Well, this whole discussion is about buying a new big screen TV that comes even close to a theatrical experience. First off, several smaller amounts are easier to work into a budget than one big amount. Spending 12 dollars a month for Netflix isn't a problem, spending 144 dollars a year would definitely hurt that one month until the next paycheck arrives. Especially for those who have other fixed expenses like medication. Second, going to the movies is a social experience, as well. And, as we notice during this pandemic, we definitely need social experiences. If you can't go to the movies, you'll spend money in a bar, or doing some other activity. Also, 2020 aside, only 14 percent of American adults go to the movies at least once per month, with 46 percent going once per year or less. So you can't really tell them "stop going to the movies, save that money up, then buy a big screen TV". But that's the last I'll say to that. We've come very off-topic and are awfully close to getting into politics, and I don't want to see the thread shut down.
Quite so. There is also an aesthetic quality to cinema that is difficult to replicate at home. I have a projector at home (so I'm closer to the aesthetic of a projected image and an emissive display) but even then, and with all due nods to relative angles of viewing distance to screen size, I cannot recreate the ambiance of a proper cinema hall in my basement (I actually get better sound than any non-IMAX (or similar "premium" system) cinema with my gear--but I don't get the sense of space and the shared experience of seeing a film in a crowd). For many, those things don't matter. To me, they matter a great deal. When I was single, I went to the cinema 150-200 times a year. But, different strokes and all that.
I appreciate the info... though the survey is pretty vague for the in between of once a month, and once a year (or less!) My family used to go (re-Covid) about once every 2 months or so, maybe more. So we would be the kind that in essence those top 6 movies of the year. The situation reminds me of the Austin Powers commercial "If you only see one movie this summer... see Star Wars. But if you see 2 movies, see Austin Powers" In my mind, Wonder WOman would be one of those that even some people from the once a year crowd will seeing. Does anyone have a link for what the top movies of 2020 were SUPPOSED to be, and what the 2021 / 2022 release schedule looks like today?
No link, but off the top of my head, WW84, Black Widow, Tenet, No Time To Die, F9, Eternals and Dune were all scheduled for this year.
That's about a sudden unexpected emergency expense, I'm talking about planning and saving up for the TV. Even when I was making a little over minimum wage at Wal-Mart I was about to save up and buy myself a PS4 shortly after they came out.
You probably should have prioritized putting those $400 in savings. Why do you expect others to make the same terrible decisions as you?
Thanks...that helps a lot. But where is Wonder Woman for 2021? Or are they waiting to see when Things REALLY seem good to go.
It's been pointed out, but 300-400 is still a pretty big chunk of change for a lot of people. But you're right, if you compare a full-scale dinner, sitter (grandparents?), multiple snacks, you're looking at $50-$100. Even at home people have to eat dinner, and you can get McDs whether you're watching a movie at home or going to the theater - likewise a steakhouse. Snacks and drinks during the movie you're definitely at a disadvantage going to the theater but you know, the theaters have to survive and the studios would be happy to take all the money and leave the theaters themselves to rot. But the tickets themselves, which we're comparing to the flatscreen, are still $25 or so. And that's assuming not-matinee or special pricing. And "a decent-sized flatscreen" is one thing but I thought we were talking about a full home theater system like @Ovation has and @Mage seemed to be implying? That needs a proper projector and screen, full calibrated sound system, seats, plus the physical space to actually watch it in your home so no two-bedroom apartments most likely. No worries, I've done it too.
where do people live where they can spend anywhere near $50 at a movie theater without actively having to try? Honestly, it seems like people like to exaggerate the prices to prove particular points. I can go see a movie where I live in the US for $11, and I generally don't buy food or drinks but even if I did it wouldn't go anywhere near $50 unless I was trying to gorge myself.
Let's see. Last movie I saw with someone else was Bohemian Rhapsody. I took my friend and her son to the second run theater. Tickets were $7 a piece. That's $21. Add two popcorn at $8 a piece. That's $16. Three drinks at $4. That's $12. That's $49 to see a movie in a second run theater. Imagine how much it would have cost first run.
Family movie outing at local cinema on "low price" daytime shows (or Tuesdays day and evening) for four: 8$ x 4 = 32$. Two popcorns to share, 4x drinks (small) = 30$ That makes 62$ (if we don't add a chocolate bar or other snack). Regular price at night is same for food/drink (30$ for 4) but tickets are 13$/per person (so an extra 20$ total). 3D movies are +2$ per ticket (if we decide to do it) IMAX 15/70 (real IMAX, not IMAX lite) in the downtown core: 22$ for 1 ticket (so anywhere from 44-88$ depending on how many of us go) Add popcorn and drinks (more expensive at this cinema than the other) 10$/per person (so 32$ for one, to 128$ for four). Doesn't take long to add up.
I don't buy concessions at the theater. Eating during the movie is a distraction, and drinking soda just means I need to piss halfway through. I gather for a lot of people it's part of the whole "going to the movies" package, but I can easily go without food and drink for a couple of hours and just enjoy the film. So, movies cost me ticket price and that's it.
And while we're on the subject, "Would you like to go out to the movies with me?" and "Would you like to come over to my house and watch TV?" are two entirely different ways to ask someone out on a first or even second date.
I comprehend the need for theaters and other public businesses to adapt to the pandemic, but I think it was a mistake for movie studios to undermine the future viability of the film industry by going to the video-on-demand market as an avenue of release. Audiences seeing a 'first-release' film in theaters should, IMO, have remained the only option officially pursued by movie studios, even if it meant shutting down the release pipeline entirely until the resolution of the pandemic.
I usually finish my popcorn before the movie starts (previews and commercials) and as for drinks? Why do you think God invented Depends? (At least I assume—I can still make it though a 3 hour epic without issue). I only occasionally have food at the cinema when alone, but when we all go, “movie snacks” are required (or everyone else gets grumpy).
For me, popcorn is a must. I don't drink soda anymore, so I just get a large bottle of water. Yes, both are outrageously priced, but going to a movie is a treat, so I look at it is as such. On the plus side, my wife's dietary restrictions mean she basically can't have any snacks, so there's savings there. lol. On another plus side, since we haven't been eating out except for occasional take-out once a month or going to the movies since the pandemic started, I've lost almost 30 lbs.!
Its not an option when you have expensive films that need to be seen in a reasonable (sooner than later) amount of time before interest fades--no film or franchise has the kind of built-in goodwill with audiences that they will carry that torch forever. Further, studios either adapt, or die; audiences are not going to risk their lives for an "experience" that no longer holds that cultural impact it did in decades past, particularly when the past few generations have been reared on the idea of bringing the movie experience home to image and sound quality equal to the theatre, only they are not playing with their lives.