can’t wait for the DVD. The Life Aquatic fit into that category. That was my most anticipated film of last year; I’d been looking forward to it ever since I first heard Wes Anderson was making a new movie.
Stupid movies. This is the bulk of it. My frineds and I have this masochistic ritual where we only get together when we’re watching a really dumb movie. Either intentionally dumb (like Dodgeball, one of my favorite movies of last year), semi-intentionally (like Van Helsing, which I actually didn’t mind so much), or unintentionally (like The Grudge and Resident Evil: Apocalypse).
So lowered expectations + getting to see people you hardly ever see otherwise = satisfying theater-going experience.
Also, seeing a movie in the theater is the only guarantee that I’ll actually see the movie. I’m at the point where I’ve got more disposable income than time, and keep buying or renting these damn DVDs and never have time to actually watch them.
Going out to the movies with the missus can easily run $100. (Babysitter, movie tickets, and heck we’re going to be out anyway so we might as well grab something to eat).
This is exactly why I bought my current “home theater” setup. Now they can all wait for DVD.
Most comedies, if they’re good, work just as well at home.
Movies that are well shot with beautiful scenery or tone work better on big screen, at least once (LotR, for example).
Some action type movies work better in a theater.
Corollaries:
I’m cheap so most films get borrowed from the library. If I’m in a hurry I’ll rent.
I have a group of guy friends. We get together about once a month (or less) and will often go see some film that is “guy-friendly”. The more explosions the better with this group, although that’s not my big thing, I go with the flow.
Johnson once remarked that a certain thing was “Worth seeing? Yes, but not worth going to see”.
In a similar frame of mind, I designate certain movies as “worth going to see”, others as “worth seeing on video”, and still others as 'worth seeing on broadcast". A movie that isn’t even worth seeing on broadcast is pretty bad indeed…
I always assume that if I don’t catch it in the theater, I will never get around to seeing the film (I’d say that 80% of the time, this is true), so this provides constant incentive to catch as many movies on the big screen as I can. Every once in a while I’ll put something off long enough that I miss it (rare) or something’s out for too short a period of time (more common), so when I notice that they’re out on DVD, I might work my way to renting it.
On average, I see 2-3 movies in the theatre a week (but this includes revival and rep houses, not just new releases), but probably don’t rent more than 2 videos/DVDs each month.
In my last house I didn’t have an extra room, so I just projected the image on a white wall, with the projector set up on the coffee table. It worked great.
The one requirement you need is light control. Unless you want to watch all your movies at night, you need to be able to darken the room pretty well. But if you can do that, seriously consider a front projector the next time you upgrade your TV. The difference between a projector and a big-screen TV is the difference between watching TV and going to the movies. And it’s surprisingly cheap. You can find used projectors for less than $500.
I’m in NZ, actually: full price tickets here are $15 bucks, which given the current exchange rate seems to be about on a par with the US - like I posted earlier, and others have added, if you have a kid to stash somewhere, you’ll be lucky to walk away with change from $70 - if you’re planning on dinner somewhere half-way decent and a movie, make that $120 for a night out. When you figure that you can buy three new-release DVD’s to enjoy in the comfort and safety of your own home for that price and still have money left for a dozen beers - well, you do the maths.
I got my new projector for $1100, (1024x768 resolution) and the prices are falling like crazy.
I just project onto a white wall. I have a studio apartment, so there’s obviously no “extra” room for a theater. And I don’t have good light control at all. When I first got the projector, I had all these thoughts of buying thick drapes and all that, but, really, how often do you watch movies during the daytime. I ended up not bothering. It’s a nice incentive to go out and ride a bike when it’s light out, anyway.
Lamp life seems to have been much improved. Most projectors now will yield 2000-4000 hours before you need a new lamp. Yes, the replacements are expensive, but they work out to be in the area of ten cents per hour of use.
And yes, if I had a suitable place to put a screen, or had an actually flat wall to paint true white, I’d step up to a front projector, but I’m cursed with “knockdown finish” lumpy walls and spousal approval that only grudgingly accepts a 40" TV.
My projector is an older one (NEC LT-150, 1024 x 768 DLP) that has a 1000 hour lamp life. A replacement lamp is around $300, so it costs about 30 cents an hour to run. But I don’t leave it on all day like a television - I turn it on to watch a specific show or a movie, and turn it off afterwards. As a result, it gets used maybe 10-15 hours a week or so. At that rate, the lamp is good for close to 2 years. In fact, I’ve had this projector for almost five years, and it only has about 300 hours on the bulb. Mainly because I’ve had it put away for the last two years while I built the new theater.
The newer projectors are much better - 4000 hour lamp lifetimes are common, or 8 years at the rate I use mine. If you’re a real movie addict and watch movies four hours a night, the bulb will still last four years, and then it’s a couple of hundred bucks to replace it. Almost a negligible cost, considering the huge improvement you get over a big screen TV or a tube TV.
If you want to see what the picture quality looks like, here are some screen shots from a typical home projector.
And if you want to see how I built my theater, here’s a web page I put together showing how I built my theater. But you don’t need anything this elaborate - it was more of a hobby for me.
I like to see most movies I’m interested in while they are still in the theater, if time and my budget allow. Movies are just more exciting to see when they are new–I’m not sure why exactly. I guess by the time a film has finally rolled around to DVD six months or more later, I’ve sort of forgotten about them, the novelty has worn off, or I’ve turned my interest to other films. I’ll still be interested in a movie that’s just-released to DVD or older, but seldom really excited.
Besides just things I really want to see, I also tend to go out to see most things that have a lot of buzz and/or critical acclaim, even if I’m only otherwise moderately interested, just because I like being “in” on the whole movie scene, and I like to be able to talk about such films when they come up in conversation (or jump in on/read 'dope threads while they’re fresh!).
Basically, the more I want to see a film (for whatever reason), the more I try to see it in a theater. I may not get around to everything I want to see while it’s in theater, so I’m forced to Netflix some things. But typically I only decide ahead of time to wait for the DVD of a film if I really don’t think I’ll like it, but want to give it a chance because of good things people whose opinions I care about have said about it.
I don’t have many of the problems at theaters that others are reporting. I tend to go to matinees and often wait until a film has been out a week or two, (unless I REALLY want to see something), in order to avoid crowds. This really cuts back on cell phones and babies. I also happily go by myself, don’t need a babysitter, and never buy snacks, so my grand total is typically around the $5-6 dollar range (matinee price) plus a few cents of gas. No snacks/drinks also means I don’t need to go to the bathroom, so that’s not a problem.
I’m willing to go out to see even medium-crappy movies when there’s a lull in good ones, or occasionally put up high prices and crowds (esp. if I’m with other folks). I just love the big screen and the atmosphere and the whole “movie-going experience”.
And not that I post a lot or had a really recognizeable username anyway, but I meant to include my sig to let folks know I’ve changed my username, just to avoid any possible confusion. So here it is now (I hope).