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

[CommanderRaytas]

Hahaha oh sweetie, remember 300?

This is why I don't get drunk before entering a cinema anymore.

Oh and dear, don't blow my cover.

 

[sojourner]

I have levels of interest:

Must see in most expensive theatre possible.
Must see in theatre.
I'll see it in theatre if I get around to it.
Wait for the DVD.
Wait for a premium channel airing.
Wait for a broadcast/standard cable channel airing.
Change the channel away from it if I come across it.

influence of friends interested or not interested in said movie can move it up or down this scale.

 

[Snaploud]

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 think this is a big one. The commercials at a movie theatre are much too obnoxious. It's almost as if they're trying to get you to stay home. [The absolute worst one was the "yawning" commercial ("Wake up, people!"). Nobody wants to watch that crap before a movie.]

 

[chrisspringob]

I may have phrased the OP rather poorly, as most people are talking about why they see movies on DVD rather than the cinema. But the reasons for that are kinda obvious. The part that I'm more curious about is the question of why people watch movies that they don't think they're going to like at all? If you don't think you'll like it, why not just skip it both in the cinema *and* on DVD?

You can say "DVDs are cheap / practically free, and I can stop watching it whenever I want, so it's not that much of an investment", but why make any such investment at all if you don't think you're going to like it? Do you have to watch every single movie that comes out? Does this only include new releases, or do you also feel an obligation to go back and watch every movie that was made in the past as well? Is spending time watching mediocre movies really a better use of time than surfing the web, taking a nap, reading a book, going for a walk....?

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."

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I can rent a DVD on Netflix for an average price of $1.50 vs $10 in the theater, so if I make a bad choice, the financial bite is far less. If I don't like a DVD, I can fast forward it to see if it gets any better. Movie projectionists aren't very cooperative in that regards.

 

[Miss Chicken]

I think I have severl levels of movie watching

1) Movies I want to see straight away and therefore I see at the cinema as soon as I can
2) Movies that are a must-see on the big screen i.e the movie mght not be too great but the visual experience is and the movie's impact would be lost if only seen on a small screen
3) Movies that I want to see but I am not willing to pay the cost of a cinema ticket to see. I can wait until these come on DVD
4) Movies that I have no interest in seeing aat all (i.e. most Hugh Grant movies)
2012 falls into the #2 category here.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

The part that I'm more curious about is the question of why people watch movies that they don't think they're going to like at all?

Maybe we should find out if those people actually exist.

Anyone?

 

[chrisspringob]

The part that I'm more curious about is the question of why people watch movies that they don't think they're going to like at all?

Maybe we should find out if those people actually exist.

Anyone?

Mr. Light wrote:

I feel the need to watch any major movie that isn't a drama or romantic comedy.

And Trekker wrote about the "enjoyment of watching bad movies".

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.

 

[Mr Light]

I worked in a video store for four years where I was expected to opine on every movie that came out, so I still feel an ingrained requirement to watch every major movie. I'm still getting over it one year later Besides, even a bad movie can have a few good bits. For example I just watched a movie I didn't care about, The Ugly Truth, and it had some chuckles in it. Though to be fair I watched it at double speed to get through it quickly (I love my DVD-ROM!)

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

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."

Some film enthusiasts are completists who want to see pretty much every major film so that they can form a view and discuss how each film fits into the career path of the various directors and actors who make them and how they fit into filmmaking trends.

 

[Kira Nerys]

Theaters are getting too expensive ,when you can have some movies for a 3 bucks and be able to watch it home,with no rude people in the theater .

 

[RandyS]

I may have phrased the OP rather poorly, as most people are talking about why they see movies on DVD rather than the cinema. But the reasons for that are kinda obvious. The part that I'm more curious about is the question of why people watch movies that they don't think they're going to like at all? If you don't think you'll like it, why not just skip it both in the cinema *and* on DVD?

You can say "DVDs are cheap / practically free, and I can stop watching it whenever I want, so it's not that much of an investment", but why make any such investment at all if you don't think you're going to like it? Do you have to watch every single movie that comes out? Does this only include new releases, or do you also feel an obligation to go back and watch every movie that was made in the past as well? Is spending time watching mediocre movies really a better use of time than surfing the web, taking a nap, reading a book, going for a walk....?

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."

You're looking for sense in a world that has none. Focus on something else and your headache will go away.

 

[Mistral]

I think I have severl levels of movie watching

1) Movies I want to see straight away and therefore I see at the cinema as soon as I can
2) Movies that are a must-see on the big screen i.e the movie mght not be too great but the visual experience is and the movie's impact would be lost if only seen on a small screen
3) Movies that I want to see but I am not willing to pay the cost of a cinema ticket to see. I can wait until these come on DVD
4) Movies that I have no interest in seeing aat all (i.e. most Hugh Grant movies)
2012 falls into the #2 category here.

I like this scale. I never watch a garbage movie on DVD(intentionally). If I want to see something but the visual impact doesn't merit a 20ft screen I wait for the dvd. Recent(to me) movies seen in theater:

Star Trek
Dark Knight
Batman Begins
the Spiderman movies
Bolt and The Prestige(both special situations and exceptions to the visual rule.

I have a 47" HDTV and Dolby 5.1 surround sound. DVDs rent for a couple of bucks. My couch is comfy and my fridge has beer. Why go to the theater?

 

[Candlelight]

The cost of a movie ticket is too much these days after having kids. Having it on DVD that I can watch when I want to and stop it if I have to is a much prefered option.

Sure I don't experience the cinema anymore but at least if a cellphone goes off I know it's mine.

 

[Kirby]

^^ True that. When my wife and I go to a movie it's really a date, since we get out alone so infrequently. The only 'grown up' movie I have seen in the theater this year was Star Trek and here's how much it cost:
2 tickets = $21.00
Babysitter = $30.00
Dinner = $50.00
Popcorn/soda = $10.00
Total = $111.00 to see a movie in the theater

The DVD will cost less than $20, and I can watch it whenever I want. A red box or Netflix rental would be much less.

So to answer the OP's question, 2012 doesn't look like a very good movie, I've seen lots of 'splosions and monuments falling down in other movies, but hell, it might make for a fun (and cheap) evening from the red box.

Red Box rental = $1
Microwave popcorn = $1
Soda = $1 for a 2 liter bottle (with plently left over)
Dinner at home = $15 (give or take)
Total = $18 to rent a movie and have a 'date' at home

 

[Checkmate]

It's because a lot of people -- especially those who take the time to regularly visit forums like this one -- are fans of an entire genre, not necessarily particular works.

It then comes down to priority. Why pay a ton of cash for a movie you suspect you won't enjoy as much as some others, but which still appeals to your overall preference for genre works? Especially when you can obtain a copy of it at a later date for significantly less money?

It basically comes down to "is this movie one that I CAN NOT WAIT TO SEE OMG" versus "eh, it might be okay if I give it a chance, but I'll wait til it won't break my bank to see it."

What's so hard to understand about that?

 

[The Grim Ghost]

I get DVDs from the library where rental is free. Of course I'll take a chance on something I know I might not like when there is no $$$ involved! I can watch 15 or 20 minutes of it, decide it's a dud and just turn it off if I want to. No money lost.

While going to the theatre drains $10 or more away from me and surrounds me with loud/inconsiderate people. I'll take the DVD thanks!

Theatre movies are strictly for dates in my book.

 

[Miss Chicken]

I suppose the difference is that I only pay $10.50 to go to the cinema. I usually go by myself but sometimes with my best friend. I don't buy food at the cinema, instead I usually smuggle something in.

If I watch DVDs at home I watch them on a 51cm that I have in my bedroom. So to me the big screen of a cinmea is a vast improvement.

 

[zakkrusz]

It's a simple monetary decision:

Seeing a film in the theater just by yourself + Essential Snacks: $20
Renting it on DVD Plus Essential Snacks: ~$10

 

[Aragorn]

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.