Do you still go to the movies?

[Chuck(G)]

So, surprise, surprise, as Gomer Pyle would say, Hollywood's not doing too well:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051129/tc_nm/studios_dc

I haven't been to a movie theatre all year. There simply hasn't been anything to come out that's worth the trouble. Maybe if the good folks in Hollywoodland would see fit to pay someone to write a good script, thngs might change.

Or they can go bust doing remakes of remakes.

How about a remake of "Plan 9 From Outer Space" starring Harrison Ford and Sean Connery?

[Charlie Goodman]

I voted 1-10, but I don't really think that should be the absolute lowest besides none at all. Now that I think about it, I voted too low. At any rate, if you see ten movies in a year, that's a little less than once every five weeks. I'd say that's about as often as a good movie comes out. So, if you see movies, but don't just go for the sake of it, ten seems like a pretty normal number.

[Mark]

Even if Hollywood produced something that I wanted to see, I wouldn't put up with the sticky floors and inconsiderate moviegoers.

One word: NetFlix.

[Dan Satterwhite]

What sends me into a rage more than anything are the horribly irresponsible parents. I recently went to see Saw II (don't ask...) and sitting two rows in front of me was what I assumed to be a young mother and a child of around 10. Or, hopefully, he was a midget. Otherwise, he must be having nightmares right now, and may very well grow up to be a serial killer.

How about an R rating that says under 17 not admitted...period. Many parents can't be trusted to make the decision.

[MartyNeilan]

The last movie I saw in the theater was Spiderman 2 - a day before my daughter was born. My son had just started getting old enough that we could take him (and WITHOUT ruining the movie for everyone else in the theater) but now I will have to wait another couple of years until my daughter is 4-5.
In all honesty, even if I could find or afford a decent babysitter, there is very little that is worth paying $$$ to see. I have basic cable at home and I hardly watch that. The Internet is more than enough entertainment / diversion / education for me.

[Doug@GT]

I saw "Good Night and Good Luck" recently, and enjoyed it. "The Corpse Bride" was worth the (student) price. I definitely enjoyed "Wallace and Gromit."

So, yeah, there have been a few good movies out this year.

Doug "sees maybe 5-6 a year, if that"

[Kevin Hendrick]

How about an R rating that says under 17 not admitted...period.

They already have that -- it's called NC-17 ...

[Uncle Buck]

. . .

[Dean]

When a "must-see" film comes out, my wife and I will go to the movies, yes.


Otherwise, we watch at home. We spent a decent amount of $$$ on a home theater setup, and we like to use it

The problem is, I havent been excited about a film since the last Lord of the Rings film. I wasnt excited about Batman Begins, yet it turned out to be a great movie, which I did go back to see a 2nd time. Since then, though, I have had no desire to go to the theater.

For 98% of movies, I'd just as soon wait for it to come to HBO, or perhaps rent it.

[Joe Baker]

I LOVE movies, and I watch a lot of them. But I hardly ever go to the movies. I usually let the movies come to ME!





I've gone to movie theaters twice this year, both times because I was invited, not because I really wanted to go.

For those of us who are past adolescence, movie-watching is better in every way at home. Not only can I sit in my own place, with my own clean, comfortable furniture, and refreshments bought at a reasonable price, but I can pause whatever I'm watching to get a snack, use the facilities, or just take a break. I can wear my pajamas and slippers. I can set the temperature just the way I want it. I can play cards or work on the computer while I watch. I can start the show when it's convenient to ME, not when it's convenient to the theatre owner. I can see the show again if I like. I don't have to watch just new movies (which I seldom like), but can also catch classics (which I usually like). If I miss a line (I'm hard of hearing, so this happens pretty often), I can back it up and listen again. If the voices are particularly low, I can turn the volume up or turn on closed captions. The only time I ever choose to see a movie in the theater is if it's visually "big", a la "LOTR". We'll probably buy a wide-screen TV this year, and then there will be NOTHING to lure me back into the theaters, EVER.

I think that there are an awful lot of folks like me around, BTW, and that we are killing the theater business. I predict within a couple of years we'll see movies released to DVD and pay-per-view within a few weeks of their theatrical release, and MANY movies (not just flops, but good ones) released ONLY to DVD and pay-per-view. I'm hoping this will encourage movie makers to make more films for families and old codgers like me.
_______________________________
Joe Baker, who is a fairly young old codger, but an old codger none-the-less

[Mark]

My question is: what's up with all the re-makes (from old TV shows, old movies, copying/buying ideas from other parts of the world, etc.)?

Another King Kong movie? Is that really necessary?

It's a near total lack of new ideas. My wife and I were watching the original Miracle on 34th Street the other night and even though it is in black and white it is still so much better than the two color remakes that I have seen.

[Uncle Buck]

There is something to be said about the "community" experience of watching a movie in a theater. I have read some articles earlier this year debating the issue. I realize that the decline in manners detracts from the effect, but if the movie rises to the level of a good work of art (rare, but still happens every once in a while), it is unique to experience it on a large screen in a room full of other people.

Try to remember the effect of the first scene from Star Wars, when the Star Destroyer passed over the screen. Imagine it in a crowded theater of people who had never before heard of anything related to Star Wars, and who had never seen anything with that kind of effect.

Compare that to watching it at home, even if the screen is pretty big.

Not the same thing. Yes, those moments are rare. They've always been rare, though, and they are worth it.

[TMurphy]

This has been a particularly slow year for me, as far as going to see movies. I didn't even get to go see all the movies I wanted to (Cinderella Man being the one I missed.) I do enjoy going to see a movie in a theater, compared to at home. Dunno why, just do. Same reason I'd rather be at a baseball game than watch it at home.

That said, Bloke, Walk the Line is definitely worth a rent. I saw it last weekend, and found it to be very well done. The acting in particular is worth the watch, especially Reese Witherspoon as June Carter.

[SplatterTone]

I haven't gone out to see a movie since I stopped selling plasma. What better way to enjoy a movie than with a big needle in your arm? That's been a long time ago. But I still have the tracks on my arms.

[JCalkin]

When I was living in Boise, they had "dollar theaters" which showed second-run movies (after the first release to "real" theaters but still before DVD release).

The best part was that whlile admission really was one dollar, if you bought three dollars worth of food, admission was free. Food included popcorn, big soda, hot dog, pickles, and various candies, all for $1.50 each.

So for three bucks I saw a movie and got a hot dog (all fixins included) and a soda. It's one of the few things I miss about Idaho.

[Leland]

There are movies that I'd recommend only seeing in a theater. The acting would be too pedestrian, the story too trite, or the special effects too important to be worth watching anywhere else except on a 30-foot-high screen with 10,000 watts of sound equipment. Twister, for example, royally sucks on a TV screen, but it rocks on a screen as big as most houses.

Sorry, but there's no way I'll be able to do that at home, not without really angering all of my neighbors.

Usually, when I go, it's in the afternoon, or not within the first couple weeks of the movie's opening. Sometimes crowds can be fun, but usually I don't need them around. It can be funny to hear their reactions, too.

I actually like the fact that I'm barely distracted when I'm in the theater. There are too many things at home to take me away from the movie. Then when it's done, what do I do? Just sit there, or go on with my next bit of business. After the theater, I'm still "out", so the whole moviegoing event lasts a little longer while we eat, shop, go on the town, or whatever.

A good movie will actually make me forget where I am. I come back out of that dark room and am jarred by coming back to reality. This doesn't happen very often, but it's quite satisfying when it does.

All that said, I still only go maybe six times a year. It's a lot of money, with ticket & concessions costing as much as two regular days of meals for me. Plus, I don't like most movies, usually because they're the same old formulaic Hollywood crapola. I'm much happier if I can find an independent-minded theater.

To me, movie theaters are like beer, or driving. I don't partake often, but I try to make sure that it's good when I do.

[Charlie Goodman]

Hm... some of the bigger movies seem to be a little too big even for the theatres. I saw Batman Begins this summer in London. It was in a theatre over one of the tube stops, and it was the loudest theatre I've ever been in by far (maybe to overcome any subway noise?). That made me realize how obnoxious the score for that movie is. DUMduggaduggaDUMduggaduggaDUMduggaduggaDUM for two hours straight was probably all the education in score composition I'll ever need.

[sinfonian]

Everytime a movie comes out we want to see, my wife and I always give it the "Is the big screen worth it" test or can we wait 6 months for the DVD. With 5 people just the cost of admission is more then the cost of the DVD will be that we can watch over and over again. Star Wars and Harry Potter are the only movies that passed that test so far this year. If they want more people in the theater they need to get the cost down so it is reasonable for a family to go.

[Leland]

Movies support vanity, sexual behavior, drugs, and violence.

Well, yeah, because we can't do that stuff in real life.

Still, I couldn't care less about the typical Hollywood shoot-em-up good guy/bad boy vs. terrorist/drug lord/homicidal maniac movies. Boooor-ing. Two of the last movies I saw were Jarhead and the Wallace & Gromit flick. Jarhead doesn't really support violence, it just shows things as they were back in the first Gulf War. Wallace & Gromit could hardly be called violent even though there was a good amount of action.

I'm weird, though. Most of the guys I know that dig action movies seem to do it to reinforce their machismo -- and I don't think that has anything to do with the quality of the movie itself. I really do not care if Vin Diesel makes any more movies, but I know people who will plunk down the bucks to see whatever he does next, no matter how banal it is.

Lumping all movies together as a collectively evil pile of work is a bit heavyhanded, I think. There's some worthwhile stuff out there.

[Doug@GT]

I don't go to the movies because they spew satan upon people. Most movies are evil and despicable, I don't see why we don't all read nice books instead. Movies support vanity, sexual behavior, drugs, and violence.

This is, of course, completely unlike the internet.

Two of the last movies I saw were Jarhead ...

I'm weird, though. Most of the guys I know that dig action movies seem to do it to reinforce their machismo

The best action movie to come out this year was "The Great Raid."