"This movie doesn't look good, I'll wait for the DVD"....what?

[CommanderRaytas]

Aw, come on, it's not always like this.

 

[Miss Chicken]

But with a DVD you can't get the experience of sitting near the constantly-talking-on-cell-phone person, the always asking "what happens next" to someone who hasn't seen the movie either person, the person who won't take his or her crying baby out into the lobby, or the rowdy kids who would rather beat each other up and bump the seats than watch.

Luckily we do not get these sort of people in cinemas in Tasmania.

I have only heard a phone go of once during all the movies I have seen. The man apologised to everyone, told the person on the phone to wait and went outside to talk. I also only remember a baby cryin once and the father took the baby outside.

When I went to see Reurn of the King there were 4 unattended children in front of me. I think they were aged between about 9 and 12 and all were well behaved right through the entire movie.

 

[Checkmate]

Aw, come on, it's not always like this.

It is where I currently live.

I always rolled my eyes when I heard people tell their "war stories" at theaters. At most, I used to experience one or two of those situations out of maybe a dozen movies. But when I moved here... just, my God. It's horrible. Every single showing has at least one of those situations pop up and, more often than not, many of them. It doesn't seem to matter what time you go, either. The only thing that changes is the nature of them.

I hardly ever go now because of it. The only time I do is if it's something I really wanted to see on the big screen (the last one was Inglourious Basterds). I cannot wait until I need to move again next year so I can actually enjoy the cinema again.

 

[Peach Wookiee]

I, too, have rarely had difficulty in a theater. The last movie I went to was "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs," and that was because I took a child I was babysitting to the movie. The children seeing the movie, including the little boy I was babysitting, behaved very, very well. I don't recall hearing a cell phone going off. It has happened in other theaters before, and I admit I have been at fault once because I thought I'd set the thing to vibrate but hadn't gotten the setting right.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Aw, come on, it's not always like this.

It is where I currently live.

I always rolled my eyes when I heard people tell their "war stories" at theaters. At most, I used to experience one or two of those situations out of maybe a dozen movies. But when I moved here... just, my God. It's horrible. Every single showing has at least one of those situations pop up and, more often than not, many of them. It doesn't seem to matter what time you go, either. The only thing that changes is the nature of them.

I hardly ever go now because of it. The only time I do is if it's something I really wanted to see on the big screen (the last one was Inglourious Basterds). I cannot wait until I need to move again next year so I can actually enjoy the cinema again.

Man, that sucks. I used to have this kind of situation a long time ago , but for years now, going to the cinema has been fun, and most people know when to shut the hell up.

 

[Cicero]

This is an excellent beginning to a thesis on the current state of we the movie-going public. You guys are summing it up nicely. With our HD sets, Blu-ray devices, the internets and now the recent hit of disc vending machines, here's the direction we've been going for the last few decades -- towards convenience. Apparently the cinema is no longer convenient enough for more and more people.

Personally I'm a little more old-fashioned and still prefer the experience. But honestly, who wants to see 12 Coca-Cola commercials as a reward for making it to your seat early enough? Even I have my limits.

I wonder if theatrical showings would be doing better if more theaters were (true) IMAX screens. I loved watching Star Trek on a huge screen in outstanding quality. It gave a sense of presence that I'd never seen in a science fiction film before. Even mediocre films like Pearl Harbor are made better by being shown on large screens (accompanied by nice seats and outstanding sound).

(My experience in IMAX hasn't always good. Batman Begins was miserable, given the closeness with which fight scenes were filmed; large, they were incomprehensible. Generally, though, watching movies in IMAX more than justifies the theater experience.)

 

[Dar70]

Anyone else perplexed by this? I just read a post like this in the 2012 thread in SFF, but I see it here all the time, and on other boards as well: Someone saying that a movie looks bad / mediocre, and so they're not going to watch it in the theater. They'll instead wait to watch it on DVD.

Uhh....if you don't think a movie is going to appeal to you, then *why watch it at all*? Why not just skip it on DVD as well, and save yourself two hours of a movie that you don't think you're going to like? Is it that you feel some kind of obligation to watch everything that comes out, or at least every SF movie that comes out? Or is it that you want to watch any movie that's popular, just so you can see what all the fuss is about, and not feel out of the loop?

You think this is irrational? How about the people who buy a dvd of a movie they don't like? Thats even worse. When Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of The Crystal Skull came out on dvd many haters bought it.I frequent the IMDB board where many of the haters said they were buying it to complete their collections. Why even buy a film you hate and probably wont watch? I asked that question and never got a reasonable response.

 

[Deckerd]

I do see where the OP is coming from though. If we like movies we really should make the effort to see them in the medium they were intended to be seen. However I console myself with the fact that buying a DVD means money goes to the film industry and I can watch it more than once or lend it out.

I'm still reeling from the idea something as long-winded as Chronicles of Riddick actually had a director's cut. Definitely something to watch with a good sleep between halves.

 

[gh4chiefs]

Am I the only one who's run into this concept of "I've got to watch everything that comes out, or at least everything that comes out that's sufficiently popular", or just the only one who's perplexed by it?

EDIT: In other words, why do I keep seeing comments on the web that go something like "This movie looks bad, I'll wait for the DVD", when one would think that the logic would go "This movie looks bad, I won't watch it at all."

I get exactly what you're saying Chris and I wonder the same thing. But I'm also perplexed by the phenomena of people saying suchandsuch show should be cancelled, but they continue to watch it every week.

We humans are not always logical creatures.

 

[FordSVT]

I've seen other variants, here and on other internet forums, of "This movie looks like crap....I'll watch it when it hits DVD". I was just trying to figure out, what is it that drives some people to watch every major release, even if it doesn't look that good? Sure, it can cost you basically nothing in terms of $ when it's on DVD, but it still costs time.

I think a lot of what you read is hyperbole. There are "bad" movies like Transformers and 2012, that are nonetheless well-crafted and provide a bit of entertainment for a couple of hours, or they're "bad" in a way that you can enjoy them for other reasons (like laughing because it's supposed to be a serious film but comes off humorous).

I don't think many people, including Trekker, go out of their way to pay to see movies that they know are complete shit, but a lot of films can have something redeemable about them that justifies spending a measly 90-120 minutes and $5 out of a lifetime to see but not three hours and $30-40.

I only go to see a handful of movies in the theatre. Big budget SFX movies mostly, like Batman, Transformers, Harry Potter, etc. Spectacle/event movies. 90% of the movies I see are viewed at home.