# A Growing indifference  to Cinema Going



## BAYLOR

How many have you stopped going to the cinema regularly ?

 I used to  be a very avid movie goer, but for the past few years my trips to the theater have dropped off rather dramatically. The last film I saw in the theaters was *Star Wars Rogue One*. Other then maybe , the prior *Star Wars The Force Awakens* , *Star Trek Beyond* film and *Independence Day Resurgence* , I can't recall seeing anything else.  Ive felt no real desire to  resuming movie going like previously did . Reasons ? There are a few I'm can think of but I put under the heading of  finding  films unappealing and in event  they be on cable and dvd soon enough .


Thoughts?


----------



## RX-79G

I used to live near a second run theater - $3 movies a month or two past prime. Never too crowded, so it wasn't a big deal to go.


----------



## J Riff

I got dragged to _The Martian_, hated the whole experience. Before that, hmm... maybe_ Ghostbusters_ when it came out around 84. Movies and TV are largely such blatant mindcontrol dumbdown rubbish now, the idea of paying, even for a movie that cost millyums to make, is offensive. But that's just me.
 Where I'm sitting, there are about 175 bigscreen TVs in the adjoining twenty blocks, in coffeeshops, 'sportbars' and etc. ONLY TV sets and pool tables. You can't escape TV here, except by staring at a cellphone. Nor can you evade the enforced popmusic playlist, taking most of the fun out of all of it.
Movies went from an interesting night out to a drab excuse to sit inside the house one more time, watching _Idiocracy _for the tenth time.


----------



## TheDustyZebra

I go very rarely, and mostly only for things that I feel are essential to experience on the big screen. But a lot of that has been caused by having children, which makes it difficult to go to a movie. Unless it's a children's movie, in which case it's just expensive.


----------



## Vladd67

I haven't been in ages, like Dusty it's partly because I have kids, but also it just irritates me that some people can't shut up and sit still for an hour or so. I don't mind people talking about the film, it's the constant chattering about their life, realty tv, and celebrity crap that annoys me. You are at a cinema, people have paid a lot of money to enjoy the film, you are not in you living room watching a DVD. I now tend to wait for the DVD or some online solution to see a film these days.


----------



## svalbard

Once a month. We go for a meal and then catch a movie aftetwards. I still love the cinema experiance. The last two movies I went to were T2;Trainspottng and The Great Wall. Going to see the new King Kong movie this weekend.


----------



## Allegra

My last time in cinema was for _The Imitation Game_, excellent film, still better to watch on a couch. The worst thing in cinema is that you can't fast forward or turn down the volume, or shut the noisy people up.


----------



## Theophania Elliott

I hardly ever go to the cinema; the last time was several years ago. They didn't sell Butterkist popcorn - just the stuff that looks and tastes like polystyrene packing material - so there didn't seem to be much point going back.

We don't have a TV at home, so if I want to watch a film, I do it on iPad.


----------



## Paul_C

The last film I recall seeing at the cinema was Gosford Park, and that was in 2001


----------



## HanaBi

In my youth up to my 20s I would be a regular cinema-goer: perhaps 3 or 4 times a week

But these days, far too much noise from patrons who have the courtesy and attention-span of a crusty old leather boot! The constant jingle of ringtones, people holding up their smartphones to "record" the film; people chatting out loud during "boring" bits in the film; people running up and down the aisles etc etc.

Sad really.


----------



## Susan Boulton

It is not wanting to go, it is the cost puts me off. With the cost of admission, petrol to get there and paying for parking the car, it is cheaper to wait a few months and buy the Blu Ray, then six months down the line sell it on Music Magpie.


----------



## Toby Frost

Part of the problem is that many films are rubbish - or, more accurately, highly polished, deeply mediocre and completely forgettable. The other part is that, unless you're careful, going to the cinema isn't an especially pleasant experience.

I remember coming out of the first _Captain America_ film in 2011 and being surprised that I genuinely enjoyed and liked it: not that I put up with it or thought it was reasonable, but that it was really, properly good fun.

I saw _Mad Max: Fury Road_ three times at the cinema. 

1) Multiplex out of town, in holidays, at about 1pm. Extremely quiet and very pleasant. About 20 people in the screening and I had a gin and tonic whilst watching it.
2) Multiplex out of town, in the evening, about 8pm. Busy, but not unpleasantly so. Not much noise from the audience.
3) Multiplex in London, in 3D. Outrageously expensive and the 3D glasses wouldn't fit properly over my own (small) glasses. Audience slightly noisier but not obnoxiously so.

Basically, the better the experience you want, go to a nice cinema, at an awkward time of day and watch something rated 15 so small children can't get in.


----------



## Montero

I've not been in years, lots of years, seats doing my back in, tall people in front of me, no pause button......
But I've only once experienced people yacking and that was a bunch of foreign students behind me who weren't able to follow the film. So sounds like going to the cinema has gone down hill a lot since I last went.
However I did really, really enjoy seeing Lawrence of Arabia re-release in the Odeon at Marble Arch. Massive screen and I sat in the front row. The scene where they ride into Petra with  cliffs towering over them is something when they do actually tower over you.


----------



## Vladd67

I miss the Easy Cinema in Milton Keynes, they showed just old films and you paid what ever you felt. Unfortunately it closed down and The Point then became another big brand cinema again. Then that closed and now the building faces demolition, this  piece of cinema history deserved better.
A look back at a Milton Keynes landmark: The story of The Point


----------



## SilentRoamer

Only one film this year but i usually go 5-6 times a year. For me it just depends on the films that are on.

As long as there are good films then I'm going - the price is awful where I live (Vue Cinema have taken over and the other cinema has closed so they charge whatever they want.) 

I never pay for sweets though, I smuggle them in via pockets and the wife's handbag. I'm not paying £4.05 for a bag of M&M's.


----------



## Phyrebrat

A voice of dissent here... 

I saw R1 six times and TFA 4 times. I usually go once a month to catch any horror or sci fi. I don't do superheroes or fantasy movies, but other than that I love the experience of sitting in the dark with a huge screen.

I'm very impatient with people talking, but I must be very lucky here in London because it's never been a problem. in fact, I recall seeing the first Paranormal Activity film and the teens in the front row were hilarious as they asked questions of rach other such as 'Ohmygod, did you see the door?', 'Where's she going?', 'Oh no, oh no, oh no, can I look yet?' and it was really cute.

There've been a few stinkers but largely I've enjoyed the experience even if the film is forgettable.

The other thing is the cinemas near me are brand new with special screens and sound so it is much more of an experience than in the provinces 

pH


----------



## Dan Jones

I love the cinema, and particularly like the spate of indie cinemas that are popping up across the UK. Everyman have just opened a branch in Chelmsford, and I love their approach to it. The price is premium, yes, but you get a good experience and hopefully that price everyone there is there to watch the film, not mindlessly chatter about other stuff.

Don't get to go half as much as I'd like, but I do enjoy it when I do.



Phyrebrat said:


> in fact, I recall seeing the first Paranormal Activity film and the teens in the front row were hilarious as they asked questions of rach other such as 'Ohmygod, did you see the door?', 'Where's she going?', 'Oh no, oh no, oh no, can I look yet?' and it was really cute.


Oh the kids in East London were great for that sort of thing. I remember watching Blair Witch in the cinema yonks ago, and the way it became almost a communal experience for those kids, grasping each other, and really screaming, and then laughing at each other, really encapsulated what the cinema could be at times. Was a lot cheaper back then, though. We would go as it was a cheap night out.


----------



## Toby Frost

DG Jones said:


> I love the cinema, and particularly like the spate of indie cinemas that are popping up across the UK.



If you get the chance, go to the Odeon in Berkhamsted or the Odyssey in St Albans, both of which have been done up in a 1940s style. I think you have to book, as if gets very popular.


----------



## Boneman

I have a season ticket to Cineworld, which makes me go regularly to get more than my money's worth... annoyingly, they dropped the international films they used to run (when they were french-owned), but I like going to see the good films 2-3 times.


----------



## Dave

_Another voice of dissent here:_

When I was a teenager I used to go weekly and see *whatever* was on that week. I don't do that anymore and it's true that I go much less frequently, but that is not because of the quality of the films. There are several reasons why I go less:-


The cost is much higher in comparison to when I was younger, but probably not if I was still young, as there are all kinds of concessions.
This is still a *big* problem for me: Audience Behaviour at the Cinema However, if you go midweek - a Wednesday or Tuesday afternoon, or if you go to one of these "community" cinemas Brixton Ritzy or Phoenix Cinema or Tyneside Cinema then it is more like visiting the theatre and behaviour is very much more formal. The "eating" and "drinking" thing has now unfortunately spread into theatres too. I'd actually rather that they banned food and drink and put up the ticket price, but I think they make too much money from it.
(I also have a friend in Denmark who runs the oldest continuously open cinema in the world. It is in the Guinness Book of Records. They are all volunteers but it is a proper cinema and that has a real community cinema atmosphere. I wish we had something similar here. There is a local school near me that shows films.)

Anyhow, it is *not *because the quality of the films on offer are poor. I don't only see SFF though. I do think there is a surfeit of Superhero movies but there have been some intelligent SF films recently and the latest Star Wars offerings were very good. Star Trek unfortunately has lost its way. However, in the last few years I have also seen some very good non-SFF films such as Room, The Lady in the Van, La La Land, The Imitation Game, The Theory of Everything, Suffragettes. Then there are also Jason Bourne and James Bond and Mission Impossible franchises.

Yes, they do come to online TV and DVD/Blu Ray very quickly, but it is a far superior experience watching on the big screen. That might be different if I had a home cinema set up.


----------



## Lucien21

Boneman said:


> I have a season ticket to Cineworld, which makes me go regularly to get more than my money's worth... annoyingly, they dropped the international films they used to run (when they were french-owned), but I like going to see the good films 2-3 times.



I have had one of them for about 20 years, I used to live within walking distance and saw just about every film coming out, but now I moved out of town it takes more of an effort I see less and less in the cinema. I still go see movies at least 1-2 a month during the summer or more if I see something I fancy.

I tend to go on a Sunday when it's quieter and do 2 on the same day if possible.

- Saw John Wick 2 a couple of weeks ago and will be seeing Logan on Sat.


----------



## BAYLOR

I saw the first two Hunger Games film in the theaters and skipped the rest.  I skipped age of Ultron and a numbers the The other Marvel films. I just didn't feel like seeing them.


----------



## Cathbad

Nothing better than watching movies on the big screen!

Of course, now-a-days it's a bit of a hassle for me...


----------



## Overread

I find that I dislike going - partly because of the rising costs. The fact that the whole experience from ticket to food feels more like a price gouge than ever before (esp because you can easily see how snacks and drinks are heavily priced up) makes me dislike the practice. Now I totally understand that their rates/rent/tax/etc... have all gone up and up and up and that they've got to make money, but I still find it takes some of the fun. Especially when I know that the DVD will be out in a few months time

Actually that's another part, the DVD will be out soon. Heck sometimes the trailers for the film almost seem as if they have hardly ended when the DVD hits the shelves. This means there's no pressure like there was 20 years ago when the film would take years to finally come out on VHS (and would be on rental before that and sky before that). So even on decent films there's no pressure to make me feel like I must experience this now in the cinema. 
(ps - I fully admit if it still took years for DVDs to come out I'd likely be saying that I dislike going because I feel pressured into it because of the artificial pressure induced by a slow release to DVD). 

Another thing is that I find that today too many films are poorly scripted. There appears to be a handful of directors who can make a film fit a time slot and deliver a great experience; with far too many delivering rushed films; or CGI action feasts with little actual plot at all. In fact there have been so many that fit this that I find it means I tend to regard a lot of films that actually might be quite good, in a poor light when seeing the trailers.

And about that, trailers used to build mystery - today they appear to be all about spoiling the best bits of the film. The first two or so tend to be ok, then they get quickly more and more plot heavy. The result is that with a tiny bit of thinking and a handful of trailers you can already map out the general idea of the film in your head - even if its not totally accurate; it means that the film has far less to surprise you. It's like standing in that line at Empire Strikes Back in the Simpsons - every single time.


----------



## Frost Giant

There's a great theater near me that serves food like it is a restaurant. They have tables set up in front of the rows of seats. You can order lots of different foods (I usually order a pizza) beer, soda, whatever you want. They have a 4K screen and a very good sound system. The tickets are cheap. They show football games sometimes as well. 
I don't go to theaters as much as I once did (many of the reasons are mentioned already in this thread) but I still like to go from time to time.


----------



## kythe

I really enjoy going to movies.  It's one of the few ways I get out for fun, ironically because I find it affordable.  We have a discount theater near us which has an even lower price of $1.50/person on Tuesdays.  It shows movies right after they have been discontinued from the main theaters.  I take my kids there and we sneak in our own snacks.  It is an older theater, but this doesn't bother me.

Growing up, I rarely saw movies in theaters.  But as an adult I discovered the cheap theater, I realized it is a fun and inexpensive activity.  Lately, I've seen "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" 3 Tuesdays in a row, just because I really like that movie.

I can see why theaters may be on the decline due to newer and typically less expensive means of acquiring movies.  Forms of entertainment come and go.  I still enjoy being able to see movies on the big screen.


----------



## Biskit

Allegra said:


> The worst thing in cinema is that you can't fast forward or turn down the volume, or shut the noisy people up.



Or press pause because whatever damn fool thing the cat is doing is actually more interesting than the film.

I like the dvd player - fast forward, rewind, pause, go the beginning and start over... It's just like reading a book.

The last time I went to the cinema was early 90s, in Basingstoke, with a bunch of folks from work to watch Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country.  That was OK.


----------



## RX-79G

I think the lack of "press pause" convenience is part of the experience of cinema and live theater. You go to experience the story as the member of an audience, rather than as a bigger version of TV. Standing in line, finding a seat, adjusting to a volume level you didn't set are reasons to go to the movies, not reasons against. It is a spectacle, however minor, and the decreased convenience is part of what yields our increased anticipation and immersion.

My problem isn't so much cinema going, but a lack of really exciting movies to bother to see. Despite a constant release of blockbusters, the last time I really got my ears blown back was _Mad Max: Fury Road_, and that wasn't even as great an experience as _Inception, Born Identity, the Killer, True Lies _or _the Matrix_. A lot of big films that were enjoyable enough, like _Captain America, Prometheus_ or _R1_, still felt more like formulaic filler than the work of great filmmakers.


----------



## Biskit

RX-79G said:


> I think the lack of "press pause" convenience is part of the experience of cinema and live theater.


Not a practical one for us - the other essential function of pause is to help with the Biskitetta's hearing: well X said this and Y replied...



RX-79G said:


> Standing in line, finding a seat, adjusting to a volume level you didn't set are reasons to go to the movies, not reasons against.


That's definitely a matter of taste and not one I share.


----------



## Cathbad

If I had the money, every movie I saw would be inside a big-screen theater, with large audiences!  

Nothing beats the theater experience!


----------



## RX-79G

Biskit said:


> Not a practical one for us - the other essential function of pause is to help with the Biskitetta's hearing: well X said this and Y replied...
> 
> 
> That's definitely a matter of taste and not one I share.


I'm not sure what point you are making. Do you like going to the movies? It doesn't sound like it. 

For people who do like going, it is likely to be because of the experience, not the inability to sit in front of a large enough screen. Modern big screen TVs have the same aspect ratio and take up as much of your field of vision as anything but Imax.


----------



## Biskit

RX-79G said:


> Do you like going to the movies?


Probably not.  It's difficult to tell since I've not been motivated to try since the early 90s.



RX-79G said:


> For people who do like going, it is likely to be because of the experience


That may well be true, but the experience as you described it sounds pretty grim and certainly not something to make me want to find out what's showing at my nearest screen and break my 20+ years of not going to the cinema.


----------



## HanaBi

Despite my earlier post regarding audience disruption/distraction, I now realise that because I am self-employed/consultant, I will have more time popping to the local cinema for a mid-afternoon matinee, usually at a fraction of the price, and with no troublesome youths to spoil the atmos.


----------



## bedlamite

Lucky to have a few local community cinemas that are well set up at great prices, so pretty much every 2-weeks Mrs B and I will get to the cinema, and will take nephews/nieces to the kids movies in between as well.  Also go to a local cinema club for some of the stuff that doesn't get to the multiplexes.


----------



## WaylanderToo

Boneman said:


> I have a season ticket to Cineworld, which makes me go regularly to get more than my money's worth.



ditto. I'll admit to being a grumpy git and wishing that everyone would come in BEFORE the previews start and then just STFU until the credits roll. Obviously that's a forlorn hope but I still love the cinema, the thunder of the engines/guns/whatever the brainless enjoyment (or indeed the subversive enjoyment where it appears to be brainless but sneaks in a message). 

Although I have a couple of v.large TV screens at home it still doesn't match the majesty of cinema


----------



## BAYLOR

There's concession stands an their prices. 6 dollars for a bag of buttered popcorn.   Ridiculous.


----------



## Cathbad

Used to be, the lines at concession was almost too long.  Now, almost no one buys a thing.


----------



## elvet

I love the big theatre experience. My only negatives were waiting in line, getting there extra early for the best seat, and relying on the courtesy of other viewers. Now I can reserve seats on line so no more anxious wondering if I will get my favorite spot. I pick my times, so there are fewer attendees, or eager fans during the first week who won't fidget and move.
Being in a theatre is so much better than being at home. It is more immersive. The fact that I can't be disturbed by 7 pets, a hubby, or various other distractions is exactly why I want to be away. I often go to see a movie by myself, and will try different venues such as IMAX, D-Box ultra AVX and 3D, seeing a favorite movie multiple times. 
Having said all that, I don't go that often, and I never buy refreshments there. So while prepurchase reserve seating is more expensive, it is worth it for me. There are certain movies that are big screen musts for me, but most will be fine to watch at home. The last movie I saw in the theatre was Rogue One. The next will probably be Guardians of the Galaxy 2.


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> Used to be, the lines at concession was almost too long.  Now, almost no one buys a thing.



Because they gouge people.  If the theater owners were smart, they'd reduce those prices.


----------



## hopewrites

For me, I only walk to the other side of town for something I want to put my drop in the ocean of approval for whatever it is.

Far too expensive to drop $50 on something I can see for close to free at a more convenient time in a more convenient place.

And that's assuming I dine at home before and don't splurge on a cab back but wander through the dark and cold.


Also I don't go if I'm going by myself. May as well stay at home and watch a badly pirated version if I've no one to share it with but my dragon slippers. *hurumpf*


But in all honesty, what I think burnt me out on movies was my ex's insistence on going two to three times a day for the air conditioning while I was pregnant. I didn't want to be air conditioned. It wasn't a mutual experience because he just shut down once he got his seat. And I never had any say in what we watched, or the concessions we ate.


----------



## Cathbad

hopewrites said:


> It wasn't a mutual experience because he just shut down once he got his seat. And I never had any say in what we watched, or the concessions we ate.



How rude!!

No wonder you feel as you do!  The experience was tainted for you.


----------



## HanaBi

It is true to say the food and drink prices at cinemas are a horrendous rip-off, but because of demand they don't make any effort to reduce them.

I have also noticed with some cinema chains is that just prior to the film starting they start to emit food aromas through the air con in the auditorium - aromas not too dissimilar to hot dogs, pop corn and burgers. A very nice way of hooking patrons into buying food they hadn't considered before being assailed by such appealing odours


----------



## elvet

I did forget to mention another thing I dislike is the amount of advertising that precedes the film. I timed the adverts at 10 minutes when I saw Rogue One. That, and the discourteous viewer are the major faults of the cinema.


----------



## BAYLOR

elvet said:


> I did forget to mention another thing I dislike is the amount of advertising that precedes the film. I timed the adverts at 10 minutes when I saw Rogue One. That, and the discourteous viewer are the major faults of the cinema.



I remember the good old days when there were  no commercial advertisements at the movies. No commercials was the primary advantage they had over television.  

Ironically, some the commercials have better writing then the feature films .


----------



## RX-79G

BAYLOR said:


> Because they gouge people.  If the theater owners were smart, they'd reduce those prices.


Do you really think the business people that run these enormous theater chains are really that stupid? They are just greedy idiots that don't understand supply and demand, and would rather sell one $6 bag of popcorn than ten $3 bags?


----------



## BAYLOR

RX-79G said:


> Do you really think the business people that run these enormous theater chains are really that stupid? They are just greedy idiots that don't understand supply and demand, and would rather sell one $6 bag of popcorn than ten $3 bags?



If the movie goers  decide to stop buying their popcorn, how much money will the theater owners then have?


----------



## Cathbad

BAYLOR said:


> If the movie goers  decide to stop buying their popcorn, how much money will they have?



They don't sell a tenth what they used to.


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> They don't sell a tenth what they used to.



It seems to me that if they cut the price ,more people would buy the popcorn .


----------



## Cathbad

BAYLOR said:


> It seems to me that if they cut the price ,more people would buy the popcorn .



I agree. 

The excuse I've heard is that they've raised concession prices so high to keep the ticket prices down.  But with the volume they've lost, that makes little sense.


----------



## RX-79G

Cathbad said:


> They don't sell a tenth what they used to.


How do you figure?

Here's how movie theaters are still making money even though ticket sales are down
Movie Theaters Make 85% Profit at Concession Stands | TIME.com
The Sneaky Way Movie Theaters Are Making Up For Falling Ticket Sales


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> I agree.
> 
> The excuse I've heard is that they've raised concession prices so high to keep the ticket prices down.  But with the volume they've lost, that makes little sense.



Overall movie attendance  has been been going down the last few years hasn't it ?


----------



## RX-79G

BAYLOR said:


> Overall movie attendance  has been been going down the last few years hasn't it ?


Yes. And concession sales climbing.


----------



## BAYLOR

RX-79G said:


> Yes. And concession sales climbing.



But  If fewer people are going to movies wouldn't that translate into fewer concession sales as well?


----------



## RX-79G

BAYLOR said:


> But  If fewer people are going to movies wouldn't that translate into fewer concession sales as well?


You tell me. You guys are saying that concession sales have gone drastically down, but they haven't. Which _facts_ do you want to use to make your case?


----------



## hopewrites

Well it depends on what "concession sales" numbers you look at doesn't it.

20-25 years ago options were: pop corn, 3-6 flavors of soda, 3-5 types of candy. hotdog or nachos if it was a snazzy place. prices were lower than today, and movie goers had to pump box office numbers to convince studios to send the show to vhs.

Now, there are a lot more options at the concession stand, prices have climbed more than inflation can account for, and while the number of times the average citizen visits the theatre has gone down, population has come up.


So are you looking at total sales revenue? number of transactions? or quantity of goods sold?


----------



## Cathbad

hopewrites said:


> So are you looking at total sales revenue? number of transactions? or quantity of goods sold?



I remember going to the theater early, because I knew it would take forever to get through the concession line.  Now, there may be two or three in a line - if there's only one or two lines open.


----------



## RX-79G

Sales by money.


----------



## TheDustyZebra

Funny, I don't recall ever being bothered by people at the theater, except when I can't see over them because I'm too short. But our theater here is rarely even half full, at least when I go -- I don't insist on the first possible showing, for one -- and I generally pick a row that is two behind the nearest people, and nobody sits in between. But people talking, kids getting restless, I just don't notice.

Anybody live where they still have a drive-in movie theater? We used to have than when I was a kid, and, more important, when I was a teenager. Double feature for $5 a carload, bring your own snacks even though there was a concession stand, can't beat that. But alas, it's gone. There's still one in Colorado, a few hours away I think, but I haven't been to it.


----------



## RX-79G

I went to a drive in a couple years ago and the sound was terrible.


----------



## TheDustyZebra

Well, the sound was always terrible, LOL!


----------



## Boneman

My local Cineworld has amazing leg room - nobody has to stand up to let you by, and whilst the seats aren't phenomenally comfortable, they'll see you through a 3-hour experience quite happily. So why do idiots have to put their feet up on the back of the seat in front of them? In the old days, an usher would shine a torch at you and throw you out, if you didn't stop. No ushers any more, that's another way cinemas have been saving money. But I don't buy popcorn there, it's ludicrously expensive. A year or two ago they must have been feeling the pinch because signs went up saying 'only food and drink bought on the premises can be consumed here.' 

Still, the moviegoing experience continues to draw me in. Saw Rogue One twice, because I could...


----------



## HanaBi

Nothing quite beats the cinema experience - even in my youth during the late 70s, I went to see Star Wars IV, in 70mm (a new concept for that time); and those first couple of minutes into the film, with that huge Star Destroyer coming into view "over head", in dynamic Dolby Stereo, was a sight (and sound) to remember. Same with Alien too. 

But I think back then cinema prices for tickets, food, drink and programmes were far cheaper (even when factoring in inflation). Moreover, back then film releases were only accessible through cinema outlets; and you would then have to wait months before it came out on VHS, or premiered on TV (which in the UK would take 2 or 3 years!!). So choice was limited, and you had to go to the cinema, hence the new concept (for the 70s) of the term "blockbuster" - with queues of people outside the cinema waiting to see the next performance. (I think "Jaws" started that ball rolling)

But these days people are little more blase about going to the cinema, knowing full well the film will be released on BR within weeks, or will be available on some dodgy torrent site more or less before or during official release. And of course there were no tablets or smartphones back in the 70s, so patrons were not distracted quite so easily. 

Cinema isn't the happy pastime it once was unfortunately


----------



## elvet

TheDustyZebra said:


> .............
> 
> Anybody live where they still have a drive-in movie theater? We used to have than when I was a kid, and, more important, when I was a teenager. Double feature for $5 a carload, bring your own snacks even though there was a concession stand, can't beat that. But alas, it's gone. There's still one in Colorado, a few hours away I think, but I haven't been to it.


We have a triple drive-in 20 minutes away. The last time I went (many years ago), the problem was the mosquitos. If you closed the windows to keep the bugs out, the inside glass would fog up. Invariably, there would be 2 or 3 noxious buzzing insects flying around that you couldn't eliminate. Way too distracting.


----------



## Cathbad

elvet said:


> We have a triple drive-in 20 minutes away. The last time I went (many years ago), the problem was the mosquitos. If you closed the windows to keep the bugs out, the inside glass would fog up. Invariably, there would be 2 or 3 noxious buzzing insects flying around that you couldn't eliminate. Way too distracting.



~sigh~

Mosquitos?  Really?  That's what keeps you from outdoor activities?

I lived in Florida most of my life.  Went to the drive-in regularly.  The Florida State Bird never bothered me in the least.  I saw many of the most iconic movies of my age at the drive-in.  *Up In Smoke*, *Blues Brothers*, *Debbie Does Dallas*...

With a pocket full of money, my best friend and I would hide in the trunk while our dates drove in - just for the blast of having done it!

A great time was had by all!


----------



## HanaBi

Drive-in movies.

I could be mistaken here, but many moons ago a chain tried to introduce the Drive-In Movie concept to these shores;but for whatever reason it never took off and just disappeared as quick as it had arrived.

My impression of those venues were places where you would "make out" with your partner in the back seat of your car. The film was purely incidental.


----------



## Cathbad

HanaBi said:


> My impression of those venues were places where you would "make out" with your partner in the back seat of your car. The film was purely incidental.



That was the idea.  

Used to piss my girlfriend to no end that I'd watch the movie!  HA!

It's ok though... I knew the BEST "parking" spots for a post-movie make-out session!


----------



## AStormCloud'sSong

I went to a cinema for the first time in years a few weeks ago. It was an on-campus cinema so it was more like a lecture theatre but going to the screening made me realise why I was so jealous when my SO went to see the midnight screening of Rogue One (I had to miss it because I had an essay due the next morning).

The reason I don't go to the cinema so often is because of the cost. Here in the UK a ticket as well as popcorn and a drink can cost over £20. Which is a shame because I'd totally go more often. I'm kind of interested in seeing the new Beauty and the Beast later this month.


----------



## Cathbad

1976:

ticket 3.50

med soda $1.00

med popcorn $1.75 (extra butter free)

Large candy bar $1.00

TOTAL VISIT:  $7.25


2016:

ticket $15.50 (with my senior's discount)

med soda $2.25

med popcorn $3.75 (extra butter 25 cents)

Large candy bar $2.25

TOTAL VISIT:  $24.00


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> 1976:
> 
> ticket 3.50
> 
> med soda $1.00
> 
> med popcorn $1.75 (extra butter free)
> 
> Large candy bar $1.00
> 
> TOTAL VISIT:  $7.25
> 
> 
> 2016:
> 
> ticket $15.50 (with my senior's discount)
> 
> med soda $2.25
> 
> med popcorn $3.75 (extra butter 25 cents)
> 
> Large candy bar $2.25
> 
> TOTAL VISIT:  $24.00




It costs 3 times as much  for less value.


----------



## Cathbad

BAYLOR said:


> It costs 3 times as much  for less value.



yup.

The Industry is killing itself.


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> yup.
> 
> The Industry is killing itself.



They have alot of completion from television , The internet and gaming companies that do the same things they do only better and cheaper.


----------



## Cathbad

BAYLOR said:


> They have alot of completion from television , The internet and gaming companies that do the same things they do only better and cheaper.



From the Internet, yes.

But the two biggest reasons are:

1) Paying actors ridiculously huge amounts _and_ giving them large percentages!

2) Paying what are now ludicrous amounts to programmers, animators and special effects experts, who now, for the most part, simply use code that others wrote, merely modifying it as needed. 

These groups are wildly overpaid!  PAY THEM LESS!  GET TOGETHER AND WORK OUT A REASONABLE INDUSTRY-WIDE SCALE!

...or go bust.  Whatevah.


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> From the Internet, yes.
> 
> But the two biggest reasons are:
> 
> 1) Paying actors ridiculously huge amounts _and_ giving them large percentages!
> 
> 2) Paying what are now ludicrous amounts to programmers, animators and special effects experts, who now, for the most part, simply use code that others wrote, merely modifying it as needed.
> 
> These groups are wildly overpaid!  PAY THEM LESS!  GET TOGETHER AND WORK OUT A REASONABLE INDUSTRY-WIDE SCALE!
> 
> ...or go bust.  Whatevah.



The big movie stars are all overpaid for the little work that they actually do and star power isn't the draw it used to be. Even with stars the studious still have plenty of expensive box office misses . The studios should just offer them a wage and tell them take it or leave it.  After they've been unemployed for a while, they'll come to he table for less money.  Executive should be given the  incentive of come up with  good films or be fired.


----------



## Cathbad

DAMMIT @BAYLOR !

Agreeing with me is no way to argue!!


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> DAMMIT @BAYLOR !
> 
> Agreeing with me is no way to argue!!



Because this is one thing we can actually agree on.

By the way  did you happen to see how well the Matt Damon film *The Great Wall *is doing at the box office ?


----------



## Cathbad

BAYLOR said:


> Because this is one thing we can actually agree on.
> 
> By the way  did you happen to see how well the Matt Damon film *The Great Wall *is doing at the box office ?



Actually, no.  That movie has no interest to me.


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> Actually, no.  That movie has no interest to me.



It's doing the the Box Office Two Step Thud. Which has become a very popular dance in Hollywood.


----------



## HanaBi

Cathbad said:


> 1976:
> 
> ticket 3.50
> 
> med soda $1.00
> 
> med popcorn $1.75 (extra butter free)
> 
> Large candy bar $1.00
> 
> TOTAL VISIT:  $7.25
> 
> 
> 2016:
> 
> ticket $15.50 (with my senior's discount)
> 
> med soda $2.25
> 
> med popcorn $3.75 (extra butter 25 cents)
> 
> Large candy bar $2.25
> 
> TOTAL VISIT:  $24.00



Not doubting your stats, but does this account for inflation?


----------



## Cathbad

BAYLOR said:


> It's doing the the Box Office Two Step Thud. Which has become a very popular dance in Hollywood.



Just read... expected to lose $75m.  Yeesh!


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> Just read... expected to lose $75m.  Yeesh!



Thud city.


----------



## Cathbad

HanaBi said:


> Not doubting your stats, but does this account for inflation?



Inflation has risen at an average rate no greater than 3%.  Even doubling that would be 240% over that time... not the 300%+ indicated above.


----------



## BAYLOR

If a movie thuds at the box office and there is no one there , does it make a sound?


----------



## Overread

The other issue is groups. Once you start to get higher and higher costs the amount for a group starts to get rather serious and punishing. It's also a pain for families as the kids start to get beyond the "family discount" age; but where they are likely to still be able to go as a group (and not everyone becomes a student either - though rather like senior, the discounts are small). 

However I have to agree that the fleecing of drinks and food at the cinema is rather nuts, but then again a lot of mobile catering has gone up as well. Icecreams are through the roof (the good old 99flaks is now closer to £2 or sometimes £3 than the old £0.99).

Some of it is rising costs, but it seems that no one is any the richer for it so one can only assume that insurance, business tax, etc..... are all going up. So its more that the upper end are squeezing the lower more and more; which is a problem because most people only complain as far as the company they deal with directly.


----------



## Vladd67

You do realise that when 99 ice creams came out they cost a lot less than 99p
99 Flake - Wikipedia


----------



## bedlamite

I see a lot of responses talking about the concessions pricing. We do realise these aren't compulsory, don't we? Apart from nachos. No nachos, no Bedlamite.


----------



## BAYLOR

bedlamite said:


> I see a lot of responses talking about the concessions pricing. We do realise these aren't compulsory, don't we? Apart from nachos. No nachos, no Bedlamite.



It's difficult to enjoy a crummy movie when your stomach is growling.


----------



## Cathbad

Part of the theatrical experience is chowing down on 3,000+ calories of heart-clogging yummies!


----------



## Dave

When I first went to the cinema, all you could get were very small vanilla ice cream tubs with a wooden stick and packets of boiled sweets, but tell that to kids today and they'd never believe you.


----------



## Cathbad

Dave said:


> When I first went to the cinema, all you could get were very small vanilla ice cream tubs with a wooden stick and packets of boiled sweets, but tell that to kids today and they'd never believe you.



Really?  I was lucky then.

Early 60s when I first went with my two older sisters.  The theater had all sorts of candies and drinks, and a great big ice cream machine with all kinds of delights!  The movie was 25 cents, and I often had 75 cents left for goodies.

PIG-OUT!!!!!


----------



## Overread

bedlamite said:


> I see a lot of responses talking about the concessions pricing. We do realise these aren't compulsory, don't we?



Oh indeed it is optional, but it is part of the experience; plus whilst (in the UK at least) they can't outright ban* you from taking food in they do everything they can to discourage it and make you feel criminal** if you do (unless its for medical reasons).


*I seem to recall at one time it was and persisted mostly because no one challenged it; then someone did and won the court case. 

** Those oversized handbags women go for and big coats are great ways to smuggle sweets and drinks in! Though sadly popcorn mostly remains theirs to charge!


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> Part of the theatrical experience is chowing down on 3,000+ calories of heart-clogging yummies!



Exactly so.  And if the film is a stinker good junk food is always a plus. 




Cathbad said:


> Really?  I was lucky then.
> 
> Early 60s when I first went with my two older sisters.  The theater had all sorts of candies and drinks, and a great big ice cream machine with all kinds of delights!  The movie was 25 cents, and I often had 75 cents left for goodies.
> 
> PIG-OUT!!!!!





Dave said:


> When I first went to the cinema, all you could get were very small vanilla ice cream tubs with a wooden stick and packets of boiled sweets, but tell that to kids today and they'd never believe you.



Damn  ! I really did miss out on the Golden Age of movie concessions!


----------



## Overread

I recall far far far far back at a cinema that was a theatre which showed films* that they'd pause half way through to sell food like the afore mentioned icecream on a stick. I think it was very far back so at least something like 25 years ago now, and it doesn't do it any more (unless possibly showing a marathon of Lord of the Rings). 


*which meant that the screen was way back into the stage and the seats were setup so that if anyone sat in front of you you'd lose half the bottom of the screen to their head - they had cushions - but since everyone used them that kind of defeated the point


----------



## HanaBi

Dave said:


> When I first went to the cinema, all you could get were very small vanilla ice cream tubs with a wooden stick and packets of boiled sweets, but tell that to kids today and they'd never believe you.



When I was a regular cinema-goer back in the 70s, 80s and 90s, there would be:-


curtains-up/lights-down at around 7:30pm, 
up rolled the trailers for future films "coming to this cinema soon"; 
then after about 5 minutes of that it would be curtains down/lights up. 
Muzac. 
Then lights down/curtains up, support film begins (some pointless and totally unrelated short that no one cared about but lasted between 20-30 minutes); 
curtains down/lights up; 
muzac; 
curtains down/lights up, 
PEARL & BLEEDIN' DEAN (another 10 minutes worth of ads, including a curry house "just round the corner from this cinema", and the latest totally surreal Benson & Hedges cigarette ad)
curtains down/lights up
The Usherettes would suddenly appear at the foot of each aisle, selling those tubs of bland vanilla ice cream and a carton of Kia-Ora orange juice for about a quid;
curtains up/lights down
an onscreen warning reminding patrons that "can smokers please smoke on the right side of the auditorium"
curtain down/lights up
muzac
Curtain up/lights up
the actual film finally, finally begins!!!!


----------



## WaylanderToo

BAYLOR said:


> Because this is one thing we can actually agree on.
> 
> By the way  did you happen to see how well the Matt Damon film *The Great Wall *is doing at the box office ?




sadly I quite enjoyed it


----------



## BAYLOR

WaylanderToo said:


> sadly I quite enjoyed it



Oh, Sorry .


----------



## Extollager

Hmmm... last time I went to a movie in a theater (cinema) might have been when Weir's *Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World* was released, around 15 years ago.

I figure that if I went now I would be distracted by people fiddling around with their phones, etc.  Who needs that?


----------



## Cathbad

Last time I went was almost a year ago.  I didn't have a problem with phones, but did with peeps bumping my wheelchair going to their seats - despite my having left more than enough room for them to pass.  People just don't watch where they're going!


----------



## RX-79G

It seems that the strongest opinion and commentary in this thread is from people that don't go to the cinema and people that disapprove of the business of cinema.

It is, like all art forms, imperfect. But it produces a regular flow of entertainment of higher production values than found anywhere else, provides a safe and almost universally appealing destination for people of all ages and is a huge domestic industry for several countries. The theaters have continued to constantly evolve, offering better viewing and listening experience for every seat in the house, more choices in concessions and greater convenience for ticket buying. It is a distinctly modern art form, and we are fortunate to have it.

I go to the movies maybe a few times a year, and it is a few years in between seeing something that really touches me. But I always leave the theater feeling like something just happened to me in a way that no other part of my life quite duplicates. It would be truly sad if the doom and gloom reflected in many of the opinions offered had any real basis in reality - I think our civilization benefits from this industry and in the rare films that truly touch us.


----------



## TheDustyZebra

Just a reminder that personal attacks are NOT tolerated on Chrons. Everyone has had their say, so just remember to play the post, not the player.


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> Last time I went was almost a year ago.  I didn't have a problem with phones, but did with peeps bumping my wheelchair going to their seats - despite my having left more than enough room for them to pass.  People just don't watch where they're going!



Ive seen more then buy share of thoughtless movie goers.


----------



## bedlamite

Dave said:


> When I first went to the cinema, all you could get were very small vanilla ice cream tubs with a wooden stick and packets of boiled sweets, but tell that to kids today and they'd never believe you.



I remember those days.


----------



## Vladd67

And a Kiora carton with a straw. A paper straw that went soggy and unusable before you finished your drink.


----------



## Cathbad

bedlamite said:


> View attachment 35305
> 
> I remember those days.



Lucky dog... he had a stick to play with...


----------



## Dave

Vladd67 said:


> And a Kiora carton with a straw. A paper straw that went soggy and unusable before you finished your drink.


I remember that too. Why?


----------



## BAYLOR

bedlamite said:


> View attachment 35305
> 
> I remember those days.



I have a cap exactly like that. Im not kidding I really do.


----------



## HanaBi

Dave said:


> I remember that too. Why?



..and you must also remember those Pearl & Dean ads? Especially the "pa par pa par pa par" jingle bit!


----------



## BAYLOR

Perhaps the age of Cinema has passed ?


----------



## RX-79G

I don't think so.


----------



## Vladd67

HanaBi said:


> ..and you must also remember those Pearl & Dean ads? Especially the "pa par pa par pa par" jingle bit!


Back when you had special ads for the cinema not just tv ads on the big screen.


----------



## Dave

HanaBi said:


> ..and you must also remember those Pearl & Dean ads? Especially the "pa par pa par pa par" jingle bit!


Yes, with the almost "home made" adverts for the local curry house and hairdresser.


----------



## Mouse

I remember when there used to be an 'interval' where you'd buy ice cream and go for a wee. They should bring that back instead of people getting up and wandering about during the films and kids getting fidgety and kicking seats. I still like going to the cinema (as long as I can sit at the back so there's nobody behind me) but it's expensive and I only go when there's a film on I really, really want to see. Last film I saw was Lego Batman.


----------



## SilentRoamer

Mouse said:


> I remember when there used to be an 'interval' where you'd buy ice cream and go for a wee. They should bring that back instead of people getting up and wandering about during the films and kids getting fidgety and kicking seats. I still like going to the cinema (as long as I can sit at the back so there's nobody behind me) but it's expensive and I only go when there's a film on I really, really want to see. Last film I saw was Lego Batman.



I know the Dome Cinema in West Worthing was still doing this as recently as the last round of Harry Potter films. The interval is normally called the interlude (at least in the UK) and I like them for the following reasons:

Firstly I can stretch my legs and take a toilet break if necessary without missing the film.
Secondly I can get more to eat after most likely finishing my first round of snacks. 
Thirdly and most importantly, I can discuss the film with whoever I am watching it with. (That's assuming I haven't gone alone which I do often).


----------



## BAYLOR

Mouse said:


> I remember when there used to be an 'interval' where you'd buy ice cream and go for a wee. They should bring that back instead of people getting up and wandering about during the films and kids getting fidgety and kicking seats. I still like going to the cinema (as long as I can sit at the back so there's nobody behind me) but it's expensive and I only go when there's a film on I really, really want to see. Last film I saw was Lego Batman.



The movie intermission . Might not be a bad idea to bring that back.


----------



## Vince W

Films would have to get much better than they are now for people to put up with an intermission.

My wife and I went to the cinema regularly for many years, but recently we've pretty much given up on it. The overall quality of the film is not what it used to be. The reliance on effects over story is boring.

Also, when I was a kid going to the cinema was a big event for us. For most people really and most people knew enough not to talk over the dialogue. Now many people spend half the film on the phone and only look up for big noises.

But the worst has to be when a parent marches in a load of kids, sets them down with sugar snacks and then buggers off to leave them for the duration. Mayhem is virtually ensured.


----------



## CAKnight

I used to have a Cineworld Unlimited card but with the drop in any original films (seems to be only remakes and superhero movies), plus anti-social behaviour, I've given it up and only go for major releases now.


----------



## BAYLOR

Then again , a film comes along that restores you interest in cinema going, jut a bit.

Skull Island.


----------



## Curt Chiarelli

Speaking as an ardent, life-long movie fan, my own cinema-going habits have also tapered off to practically nothing in the last ten years. The reasons are threefold: *1)* The unchecked rudeness of my fellow cinema patrons and the theatre management's unwillingness to uphold any kind of standard of conduct that allows other people to enjoy a film in peace; *2)* The quality and range of subject matter of many major studio releases has narrowed considerably in the last thirty years. Thanks mostly to the greed and play-it-safe conservatism that results from it in Hollywood, every film that doesn't become a massive, record-shattering blockbuster on its opening weekend is considered a dismal failure. Thus, fewer films are being released and those that do get made often pander to the lowest common denominator; and *3)* The ticket cost has skyrocketed. And considering the foregoing two points, I think my time is better spent drawing, painting, sculpting, writing essays and listening to classical music.


----------



## Brian G Turner

One thing I really don't like about the cinema, but don't hear anyone talk about, is the flicker.

I see it whenever there's movement, but it's especially obviously on wide landscape shots, when the camera then starts to pan. It's like the frame rate drops to something like 10 frames a second. 

The effect is still there on DVD, but it's far less pronounced for being on a smaller screen.

Does anyone else get that? I presume it can't just be me??


----------



## Foxbat

Brian G Turner said:


> One thing I really don't like about the cinema, but don't hear anyone talk about, is the flicker.
> 
> I see it whenever there's movement, but it's especially obviously on wide landscape shots, when the camera then starts to pan. It's like the frame rate drops to something like 10 frames a second.
> 
> The effect is still there on DVD, but it's far less pronounced for being on a smaller screen.
> 
> Does anyone else get that? I presume it can't just be me??


Yes. I've noticed flicker. I've also noticed an increase in grain depending on the shot. 

You can also see if a movie has been poorly transferred from film to digital for DVD release. The tell-tale sign is normally a very slightly visible layer of dust particles that is static even when the shot is not (as if you're looking through a dirty window). This is caused by a transfer box using mirrors - film projected into box, bounced from mirrors that are not perfectly clean and recorded by a digital camera. The best quality transfers  use automated scanners but they are very expensive and out of the reach of many small companies

I've never really seen these  as an annoyances as such - but then again, I mostly spend my movie watching time on oldies on DVD and they are usually full of flicker, grain and 'dirty windows'  

I almost never go to the cinema any more. The last time I thought about going was when an Edinburgh cinema was showing The Good, The Bad And The Ugly on the big screen a couple of years ago. In the end, I couldn't be bothered and watched it on DVD instead.


----------



## Curt Chiarelli

Brian G Turner said:


> One thing I really don't like about the cinema, but don't hear anyone talk about, is the flicker.
> 
> I see it whenever there's movement, but it's especially obviously on wide landscape shots, when the camera then starts to pan. It's like the frame rate drops to something like 10 frames a second.
> 
> The effect is still there on DVD, but it's far less pronounced for being on a smaller screen.
> 
> Does anyone else get that? I presume it can't just be me??



Yes, I've noticed that stroboscopic effect (often referred to as "judder"), in particular when the camera is panning too quickly on a moving foreground object in the frame, with the worst results occurring when there is some kind of patterned background in the shot, like a brick wall. It's recommended by the American Cinematographer Manual that the frame width should not be covered in more than seven seconds during a pan or else artifacts will occur onscreen. Also, the camera's shutter angle can be adjusted to mitigate this problem. Over the years this problem has become less frequent to the point where the only time I see it nowadays is when I watch older films from the 1970s and 1980's.


----------



## Curt Chiarelli

Cathbad said:


> Lucky dog... he had a stick to play with...



Spoiled rotten!


----------



## BAYLOR

Too many tent pole films


----------



## Ignited Moth

I've actually been going to the cinema a lot more than I used to in the past year and a half. I've always liked going, but just never really did all that much until I started dating my boyfriend. He loves going to the movies so it's something we've enjoyed going to together.
It's weird how much the place has changed, too. Now they have a bar in the place that does movie-themed cocktails and they just installed big recliner chairs.


----------



## BAYLOR

The Multiplex Cinema near me has  , a Bar, a Restaurants , Food served in the theater. In last two years its changed alot.


----------



## Cathbad

It's actually a throw-back; there used to be lots of "dinner and a movie" theaters.


----------



## SilentRoamer

My biggest annoyance at the Cinema by a HUGE margin is the price of the food. £7.50 for a hotdog and a coke.... I mean really?

I have two kids and if I take them to a showing and get everyone hotdogs and sweets etc you are lucky to get change from £40. That's significantly more than what a DVD would cost.

I would rather pay more for the showing and less for the ood, I understand they are subsidising the showings but there must be a better model. I think it is worse where I live as there is one large cinema and nothing else unless you wanted a 40 minute drive so they have a monopoly.

Another minor annoyance are that often there are two members of staff trying to process hundreds of people - which I am sure must be against Health and Safety laws.

That being said, I do enjoy the cinema. Mainly because I like surround sound and a huge screen to watch!


----------



## HanaBi

Do you think that as we get older we're turning into grumpy "Victor Meldrew" types?

Everything was always better in "my day!" Although I'm not really sure it was to be honest!

I went to the cinema about a week ago to see "Rogue One", a film that's been around for months now; but still the cinema was still about half-full. I didn't bother with food or drinks - far too expensive! And even though there was a message on-screen saying "please switch off your mobile and tablet device", no one did (although I did switch mine to mute/vibrate). And as the film began there were about 9 "patrons" all playing silly-buggers with their phones lights, waving them around like light-sabres, and never shutting the hell up!

Did I see any staff around? Did I fishhooks!


----------



## Vince W

My old, woe begotten CRT television died on me last week and I've been forced into this century with a new one. I must say with the size of the screen and the quality of the picture makes the idea of putting up with all the daft beggars in the cinema less and less appealing.


----------



## HanaBi

Vince W said:


> My old, woe begotten CRT television died on me last week and I've been forced into this century with a new one. I must say with the size of the screen and the quality of the picture makes the idea of putting up with all the daft beggars in the cinema less and less appealing.



Absolutely! 

Home Cinema, is a glorious invention! I only have a smallish 46" SmartTV in my living room; and a 32'er in the bedroom; all hooked up to my Qnap NASbox over the local network, rigged with all manner of speakers and amps for an almost perfect cinema-like experience! (I did ask the wife to dress up as an usherette, standing in the corner of the room carrying a tray of ice creams, but she hit me round the head with an old Agatha Christie book she was reading!)


----------



## Vince W

HanaBi said:


> Absolutely!
> 
> Home Cinema, is a glorious invention! I only have a smallish 46" SmartTV in my living room; and a 32'er in the bedroom; all hooked up to my Qnap NASbox over the local network, rigged with all manner of speakers and amps for an almost perfect cinema-like experience! (I did ask the wife to dress up as an usherette, standing in the corner of the room carrying a tray of ice creams, but she hit me round the head with an old Agatha Christie book she was reading!)



Be grateful it wasn't a Dickens. You'd've been concussed!


----------



## BAYLOR

I was going to see *Guardians of the Galaxy* but I just didn't feel like it.


----------



## Lumens

BAYLOR said:


> I was going to see *Guardians of the Galaxy* but I just didn't feel like it.


Heh, I feel the same. It's mildly tempting but not enough.


----------



## Dave

It is good, but nothing ever lives up to the hype surrounding these things. However, if you looked at film-going as a hobby, and compared it to supporting a sports team, or musical group, or actively doing some kind of sport, or gliding, then the cost is insignificant. I'd say go and see it. You could wait for the release on cable, but you might get hit, crossing the road, by a bus tomorrow and never ever see it.


----------



## BAYLOR

The films that I see coming out boast too many special effects and not enough story.


----------



## Cathbad

Dave said:


> You could wait for the release on cable, but you might get hit, crossing the road, by a bus tomorrow and



You tease!


----------



## AlexH

I enjoy going to the cinema, especially for the good-looking films. The likes of Avatar, Guardians of the Galaxy, LOTR, Studio Ghibli etc are best seen and heard at the cinema in my opinion.

I live in a town with a population of 120,000, and there are 3 big cinemas within 5 miles of each other, plus the Film Theatre, which shows independent and foreign cinema. The whole of North Staffordshire has a population of about 450,000, so since Cineworld joined Odeon and Vue last year, there's a bit of a cinema-war going on. Cineworld and Odeon are £5 for an adult ticket, and every seat in Vue will soon be a big recliner seat. They're great for chilling out on, but the refurbishment hasn't won me over yet - solid floors and leather seats have replaced the previous carpets and softer material, so sound from fellow cinema-goers travels a lot more...


----------



## BAYLOR

I was also contemplating the  King Arthur film, but it's not getting great reviews .


----------



## Cathbad

BAYLOR said:


> I was also contemplating the  King Arthur film, but it's not getting great reviews .



Baylor!

You should know by now, that the movies with bad professional reviews are usually the best movies!


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> Baylor!
> 
> You should know by now, that the movies with bad professional reviews are usually the best movies!



In some cases that true.


----------



## Cathbad

I used to watch Siskel and Ebert for two reasons:  1) They had the best clips.  2) Whatever movies they gave two thumbs down to were always the best!


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> I used to watch Siskel and Ebert for two reasons:  1) They had the best clips.  2) Whatever movies they gave two thumbs down to were always the best!



I enjoyed their show. Even though I didn't agree with them on a number of occasion, they were both even entertaining.    It's too bad that they are no longer with us . I miss that show.


----------



## Cathbad

BAYLOR said:


> I enjoyed their show. Even though I didn't agree with them on a number of occasion, they were both even entertaining.    It's too bad that they are no longer with us . I miss that show.



It was entertaining, even though they had a consistent method:  One movie Siskel would give a thumbs down to and Ebert a thumbs up; one with the thumbs reversed, one movie both thumbs down, and a foreign film they both gave a thumbs up to.


----------



## HanaBi

Another irritation with the cinema: chewing gum! 

Chewing gum, empty crisp packets, chocolate wrappers, empty coke tins, popcorn cartons et al!

Quite often when I go into an auditorium some of the aisles and seats are littered with the above! And worse, some seats still have crushed crisps, melted chocolate and/or spilt liquids. And then of course there's the treading on chewing gum as you make your way through  a busy aisle. 

Of course nothing will top an unsavoury incident 10 years ago at a local Empire cinema, and finding a condom down the side of my seat! (for the sake of decency I will not expand on this further)


----------



## Vince W

HanaBi said:


> Another irritation with the cinema: chewing gum!
> 
> Chewing gum, empty crisp packets, chocolate wrappers, empty coke tins, popcorn cartons et al!
> 
> Quite often when I go into an auditorium some of the aisles and seats are littered with the above! And worse, some seats still have crushed crisps, melted chocolate and/or spilt liquids. And then of course there's the treading on chewing gum as you make your way through  a busy aisle.
> 
> Of course nothing will top an unsavoury incident 10 years ago at a local Empire cinema, and finding a condom down the side of my seat! (for the sake of decency I will not expand on this further)



I was about to say that if snack detritus was all you've had to contend with you should count yourself lucky, but I see that it's not.


----------



## Daisy-Boo

I hadn't gone to the cinema in years and then at the beginning of this year I suddenly wanted to get the cinema experience again. One of the two cinema chains in my country launched their VIP screens at a major mall close to me. I loved the experience. Large reclining leather chairs in small viewing rooms (between 20 and 25 seats), dedicated snack bar with alcohol and light meals available. I've seen a few films at VIP and it is the way to view movies. I hate sitting in the regular ones now.


----------



## BAYLOR

Thus far, I have not bothered going to the Cinema. The current crop of films and those up coming just don't appeal to me.


----------



## Dave

BAYLOR said:


> Thus far, I have not bothered going to the Cinema. The current crop of films and those up coming just don't appeal to me.


I saw _Guardians of the Galaxy vol 2 _last. On that occasion, there was no one eating, no one was talking or using their phone, no one pushied past with luggage cases to sit down, no one was puking or mooning, no babies were crying, no doors were slamming, no people were arguing or fighting, and no heart attacks stopped this performance (though I would have forgiven that.) All in all, it was an enjoyable experience.


----------



## BAYLOR

My favoritesummer movie years 1977, 1979,1980,81 and 82. After that they,the movies with some exceptions started to get less and less appealing.


----------



## Dave

BAYLOR said:


> My favoritesummer movie years 1977, 1979,1980,81 and 82. After that they,the movies with some exceptions started to get less and less appealing.


Surely, that is only a function of age - I'm assuming that you _*were*_ younger then 

However, there may be something in what you say. I think I've said before on Chronicles that when I was younger I would go to the cinema almost once a week and we would usually just pick something to watch when we got there. That happened to be about the same time period you mention and rarely was there nothing to choose from or that was really bad.

I think one difference is that more _serious_ films were aimed at teenagers then, and many films now are made for women of a certain age. Many films aimed at teenagers now are trash, and many are for very niche audiences with a much less wide appeal.


----------



## HanaBi

BAYLOR said:


> My favoritesummer movie years 1977, 1979,1980,81 and 82. After that they,the movies with some exceptions started to get less and less appealing.



My years started in 1975 to about 85, beginning with all those "disaster" films such as Towering Inferno, Earthquake, The Hindenburg, Airport 75/77/79; and of course the likes of Star Wars, Alien, Jaws and Close Encounters to close the 70s and Star Wars, Back to the Future and Blade Runner into the early 80s

I was in my mid to late teens in that period - the cinema was cheap, as were the drinks and food; quite often there was a decent supporting film; and everyone knew cinema etiquette.

I don't doubt there are some very good films out there today, but it's just the uncivil patrons and the money-grabbing principles of the big chains I can no longer put up with.


----------



## BAYLOR

Dave said:


> Surely, that is only a function of age - I'm assuming that you _*were*_ younger then
> 
> However, there may be something in what you say. I think I've said before on Chronicles that when I was younger I would go to the cinema almost once a week and we would usually just pick something to watch when we got there. That happened to be about the same time period you mention and rarely was there nothing to choose from or that was really bad.
> 
> I think one difference is that more _serious_ films were aimed at teenagers then, and many films now are made for women of a certain age. Many films aimed at teenagers now are trash, and many are for very niche audiences with a much less wide appeal.



Teenage to 20's after that time 1982 , The studios  started making or more and more films that didn't care about and didn't like.


----------



## Cathbad

The Big Screen's days are numbered - a suicide by the film industry.

That day, if I live to see it, will be the third saddest day of my life.

When was this cinema etiquette everyone talks about?  I sure don't remember it!  Loud patrons, smokers, drunks - these have always been staples of the cinematic experience. 

Perhaps it's our patience threshold that has actually changed?

No, the biggest three reasons cinemas will fail are (in order of relativity, in my opinion):

1) Expense.  Movie tickets cost proportionately more than ever before.  It isn't just inflation:  By my calculations, inflation would have the price around $10 - $12, not $15 - $20.  The snackbar is so overpriced as to be utterly ridiculous.  In my youth and early adulthood, you had to arrive at the theater early, because you had to have time to wait in the long lines to get your drinks and snacks!  Now, I bet most places feel lucky if they have six snackbar customers before a movie starts!

Also in this category is the diminishing costs of big-screen televisions and rented/purchased and free movies to watch.  $20 per person per film, or $10 a month for the whole family - thousands of titles to choose from.  Snacks of your choice, purchased at a quarter of the cost from the local Walmart.

2) Film CEOs.  These are the people who decide which movies get made.  For two decades now, the movies they decide on have mostly been repeats of the same stories, told over and over.  Often literally, but also stylistically.  My gads, how many times an they remake The Punisher's beginning??  CGI has replaced story-telling, and extreme visuals, FX and musical scores have tricked the public into not noticing that movie-makers no longer go by those time minimums, as the movies get shorter and shorter.  (A 84 minute movie will often actually end at the 77 minute mark, showing four minutes of credits, followed by three minutes of black screen).  If the decisions aren't taken out of the hands of CEO's, the end will come quicker.

3) Apathy.  Seems like it's become the popular thing to dis movie-going.  Complaining is the thing to do.  "Too loud!" (always has been)  "Too expensive!"  (It is, but only complaining does little)  "I hate the seating" (seating hasn't changed in 50 years, from what I've seen). etc.  If you (yeah, YOU!) don't go to the movies, the friends you influence won't either.  If you only go to movies of one genre, it won't be enough to sustain the industry. 

If you don't support the Cinema, there won't be a Cinema.

And there is little more sad than that thought.  When I consider the multitudes who'll never experience the _true _big-screen experience, it makes me want to cry.


----------



## BAYLOR

I





Cathbad said:


> The Big Screen's days are numbered - a suicide by the film industry.
> 
> That day, if I live to see it, will be the third saddest day of my life.
> 
> When was this cinema etiquette everyone talks about?  I sure don't remember it!  Loud patrons, smokers, drunks - these have always been staples of the cinematic experience.
> 
> Perhaps it's our patience threshold that has actually changed?
> 
> No, the biggest three reasons cinemas will fail are (in order of relativity, in my opinion):
> 
> 1) Expense.  Movie tickets cost proportionately more than ever before.  It isn't just inflation:  By my calculations, inflation would have the price around $10 - $12, not $15 - $20.  The snackbar is so overpriced as to be utterly ridiculous.  In my youth and early adulthood, you had to arrive at the theater early, because you had to have time to wait in the long lines to get your drinks and snacks!  Now, I bet most places feel lucky if they have six snackbar customers before a movie starts!
> 
> Also in this category is the diminishing costs of big-screen televisions and rented/purchased and free movies to watch.  $20 per person per film, or $10 a month for the whole family - thousands of titles to choose from.  Snacks of your choice, purchased at a quarter of the cost from the local Walmart.
> 
> 2) Film CEOs.  These are the people who decide which movies get made.  For two decades now, the movies they decide on have mostly been repeats of the same stories, told over and over.  Often literally, but also stylistically.  My gads, how many times an they remake The Punisher's beginning??  CGI has replaced story-telling, and extreme visuals, FX and musical scores have tricked the public into not noticing that movie-makers no longer go by those time minimums, as the movies get shorter and shorter.  (A 84 minute movie will often actually end at the 77 minute mark, showing four minutes of credits, followed by three minutes of black screen).  If the decisions aren't taken out of the hands of CEO's, the end will come quicker.
> 
> 3) Apathy.  Seems like it's become the popular thing to dis movie-going.  Complaining is the thing to do.  "Too loud!" (always has been)  "Too expensive!"  (It is, but only complaining does little)  "I hate the seating" (seating hasn't changed in 50 years, from what I've seen). etc.  If you (yeah, YOU!) don't go to the movies, the friends you influence won't either.  If you only go to movies of one genre, it won't be enough to sustain the industry.
> 
> If you don't support the Cinema, there won't be a Cinema.
> 
> And there is little more sad than that thought.  When I consider the multitudes who'll never experience the _true _big-screen experience, it makes me want to cry.




As much as I might complain about The quality of the films offered and other issues,I to would hate to see the Cinema go away, something important. Would  be lost.  Back in the 1950's the studios outcompeted television by offering bigger wider  sumptuous movie spectacles (Many of which are now classics like Ben  Hur, Sparticus,The Ten Commandments,Suth Pacific,The King andI ) Which television (though it had better writing  simply by couldn't match Hollywood movie revenue.  Telvsion at that time couldn't attract big time A list stars unless they were Hollywood has beens. For along time, that worked and the movie companies prospered, that is untill the age modern cable tv and the internet and streaming  began making inroads and now they can match Hollywood on the revenue side and aliters from Hollywood are doing telvsiion because they can far more in telvsion then they can on the big screen.  The only ones that can solve some of these problems are the movie companies and the movie theaters. THeycanstar by offering better films at cheaper prices. ONe thing thestudies might consider doing is to ring back the movie serials. In this day and age they can do them a lot better. It's just a thought.


----------



## Cathbad

Won't happen, @BAYLOR .  Studio execs are too scared to try things.  Two decades at the most - then no more theaters.


----------



## Overread

I don't see them going away; box-office hits still make massive fortunes. I think the number and nature of films will change, especially as TV series are starting to get to a stage where a good TV series can carry itself with film production (or close enough). Used to be your average TV series just couldn't come close in any way to matching a film in scope and presentation; however some of the bigger companies are now able to do just that Game of Thrones as a TV series with CGI good quality dragons and all would once have been possible only a film. 

As for studios don't forget not all studios are doing so badly with repeats - Pixar are doing fantastically well and even though many of their films carry similar themes/structure they are quite original and work for both adults and children. I think we are indeed in a slump where there's no big directors really pushing at new things and where there's a lot of needles revamping. I think we will come out of this; its just waiting for the comic-book-hero films to die off a bit and let something new take over.

One time it was all westerns - now its all comic-book heroes. I think we have to look to the USA and try to work out what the next big thing could be.


----------



## Cathbad

Overread said:


> as TV series are starting to get to a stage where a good TV series can carry itself with film production



To me, this seems like another reason for the extinction of the cinema.


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> Won't happen, @BAYLOR .  Studio execs are too scared to try things.  Two decades at the most - then no more theaters.



Then the end result is that they will put themselves out of business.


----------



## Cathbad

BAYLOR said:


> Then the end result is that they will put themselves out of business.



No, like good businessmen, they'll change.  Streaming is already becoming predominant.  New movies will resort to this, in "Online Theaters", whether using already existing services, or creating their own.


----------



## AlexH

Cathbad said:


> To me, this seems like another reason for the extinction of the cinema.


I've no idea if the same happens in the US, but some TV series finales (such as Doctor Who and Sherlock) air simultaneously at cinemas, with cinema-only extras. National cinemas also broadcast live theatre and opera from London and elsewhere in Europe, as well as occasional sporting events.

I'm quite lucky where I live - 3 multi-screen cinemas (plus a smaller film theatre) competing for a relatively small population means the cheapest tickets are £3.99 and the most expensive £6.99 (about $5.40-$9.50). The most expensive cinema (which also happens to be the cheapest on Mondays) is completely kitted out with big reclining seats - none of the separate 'VIP seating' that's usually the case. All 3 offer 'unlimited passes' which are good value if you watch 3, 4 or more films a month at the cinema. Food and drink is still a rip-off, but I can go a couple of hours without eating.

I don't think cinemas will die out completely, but there are less than there were 20-30 years ago (possibly excluding my own locality, definitely if you count screens). There will probably be less in another 20ish years. There are quite a few smaller cinemas in the UK too - one of my favourite experiences was a 20-seat cinema on the west coast of Scotland.


----------



## Amelia Faulkner

I have fond memories (protip: they are not fond) of seeing Equilibrium on the big screen. Now, notwithstanding whether or not you think it's a good film, there is a reasonably early scene wherein Preston has the lights blown out just as he leaps through a door and into a suddenly-pitch-dark room. There are several seconds of movie silence punctuated only by the heavy breathing of the men Preston's about to kill...

...and the loud rustling of popcorn bags, the nervous giggles from an audience who cannot sit in silence for ten whole seconds, and a voice somewhere behind me stage-whispering, "Is the film broken?"

From then on I did my damndest to make sure I went to see midnight showings... But our cinema then realised midnight showings were pretty empty (curse them!) and stopped doing them. Now, with the joy of self-employment, I just go on a Tuesday morning. If I _must_ go at the weekend, I go on a Saturday morning. People seem to not stream into the pictures until after lunch.


----------



## Amelia Faulkner

Cathbad said:


> 1) Expense. Movie tickets cost proportionately more than ever before. It isn't just inflation: By my calculations, inflation would have the price around $10 - $12, not $15 - $20. The snackbar is so overpriced as to be utterly ridiculous. In my youth and early adulthood, you had to arrive at the theater early, because you had to have time to wait in the long lines to get your drinks and snacks! Now, I bet most places feel lucky if they have six snackbar customers before a movie starts!



I went to see Gravity on release weekend on a 3D IMAX screen in Abingdon, TN, and it was $10 per ticket. The same ticket in the UK would have cost me upwards of £16 ($21).

Concessions in the UK are obscenely overpriced, too. You're looking at around £8 (just under $11) for a fizzy drink and a bag of popcorn, both of which literally cost pennies.


----------



## Cathbad

Only when I was a kid did were there theaters with morning movies.


----------



## Cathbad

Amelia Faulkner said:


> I went to see Gravity on release weekend on a 3D IMAX screen in Abingdon, TN, and it was $10 per ticket. The same ticket in the UK would have cost me upwards of £16 ($21).
> 
> Concessions in the UK are obscenely overpriced, too. You're looking at around £8 (just under $11) for a fizzy drink and a bag of popcorn, both of which literally cost pennies.



My tickets, locally, cost %15.50 - because I'm old.  Regular tickets are $18.00, and children's are $10.50.


----------



## WaylanderToo

Cathbad said:


> No, like good businessmen, they'll change.


----------



## HanaBi

Amelia Faulkner said:


> I went to see Gravity on release weekend on a 3D IMAX screen in Abingdon, TN, and it was $10 per ticket. The same ticket in the UK would have cost me upwards of £16 ($21).
> 
> Concessions in the UK are obscenely overpriced, too. You're looking at around £8 (just under $11) for a fizzy drink and a bag of popcorn, both of which literally cost pennies.



The IMAX cinemas in my neck of the woods (Birmingham, UK) are roughly the same prices (although there are concessions); but as you say the real profit margin for these guys is drinks and snacks. Not only that but I have noticed for some time that they pipe popcorn aromas through the air-con system in each cinema in order to get your hunger-pangs going into the red zone and thus spending money on things you hadn't really considered.

But of course its all down to supply and demand. If people are willing to pay these silly prices then the corporations will continue to rip us off.


----------



## BAYLOR

Amelia Faulkner said:


> I went to see Gravity on release weekend on a 3D IMAX screen in Abingdon, TN, and it was $10 per ticket. The same ticket in the UK would have cost me upwards of £16 ($21).
> 
> Concessions in the UK are obscenely overpriced, too. You're looking at around £8 (just under $11) for a fizzy drink and a bag of popcorn, both of which literally cost pennies.



I recently saw this film tv and liked it far less.  It really didn't have much in the way of a story.


----------



## Vince W

BAYLOR said:


> I recently saw this film tv and liked it far less.  It really didn't have much in the way of a story.



No it did not. Even in the cinema it was only so-so.


----------



## BAYLOR

Vince W said:


> No it did not. Even in the cinema it was only so-so.



Like Avatar , Gravity was a cinema gimmick film. Of course, having both George Clooney and Sandra Bullock star in it helped the box office too.


----------



## Amelia Faulkner

Oh god yeah. Gravity was total bobbins. I was so let down. It was so pretty, and the sense of vastness was very well done in 3D, but the story? What a pile of nonsense.



HanaBi said:


> But of course its all down to supply and demand. If people are willing to pay these silly prices then the corporations will continue to rip us off.



Tell me about it. A mate of mine insists on buying gross cinema hotdogs and popcorn for a billion pounds instead of going to any one of the very good restaurants which surround the cinema (and the passable ones, and even the junk ones).


----------



## Cathbad

I so like getting snacks to take in with me.  Unfortunately, by the time I pay for the drink (caffeine-aholic; can't go 2 hours without), I'm broke!


----------



## HanaBi

Amelia Faulkner said:


> Oh god yeah. Gravity was total bobbins. I was so let down. It was so pretty, and the sense of vastness was very well done in 3D, but the story? What a pile of nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me about it. A mate of mine insists on buying gross cinema hotdogs and popcorn for a billion pounds instead of going to any one of the very good restaurants which surround the cinema (and the passable ones, and even the junk ones).



Fortunately the IMAX near me isn't too fussed about bringing in your own snacks (some cinemas do ask for a bag check!) So I will usually take some Walkers Crisps, a couple of KitKats, or packet of Revels/Minstrels/Maltesers  and a bottled diet coke to keep me going. And then its straight down the chippie or Indian after the show is over. 

IMAX won't get a penny out of me other than the entrance fee


----------



## Cathbad

The theaters I know of will throw you out if they catch you with snack items they don't sell.  I even know of one person who was banned (I believe it was for six months).


----------



## Judderman

The magic of the cinema is alive and well!
Particularly in the winter I still really enjoy going to the cinema. Of course you have to try to keep your expectations down if you go based on publicity rather than reviews. I watched plenty of great movies in 2016. Not so much this year. I agree tickets are a bit overpriced and I almost never buy drinks there.


----------



## BAYLOR

Judderman said:


> The magic of the cinema is alive and well!
> Particularly in the winter I still really enjoy going to the cinema. Of course you have to try to keep your expectations down if you go based on publicity rather than reviews. I watched plenty of great movies in 2016. Not so much this year. I agree tickets are a bit overpriced and I almost never buy drinks there.



The only think more outrageous then the ticket prices are the concession prices .


----------



## Vince W

BAYLOR said:


> The only think more outrageous then the ticket prices are the concession prices .



That's why you hear a barrage pop cans opening as the light dim in the auditoriums now.


----------



## Cathbad

I've never been brave enough to sneak soda in with me.


----------



## Vince W

And why can't we get some sort of healthy alternative to the fat/salt/sugar laden gunk they offer? I never touch the popcorn because it usually tastes of nothing but salt.


----------



## Overread

I go for sweet popcorn because it actually tastes nice; I've never worked out why people like salty popcorn, as you say it just tastes of salt. 

As for why there are not other alternatives I think its because cinemas are a bit stuck in their ways. You've got the "high class" ones where the tickets cost way more, but you've almost got a full catering service side to the food; and then you've got your regular which haven't really changed all that much in what they offer other than to have potentially branched out for nachos.


Thing is cinemas are seen as "fun" times and fun is fun food and sweets not apples and muesli bars


----------



## HanaBi

Actually going to the cinema for a mid morning or mid afternoon matinee is often a joy, primarily because the annoying kids are at school, and/or most adults are at work. So get the cinema almost to myself - and that's when they don't mind taking your own food in because its just not worth the time, money or effort to do their own for such a relatively small footfall.

That's one of the pleasures of being a self-employed consultant


----------



## Dave

Overread said:


> Thing is cinemas are seen as "fun" times and fun is fun food and sweets not apples and muesli bars


Some squirrels might disagree.

Yes, I expect unhealthy popcorn, hotdogs and cheap burgers. I don't expect three course meals. However, one is appealing to the "yooth" market with less disposable income, the other to 30+ something couples with dual incomes (and possibly no kids.)

When our children were younger and money was tight, we used to buy sweets and drinks at the newsagents and sneak them inside. Now, I don't think they even stop you. I think there was a civil court case which decided they had no right to stop anyone.


----------



## Vince W

HanaBi said:


> Actually going to the cinema for a mid morning or mid afternoon matinee is often a joy, primarily because the annoying kids are at school, and/or most adults are at work. So get the cinema almost to myself - and that's when they don't mind taking your own food in because its just not worth the time, money or effort to do their own for such a relatively small footfall.
> 
> That's one of the pleasures of being a self-employed consultant



I've skived off a few times to do this! I'll schedule an out of office meeting and head to the cinema. I've only done it a few times so no questions are asked, but it is nice to be in a nearly empty cinema.


----------



## Judderman

Dave said:


> When our children were younger and money was tight, we used to buy sweets and drinks at the newsagents and sneak them inside. Now, I don't think they even stop you. I think there was a civil court case which decided they had no right to stop anyone.


Yeah these days I don't even considering it sneaking stuff in if I bring food or drink from elsewhere. I think plenty of people buy there snacks elsewhere if they think about it beforehand. If they don't want me doing that then next time I would go to another cinema.
Of course if on a date you should hide the fact of being a cheapass and opt for concessions.


----------



## Cathbad

Judderman said:


> Of course if on a date you should hide the fact of being a cheapass and opt for concessions


----------



## BAYLOR

Judderman said:


> Yeah these days I don't even considering it sneaking stuff in if I bring food or drink from elsewhere. I think plenty of people buy there snacks elsewhere if they think about it beforehand. If they don't want me doing that then next time I would go to another cinema.
> Of course if on a date you should hide the fact of being a cheapass and opt for concessions.



Ebenezer Scrooge would approve of your frugality.


----------



## HanaBi

Vince W said:


> I've skived off a few times to do this! I'll schedule an out of office meeting and head to the cinema. I've only done it a few times so no questions are asked, but it is nice to be in a nearly empty cinema.



I used to do that when I worked full time for an employer - schedule out-of-office meetings in order to see a film, AND I'd still claim travelling expenses.

A breach of company trust of course, but then i would justify this to myself by all the hours of unpaid overtime I used to do for them.


----------



## Amelia Faulkner

My local Cineworld sold oranges and bananas for a while. I assume they've now palmed that off onto the Starbucks in the foyer.


----------



## Cathbad

Amelia Faulkner said:


> My local Cineworld sold oranges and bananas for a while. I assume they've now palmed that off onto the Starbucks in the foyer.



Wow... that means Starbucks finally positioned an outlet where they were cheaper than the competition!


----------



## HanaBi

That's another irritation about the cinema - the gradual encroachment of the big food/drink corporations sharing the same building. Always a Starbucks, or a Costa, or a KFC etc.


----------



## Amelia Faulkner

Cathbad said:


> Wow... that means Starbucks finally positioned an outlet where they were cheaper than the competition!


----------



## BAYLOR

A small popcorn and small drink 14 dollars.


----------



## Judderman

Just go for the films and you will be fine. Great on a cold day.


----------



## BAYLOR

They now serve dinner at movie theaters.


----------



## Cathbad

BAYLOR said:


> They now serve dinner at movie theaters.



"Dinner and a Movie" theaters are nothing new, Dude.  

(I'm actually writing a story at the moment that includes a few!)


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> "Dinner and a Movie" theaters are nothing new, Dude.
> 
> (I'm actually writing a story at the moment that includes a few!)



Is is horror story with zombie ushers dinning on movie patrons?


----------



## Cathbad

I don't do zombies.  

But it is horror.


----------



## Caledfwlch

It's been a few years since I went to a big Multiplex Cinema, as having moved back to Mid Wales, we don't have one, just a small local independent 1 screen cinema. But last time I went to a Multiplex, for me and my ex fiance's 2 tickets to a film, a drink each and some popcorn, it cost around £27 ($40+!) crazy prices.

In the UK, multiplex cinemas are often housed in kind of an entertainment version of a retail park. (A retail park is Kind of the UK version of a Mall, but not all in one building, several buildings, though we do have actual Mall's too)

The one we would go to in Leeds, just outside the city centre, it had the Multiplex with about 8 screens, a bowling alley, a night club, 3 or 4 chain restaurants like Frankie & Bennies, a huge Gym, a Pub, and a locally run (ie non chain) Indian Restaurant which was absolutely fantastic.


----------



## Vladd67

Talking of Multiplexes it is sad to see the Point cinema in Milton Keynes has closed.





> *The Point* is an entertainment complex in Central Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, England. When it opened in 1985, it included the UK's first multiplex cinema.[1][2] The front part of the building has a distinctive mirrored crystal ziggurat shape, framed by external steel beams at each corner, joined at the apex. Originally it had red neon lights connecting the apexes at each side, so that it looked like a pyramid at night. In May 2012, the building's owners Hammerson announced proposals to demolish the building and replace it with a retail-based development.[3][4] On 6 March 2014 it was announced that Milton Keynes Council had voted to approve the application. [5] On 26 February 2015, the Odeon cinema to the rear of the building closed, in preparation for the demolition. Historic England commented that it was "in essence, a large industrial shed unit" and refused to recommend the building for listed status. [6]


And so it sits there empty and untouched.


----------



## Vertigo

Personally I have no problem going for a few hours without food or drink (I do it all the time when I'm walking in the hills!) so when I do go to the cinema (rarely admittedly) I simply don't buy any of that crazy priced food and drink. I take the same attitude to low cost flying; if my flight is less than say 4 hours I have no problem doing without rather than giving the airline the silly prices they want for a dried up sandwich. I can understand how that approach might not work so well with children but for adults it shouldn't be even a slight discomfort to have something to eat and drink just before going in and then wait until you leave.

Back on the original topic I find most of the movies today are all about visuals and not about good, well-told stories. There are exceptions of course but I find that to be the case for the majority and equally they seem to think acting is secondary to SFX. I want more substance to my film viewing.


----------



## Cathbad

There is no way I can go two full hours without my caffeine, so I am forced to cough up the $3.50 for a medium diet coke at the theater.

(addictions are hell!!)


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> There is no way I can go two full hours without my caffeine, so I am forced to cough up the $3.50 for a medium diet coke at the theater.
> 
> (addictions are hell!!)




In my case , if I make the effort and try really really hard , I go about  10 whole minutes without caffeine.  After that things  get scary and the caffeine withdrawal, headaches and trembling starts to set in .


----------



## BAYLOR

In this era of so many entertainment choices venues ,  it amazes me that cinema has managed to endure.


----------



## BAYLOR

Yep, this movie season has been underwhelming.


----------



## BAYLOR

Movie going seems to be on the decline.


----------



## Dave

There is quite clearly a growing indifference to the perceived growing indifference to cinema going in this thread. 

Also, have you checked how many people are going to see _The Last Jedi_?


----------



## Vince W

As long as the masses love explody, loudy, SFXy films cinema will be safe. I'm not saying it will be great, but flashy gimmicks don't require a plot.


----------



## Lumens

Everything goes in circles. We still have radio, don't we? As long as there's a place for it, there will be people who go there. 

I wonder how virtual reality will affect cinema though, once it becomes, er... a reality. After all, there is a certain sociable aspect to being in the cinema, which is lost in VR.


----------



## night_wrtr

If it wasn't for Star Wars, I wouldn't go to the movies at all. I think the last non-Star Wars movie I went to see was Avatar.


----------



## Judderman

It seems the cinema viewing peak was in the 1940s but the lowest point was in the 1980s. UK cinema admissions and box office | Annual admissions | UK Cinema Association

So if you liked to go to the cinema more in the 80s it is probably as you were a kid then. Though I’ve gone more as I grow older.


----------



## BAYLOR

Dave said:


> There is quite clearly a growing indifference to the perceived growing indifference to cinema going in this thread.
> 
> Also, have you checked how many people are going to see _The Last Jedi_?



 Disney got back all the money they paid for for Star Wars with the added Box office success of The Last Jedi.


----------



## Cathbad

BAYLOR said:


> Disney got back all the money they paid for for Star Wars with the added Box office success of The Last Jedi.



Which kind'a belies the premise of this thread, eh?


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> Which kind'a belies the premise of this thread, eh?



If you take ways the Star Wars  and superhero films  . What have you got left thats worth watching?  Oh wait,  sorry you still have Transformer movies.


----------



## Cathbad

Avatar flicks, Star Trek, and many more are doing exceptionally well at the box office.


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> Avatar flicks, Star Trek, and many more are doing exceptionally well at the box office.



I don't think we are going to be getting a new trek Film anytime soon and I have my doubts that the Tarratino Trek will ever happen

As for Avatar , several reasons why it might not fly. First off Cameron waited too long to put a sequel into production and quite frankly, the story was not so hot .


----------



## Cathbad

BAYLOR said:


> I don't think we are going to be getting a new trek Film anytime soon and I have my doubts that the Tarratino Trek will ever happen



You know... I recall the same thing being said after TOS ended, and after the first movie (supposedly) bombed.  Oh... and after the 4th, 5th and 6th movies, too.

My bet?  2021.  And hopefully not Tarrantino.


----------



## Cathbad

BAYLOR said:


> As for Avatar , several reasons why it might not fly. First off Cameron waited too long to put a sequel into production and quite frankly, the story was not so hot .



Yeah... what a crappy movie!!  Who'd want to do a sequel that was hated so bad it has made only $2.79 Billion??


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> Yeah... what a crappy movie!!  Who'd want to do a sequel that was hated so bad it has made only $2.79 Billion??



The only thing that film had going for it was the 3D Gimmick, You take that away and haven't got much  left .


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> You know... I recall the same thing being said after TOS ended, and after the first movie (supposedly) bombed.  Oh... and after the 4th, 5th and 6th movies, too.
> 
> My bet?  2021.  And hopefully not Tarrantino.



If they do a trek film , In the Kelvin Timeline , Ill see it.


----------



## Cathbad

BAYLOR said:


> The only thing that film had going for it was the 3D Gimmick, You take that away and haven't got much  left .



Yeah - only* THREE BILLION DOLLARS!  
*
But I wasn't talking about personal taste, rather the fact that the movie box-office industry ain't dead, yet.


----------



## Judderman

Cathbad said:


> Yeah - only* THREE BILLION DOLLARS!
> *
> But I wasn't talking about personal taste, rather the fact that the movie box-office industry ain't dead, yet.


Exactly. And as I pointed out with the link above, cinema was at its lowest ebb in attendance in '84, when Ghostbusters came out.
Go and watch Shape of Water. Baylor -saying Superhero and Star Wars movies are the only things worth watching is laughable. Basically you are saying is big budget, CGI action is the only stuff worth watching. And even if that was the case there will always be some of that.

The indifference some feel is comparable to when someone doesn't go to pubs much anymore. Their tastes in activities change. But the overall numbers don't show growing indifference. And that's despite high prices when refreshments are included.


----------



## Cathbad

I _do_ think cinemas will die out, and probably sooner than we'd like - but just not this year... or next.


----------



## KGeo777

Seeing a movie in a cinema used to be an almost religious experience for me but over time the content just got less enthralling. I began to feel less enthusiastic about it by the mid-late 90s.

It is a shame if cinemas did die out because there is such a difference between seeing a movie on a large screen. I cannot believe anyone would watch a movie on a cellphone. I don't even like doing it on computer. Then again anyone can rig up a projector these days.

Holograms or VR. I don't think either are developed enough to offer the same experience as a movie. But the industry badly needs to diversify and get back regional film-especially in the US. Originally most US filmmakers came from the Mid West-and then after the 60s they started to come from California and New York mainly. Then the shift for filmmakers was more global and outside of NA and Western Europe.
 Never in the history of the world have we have global art-it always reflected the identity of some heritage. It's an intriguing experiment to have one size fits all but ultimately unsatisfying.

I read the reports that movie-going in the US is at a 25 year low (but the studios are happy they say because they make sales globally) to mean it is time to think local. The corporations are only interested in globalist policy. An alternative to the Hollywood system desperately needs to sprout. Amazon and Netflix are also globalist in their content selections and promotions.

It's pretty astounding to see filmmaking in a dire state due to the monopoly of company ownership. Everything is so "beta" these days, from writing to acting to musical scores.

One of the best film scores I heard recently was composed for a restoration of a 1929 movie that the unknown composer did for free. Talent exists, it is just that studio owners are interested in something other than making content that pleases specific audiences (which is how it used to be when cinema was diversified).

Disney apparently owns 90 % of film content in cinemas now?

That sort of thing used to trigger anti-monopoly laws.


----------



## Dave

The place where I live once had an Odeon, a Gaumont, an Empire and an Essoldo cinema. It also had up to 100 small theatres and music halls. It was *the* centre of entertainment at the turn of the last century. Rather sadly, none of those now survive. The Odeon was last to close in the late '60's. it became a Bingo Hall and then was demolished.

Does that mean that my neighbours have become philistines? 

Of course not, there are plenty of cinemas nearby, some newly built. Travel to central London is easier and (quicker)* today, so the West End theatres and cinemas are within easy distance. We know why cinema died out - TV brought entertainment into the home. However, nothing can beat watching a show in an audience (certainly nothing beats a live show with an audience.) Cinemas were all but dying when I starting going in the '70's. They were showing porn and soft-porn, and "carry on" comedy with heavy innuendo. That changed with _Jaws_ and _Star Wars_, and they haven't yet looked back.  



Judderman said:


> Go and watch Shape of Water. Baylor -saying Superhero and Star Wars movies are the only things worth watching is laughable. Basically you are saying is big budget, CGI action is the only stuff worth watching. And even if that was the case there will always be some of that.



Earlier in this thread I gave many further examples of excellent films. Sadly, some films do not get enough screens or publicity, however, the Art-House film scene is thriving.



KGeo777 said:


> Disney apparently owns 90 % of film content in cinemas now?



Disney just bought Fox. I'm not sure how that will work out. As you say, a monopoly without competition doesn't usually bring creativity and risk-taking.


*this is debatable.


----------



## Judderman

KGeo777 said:


> Disney apparently owns 90 % of film content in cinemas now?
> 
> That sort of thing used to trigger anti-monopoly laws.


I think about 30%. But still far too much.


----------



## BAYLOR

Judderman said:


> Exactly. And as I pointed out with the link above, cinema was at its lowest ebb in attendance in '84, when Ghostbusters came out.
> Go and watch Shape of Water. Baylor -saying Superhero and Star Wars movies are the only things worth watching is laughable. Basically you are saying is big budget, CGI action is the only stuff worth watching. And even if that was the case there will always be some of that.
> 
> The indifference some feel is comparable to when someone doesn't go to pubs much anymore. Their tastes in activities change. But the overall numbers don't show growing indifference. And that's despite high prices when refreshments are included.



That is not what I meant Judderman.  Those big budget films tend to predominate at the box office. 

There was a bit on the news about Cinema going being on the overall decline. Audience indifference to the offering  is probably one of a number  of factors , the others being that there are multiple venues for ones entertainment dollar.


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> I _do_ think cinemas will die out, and probably sooner than we'd like - but just not this year... or next.



Ultimately, Cinema going will die out. That I believe.


----------



## Cathbad

BAYLOR said:


> Ultimately, Cinema going will die out. That I believe.



Of course it will!  Streaming will take over, which will soon be coupled with VR, etc.


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> Of course it will!  Streaming will take over, which will soon be coupled with VR, etc.



Alternate venues and the fact that these venues have lot of money to attract the best of Hollywoods talent away from the big screen.


----------



## Cathbad

BAYLOR said:


> Alternate venues and the fact that these venues have lot of money to attract the best of Hollywoods talent away from the big screen.



Not yet, they aren't!  It'll be several years before the cinema declines to the point decisions will need to be made.  Seems some - like Paramount and Disney - are preparing for the inevitable.  Others will die.


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> Not yet, they aren't!  It'll be several years before the cinema declines to the point decisions will need to be made.  Seems some - like Paramount and Disney - are preparing for the inevitable.  Others will die.



This consolidation that we are now seeing  brings to mind the of Max Headroom  episode  where we discover that Cinema got  swallowed up by the bit tv network conglomerates and rendered extinct. It's really  frightening how prescient that tv series has proven to be.


----------



## Cathbad

As long as the quality improves, no problem here!


----------



## Vladd67

Maybe cinema will go the way of theatre and become a minority interest subsidised by the occasional big event.


----------



## Dave

Vladd67 said:


> Maybe cinema will go the way of theatre and become a minority interest subsidised by the occasional big event.


Undoubtedly it will do this, but long-term. Instead, we will be talking part in 'reality' cinema/games where we play roles. However, this thread was discussing the here and the right here now. We are not at that place, right now. I do not see any evidence of a "growing indifference for cinema going" and none has been provided (other than that cinema was much more popular before TV and peaked in the 1940s.)



BAYLOR said:


> There was a bit on the news about Cinema going being on the overall decline. Audience indifference to the offering  is probably one of a number  of factors , the others being that there are multiple venues for ones entertainment dollar.



Which "news"? When, where? What research cited? Independently peer reviewed? Or fake news? Comment or fact? Personal bias?


----------



## Edward M. Grant

Dave said:


> I do not see any evidence of a "growing indifference for cinema going" and none has been provided



I can't speak for anyone else, but the last time anyone I know told me they were going to the cinema was the last but one Star Wars movie. I haven't been to a cinema in over two years, and that time was because I had a free ticket voucher.

Between the mostly-crappy movies, the cost, and the bed-bugs, I see no reason to go to a cinema at all. Particularly when I can go there at home any time I feel like it in VR (though they need to at least double the number of pixels in the headsets to really make it a cinema-equivalent).


----------



## Cathbad

The last several times I went to the theater... the place was packed.

Hmm...


----------



## Edward M. Grant

Cathbad said:


> The last several times I went to the theater... the place was packed.



Was that the Special Ed kids again? They provided more entertainment than the movie in the Alien vs Predator movie showing we went to a few years back.

(forget which one it was, but it was set on Earth and so dark you couldn't even see what was happening most of the time)


----------



## J Riff

AND it costs a fortune. Over 20$ after transpo and popcorn, and many more movies not worth the 3$ they used to rent for. A rich person's hobby now, cinema-going. )


----------



## Vince W

I received some cinema vouchers at Christmas, but I'm going to be very choosy about using them.


----------



## Cathbad

Edward M. Grant said:


> Was that the Special Ed kids again



I think I'll choose not to take this as an insult...


----------



## BAYLOR

J Riff said:


> AND it costs a fortune. Over 20$ after transpo and popcorn, and many more movies not worth the 3$ they used to rent for. A rich person's hobby now, cinema-going. )



The concession prices certainly don't help.


----------



## Cathbad

Concession prices are self-defeating.  Selling for less brings more customers.  Less profit per customer, but more profit overall.  I have no idea who decided to have the Concession make up costs, but it certainly wasn't someone from the restaurant community - nor, it seems, from the retail industry.


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> Concession prices are self-defeating.  Selling for less brings more customers.  Less profit per customer, but more profit overall.  I have no idea who decided to have the Concession make up costs, but it certainly wasn't someone from the restaurant community - nor, it seems, from the retail industry.



It makes no sense.


----------



## Judderman

As people are already coming for the film I suspect the high concession prices works very well. Not that I like it.
People get a coke and some popcorn. Several quid but better than not getting it for most people who have decided to go to the cinema. Margin on the drinks must be gigantic.

There is occasionally places with cheaper soft drinks etc. Usually artsy cinemas or ones showing older films, and they needs the cheaper offers to bring in enough people.


----------



## Cathbad

Judderman said:


> As people are already coming for the film I suspect the high concession prices works very well.



_But they don't_.  As I've said before, when I was much younger, you had to arrive early to the theater, because the concession stands were long.  If you didn't get in that line early enough, you risked missing some of the movie - which I sometimes did!  Now, even though the seats are still full, there is _never_ a long line at Concession.  I can even risk going for a refill at a slow point in the movie, because I'll not have to wait.

It isn't a small difference - it's _massive_!  And I've seen this at multiple theaters.  Every movie I've went to see in the past 5 to 10 years has been quite full, if not sell-outs... but hardly anyone is standing at Concession.

The main reason that's been given for the outlandish prices is the cost the theaters are charged for each movie they show - which they don't want to add to the ticket prices.  So, it's an effort to regain the loss in food sales.

That idea has utterly failed, but the theaters seem not to have realized!  And many have went under!!



Judderman said:


> Margin on the drinks must be gigantic.



When I was managing a full-line Deli, a large soft drink was costing me 9 cents - 7 cents for the cup, 2 cents for the syrup.  We sold them for 99 cents.  Yeah - the mark-up is outrageous!


----------



## Edward M. Grant

Cathbad said:


> I think I'll choose not to take this as an insult...



Sorry, I didn't mean it like that. They were the biggest group of people I've seen at a cinema recently, and the fart noises they were making were the most appropriate response to the movie on the screen.


----------



## Judderman

I think it is that people come in if ticket prices are reasonable. There is more margin on the concessions so ticket prices can be kept down to a reasonable level. Even if concessions are cheap each individual will only buy so much.
It goes back to the film making costs with production and actor fees etc.


----------



## BAYLOR

Judderman said:


> I think it is that people come in if ticket prices are reasonable. There is more margin on the concessions so ticket prices can be kept down to a reasonable level. Even if concessions are cheap each individual will only buy so much.
> It goes back to the film making costs with production and actor fees etc.



6 dollars for a bag of popcorn ?


----------



## Cathbad

Judderman said:


> I think it is that people come in if ticket prices are reasonable. There is more margin on the concessions so ticket prices can be kept down to a reasonable level. Even if concessions are cheap each individual will only buy so much.
> It goes back to the film making costs with production and actor fees etc.



The problem is, raising the Concession prices had the opposite affect, since most theaters are now losing money in that area.


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> The problem is, raising the Concession prices had the opposite affect, since most theaters are now losing money in that area.



The end result of this kind of shortsighted thinking is that they will put themselves out of business.


----------



## Dave

BAYLOR said:


> The end result of this kind of shortsighted thinking is that they will put themselves out of business.


Well, surely that's their own business! 

@BAYLOR You will be interested in the link to an article Comic Con panel about a new Netflix film called Bright in the thread here for that film. It seems a lot of people are worried that this film is the beginning of the end of cinema. Up to now, Netflix own-made films have been pretty dire, and at best at the level of the made-for-TV-movie. Bright is expensive, well-made, stars Will Smith and while not everyone will like it, it could easily have been a box-office success. Instead it has gone straight to paid-for-TV on a channel that doesn't even provide audience figures!

Personally, I think both can live together side by side, which is also Will Smith's view. However, there are a lot of voices crying, like yourself, that cinema is dying and paid-for-TV will replace it. Will Smith explains how they are different - his daughters watch Netflix during the week, but on Friday night they still go to the cinema because it is a social experience as well as watching the film.



Edward M. Grant said:


> Was that the Special Ed kids again?


You do realise that was quite offensive, right?*
I also have stopped going to the cinema on Friday nights or whenever it is "packed" because of the audience behaviour. I posted about that at length in another thread here on 'audience behaviour' and I think it is linked to earlier in this thread. I'd say cinemas should do something about it, but then I remember my father telling me of his experience of cinema in the 1940's when he was a boy and having to duck down to avoid the oranges being thrown around.

*My wife and daughter both work in education for children with special educational needs. Some do have challenging behaviours too, others are extremely well behaved. All suffer from discrimination attending events and ignorance about them. I very much doubt any badly behaved children at the cinema have need of anything other than some parental discipline.


----------



## Judderman

I just watched "I, Tonya" at the cinema. Another very good film. I think even without any special effects the large screen and going to a film in a public setting is still worthwhile over waiting for it to be available on DVD/tv.
I think part of the issue with people who go occasionally to the cinema is that they usually go and see the big budget, most publicised films. The effects benefit from the big screen but they tend to have poor plot so the adult viewers then say it is a waste of time to go to the cinema as it wasn't enjoyable. Go and actually see high quality films, of which there are many for anyone who goes less than once a week, and it is a different experience. Star Wars/superhero sagas/Avatar/Fast and the Furious X etc are fun but they are basically kids/teen movies. No surprise that adults can be indifferent to them.


----------



## Amelia Faulkner

I've got my eye on Three Billboards outside Ebbings, Missouri. That looks awesome!


----------



## AlexH

I had some hours to spare in Manchester early yesterday evening, and was delighted to see the Vue Printworks cinema is only £4.99 for all showings (£3.99 on a Monday). I hoped to squeeze two films in at that price, but could only squeeze one film in - Coco - before I had to be somewhere else.


----------



## Amelia Faulkner

Oh, that reminds me. Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri, was _excellent_!


----------



## EJDeBrun

I don't think the issue is the theaters. I think the issues are in the films themselves. Frankly most of them aren't interesting enough for me to make the effort to go to the theater. And not because of VFX or anything. They're just not piquing my interested I can't wait until it's easier for me to watch at home.

All those industry professionals who are wailing about Netflix and Amazon taking their viewership away should really take a hard look at their own products. Both of those companies are pioneering a lot of stuff and they deserve credit for getting where they are.

The fact of the matter is that people are consuming the same amount of media as ever. It's not that audiences aren't willing to put the time and effort in. It is, and always has been, an issue of content. Make the right thing and people will flock to the theaters. Continue producing dribble and that's what you'll get.

PS: my local theater lets me bring ANYTHING I WANT into the theater without charge. Burrito? Sandwich? Coffee? they don't bat an eye, so concessions hasn't been an issue for me in years.


----------



## Amelia Faulkner

EJDeBrun said:


> Make the right thing and people will flock to the theaters.



I think an excellent case in point is the record-breaking pre-order ticket sales for Black Panther


----------



## EJDeBrun

Amelia Faulkner said:


> I think an excellent case in point is the record-breaking pre-order ticket sales for Black Panther



It's the same debate in every era of film since its inception. 50's had it with the advent of TV. and then there was a huge slump in the 70s and then the threat of VHS in the 80s. It's like talking about photographs replacing paintings or comics replacing books etc etc. When really all it comes down to is content. Boring is boring is boring and that's not entertainment. The end.


----------



## Dave

I just listened to a guest from the ONS (Office for National Statistics - independent, but set up by and advises UK Government) on the BBC Radio 2 Steve Wright show. He said that we are buying exactly the same number of cinema tickets in the UK as we were 10 years ago. We are paying more for them, but cinema going has remained unchanged.


----------



## HanaBi

I went to my local Empire Cinemas IMAX last night to watch "Tomb Raider". This is my first visit in over a year, and the first thing I noticed were the increase in prices for Premium seats. Last year it was something like £11.99, but last night it was £14.95. I can't comment on the prices for food and drink because we ate before coming out. And despite the expensive seats, the place was packed (this was the 9:20pm viewing), and to be honest audience behaviour was quite good, and barely a shining smart phone in sight.

The film itself was just okay, and certainly seems more in tune to the Lara Croft computer games from the 90s than the awful Angelina Jolie version 15 years or so ago.

So despite inflated prices, and home-network streaming demand for cinema still remains strong - at least for the first few days or weeks after a film premiers.


----------



## SilentRoamer

Amelia Faulkner said:


> I think an excellent case in point is the record-breaking pre-order ticket sales for Black Panther



I've been told it's a very good Superhero movie. Looking forward to it as I love a good Superhero flick.


----------



## BAYLOR

I think Solo might be the next film I go to see.


----------



## BAYLOR

Ive seen Solo and liked it . But I have no burning  desire to see anything else.


----------



## ZlodeyVolk

I've not been to a cinema since _Crimson Peak_—and I used to love going to the cinema.

The indifference, for me, stems from the fact that everything coming out of Hollywood, since about 2010, trends toward the brown side of 'meh'. Sure, there's lots of bright colours and loud noises and jiggly camera stuff, to trick the back parts of my brain into thinking that something interesting is going on. Meanwhile, the front parts of my brain are left to play in the yard, unsupervised, and get a little bit bored. Not much real variety; minimal and very simple storylines; bugger-all character development or growth; and the increasing incidence of generally unlikeable characters … I simply lost interest.


----------



## Dave

Against all the anecdotal evidence provided in this thread, the box office figures show a totally different story. There has been little recent change in audience figures since those I already provided you with. There are clearly some bad decisions on release dates (like releasing _The Purge_ in the UK when England were through to the World Cup Semi-Finals.) This week sees the release of _Mamma Mia 2_, which is expected to break even the records set by the previous film, 10 years ago.

People just like to watch things together. It doesn't matter how advanced home cinema systems get, people still leave their homes to watch football in parks and public houses, and to watch films in cinemas. There is also a huge rise in outdoor cinemas in London.

We can debate the quality and subject matter of films, and their complexity and intelligence, but that wasn't what this thread was about. Film makers make films that sell, and until people stop watching rubbish, then we will get exactly what we ask for. Someone is still paying to watch the poor quality films.


----------



## Cathbad

Dave said:


> Against all the anecdotal evidence provided in this thread,


Often, people tend to believe that their opinions/beliefs are the majority's, despite any lack of real proof.


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> Often, people tend to believe that their opinions/beliefs are the majority's, despite any lack of real proof.



In some cases , this is true.


----------



## Judderman

Depends if you are in the majority..


----------



## Judderman

Dave is right. I feel like this thread should be locked really as the title is proven to not be the case. It is just a vehicle for folks to complain about the blockbusters they get sucked into going to, instead of good films.


----------



## Cathbad

Judderman said:


> It is just a vehicle for folks to complain about the blockbusters they get sucked into going to, instead of good films.


But what is wrong with that?


----------



## Dave

There are several threads about the quality of films and number of sequels, remakes, re-imaginations (and an argument that, that too was always the case anyway.) There are threats about independent films versus blockbusters, image over substance, and accountants in charge.

This thread was  different, it was Baylor asking:


> How many have you stopped going to the cinema regularly ?
> 
> I used to be a very avid movie goer, but for the past few years my trips to the theater have dropped off rather dramatically.



And I maintain that despite...


Judderman said:


> folks... complain[ing] about the blockbusters they get sucked into going to, instead of good films.



...the box office figures don't lie. They are still going to see them.

My personal gripe is the behaviour of the audiences (and there is a thread on that too) but I just go out of peak times to avoid those idiots. Maybe people have too much money that they can spend it on a ticket and then have lunch or a conversation instead.


----------



## HanaBi

Is it also a case that some of us are (or will be) hovering between the tenuous lines of middle and senior age - an age when we all become grumpy old men & women constantly at odds with  "..the kids of today.." trope, and harking back to the good old days!


----------



## logan_run

Al these super hero films dont interest me at all


----------



## Dave




----------



## BAYLOR

logan_run said:


> Al these super hero films dont interest me at all



The last superhero film I went to see at the Cinema  *The Winter Solider .    *I just don't feel like paying the money  to see films that are only going to be on tv a short  time after their cinema run.


----------



## BAYLOR

Dave said:


>



If they made_ this. _into a movie . I might go see it .

Ill go one better,  how about a *Mr Neutron* movie ?   Yes,  an epic big screen adaptation of the ever resourceful master of disguise Ted Salad  vs  Mr Neutron. It would be a great cinema  epic !


----------



## Vince W

Haven't bothered with superhero films in a while or the last Star Wars. Even the supposed next Star Trek film doesn't fill me with a need to run to the cinema. Abrams has killed the franchise for me.

The only film that has me even remotely interested at the moment is Dune and that's probably 2 or 3 years away.


----------



## BAYLOR

Vince W said:


> Haven't bothered with superhero films in a while or the last Star Wars. Even the supposed next Star Trek film doesn't fill me with a need to run to the cinema. Abrams has killed the franchise for me.
> 
> The only film that has me even remotely interested at the moment is Dune and that's probably 2 or 3 years away.



And it will likely span 3 films.


----------



## Vince W

BAYLOR said:


> And it will likely span 3 films.


At the moment it's scheduled for 2.


----------



## BAYLOR

Vince W said:


> At the moment it's scheduled for 2.



Thats an alot story to cram into two movies.


----------



## Vince W

BAYLOR said:


> Thats an alot story to cram into two movies.


I would prefer 2 fantastic films, than 3 too long films that don't end up satisfying in the end.


----------



## BAYLOR

Vince W said:


> I would prefer 2 fantastic films, than 3 too long films that don't end up satisfying in the end.



Okay , thats fair.


----------



## Judderman

Well last time it was one somewhat confusing film. Two should work.


----------



## Dave

_Dune_ really requires a 7 season (13-episode per season) TV Series to be done any justice.


----------



## Vince W

If only...


----------



## Anushka Mokosh

I go to cinema mostly socially, with friends. That means I usually just go to see big blockbusters. Last few movies I went to see were Deadpool 2, The Avengers: The Infinity War, Ready Player One, and Thor: Ragnarok. I was supposed to go watch Black Panther, but we skipped out on that one since most of my friends were sick at the time. I used to go alone from time to time, but I no longer do that. I just have no drive because I enjoy it better when I watch it in the quiet of my room and the cinema tickets have gotten a bit too pricey to encourage regular visits to the cinema.


----------



## BAYLOR

Vince W said:


> If only...



 Dune would make a great tv series.  Maybe on HBO?


----------



## Vince W

BAYLOR said:


> Dune would make a great tv series.  Maybe on HBO?


HBO could work, or a network that has an excellent record of quality adaptations. BBC or ITV could do it provided they put enough money into it.


----------



## Dave

Vince W said:


> BBC or ITV could do it provided they put enough money into it.


Just to give you an insight into the amount of money involved, it was reported than Netflix spent more money on _The Crown_ than the BBC spent on ALL of its Drama output last year. _Dune_ would be silly money. People already rail against license fee increases, so the BBC can't afford it. Traditional TV advertising, which ITV relies upon, has suffered from more channels, internet and social media.

Cinema is a formula that still works. It works better than it used to now, because it keeps giving - box office, DVD and Blu ray, then pay-per-view, then individual broadcasters. However, pirating eats away at that somewhat.


----------



## Overread

Some of the insane BBC spending though is because they are using long term big name actors which often come with a BIG pay cheque. Just going for new and good but not well known talent can dramatically lower the costs. 

That said BBC is better at period; they've got the sets and gear for it; whilst to do Dune they'd have to build a lot of totally brand new stuff so that would put the starting costs up quite considerably; or you're using a lot of greenscreens and high end high priced CGI. 

HBO I think would be a better home as done right, Dune should be for mature audiences. The puss oozing boil covered floating bloated body of the Barron can't be captured in a PG or U rating  Not least his love of heart-plugs. For all his "not actually being that far" the original Dune film I think did capture quite the gross essence of the Barron.


----------



## Vince W

Lynch's Dune did capture the feel, tone, and look of Dune wonderfully I thought. It's a shame they couldn't have had a script that followed the plot of the book more closely.


----------



## Lucien21

Didn't the make a Dune TV show in the 00's with William Hurt.


----------



## Vince W

SciFi (before they were SyFy'd) did two mini-series. Dune and Children of Dune. Both were okay, but not without their problems.


----------



## Cathbad

Vince W said:


> Lynch's Dune did capture the feel, tone, and look of Dune wonderfully I thought. It's a shame they couldn't have had a script that followed the plot of the book more closely.


They had a plot??  

I found this movie hard to watch.  They tried to cram far too much into too little time.


----------



## Vince W

Cathbad said:


> They had a plot??
> 
> I found this movie hard to watch.  They tried to cram far too much into too little time.


Perhaps plot is too strong a word. Notion?


----------



## Judderman

Dave said:


> Just to give you an insight into the amount of money involved, it was reported than Netflix spent more money on _The Crown_ than the BBC spent on ALL of its Drama output last year. _Dune_ would be silly money. People already rail against license fee increases, so the BBC can't afford it.


I wonder why that is. What makes The Crown an expensive production?


----------



## Dave

I haven't seen it, but I expect that lavish costumes, location filming payments, hiring classic cars, they probably cost much more than computer generated images. Also, it needs to be perfectly correct or people will complain that it isn't accurate. Anyhow, I can't remember where I heard that - I think it was during a discussion on Radio 2 about Netflix's lack of new subscribers.


----------



## Vertigo

A little bit of an aside, but a rather worrying one; I heard a report on the radio mention a quote from the Netflix CEO in which he said something along the lines of "Netlfix's real competition isn't our competitors, it's sleep."


----------



## AlexH

Vertigo said:


> A little bit of an aside, but a rather worrying one; I heard a report on the radio mention a quote from the Netflix CEO in which he said something along the lines of "Netlfix's real competition isn't our competitors, it's sleep."


That's true. They spend a lot of money researching how to make subscribers addicted to their programmes, so they binge-watch. The recommendations are highly tailored and designed to keep you watching, and watching, and watching...


----------



## Dave

That doesn't appear to be working with me. Most of their "Top Picks" are for series I've already watched, and I must have seen _Star Trek The Original Series_ four or five time already, so why would I want to "Watch it Again."*** I'm also very good at limiting myself to only a few episodes of something per night.

The "New to Netflix" things are (with some excellent exceptions) very poor. It is still worth the subscription, but it isn't a substitute for watching a new release at the cinema. I think I quoted Will Smith already here, who said they are two completely different things.

*** Actually, when the mirror universe was introduced into _Star Trek: Discovery_ I did go back and watch all the old, relevant _TOS_ and _DS9_ episodes.


----------



## Vince W

AlexH said:


> That's true. They spend a lot of money researching how to make subscribers addicted to their programmes, so they binge-watch. The recommendations are highly tailored and designed to keep you watching, and watching, and watching...


Really. I find most Netflix recommendations waaay off the mark for me. There are very few things on Netflix that have made me want to keep watching the same thing over and over.


----------



## Overread

Vince W said:


> Lynch's Dune did capture the feel, tone, and look of Dune wonderfully I thought. It's a shame they couldn't have had a script that followed the plot of the book more closely.



I think that whole era of cinema had a very different feel and direction for sci-fi that has been lost in this era of easy CGI. In the past there was a very distinct magical/mysterious element attached to a lot of sci-fi. The scene where the Guild Navigator is moving the strange cylinder that is the ship through space etc... We've lost that in a huge way - I think honestly Star Wars might have been the start of the gradual shift, though Star Trek also pushed it along (the early films captured the mystery magic better as a more serious and bigger budget evolution from the original series - however TNG started ot shift away from it steadily)



Cathbad said:


> They had a plot??
> 
> I found this movie hard to watch.  They tried to cram far too much into too little time.



I agree, the plot was rushed and hurried and if you'd not read the book it would feel rather forced. They certainly tried to push too much into too little space; but I feel they captured the important moments well. Many of the key plot elements from the book were present and where it deviates its more that you get the feeling that it was because they just couldn't fit it in; as opposed to a desire to change things. Again it was made in a different era of cinema when following the source material wasn't the abnormal behaviour that it is today (where its almost as if following the source material is heavily discouraged)


----------



## Cathbad

Overread said:


> I think that whole era of cinema had a very different feel and direction for sci-fi that has been lost in this era of easy CGI. In the past there was a very distinct magical/mysterious element attached to a lot of sci-fi. The scene where the Guild Navigator is moving the strange cylinder that is the ship through space etc... We've lost that in a huge way - I think honestly Star Wars might have been the start of the gradual shift, though Star Trek also pushed it along (the early films captured the mystery magic better as a more serious and bigger budget evolution from the original series - however TNG started ot shift away from it steadily)
> 
> I agree, the plot was rushed and hurried and if you'd not read the book it would feel rather forced. They certainly tried to push too much into too little space; but I feel they captured the important moments well. Many of the key plot elements from the book were present and where it deviates its more that you get the feeling that it was because they just couldn't fit it in; as opposed to a desire to change things. Again it was made in a different era of cinema when following the source material wasn't the abnormal behaviour that it is today (where its almost as if following the source material is heavily discouraged)



It was very disconcerting, listening to everyone talking to themselves, too!  For me, that is what ruined the experience.  I'd read the novel only a few months earlier, and was looking forward to it.  When they gave me a handout as I entered, I knew it wasn't going to go well.


----------



## BAYLOR

Cathbad said:


> It was very disconcerting, listening to everyone talking to themselves, too!  For me, that is what ruined the experience.  I'd read the novel only a few months earlier, and was looking forward to it.  When they gave me a handout as I entered, I knew it wasn't going to go well.




Dune cannot be done is a two hour time frame. It needs more then one film to do justice ot the story.


----------



## KGeo777

I was intrigued to hear about the fantasy film company Arrowstorm recently as it is a regional player like the old days (based out of Utah). Production quality is quite good. I can't speak of the storytelling but they have some films completed in the last few years--partly from crowdfunding--and they sell directly to Walmart/Amazon. They have completely bypassed the Hollywood apparatus (they have to-since no mainstream media is likely to be interested in promoting them even if they wanted to buy advertising). 
One hopes that it will pave the way for other companies to start offering more regional audience-friendly films again-especially since corporate Hollywood has signaled quite clearly it no longer wants to offer regional audience specific films but a one-size-fits-all product for the globe, with an extremely narrow ideological thematic range. This I think is the root of the problem. Traditionally artworks always reflected a particular background and heritage at its core-if you watch the Seven Samurai you do not expect Albanians to show up. 

I used to think of Hollywood as a monopoly but this is somewhat inaccurate since major Hollywood can finance itself regardless of audience interest.  It is not truly tied to markets. This was always the case with the majors.  In 1930 the British film producer J Arthur Rank discovered that the Hollywood majors had an 80% hold on UK cinemas (thanks to friends in government). Laws were passed to prevent the domination so domestic British film could develop, but Hollywood got around it with "quote quickies." They shot films in Canada designed for the UK market.   In the US they were in court for blockbooking-another anti-competition tactic. The majors would force theaters to take a group of films even if they only wanted a few--and that meant less space for other companies with less financial resources (or rather finances totally dependent on audience response-something major Hollywood did not have to worry about).

Still, the Uk eventually bounced back in the 1950s which until 1970 was the golden age for domestic British film--but  then in the early 70s when once again Hollywood reasserted its control.  The blockbuster killed the diversity in genre film--but the official story is that people just wanted less variety. This is not truthful. The distributors were consolidated or driven out of business. EMI sabotaged British film production. People were not given a choice.  In the 90s corporate media mergers went into full effect.

If Hollywood was truly dependent on audiences then how can something like CNN stay afloat with so little reported viewership? Or how can the Oscars continue to make political statements if they are said to be turning off viewers and harming advertising? What happened to the advertisers being the ones making decisions?

Another important consideration is the phenomenon of Hollywood Accounting. This is the widely known practice for Hollywood to cook the books on finances to make profits appear or disappear. If they can be dishonest about that--what else can they be dishonest about?

There were film companies that were entirely dependent on the marketplace. RKO, which made King Kong, or  Walt Disney Productions (when it was distributed by United Artists--which came into being precisely because several Hollywood bigwigs were fed up with the creative stagnation of the majors).
Hopefully we are nearing the end of the corporate art experiment and it can go back to reflecting a more audience-directed creativity process. Bankers and Hedge Fund Managers should be nowhere near the art-making process.


----------



## Vince W

Overread said:


> I think that whole era of cinema had a very different feel and direction for sci-fi that has been lost in this era of easy CGI. In the past there was a very distinct magical/mysterious element attached to a lot of sci-fi. The scene where the Guild Navigator is moving the strange cylinder that is the ship through space etc... We've lost that in a huge way - I think honestly Star Wars might have been the start of the gradual shift, though Star Trek also pushed it along (the early films captured the mystery magic better as a more serious and bigger budget evolution from the original series - however TNG started ot shift away from it steadily)


Too true. There was a magic in the creation of those things that is lost with CGI. Everything looked and felt more real on screen. There's a sharp quality to CGI that makes everything look a little too perfect and fake.


----------



## Lumens

CGI is still in its infacy, and I think some of it already looks great. I love both sets and CGI, there is still a place for both, but some things are just not possible with sets, obviously.


----------



## AlexH

Vince W said:


> Really. I find most Netflix recommendations waaay off the mark for me. There are very few things on Netflix that have made me want to keep watching the same thing over and over.


Maybe your brain doesn't match their target market? I've never watched anything on Netflix - I've maybe seen an episode of Black Mirror since it moved from Channel 4. I'm tempted to take a month's free trail to watch GLOW, as I've written a story about a girl who wants to be a pro wrestler. Stranger Things seems appealing too.

 I actually enjoy delayed gratification - so if there's a cliff-hanger at the end of an episode of something, I'm happy to wait a week or so before I watch the next episode. It's one reason why I'm only up to series 3 of Breaking Bad (which was brilliant) and half way through series 5 of Game of Thrones.


----------



## HanaBi

As well as my extensive film library on my NASbox, I also have Kodi - so can view all sorts of films from the various apps that cover my kind of genre.

The cinemas by me are all chains and don't have much appeal in terms of what they have to offer; but there is the _Electric Cinema_ in Birmingham City Centre, that does sometimes show art-house, film noir and indie films that pique my interest - and the seats are very comfortable, and the prices quite reasonable; as are the rather discerning patrons.


----------



## Vince W

AlexH said:


> Maybe your brain doesn't match their target market? I've never watched anything on Netflix - I've maybe seen an episode of Black Mirror since it moved from Channel 4. I'm tempted to take a month's free trail to watch GLOW, as I've written a story about a girl who wants to be a pro wrestler. Stranger Things seems appealing too.


I tried Glow. I struggled through two episodes and gave up. I thought it was terrible.


----------



## BAYLOR

This whole summer , I didn't bother going to any movies at all.  The last films I went ot was Solo.


----------



## Vince W

I haven't been to the cinema since Paddington 2.


----------



## BAYLOR

Vince W said:


> I haven't been to the cinema since Paddington 2.



Nothing really bowled  me over.


----------



## Narkalui

What came out last, Captain America Civil War, or Star Wars Force Awakens? Those were the last two films I saw at the cinema...


----------



## Vladd67

I think the last film I saw at the cinema was Robin Hood with Russell Crowe. To be honest with four kids it’s such a hassle, although my wife has taken the two oldest to see things.


----------



## BAYLOR

Narkalui said:


> What came out last, Captain America Civil War, or Star Wars Force Awakens? Those were the last two films I saw at the cinema...



The Last Superhero film I saw in the theaters was Captain America The Winter Solider .


----------



## Lumens

Bladerunner here. The second one...


----------



## BAYLOR

2 months after a film completes  its run, it goes to cable, streaming  and dvd. So why spend the 10 bucks to see it on the big screen in the first place ?


----------



## Cathbad

BAYLOR said:


> 2 months after a film completes  its run, it goes to cable, streaming  and dvd. So why spend the 10 bucks to see it on the big screen in the first place ?


Because absolutely nothing beats the big screen cinema experience!!


----------



## Dave

Cathbad said:


> Because absolutely nothing beats the big screen cinema experience!!


Can I like this twice?* **

(*providing there isn't a group eating a three course meal of donuts and crisps, slurping drinks, farting, talking loudly, kneeing the back of your seat, and getting up and down every few minutes)

(**Home cinema set-ups can be just as good - projected screen, surround sound - if you have both the money and the space.)


----------



## Overread

I do admit when there was 2 years or longer before a film came out on VHS there did feel to be more uniqueness to going to the cinema and more pressure because the VHS was never dirt cheap and you knew it was going to be a long time before you'd get to see it. So there was that extra pressure of "lets go now". 

These days sometimes by the time I think of seeing a film on the big screen its already on DVD!


----------



## Vince W

Cathbad said:


> Because absolutely nothing beats the big screen cinema experience!!


There are some films that need a big screen experience at least once. There just haven't been any for me recently. However, I try to go at off times to try and avoid the worst people you meet in cinemas today.


----------



## Cathbad

For me, people watching is a big reason I so enjoy the cinema experience.

The very thing so many of you in here complain about - crowds - is a main reason I go!  

And I'm an introvert!


----------



## awesomesauce

Cathbad said:


> They had a plot??
> 
> I found this movie hard to watch.  They tried to cram far too much into too little time.



I enjoy Lynch's _Dune_ a lot. I'm probably the only one, including Lynch. But, well, it is what it is. (A crazy beautiful mess.)

Jodorowsky's _Dune_ may be the greatest film that was never made.


----------



## Vince W

awesomesauce said:


> I enjoy Lynch's _Dune_ a lot. I'm probably the only one, including Lynch. But, well, it is what it is. (A crazy beautiful mess.)
> 
> Jodorowsky's _Dune_ may be the greatest film that was never made.


And I, for one, am grateful for that.


----------



## Narkalui

I also love the Lynch Dune, as a kid I just loved the way it looked and that together with the story it left a great imprint on my young mind. In fact now I look back, I think it might have been the first film I ever saw that left me contemplating the whole business for hours on end.


----------



## Overread

I still love that film. Sure the plot was rushed and there are big gaps, but he caught the feel of the world; the magic and mystery of the Fremen and of the strange Nagivators. Then again I've a soft spot for what whole era of cinema in terms of how they put things together and the visual design and use of props and puppets and such. 

Personally I think there was more cinematic style to it than today; whilst we've better technology I think we've lost something along the way (I don't want to say passion because I'm sure the people today are as passionate about their work as those in the past).


----------



## Vince W

That's one thing Lynch's Dune had in spades, style. It dripped atmosphere and it was spot on for Dune. I wonder what he could have achieved if the studios had been willing to split Dune into 2 or 3 films like they are with Villeneuve's?


----------



## Narkalui

I bet it was Harvey Winestain that forced Lynch to do it in just one film...


----------



## Vince W

Narkalui said:


> I bet it was Harvey Winestain that forced Lynch to do it in just one film...


Oh, lets not go down _that_ path.


----------



## BAYLOR

The last film I went to see was* Solo*.


----------



## BAYLOR

I didn't bother with  It part  II, Dr Sleep or  latest. Terminator . They will be on dvd soon enough.


----------



## Rodders

Me too. There are a few movies that i'd like to see at the Cinema. The Joker and Terminator: Dark Fate. Who has time anymore?


----------



## BAYLOR

Rodders said:


> Me too. There are a few movies that i'd like to see at the Cinema. The Joker and Terminator: Dark Fate. Who has time anymore?



Two films I definitely want ot see. The Next Star Wars film and Godzilla vs Kong.


----------



## Vince W

BAYLOR said:


> Two films I definitely want ot see. The Next Star Wars film


Star Wars: The Rise of Boredom? No thanks.


----------



## Lumens

I am having a growing indifference as an individual. If for nothing else, I like to be able to pause a movie so I can go for a wee. I much prefer to watch series as well these days. 

I'm still waiting for Virtual Reality headsets to mature, even of it's all CGI - in my world, that would be the end of cinema.


----------



## biodroid

Cinemas are also getting ridiculously expensive in South Africa, my wife and I would pay about R500 for a 3D movie with popcorn and Slush Puppies, that's equivalent to a full basket of groceries. It's cheaper to buy the Blu-Ray and watch it in the comfort of your own home.


----------



## Elckerlyc

I went to the movies to see *LOTR* (OK, that's 3 visits). After that it went to see *Life of Pi*. And since then I have been to the cinemas only once, to see a movie I can't remember now what it was. I think *Prometheus.*
So, yeah there is some indifference. It's much like @Lumens said.


----------



## Finch

I recently moved to a new town  . The new town  has two cinemas and a film club that shows old classic .  The ticket   prices are almost half of my old town and on a Mondays it is even cheaper. All of the cinemas are busy . So , my conclusion is people like to go out , and the  cinema is still part of the entertainment business, but only if the price is reasonable. The other problem for the   film industry is, it  not making  enough  films .  Years ago I would go to the  cinema every week , now it's a struggle to see a film once a month.


----------



## CupofJoe

The last twice I went to my local multiplex I left when I realised they hadn't taken off the 3D lens when showing a 2D film. They didn't deny it and gave me my ticket price back but the person I talked to [who really wasn't to blame and had probably had this conversations more than a couple of times before] said they had been told to save time and money by not taking the lense off and refund anyone that complained. Apparently most people don't notice.
Add to that the noise and light of people on their phones while the film is on and I've decided I'm too old and grumpy to play well with others when it comes to films. So I bought a big TV, a decent pair of headphones and a bluray player. The bluray costs about the same as a cinema ticket and I get to watch the film when and how I want to.


----------



## Elckerlyc

And you turn the volume to a level that is not ridiculous loud or distorting the sound. (goes for concerts too, btw.)


----------



## BAYLOR

Elckerlyc said:


> I went to the movies to see *LOTR* (OK, that's 3 visits). After that it went to see *Life of Pi*. And since then I have been to the cinemas only once, to see a movie I can't remember now what it was. I think *Prometheus.*
> So, yeah there is some indifference. It's much like @Lumens said.



Prometheus pretty much killed my interest in the Alien franchise.


----------



## Elckerlyc

BAYLOR said:


> Prometheus pretty much killed my interest in the Alien franchise.


I liked the first 5 minutes. On hind sight, those were the best scenes of the entire movie. Unfortunately the opening was followed up by a series of ridiculous scenes and events. And nowhere came it even close to the authenticity and suspense of *Alien*.
But what was really fatal imho was the next movie: Alien: Covenant.


----------



## BAYLOR

Elckerlyc said:


> I liked the first 5 minutes. On hind sight, those were the best scenes of the entire movie. Unfortunately the opening was followed up by a series of ridiculous scenes and events. And nowhere came it even close to the authenticity and suspense of *Alien*.
> But what was really fatal imho was the next movie: Alien: Covenant.



Ridley Scott and the writers  ruined it with this nonsense film and its even worse sequel.


----------



## CupofJoe

I've actually been thinking about this.
Cinema has become a destination event. You go to the cinema with your friends to have an evening out, add in a meal and/or a few drinks [depending on age] and have an evening out. The film is a secondary [may be tertiary] event.
Most of the cinemas I know are surrounded by restaurants and bars, and usually have a coffee shop inside their doors. One has a Burger King underneath it, another has a Harvester [low end Family restaurant last time I looked]. At least two more have 2 or more chain restaurants within sight of the cinema. 
The one that isn't like this is the only "art" cinema I know of. It is an occasional thing in a town hall with no pubs or restaurants nearby and accessible by most over a small bridge. At least there, there is an in-house bar, so you can buy a glass of wine or a cup of tea to go with your film. The quality of projection is not great [I'll swear some of their films are shown from DVD or BluRay] but you do get to watch a film in relative silence.


----------



## Foxbat

After much thought, I've realised what is behind my growing indifference to cinema - theatres are normally full of other people.

Concession: _A thing that is granted or a preferential allowance given by an organisation. _
Question: why is the food served at such places known as concession? It's not as if it's bestowed upon a person for some philanthropic reason, it's simply there to squeeze bundles of extra cash out of the cinema-going punters.


----------



## CupofJoe

Foxbat said:


> After much thought, I've realised what is behind my growing indifference to cinema - theatres are normally full of other people.


_Other People_ are the worst   And that is only half a joke.


Foxbat said:


> Concession: _A thing that is granted or a preferential allowance given by an organisation. _
> Question: why is the food served at such places known as concession? It's not as if it's bestowed upon a person for some philanthropic reason, it's simply there to squeeze bundles of extra cash out of the cinema-going punters.


Probably a historical linguistic hangover from when you would get a licence or concession to sell wares in a certain area. You get concessions in Department Stores and at Fairs/Markets as well...


----------



## Foxbat

CupofJoe said:


> _Other People_ are the worst  And that is only half a joke.
> 
> Probably a historical linguistic hangover from when you would get a licence or concession to sell wares in a certain area. You get concessions in Department Stores and at Fairs/Markets as well...


Ah right. I think I see what you mean. The concession is for the vendor rather than the customer. Makes a bit more sense now


----------



## Matteo

_L'enfer c'est les autres._

That John Paul bloke knew what he was talking about...


----------



## Allegra

Since DVD era ended I developed a growing interest to cinema going, mainly because I have no time for Netflix sort of things and would only watch the films I think really worth the time. So once in a while when a good new film comes out I just go to the cinema. But I can see the growing indifference in cinema going. I usually go to Saturday early afternoon show, there are often only a couple of people - that includes us. How do they make a profit? Ad and popcorn?


----------



## BAYLOR

Allegra said:


> Since DVD era ended I developed a growing interest to cinema going, mainly because I have no time for Netflix sort of things and would only watch the films I think really worth the time. So once in a while when a good new film comes out I just go to the cinema. But I can see the growing indifference in cinema going. I usually go to Saturday early afternoon show, there are often only a couple of people - that includes us. How do they make a profit? Ad and popcorn?



It would be nice if they made the popcorn , just a little less expensive.


----------



## tegeus-Cromis

Foxbat said:


> After much thought, I've realised what is behind my growing indifference to cinema - theatres are normally full of other people.


My kids -- teen and almost-teen, respectively -- actually prefer going to crowded theaters, or at least don't like it if the theater is too empty. Where have I gone wrong?


----------



## tegeus-Cromis

Allegra said:


> Since DVD era ended


Ugh. I hate the idea this might be true. MP3s and music streaming have completely sapped my enjoyment of music, which used to be partly about acquiring the *object* -- the vinyl or CD -- and the hunt for it (I used to be an obsessive frequenter of used record stores), and also about the artistic entity of the *album*, expressed in its physical existence, not just about an endless stream of songs that all blend into each other. This has also put an end to the great era of classical remasters and new period instrument recordings, which peaked in the late '90s. It's a desert out there.


----------



## KiraAnn

I haven’t been to a movie in quite some time. Can’t really remember the last time. I’m thinking it was Wonder Woman. 

The expense is driving film making out of existence, I feel. Seems to be fewer and fewer that are intended for the theater and not streaming services. 

This Disney structure I think will be several nails in that coffin.


----------



## Parson

Yea, what did I hear 28 MILLION subscribers by Feb. 4? Wow


----------



## AlexH

KiraAnn said:


> The expense is driving film making out of existence, I feel. Seems to be fewer and fewer that are intended for the theater and not streaming services.


Cinema is stronger than it has been for a good few years in my opinion, with interesting, unique and exciting films released regularly. I was wondering if the success of streaming services and recent TV series has led to film-makers upping their game.

I visited the cinema twice on Wednesday, Birds of Prey followed by Parasite. Tickets are only £5 (US$6.50) outside of the weekend in Manchester, which I know is cheaper than many places.


----------



## HanaBi

After spending the last few months in Berlin, Germany once again, I have to say the cinema experience over there was far more rewarding and satisfying compared to over here (although admittedly I had to visit cinemas that showed  "English Language Only" performances, resulting in fairly spartan auditoriums).

There was far less noise from the audience, far less distractions (phones going off) and reasonable prices.


----------



## BAYLOR

The Coronavirus Pandemic  has put a damper on Cinema going. I wonder how things are going to be for the cinema business  in the aftermath of this?


----------



## KGeo777

People will have to wear hazmat suits. The bonus is they will have 3d glasses built in.
Although I hear James Cameron is working on glass-less 3d--I wonder how that will be.
I have a Tasmanian Devil mouse pad that has a neat 3d effect without glasses required.

If such a thing existed 100 years ago or more, people would think it was sorcery.


----------



## Vince W

The change has already started. Films are being released to streaming devices at the same time as the cinema. The cost to rent them seems to be a little less than the price of two tickets. I would think if the reception to this is good we'll see concurrent releasing of all films. Streaming services will then compete for exclusivity while the film is in the cinema driving revenues up for the studios and the streaming service.

Some films will still be best seen on the big screens, but your typical rom-com and such won't be a big draw in the cinema any more and may lead to relegation to streaming only.


----------



## Overread

I wonder how will it will all last. On the one hand direct to streaming is a good thing as it means films don't have to get filtered through a cinema group - no more random time duration targets as a stream hasn't got to fit into a specific time frame in the same way a film in the cinema does. 

That said there's a few negatives:
1) The experience is less for most. Streaming on your PC is nothing like the cinema. 

2) DVD/Blueray/whatever - physical ownership gets harder to justify if your customerbase is already streaming the product. Indeed it could turn out being a big negative for consumers if the big hollywood studios all get their own movie streaming service. On the one hand one would be cheap an get you a lot of free films; but on the other its another subscription service and you can bet there'd be multiple ones. So suddenly you'd have to either jump around or end up with a lot going out to different streaming services - and that's before adding TV streaming too. 

3) If you buy DVD you have the film in its single format on that disk. If someone then releases an HD remaster you can buy that too, but it will never change the original you owned. Streaming services though are unlikely to want to have two or three versions of the same film. Classic cuts could be lost. Whilst in general directors cuts are better, there's a few out here (Starwars A New Hope being a fantastic example) where the changes are not always desired by teh community at large.


----------



## Judderman

The modern, golden age of TV is drawing to close as the number of streaming services expands. Yes, there is an expanding variety of quality viewing. But I think it is a struggle to find new series that are outstanding. Several years ago the variety was increasing, but I feel some of the shows were closer to unmissable. Now perhaps it has spread too much, and reboots of series are on the cards. This has already happened to cinema. But I feel the "magic" of cinema may keep people coming back, still wanting an event rather than a series binge at home.


----------



## AlexH

Have anyone heard of Quibi? Episodes are a maximum of 10 minutes. It was intended for commutes, but the creators have gone ahead and released it anyway.

I imagine there will be some packed screens when cinema returns.


----------



## Parson

Overread said:


> That said there's a few negatives:
> 1) The experience is less for most. Streaming on your PC is nothing like the cinema.



I cast Prime Video and Disney Plus from my phone to my 60 in. High Def. It's less than a cinema for size and perhaps clarity, but more in that you don't have to have the volume set at "air raid siren" and you don't have to start at 7;05, and you don't have to buy popcorn for $.03 a kernel. 



AlexH said:


> I imagine there will be some packed screens when cinema returns.


I would imagine this as well. But the real question is what the same cinemas will look like 6 months down the road.


----------



## Vince W

Parson said:


> you don't have to buy popcorn for $.03 a kernel.


Your wife must really like you then.


----------



## BigBadBob141

There are a couple of posts by a You Tuber (I forget his name) who reviews films in america, basically he says that the magical experience of cinema going is being ruined by thoughtless people, people using i-phones with the screens turned to full brightness, people talking out loud to each other with no regard for anyone else, basically being idiots and treating the cinema as if it was their own living room, which if true is a great shame.

P.S. Would just like to share something that happened once, my parents had taken me to see the film "Old Yella", at the end of the film when the boy is forced to shoot his dog because it has rabis, just after he shoots it a quivering voice of a young child which sounded on the  verge of tears piped up and said " that boy is naughty ", not sure if anyone laughed or not, I think a few did, but the reason I heard it was because the cinema was so quite!!!


----------



## AlexH

I can't wait to see a film at the cinema again.


----------



## BAYLOR

The Current pandemic situation has certainly the breaks on cinema attendance.  One wonders if the movie theater will ever recover from this.


----------



## Ian Fortytwo

How can you ever social distance in a cinema, impossible.


----------



## AlexH

Ian Fortytwo said:


> How can you ever social distance in a cinema, impossible.


You should see how far apart the seats are in my local Vue. Forget about getting intimate with your date!  

I think cinema will always have a place, but perhaps on a lesser scale to currently. I'm missing seeing the big cinema blockbusters.


----------



## BAYLOR

Ian Fortytwo said:


> How can you ever social distance in a cinema, impossible.



And how can they be portable with fewer seats ?


----------



## Parson

I think the cinema will survive. But in a trimmed down state. I don't usually go to a show on "opening night" and often you social distance in the local theater without trying to. I've been there many a time when the total crowd was less than 2 dozen. As low as 5 I think, counting my son and I.

What I suspect will eventually happen is that instead of metroplexes the predominate theater will be old style. One HUGE screen absolutely top notch sound and amenities, and a price tag that will keep most of us from going more than once a year, but will appeal to the rich and famous and will therefore be a destination event.


----------



## Judderman

It will be a struggle for cinemas but social distancing won't go on forever. It some places it may go on till a vaccine, in others perhaps it will be stopped in a few months.


----------



## Overread

Cinemas have weathered the home TV. 

I think their biggest issue is if film groups get hooked on subscription services delivering films direct to the customer. For film makers there's a few big bonuses with that:
1) The lack of overpriced popcorn and having to "go out" means that with the right marketing they could potentially have bigger launch days in terms of number of customers. 

2) The lack of needing to fit into specific time slots means that directors are more free with how the film is cut. It also means no cinema group cutting bits out that later only appear in directors cut editions - often years later if ever. There's more than one film (Aliens 3 and Kingdom of Heaven to name two) which gets torn apart in a bad way like that. 

3) The juicy potential to cut out DVD sales and have a direct streaming service only! 

4) Levels playing field between big budget films and "direct to DVD" films (provided that the latter can get onto the mainstream streaming services)

Of course there are downsides too;
1) You have to pay monthly or one-off to multiple services. Thus your new film isn't just competing against the other half-dozen major films out; but against people who might have several subscriptions to on-demand services already and don't want to sign up to "yours" just for one or two films every so often. This might not be an issue for giants like Disney, but could be an issue for any middleweight studios who might otherwise make a very solid film, but aren't in the major streaming services. 

2) Lack of making an event out of it might see dwindling box-office nights in the future. Where's the pressure in watching something on launch day when it will be discounted through the same service and experience a few weeks/months later. DVD's devalue fast 

3) Potential lost revenue from repeat visits. For major blockbusters and franchise films there's likely a significant number who pay to see it more than once at the cinema. On a streaming service whilst you might have to pay to rent/access its unilkely people will pay more than once. 

4) Because you don't pay per-person potential to lose revenue. A family who might each buy tickets for the cinema are now sharing a single account to view a film; that's before you get to family sharing (both as approved features and families/friends sharing accounts). As a result you're only getting one payment where at the cinema you could be getting 4 payments or more. 



For fans there's a few downsides
1) Loss of the cinema experience -as jaded as we might be some things ARE better on the big screen.

2) DVD potential loss. When you buy a DVD (or VHS or whatever) you have a physical copy of a film that won't change. On the downside this means if a directors cut comes out you've got to buy it again. On the plus side the director can't change your copy. If a film is only streamed chances are they'll only keep one version up, which means if a director makes changes in a "directors cut" that are not popular, yep you could be stuck with it with NO way to get access to the "original". 

3) We might see a rise of limited-lifespan films with things like short term sports name contracts/franchise contracts. Once the contract is up the film vanishes. We already have PC games like this. 
Similarly we could see this happen with propitiatory content within the film such as musical tracks. 

4)  Doesn't work on a weak/no internet connection. A DVD will run as long as you've a player and electricity. Streaming services not only require payment, but working internet; without it you can't stream.


----------



## KGeo777

People like to go out.
Revival cinemas were doing well--showing movies decades old which people had already seen.
Disney deprived these cinemas of archival material-especially from the FOX library. It was assumed they did it to have the screens available for their own new films (those who speculated refused to speak on record-which is alarming in itself-that they were presumably afraid of Disney reprisals).
And yet, look how easily and effortlessly the big corporations shut down their movie business without a fret. I do not think smaller companies would have been so eager or enthusiastic to shut it all down.

On a related note, I read that someone who had a 35mm copy of SONG OF THE SOUTH had it telecine scanned to digital and fans cleaned it up. It is now a super pristine copy of a film that Disney had put in the vault and was only available through a Japanese laserdisc.


----------



## Narkalui

I thought Song Of The South was one of the most racist films ever made and probably best left dead and buried...


----------



## KGeo777

Narkalui said:


> I thought Song Of The South was one of the most racist films ever made and probably best left dead and buried...



I haven't seen it (you make me curious now to check it out lol) but I remember it was re-released to cinemas in the 1980s and one of its songs was used on the Wonderful World of Disney.
 The star got an Honorary Oscar. I wonder how he would have felt if  told his work should be forgotten.


----------



## Narkalui

Yeah, you may want to check out the Wikipedia page, pretty awful. Today it would probably get banned and only the KKK would object...


----------



## KGeo777

Well since you brought it up, it is very subjective and the double standards are so blatant.
CASABLANCA has a demeaning black servant character Sam yet the film is a "classic." 
Why isn't that film worthy of a ban?
A case of "do as I say, not as I do."
Walt Disney gets the heat because he presented independent black characters instead of making them servants for diversity sake. Uncle Remus it seems is the star of his movie, not a plot device like Sam.
The crows in DUMBO choose to show him how to fly, their own choice, they weren't instructed to by a Humphrey Bogart.
ZULU ends with the Zulu army saluting the British-as if they were happy to have their soldiers killed--in reality they left when the relief column came.
That forced harmony message is not only a lie but rather insulting--but where's the outrage? That movie has a weird bit where the Belgian cripple is defending Zulu bravery in one scene and then we see him hopping around on one leg killing as many Zulus as he can.


----------



## Narkalui

And North West Frontier has a few agonisingly racist moments too.

I think the outrage against Song of the South lies more in its portrayal of slaves who are happy to be slaves and in the fact that Disney hired a consultant who was a prominent civil rights spokesperson at the time and who quit when repeatedly ignored. Then Disney lied and said that he'd quit because they wouldn't cast him as Remus.

Anyway, I think this is starting to get far too political...


----------



## Brian G Turner

Yep, too political - let's get back to cinemas.


----------



## BAYLOR

I don't think cinema  will every quite get back to what ot was before Covid 19 .  I suspect that that streaming become ever more dominant as a result.


----------



## BAYLOR

Parson said:


> I think the cinema will survive. But in a trimmed down state. I don't usually go to a show on "opening night" and often you social distance in the local theater without trying to. I've been there many a time when the total crowd was less than 2 dozen. As low as 5 I think, counting my son and I.
> 
> What I suspect will eventually happen is that instead of metroplexes the predominate theater will be old style. One HUGE screen absolutely top notch sound and amenities, and a price tag that will keep most of us from going more than once a year, but will appeal to the rich and famous and will therefore be a destination event.





Judderman said:


> It will be a struggle for cinemas but social distancing won't go on forever. It some places it may go on till a vaccine, in others perhaps it will be stopped in a few months.



I think Cinema is going end up rethinking their whole e biuenss model as a result  of Covid 19.


----------



## Overread

In many ways corona is going to have accellerated that was happening anyway. So instead of a 10 year gradual change it is pretty much s one year shock change,


----------



## Don

When my relatives and friends get together we sometimes go to a movie theater. We've not gotten together since COVID struck, so any future movie going remains an open question.


----------



## Temperance

There aren't many movies that are released that I see trailers for an think "I want to watch that whilst the people in front of me bicker, talk about their terrible day at work, translate (badly) into German because only one of them has a good enough grasp of English, or point out plot holes which inevitably mean "I wouldn't do that" - honestly, I have sat behind someone who complained a parent being worried about their children was "completely unrealistic" and "a plot hole".

And when a film comes out I want to see...the Odeon, Vue, and Picture house in my city don't shown them. They didn't even show Joker...

Still, I will brave the zombie apocalypse during a nuclear war when a form of Ebola is spread by eyesight, when Quiet Place 2 comes out, Emily Blunt with a shotgun hunting alien scum...what's not to love?


----------



## BAYLOR

Temperance said:


> There aren't many movies that are released that I see trailers for an think "I want to watch that whilst the people in front of me bicker, talk about their terrible day at work, translate (badly) into German because only one of them has a good enough grasp of English, or point out plot holes which inevitably mean "I wouldn't do that" - honestly, I have sat behind someone who complained a parent being worried about their children was "completely unrealistic" and "a plot hole".
> 
> And when a film comes out I want to see...the Odeon, Vue, and Picture house in my city don't shown them. They didn't even show Joker...
> 
> Still, I will brave the zombie apocalypse during a nuclear war when a form of Ebola is spread by eyesight, when Quiet Place 2 comes out, Emily Blunt with a shotgun hunting alien scum...what's not to love?



*A Quite Place* is becoming  a film franchise.


----------



## Vince W

At this point I'm quite happy to let the cinema experience die a quiet death. I hadn't gone in more than two years before the lockdown and the experience was wearing very thin with the chavs continually talking, texting and phoning. And it wasn't just the chavs.


----------



## Judderman

Oh I think it will be back. And perhaps more expensive than ever!


----------



## AlexH

I'm sad to read of so many negative cinema experiences. I love visiting the cinema! Apart from the occasional bad film, the only negative experiences I remember were down to the cinemas themselves. Once, starting the film too early (Bridge of Spies). Another time, not being able to show the film at all (Baby Driver, weeks before its release). And finally, poor contrast for the recent Terminator film. I still have two free tickets to use as a result of that.


----------



## AlexH

As cinemas begin reopening in the UK (Summerland is the first new release), Disney is releasing the delayed remake of Mulan onto its streaming platform in the US at a cost of $29.99 (£23)! They say the streaming release will be a one-off.

The most I've paid for a cinema ticket is £17, though usually £5-£7.


----------



## Judderman

Yes we can't really complain at cinema ticket prices if new streams are more expensive.
That is like the cost of a month of streaming a premium sports package.


----------



## Vince W

You want to buy Bambi, they put it in their vault,
you want to stream The Rocketeer, they triple the price.
That's the Disney way.


----------



## Narkalui

I've got a DVD player that cost me £19.99 and then you just need patience and CEX


----------



## CupofJoe

Narkalui said:


> I've got a DVD player that cost me £19.99 and then you just need patience and CEX


And charity shops... 
The $29.99 looks like Disney have worked out their take of a family [2 adults, 3-4 kids] going to see Mulan and then decided the price. Now if they dropped it into Disney+ for no extra cost, I could see [even more] people subscribing...


----------



## BAYLOR

After Covid 19, will cinema ever recover ?


----------



## KGeo777

Strangely, China reports that its cinemas are doing great and that local filmmakers have benefited from the virus impact.

I bet that if western film was controlled by small businesses, they would not be wringing their hands about how cinema needs to shut down.

It's the corporations-they burn bridges behind themselves-they don't care about culture at all.  They want everything to be streaming-they don't care about the novelty of getting out and being in a big auditorium. The apathy shows in the films they make too.


----------



## BAYLOR

Having seen the previews to upcoming films, ive decided I don't really miss going to the movies very much.


----------



## Rodders

After a year in lockdown, i can see the Cinema becoming something of an event. For a while, at least. It'd be nice.


----------



## KGeo777

A question was asked  elsewhere if people will come to regard most older movies the way silent movies are regarded now--hardly anyone watches them. Maybe, but I think modern movies-the lack of intensity and passion in their design-whether it's dialogue (how many movies are quotable these days?) or performance style or music etc--there's a lack of intensity compared to just 20 years ago, it will probably drive people to older films. FOX films in revival cinemas were so successful that Disney stopped supplying them.


----------



## Dave

This thread still continues? This was refuted much earlier in the thread.


Rodders said:


> After a year in lockdown, i can see the Cinema becoming something of an event. For a while, at least. It'd be nice.


Yes, this. From some of the other comments made here, the members must live in a parallel universe. Anyone who spoken to me about the cinema, off-line, in the actual real world, is dying to get back to the cinema. As for the poor quality of releases recently, that's obviously two-fold; firstly, they have been unable to film some scenes because of Covid-19 restrictions which has delayed or altered films, and secondly, they have been holding back the best films until restrictions are lifted. There has been some good stuff streaming, and you do have Netflix, Amazon, Channel 4 and the BBC making, or part funding films, so that they have the rights to show them out of the cinemas, but the other films that have recently gone straight to streaming, and would have normally had a cinema outing, were those that wouldn't have made a great profit anyway. Once cinemas are open again there will be better quality.

And I don't know where the idea comes from that every new film is a CGI shoot-them-up, explosion-fest, bland, dull, and poorly dialogued. The cinemas are businesses that need to make money. There are problems with variety because they will only show what most people will go to see. I can understand that small towns won't get the less popular films. You really need to support your independent cinemas because they are the cinemas who have suffered the most, but who will show the films you are asking for.

Behaviour in cinemas is a problem. I agree. I started a whole thread on it. It has got worse, and the eating and drinking should be banned, but is so profitable that it never will. Yes, it puts me off going at the peak times. However, watching anything with an audience has an atmosphere that can't be captured on a TV set.

The cost of everything is going to go up post-Covid19. That is just a fact. As a night out, as an "event" cinema is still cheap. Compared to broadcast TV and streaming services, it is extremely expensive. I remember films that I saw in the cinema. I often forget those that I watched on TV.


----------



## AlexH

I'm still hoping to see some films at the cinema that have been released over the past year I didn't get chance to see at the cinema. Wolfwalkers is my most anticipated, whether I get to see it at the cinema (preferable) or not:








						Wolfwalkers (2020) - IMDb
					

Wolfwalkers: Directed by Tomm Moore, Ross Stewart. With Honor Kneafsey, Eva Whittaker, Sean Bean, Simon McBurney. A young apprentice hunter and her father journey to Ireland to help wipe out the last wolf pack. But everything changes when she befriends a free-spirited girl from a mysterious...




					www.imdb.com


----------



## Vince W

BAYLOR said:


> Having seen the previews to upcoming films, ive decided I don't really miss going to the movies very much.


Even with the release of new films on streaming media there hasn't been anything I've been willing to pay for.


----------



## KGeo777

Look how bad the Oscars did because of the political agenda they push (which was always there but in earlier times it wasn't so constantly direct). Do they care? I don't think they do. I do not think they are hand-wringing about why people don't watch it and that is the disturbing part because they have a commissar-type arrogance that there is no alternative to their monopoly of ineptitude.

 They aren't chasing popularity which is exactly opposed to the claim that Hollywood is only after money.
If it was after money, we would have the best movies possible because they would be seeking to cater to all types of audiences.
They don't do that now. They say China is what matters most. That does not make business sense. If you run an Italian restaurant--you don't change your entire menu to appease Chinese customers without losing your original customer.

My local theater is still closed. They have been closed since last year. And they had so little traffic back then.  I wonder how many theaters have gone out of business and who buys the real estate.

On the other hand, there is a business here that is devoted to setting up outdoor movie screens for projection in parks and other places--so people still want to go out and see something-but most of the time-the movies they are screening, are 10-20-30 years old at least.

I was reading about the new found popularity of giallo and Eurocrime films. Only in the last ten years have these films become popular with cinephile circles. I suspect one reason is boredom with the current offerings.


----------



## AlexH

I was very excited to return to the cinema this week. I watched *Gladiator* which I hadn't seen before. A great film to see on the big screen, and a brilliant return to the cinema.


----------



## JunkMonkey

"They say China is what matters most. That does not make business sense. If you run an Italian restaurant--you don't change your entire menu to appease Chinese customers without losing your original customer."

That is a rubbish analogy.  A restaurant is one single location with customers coming to it because of the unique product it offers.  Different foods can be served in different restaurants.  En with chains. The menu in a chain in the US is different from the menu in the same chain in a different country - Royale with Cheese anyone?   A movie is a product that is shipped around the world and is (essentially) the same everywhere (except where censors chop out bits that offend local sensibilities).  The film market is global.  The restaurant business is local.


----------



## KGeo777

JunkMonkey said:


> "They say China is what matters most. That does not make business sense. If you run an Italian restaurant--you don't change your entire menu to appease Chinese customers without losing your original customer."
> 
> That is a rubbish analogy.  A restaurant is one single location with customers coming to it because of the unique product it offers.  Different foods can be served in different restaurants.  En with chains. The menu in a chain in the US is different from the menu in the same chain in a different country - Royale with Cheese anyone?   A movie is a product that is shipped around the world and is (essentially) the same everywhere (except where censors chop out bits that offend local sensibilities).  The film market is global.  The restaurant business is local.




Each country has its unique ethnic cuisine. You don't see people going to an Italian restaurant for Chinese cuisine, usually. Of course culture is unique to each region as well.  But it also can be global. Like restaurants.
I don't know how likely it is that an Italian restaurant will open in Iran that is run by Bulgarians. It's highly unlikely.
And it wouldn't be considered authentic.

Film was a European invention and the dramatic structure of film came from Europe as well. There have been influences from other places--like Japan had influence on filmmakers in other continents. 
Peter Jackson co-authored an interesting paper for a New Zealand film initiative he was backing and he said that genre subjects were dismissed by government funding bodies because they were considered "too Hollywood or American" and the paper pointed out that the fundamentals of theater drama trace to Greece--Hollywood and America did not invent them.

There's  some cross-pollination due to the global nature of media distribution but the motto "different strokes for different folks" still applies.
Humor in China is different from humor in other places. The local customs do not translate across the globe. Like languages.

But the fact remains that Hollywood, the big companies--were focused on Europe and then expanded to the globe--today there was an article in the Hollywood Reporter suggesting the love affair with China may be coming to an end.
They make the claim that China has been manipulating Hollywood--I think that is nonsense--Hollywood was courting China  for decades (at least as far back as 1976 with the film Nightmare in Badham County) and if it stops focusing on China are they going to make content aimed at Europeans again?
I really doubt it. I think they have no interest in appeasing their first customers.
China manipulating Hollywood does not explain the trends of the last few years either.

They are passing blame for their own idiosyncratic and hostile business operations.
They don't even want to make films that employ in their locale--they may have their base in Los Angeles but they chase foreign zones for off-shoring.
And yet, there have been film companies that operated regionally, and made films that were profitable and avoided all those these globe-trotting antics.
As I said, it's like they are cornering the market on restaurants and insisting everybody eat the same thing. That's how Hollywood works.

It would be unacceptable if done with food, and there have been voices who opposed globalization of film because they predicted that it would harm regional voices. It removes opportunities for local artists. Or puts them in a ghetto on the internet (where media companies linked to Hollywood will discourage success for voices that don't fit their agendas).


----------



## W Collier

Great stories are timeless.  They may be topically inspired, but the transient topic must inspire a story with timeless themes.  "A Tale of Two Cities" is about the French Revolution, but it is timeless because it deals with those elements of human nature which created that revolution but which are eternal in the human condition.  One reads "A Tale of Two Cities" today and thinks it could be written about the political violence we see in our own streets.

For a story to be timeless, it must be honest.  It must be truthful.  Interest in truthful stories among those who pay--pay the artists, pay to distribute the work, pay to publicize it--is a rare thing in history.  Truth is rarely kind to the powerful.  People whose livelihoods and influence grew out of a fiction, were founded on a fiction, and depend every day on the maintenance of that fiction, will have no interest in timeless truths.  The Chinese Communist Party, a genocidal dictatorship exercising absolute control over its population especially in the realm of information and creative content, certainly has no interest in timeless truths.  They'll foot the bill for your production to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, and give you access to a market of billions of people, but only so long as your production passes their muster, upholds their vital fictions.  Most people in the West today cannot imagine what a totalitarian state, a true Fascism, is like.  Literally nothing may exist that does not serve the state, the ruling party.  Hollywood is not a genocidal dictatorship, but it is a land of Harvey Weinsteins, corruption, and people whose political convictions are their lives, the source of their identity.  Expecting them to promote the telling of timeless truths which would undermine the fiction they have built around themselves is too much.  Such people don't tell timeless stories.  They dedicate themselves the fictions of the day, shirt-rending screeds which will blend well with the noise of the present mob and the present narrative but which will be forgotten tomorrow, when the mob's sympathies turn another direction.  At the very least, no one wants that mob outside his office, threatening boycotts, legal action, and violence.

In such a climate, everything must be shallow.  Some of it is shallow and fun, like the MCU.  The rest of it is shallow trash, like the holier-than-thou reiterations of popular but transient political sentiment which dominate the Oscars.  In either case, it's poor fare for lovers of the art.  Only those timeless, truthful stories are actually nutritious to the soul.  Hopefully we will see a return to that form in popular cinema, but I suspect not for some time.

But, on the bright side, this also means that it's very easy to tell, in times like these, when you might be getting close to writing something timeless and true, something really good: if no one will publish it and it earns you death threats, it's probably a work of genius.  If you end up with your life ruined (or ended), you have achieved the pinnacle of your art.  We should all be so lucky.


----------



## KGeo777

That is one helluva post! I am really impressed with the succinct eloquence encompassing all those thoughtful points!


----------



## BAYLOR

From the movie *Baron Fink*

"The writer is king here at Capital Pictures "
*Jack Lipnick     *

As it turned out for Barton Fink, not true at all.


----------



## JunkMonkey

"each country has its unique ethnic cuisine. You don't see people going to an Italian restaurant for Chinese cuisine, usually. Of course culture is unique to each region as well.  But it also can be global. Like restaurants."

Yes but there is cross-fertilisation and fusion in all art.  To follow the food analogy  a 'Hawaiian pizza' is hardly Italian.  Or Hawaiian.   Nor is the pizza that you will find in Italian resteraunts around the world. Traditionally Italian pizzas were small.  The big, plate-sized things we see around the world in 'authentic' Italian restaurants are an American 're-imagining' of an Italian bread-based food covered in a sauce made (from a fruit originally found in the Americas).   There is no authentic 'American' Cinema (though they can keep _Birth of a Nation_) nor an 'authentic' French cinema, or an 'authentic' Norwegian cinema.

The history of cinema is littered with examples of this cross-fertilisation  _A fistful of Dollars_ is a good example, an Italian film using a Japanese template (Yojimbo) set in an American Western milieu (Itself a total fiction),  or _Casablanca_ - *THE *quintessential Holly Golden Era film was directed by a Hungarian, with music by an Austrian, photographed by an American - the only significant speaking parts NOT played by immigrants were Rick and Sam.

Why does 'Hollywood' produce so much sh*t these days?  Because it always has done. Huge piles of it.  Most of everything is crud.  The crud gets ignored, then forgotten and  only the really good stuff (and the notoriously bad) remains in the memory. It has always been thus.  Trust me.  In fifty  years time people are going to look back at the early part of the 20th Century with envious eyes and wonder if we knew how lucky we were to have so many genuine masterpieces released.    (They'll be wrong of course, just as anyone looking back at the 1970s and thinking that was a Golden Age of Art Cinema would be today.  The only difference being that the future people would be MORE wrong because there were some damn fine film made in the Early 70s.)


----------



## Vladd67

Don't forget the Japanese template for A fistful of Dollars was itself based on western books


----------



## W Collier

KGeo777 said:


> That is one helluva post! I am really impressed with the succinct eloquence encompassing all those thoughtful points!


You are too kind, sir.  Perhaps the only succinct thing I have ever written, if it is.  I think I failed to get to any good point, though.  If there is a point, it is that if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself.  We can't all write something timeless, but if you (and this is an open invitation) do like the idea of writing and reading things that at least will get you hated by your friends, exiled from your community, or tarred and feathered, I'll consider you good company.  How many of you started your own writing primarily because the things you were reading and seeing on the screen were so dumb?  I know I'm not the only one.


----------



## KGeo777

JunkMonkey said:


> The history of cinema is littered with examples of this cross-fertilisation  _A fistful of Dollars_ is a good example, an Italian film using a Japanese template (Yojimbo) set in an American Western milieu (Itself a total fiction),  or _Casablanca_ - *THE *quintessential Holly Golden Era film was directed by a Hungarian, with music by an Austrian, photographed by an American - the only significant speaking parts NOT played by immigrants were Rick and Sam.


I once talked to an American about Hollywood and said "US films are more popular than Canadian" and she said "But Hollywood doesn't represent US culture."
I didn't understand at the time but later I did.
There have been American filmmakers--John Ford and DW Griffith for example, who reflected regional American voices and ideas. THE PRISONER OF SHARK ISLAND is a Southerner-focused story. It is amazing they made it given some of the content and perspective. Not even GONE WITH THE WIND was so favorable to the Southerner side of the war.

*Casablanca*, skillfully made though it was, is war propaganda. It didn't do well when released--understandably--why would US audiences want to embrace a movie that promoted an ongoing war? It's amazing how that film is misinterpreted. It is not a love story--Ingrid Bergman said she didn't see the love story in it. The love story is Rick rediscovering his desire to fight and Claude Rains joins him for pragmatic reasons. That is what the movie is about. Two men, one a disillusioned idealist, who, thanks to Victor, sees that he has to get back into the fight in order to find himself. And Renault, cynical corrupt pragmatist, who takes whatever side is more powerful at the time, joins up but he's the most realistic character because he's only thinking of himself.
  Ilsa is told to prostitute herself in order to support the war. She doesn't love Victor and Rick tells her you need to stay with him to keep him focused on the fight. 

Homer it isn't.

Hollywood was accused of wanting to get the US into the war--I wonder about a film like The Adventures of Robin Hood since it was unusual given that Robin Hood is not only depicted as a noble, but he's unapologetically seeking to defend the homeland from foreigners-(despite his romance with a Norman Maid Marion)-he even criticizes King Richard for going off on foreign crusades instead of defending the homefront-that opinion would be called fascist today.  And yes--it isn't shot in England and most of the cast is from every corner of the globe. Tasmania, South Africa...
By contrast, the Hammer Films' Sword of the Sherwood Forest, is closer to the source location, and has a very different story and approach. This is what you expect--different strokes for different folks.

There's a distinction between Universal horror films of the 1930s and Hammer films of the 50s and 60s too. Someone defined the difference by saying the Universal approach was rooted in the Wiemar era of German film while Hammer was Gainsborough and period drama.
Why is the approach different? Because the background and heritage of the filmmakers and producers and writers are different.
Different strokes for different folks. That is how art works.
Variety, different heritages, different thoughts and ideas.
It is impossible to make a film that is equally acceptable to all people. You'd have to reduce it to abstract color patterns.

The trouble is, there are a few films that are getting Western attention--corporate attention---PARASITE for example--and yet--when are we going to see a film that is all Gaelic being promoted at the Oscars?
Probably never because there is no desire to promote or celebrate regional European voices.

Hollywood has made films that, despite their intense multicultural approach, work as an entertainment if not cozy or identifiable to any particular group of people--but these days, they have stripped the European origins of the art form so much, that it has become chaotic and increasingly irrational in theme and moral viewpoint.
You cannot make an art work that is equally acceptable to all societies and people.
It is impossible.


----------



## JunkMonkey

"But Hollywood doesn't represent US culture."
I didn't understand at the time but later I did."

I was told, when I lived in LA, - that I "hadn't been to America, only L.A."  and that was by Americans - so I get where you're coming from. 

"Hollywood was accused of wanting to get the US into the war-"  Given that most of the studio bosses at the time were Jewish can you blame them?

And yes Warner Bros.' Robin Hood and Hammer's Robin Hood were vastly different beasties.  The Warner Brothers film was released in 1938 long before the start of (overt) hostilities when most countries were trying to appease or accommodate Hitler.  The Hammer film  in 1960 when the war was well and truly over and Britain was emerging from post war rubble and starting to realise it had lost its Empire and was no longer the world power it had been.  (A loss it _still _seems unable to come to terms with.)   Different strokes for different_ times_.  That's what makes retelling and reinterpreting the same stories so fascinating. 

_Casablanca_.  You say it's not a love story but Victor loves Ilsa.    "I have seen the lady. And if he did not leave 
 her in Marseilles nor in Oran, he will not leave her in Casablanca" says Renault at one point.   And Ilsa does love Victor, AND Rick - she doesn't which to choose.  Rick loves her AND the cause... he doesn't know which to choose.  It full of love.  It's just that the two stars don't end up with  each other as a standard Hollywood romance would have.

And you are just plain wrong when you say _Casablanca_ "didn't do well when released"  - according to inter-office memos published in Harmetz's _Round up the Usual Suspects _(Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1993) it cost $1,039,000 and grossed $3,015,000 on its initial release - this was back in the days when the studio system meant that nearly ALL that money was Warner's . It played 10 weeks in the Hollywood Theatre to box office receipts of $225,827 - That's a huge chunk of the budget in in ONE Theatre!  By 1955 (last date Warners kept comparable records) of all the films the studio made during the war it was the third highest grossing - only outgrossed by _Shine on Harvest Moon_, and _This is the Army._


----------



## KGeo777

JunkMonkey said:


> "
> 
> 
> 
> "Hollywood was accused of wanting to get the US into the war-"  Given that most of the studio bosses at the time were Jewish can you blame them?
> 
> And yes Warner Bros.' Robin Hood and Hammer's Robin Hood were vastly different beasties.  The Warner Brothers film was released in 1938 long before the start of (overt) hostilities when most countries were trying to appease or accommodate Hitler.  The Hammer film  in 1960 when the war was well and truly over and Britain was emerging from post war rubble and starting to realise it had lost its Empire and was no longer the world power it had been.  (A loss it _still _seems unable to come to terms with.)   Different strokes for different_ times_.  That's what makes retelling and reinterpreting the same stories so fascinating.
> 
> _Casablanca_.  You say it's not a love story but Victor loves Ilsa.    "I have seen the lady. And if he did not leave
> her in Marseilles nor in Oran, he will not leave her in Casablanca" says Renault at one point.   And Ilsa does love Victor, AND Rick - she doesn't which to choose.  Rick loves her AND the cause... he doesn't know which to choose.  It full of love.  It's just that the two stars don't end up with  each other as a standard Hollywood romance would have.


If one is making stories meant to agitate a population with no personal vested interest in the conflict into fighting and dying---it is not cultural expression showing concern for the population's welfare.  If you want them to fight and die for you--that's not usually considered a wonderful  populist message.
I don't know the specific movies  being cited-I am guessing at Robin Hood or the Sea Hawk. There may have been other films much more blunt about it. The issue is not movies reflecting the views of the owners--of course they would--but restrictions that come on other points of view that would be of interest to the audience is a problem--it is a big problem.
I don't think US film would have been better off if only Edison was making them, but the problem is all competition was squeezed out-and by the 1940s it became serious enough that government made an attempt to seem interested in opposing mopnopoly practices. I don't think it was sincere but it did open up some breathing space for a little while.


 Ilsa did not love Victor. But she was advised by Rick to ignore her true feelings for the war effort. That's not a universal artistic truth. 
War before love? 
In the Iliad, Hector ignores the cries of his family to not fight-but that was a personal battle for the himself and homeland--Rick is a mercenary. He was fighting fascists in Spain on principle. He wasn't fighting for the US or to proptect his family from rape and enslavement. he had no family.

Casablanca was not a big hit. 
This is like the situation with Catch-22. Catch-22 made it into the top ten for money-but that doesn't mean it was the most popular film. A film that cost 1/4th the budget of Catch-22 could have made triple its money and not crack the top ten.
And in the 1940s there were other film studios, so we don't know how well Casablanca did against a number of other films that may have had more audience reception.

You can't stop multicultural influence. And you can't really get a homogeneous pure national artistic cinema voice. Ignoring the internal differences and regionalism. I am not sure what the solution is other than I know for a fact, that if more people were professionally employed to develop stories and make content that can get access to audiences, quality would improve a lot. Just by the random characteristics of different people and their tastes.

The current state of motion pictures and television is that many points of view have been suppressed to a massive degree.
Viewpoints and artistic sensibilities that would register with particular audiences. 

50 years ago you could name dozens of directors around the world who made distributed horror films. Today-you would be lucky to name ten, and most of the media buzz is about a single one--Jordan Peele.
It's outrageous to suppress the cultural voices of entire countries and that is the state we are in.
At least in the 1930s there were some attempts to combat Hollywood domination for the sake of home artists--Italy did it, England did it, but it didn't last.
I do not have a solution but the problems are very easy to see and detail in a list.


----------



## JunkMonkey

KGeo777 said:


> Casablanca was not a big hit.
> This is like the situation with Catch-22. Catch-22 made it into the top ten for money-but that doesn't mean it was the most popular film. A film that cost 1/4th the budget of Catch-22 could have made triple its money and not crack the top ten.
> And in the 1940s there were other film studios, so we don't know how well Casablanca did against a number of other films that may have had more audience reception.



Fourth biggest box office gross in 1943 is not a 'big hit'?









						The Numbers - Top-Grossing Movies of 1943
					

Top-Grossing Movies of 1943




					www.the-numbers.com


----------



## KGeo777

JunkMonkey said:


> Fourth biggest box office gross in 1943 is not a 'big hit'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Numbers - Top-Grossing Movies of 1943
> 
> 
> Top-Grossing Movies of 1943
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.the-numbers.com



Ignoring the ubiquitous  Hollywood Accounting issue, that number does not match Wikipedia's sources. 
And compare it to This Is the Army--how does that movie end? It ends with a marriage, not characters going off to fight.

 It looks like they are including accumulated totals over years not just the original US run.


----------



## BAYLOR

JunkMonkey said:


> "But Hollywood doesn't represent US culture."
> I didn't understand at the time but later I did."
> 
> I was told, when I lived in LA, - that I "hadn't been to America, only L.A."  and that was by Americans - so I get where you're coming from.
> 
> "Hollywood was accused of wanting to get the US into the war-"  Given that most of the studio bosses at the time were Jewish can you blame them?
> 
> And yes Warner Bros.' Robin Hood and Hammer's Robin Hood were vastly different beasties.  The Warner Brothers film was released in 1938 long before the start of (overt) hostilities when most countries were trying to appease or accommodate Hitler.  The Hammer film  in 1960 when the war was well and truly over and Britain was emerging from post war rubble and starting to realise it had lost its Empire and was no longer the world power it had been.  (A loss it _still _seems unable to come to terms with.)   Different strokes for different_ times_.  That's what makes retelling and reinterpreting the same stories so fascinating.
> 
> _Casablanca_.  You say it's not a love story but Victor loves Ilsa.    "I have seen the lady. And if he did not leave
> her in Marseilles nor in Oran, he will not leave her in Casablanca" says Renault at one point.   And Ilsa does love Victor, AND Rick - she doesn't which to choose.  Rick loves her AND the cause... he doesn't know which to choose.  It full of love.  It's just that the two stars don't end up with  each other as a standard Hollywood romance would have.
> 
> And you are just plain wrong when you say _Casablanca_ "didn't do well when released"  - according to inter-office memos published in Harmetz's _Round up the Usual Suspects _(Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1993) it cost $1,039,000 and grossed $3,015,000 on its initial release - this was back in the days when the studio system meant that nearly ALL that money was Warner's . It played 10 weeks in the Hollywood Theatre to box office receipts of $225,827 - That's a huge chunk of the budget in in ONE Theatre!  By 1955 (last date Warners kept comparable records) of all the films the studio made during the war it was the third highest grossing - only outgrossed by _Shine on Harvest Moon_, and _This is the Army._



The only thing Hollywood understands is the movie business and how to please audiences.  They understand nothing else.


----------



## AnyaKimlin

When I was a kid it didn't cost a fortune to go to the cinema with your family. It's way beyond what we can afford for a regular treat especially once drinks and popcorn are added.   We home educate so in a normal year I wait for the Into Film schools festival at the cinemas and we get free tickets. They also allow teachers to take snacks in. We go to the cinema about eight times in a fortnight (sometimes more sometimes less depending what they are showing)


----------



## BAYLOR

AnyaKimlin said:


> When I was a kid it didn't cost a fortune to go to the cinema with your family. It's way beyond what we can afford for a regular treat especially once drinks and popcorn are added.   We home educate so in a normal year I wait for the Into Film schools festival at the cinemas and we get free tickets. They also allow teachers to take snacks in. We go to the cinema about eight times in a fortnight (sometimes more sometimes less depending what they are showing)



The damned concessions drive up the prices .  Six dollars for a bag of popcorn,  and 10 dollars for ticket.


----------



## AnyaKimlin

BAYLOR said:


> The damned concessions drive up the prices .  Six dollars for a bag of popcorn,  and 10 dollars for ticket.


I know by the time I had paid the bus fare, bought the tickets, popcorn and lunch out our last trip to the cinema was over £200.  My parents could do a cinema trip with a really nice lunch for well under £50.

Fact is I can take them horse riding, to the beach, climbing wall or go surfing for much less.


----------



## JunkMonkey

"And compare it to This Is the Army--how does that movie end? It ends with a marriage, not characters going off to fight."

What's that got to do with anything?  

Hollywood box office receipts are indeed a minefield.   But as you seem to regard Wikipedia's opinion highly how does  "*a substantial but not spectacular box-office success*,"  become  "It didn't do well when released", or "not a big hit"?


----------



## KGeo777

JunkMonkey said:


> "And compare it to This Is the Army--how does that movie end? It ends with a marriage, not characters going off to fight."
> 
> What's that got to do with anything?
> 
> Hollywood box office receipts are indeed a minefield.   But as you seem to regard Wikipedia's opinion highly how does  "*a substantial but not spectacular box-office success*,"  become  "It didn't do well when released", or "not a big hit"?


It did better than Casablanca--probably the story had something to do with it.
 "Substantial but not spectacular" is not a ringing endorsement. I don't know what spectacular would be.


----------



## paranoid marvin

*The damned concessions drive up the prices . Six dollars for a bag of popcorn, and 10 dollars for ticket.*

On the other hand, £7 on a Wednesday afternoon, with only you and maybe one or two other people in there makes it feels like it's your own private viewing. As for food , a 50p packet of Rolos will do.

On a related note to the cost of refreshments at the movies, the song 'Cinema Smugglers' by The Lancashire Hotpots is well worth a listen to on Youtube.


----------



## BAYLOR

paranoid marvin said:


> *The damned concessions drive up the prices . Six dollars for a bag of popcorn, and 10 dollars for ticket.*
> 
> On the other hand, £7 on a Wednesday afternoon, with only you and maybe one or two other people in there makes it feels like it's your own private viewing. As for food , a 50p packet of Rolos will do.
> 
> On a related note to the cost of refreshments at the movies, the song 'Cinema Smugglers' by The Lancashire Hotpots is well worth a listen to on Youtube.



7 pound is almost 10 US dollars .    

50 Pense a  little over 60 cents US   

Comparable prices between the US and UK.


----------



## paranoid marvin

BAYLOR said:


> 7 pound is almost 10 US dollars .
> 
> 50 Pense a  little over 60 cents US
> 
> Comparable prices between the US and UK.



Yes, and the price of a hotdog or a bag of popcorn is not much less than the price of the entrance ticket.


----------



## J-WO

I have to see Dune on the big screen. I'll accept no substitutes. That's about it really. Maybe The Green Knight.


----------



## AlexH

AlexH said:


> I'm still hoping to see some films at the cinema that have been released over the past year I didn't get chance to see at the cinema. Wolfwalkers is my most anticipated, whether I get to see it at the cinema (preferable) or not:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfwalkers (2020) - IMDb
> 
> 
> Wolfwalkers: Directed by Tomm Moore, Ross Stewart. With Honor Kneafsey, Eva Whittaker, Sean Bean, Simon McBurney. A young apprentice hunter and her father journey to Ireland to help wipe out the last wolf pack. But everything changes when she befriends a free-spirited girl from a mysterious...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.imdb.com



Wolfwalkers is coming up at Vue cinemas from 29th May, and given the current discussion about the expense of cinema - at only £2.49 per ticket!

If it's half as good as the makers' previous film, Song of the Sea (my favourite film of the 2010s), it's going to be good.


----------



## BAYLOR

J-WO said:


> I have to see Dune on the big screen. I'll accept no substitutes. That's about it really. Maybe The Green Knight.



Based on the preview clips *Dune* looks vert good .  

*The Green Knight* looks like an  amazing and very dark and  disturbing  fantasy film.


----------



## hitmouse

BAYLOR said:


> The only thing Hollywood understands is the movie business and how to please audiences.  They understand nothing else.


If they didn’t understand those two things they would be out of business. A fair few decent films still get made amongst all the pap.


----------



## KGeo777

I am repeating myself and long-winded as usual but it is worth repeating and I have too much spare time today.
*

How can something that is beyond supply and demand go out of business?*

They have unlimited money and the big studios always did. They didn't start with zero money or contacts.
They also had to avoid Edison's patent lawyers. So there's no comparison to small mom and pop capitalist business. Most small businesses do not have contacts on another continent  to help them get a monopoly in other countries. Hollywood dominated UK and Italian cinema by 1930. If Mussolini had not cut access, would Fellini or Bava or other famous Italian filmmakers--would they have had opportunities? Hollywood is about downsizing and centralized control--they are not advocates of cultural product variety. They offered it when it was cheap but costs were going up and there's *Hollywood Accounting *behind that. It's no sound business practice, it is something else.

In the 1940s they were pressuring theaters to reduce choice for audiences by demanding that they only play the films of a particular studio. The theater owners were pressured to not pick and choose films that may have been of particular appeal to their audience.
It was called blockbooking. Sounds similar to blockbuster?


*
Does Hollywood know how to please people?*

 I think they were more liberal and  experimental than Edison was going to be--he wasn't a filmmaker--he didn't care about the medium that much --he developed sound recording for film by 1910 and just left on the shelf.
Early Hollywood jumped on the technology much more than Edison was going to.

But in the early days the biggest cinema stars were Griffith, Fairbanks, Pickford, etc.  and they were making their own content without any need for big Hollywood. They didn't need them and the audiences didn't need them. The big studios eliminated the star-producer like Fairbanks-they put actors under their control so the performer did not have the creative freedom that Fairbanks or Pickford or Chaplin had. The studio contract actor was under incredible personal control (and it is still around today if you pay attention).

It was good and bad--it did bring a lot more faces into the spotlight due to the money resources and factory-approach, but it came at a price--i.e. content and themes were becoming restricted.

In the 1950s film stock became cheaper which allowed new people to get into the business. So you had a global boom in film. From Argentina to Japan  to Mexico to Spain--even the Philippines.

Except the USSR.

It's very sad--Russia and Eastern Europe had a long cultural history and yet, due to the centralized control of the Soviet system, in 70 years, the only two names in Soviet-controlled regions to be repeated or focused on were
Eisenstein and Tarkovsky.
That is a tragic failure of cultural expression of that system.  I know a few other names are starting to trickle out (Ptushko) but compared to the West, or even Japan, or Mexico, the Soviet output is just beyond pathetic.

How many artists in those Soviet regions were reduced to sweeping floors because the government gave them no opportunities and there was no competition possible for MOSFILM?
There is an example of cultural production that has no dependency on audience interest or response. There was no competition. And they existed for 70 years. They had the money and the monopoly and absolutely were not populist.

And the modern global studio seems to admire and increasingly follow that model. It is at the stage of hiring only loyal apparatchiks and they get very aggressive about ideological disloyalty.

I think if we examine film from a technological history perspective, then Hollywood did not aggressively  tap into any trends that were dictated by audiences.
In the 1960s they were stagnant, and losing audiences to smaller production companies that were more focused on particular target demographics. You don't try to please everyone at all times-you try to please a particular group.

Hollywood invested in technological advances for makeup, set design, sound engineering, stunts, and visual effects at the same time the Hayes Code was being discontinued.
Technological change was happening--and that's where the excitement was.

I think the superstar of the blockbuster era were the technicians, not the writer, not the director, not the actor.

But then, as these big studios gobbled up and merged, they reduced their content, and increasingly focused on technological whizbang, and eventually the innovations no longer impress like they did.
Computer graphics is no longer able to make people go "wow."
Especially as the filmmaking becomes more centralized and controlled.

They have to reconnect with traditional art values--depictions of Nature, individual creative expression and control..and follow some kind of populist awareness.
Just because they hire a director from mainland China to make a Dracula remake, does not mean they are embracing cultural diversity.
It's controlled in message and theme and ultimately means less creative voices are being nurtured.

Culture is in a vice and it being compressed and cannibalized. All because of the suppression of artists and limited professional opportunity.


----------



## AlexH

AlexH said:


> Wolfwalkers is coming up at Vue cinemas from 29th May, and given the current discussion about the expense of cinema - at only £2.49 per ticket!
> 
> If it's half as good as the makers' previous film, Song of the Sea (my favourite film of the 2010s), it's going to be good.


The animation in Wolfwalkers is stunning (particularly some scenes towards the end) and deserves to be seen on the big screen.

I've hugely enjoyed my two cinema visits (the other was for Gladiator) since cinemas reopened in the UK.


----------



## Mon0Zer0

KGeo777 said:


> I am repeating myself and long-winded as usual but it is worth repeating and I have too much spare time today.
> 
> 
> *How can something that is beyond supply and demand go out of business?*
> 
> They have unlimited money and the big studios always did. They didn't start with zero money or contacts.
> They also had to avoid Edison's patent lawyers. So there's no comparison to small mom and pop capitalist business. Most small businesses do not have contacts on another continent  to help them get a monopoly in other countries. Hollywood dominated UK and Italian cinema by 1930. If Mussolini had not cut access, would Fellini or Bava or other famous Italian filmmakers--would they have had opportunities? Hollywood is about downsizing and centralized control--they are not advocates of cultural product variety. They offered it when it was cheap but costs were going up and there's *Hollywood Accounting *behind that. It's no sound business practice, it is something else.
> 
> In the 1940s they were pressuring theaters to reduce choice for audiences by demanding that they only play the films of a particular studio. The theater owners were pressured to not pick and choose films that may have been of particular appeal to their audience.
> It was called blockbooking. Sounds similar to blockbuster?
> 
> 
> 
> *Does Hollywood know how to please people?*
> 
> I think they were more liberal and  experimental than Edison was going to be--he wasn't a filmmaker--he didn't care about the medium that much --he developed sound recording for film by 1910 and just left on the shelf.
> Early Hollywood jumped on the technology much more than Edison was going to.
> 
> But in the early days the biggest cinema stars were Griffith, Fairbanks, Pickford, etc.  and they were making their own content without any need for big Hollywood. They didn't need them and the audiences didn't need them. The big studios eliminated the star-producer like Fairbanks-they put actors under their control so the performer did not have the creative freedom that Fairbanks or Pickford or Chaplin had. The studio contract actor was under incredible personal control (and it is still around today if you pay attention).
> 
> It was good and bad--it did bring a lot more faces into the spotlight due to the money resources and factory-approach, but it came at a price--i.e. content and themes were becoming restricted.
> 
> In the 1950s film stock became cheaper which allowed new people to get into the business. So you had a global boom in film. From Argentina to Japan  to Mexico to Spain--even the Philippines.
> 
> Except the USSR.
> 
> It's very sad--Russia and Eastern Europe had a long cultural history and yet, due to the centralized control of the Soviet system, in 70 years, the only two names in Soviet-controlled regions to be repeated or focused on were
> Eisenstein and Tarkovsky.
> That is a tragic failure of cultural expression of that system.  I know a few other names are starting to trickle out (Ptushko) but compared to the West, or even Japan, or Mexico, the Soviet output is just beyond pathetic.
> 
> How many artists in those Soviet regions were reduced to sweeping floors because the government gave them no opportunities and there was no competition possible for MOSFILM?
> There is an example of cultural production that has no dependency on audience interest or response. There was no competition. And they existed for 70 years. They had the money and the monopoly and absolutely were not populist.
> 
> And the modern global studio seems to admire and increasingly follow that model. It is at the stage of hiring only loyal apparatchiks and they get very aggressive about ideological disloyalty.
> 
> I think if we examine film from a technological history perspective, then Hollywood did not aggressively  tap into any trends that were dictated by audiences.
> In the 1960s they were stagnant, and losing audiences to smaller production companies that were more focused on particular target demographics. You don't try to please everyone at all times-you try to please a particular group.
> 
> Hollywood invested in technological advances for makeup, set design, sound engineering, stunts, and visual effects at the same time the Hayes Code was being discontinued.
> Technological change was happening--and that's where the excitement was.
> 
> I think the superstar of the blockbuster era were the technicians, not the writer, not the director, not the actor.
> 
> But then, as these big studios gobbled up and merged, they reduced their content, and increasingly focused on technological whizbang, and eventually the innovations no longer impress like they did.
> Computer graphics is no longer able to make people go "wow."
> Especially as the filmmaking becomes more centralized and controlled.
> 
> They have to reconnect with traditional art values--depictions of Nature, individual creative expression and control..and follow some kind of populist awareness.
> Just because they hire a director from mainland China to make a Dracula remake, does not mean they are embracing cultural diversity.
> It's controlled in message and theme and ultimately means less creative voices are being nurtured.
> 
> Culture is in a vice and it being compressed and cannibalized. All because of the suppression of artists and limited professional opportunity.



Bang on.  There's a documentary on Amazon prime about how the roll back on tax breaks, and the system of tax breaks meant that studios in the UK were incentivised to only work with American production houses, and this killed our home grown production teams - relegating them to period pieces, Guy Ritchie hard-man crime and sixties nostalgia.

I think the rise of gaming, and the infinite reproducibility / near zero marginal cost that the internet provides has reduced the importance of film, music and print media. That and the effect the internet has had on our attention spans.  

Didn't Terry Eagleton say culture was dead?


----------



## KGeo777

That sounds like an interesting documentary. I feel there should be a closer examination of that period and the effects on regional artistic creativity. You can see it so clearly if you just look at the history.

The internet has been useful to rediscover older films or artists with merit and escape the sensational ballyhoo of the corporate windbag machine.


----------



## Judderman

Mon0Zer0 said:


> ..
> Didn't Terry Eagleton say culture was dead?


I think Gibbons said similar things about the Romans, and also implied about Europe at the time he wrote.
Certainly we are seeing a lot of low brow material and discussion..


----------



## BAYLOR

KGeo777 said:


> That sounds like an interesting documentary. I feel there should be a closer examination of that period and the effects on regional artistic creativity. You can see it so clearly if you just look at the history.
> 
> The internet has been useful to rediscover older films or artists with merit and escape the sensational ballyhoo of the corporate windbag machine.



And because of the internet  I found the film  Die Nibelungan   by Fritz Lang .  I had no idea this marvellous  silent film even existed ! 

The whole film, made in 1924,  is on Youtube .  Its quite a film !


----------



## KGeo777

I read about it in books decades ago. I want to check out the Dr.Mabuse films--that's something I have been curious about for decades.
Finally can get access to it.
Not possible 30 years ago unless you found some specialty video place by mail order.


----------



## BAYLOR

KGeo777 said:


> I read about it in books decades ago. I want to check out the Dr.Mabuse films--that's something I have been curious about for decades.
> Finally can get access to it.
> Not possible 30 years ago unless you found some specialty video place by mail order.



The way *Die Nibelungan* looks is fascinating . It looks like old paintings of epic scenes brought to life . Its wonderful stuff !


----------



## paeng

Movies follow Hollywood accounting: the amount spent to produce the movie does not include marketing it, and the amount earned is almost halved because the movie theater owners have to be paid. Large amounts are at stake, both for production and the cost of franchises, which is why studios have to show very expensive movies outside the dump months, and it's a make or break thing: they have to earn at least 2.5 times more than production cost.

Sometimes, even theater owners don't earn enough from the movies shown, which is why they probably make as much from food sold.

Since traditional domestic markets won't cover ticket sales, then movies have to be shown internationally, and preferably hitting the PG sweet spot. Given different cultures and languages, that means simple plots. Because of high ticket prices, they also have to be more than two hours long and look expensive (meaning, lots of CGI). And with competition, they have to be done right away, which means prequels, sequels, reboots, rehashes, etc. There's no three-year wait: the next features in the installment are made and shown the ff. year.

That's why many movies the past two decades look alike: action or spectacle takes place within the first few minutes and everything is highlighted. In contrast, think of horror sci-fi like _Aliens_, where the action starts halfway into the movie, and the first half involves a lot of exposition and character development. You'll rarely see such movies today.

With that, more just wait for the movies to be made avaiable in bargain bins or shown on streaming or cable.


----------



## KGeo777

I was reading about studio fortunes in 1970. 
FOX had so many box office failures they didn't produce any movies in 1970 (except for ones done through a separate production company--like the Planet of the Apes films). 
But it is no surprise if you look at the slate of costly films they made--the plots are not audience magnets. But there were low budget movies that got their money back.

More recently two of the biggest box office bombs are Cutthroat Island and The Lone Ranger. They have a couple of things in common--neither has a strong male lead character for an adventure story.
 Mathew Modine is not an adventure movie lead.  There have been  women-led pirate movies. But  they don't make the guy into a mundane wimp. And that's what they did with Cutthroat Island. Throwing a lot of money at something like that, especially when pirate movies are not considered box office gold. Not until they did a supernatural angle like POTC.

The Lone Ranger--when I heard Depp was in it I assumed he was the title character. But they made the Lone Ranger into a wimpy guy. You are defying audience expectations when you do that.  The Legend of the Lone Ranger did something similar. The lead was uninspiring. It should be common sense that if you do an action story, that you want the lead character to be interesting, brave, heroic, some kind of positive angle to it. 
Westerns used to be really cheap to make too. Now it costs $200 million to make one.


----------



## BAYLOR

KGeo777 said:


> I was reading about studio fortunes in 1970.
> FOX had so many box office failures they didn't produce any movies in 1970 (except for ones done through a separate production company--like the Planet of the Apes films).
> But it is no surprise if you look at the slate of costly films they made--the plots are not audience magnets. But there were low budget movies that got their money back.
> 
> More recently two of the biggest box office bombs are Cutthroat Island and The Lone Ranger. They have a couple of things in common--neither has a strong male lead character for an adventure story.
> Mathew Modine is not an adventure movie lead.  There have been  women-led pirate movies. But  they don't make the guy into a mundane wimp. And that's what they did with Cutthroat Island. Throwing a lot of money at something like that, especially when pirate movies are not considered box office gold. Not until they did a supernatural angle like POTC.
> 
> The Lone Ranger--when I heard Depp was in it I assumed he was the title character. But they made the Lone Ranger into a wimpy guy. You are defying audience expectations when you do that.  The Legend of the Lone Ranger did something similar. The lead was uninspiring. It should be common sense that if you do an action story, that you want the lead character to be interesting, brave, heroic, some kind of positive angle to it.
> Westerns used to be really cheap to make too. Now it costs $200 million to make one.



The success of Star Wars certainly helped out Fox.


----------



## KGeo777

BAYLOR said:


> The success of Star Wars certainly helped out Fox.


Supposedly they did not make that much money. The merchandise was where most of the money came and Lucas had the  control over that.
I don't know what is really true with the financial situation--I feel that it's a ponzi scheme or something--they never really run out of money or go bankrupt so I don't know.
I see the trends and what they are not making--there are aggressively avoiding any kind of traditional image or story form.
There's a big budget Mad Max spin-off coming-Furiosa? You just KNOW what they are going to do with it. Same with the Obi Wan Kenobi show. I joked to someone--that it would be about failure and other themes--and sure enough, the first dialogue you hear in the trailer is "we fought a war--we lost."

They need to channel this kind of spirit a little more:


----------



## BAYLOR

KGeo777 said:


> Supposedly they did not make that much money. The merchandise was where most of the money came and Lucas had the  control over that.
> I don't know what is really true with the financial situation--I feel that it's a ponzi scheme or something--they never really run out of money or go bankrupt so I don't know.
> I see the trends and what they are not making--there are aggressively avoiding any kind of traditional image or story form.
> There's a big budget Mad Max spin-off coming-Furiosa? You just KNOW what they are going to do with it. Same with the Obi Wan Kenobi show. I joked to someone--that it would be about failure and other themes--and sure enough, the first dialogue you hear in the trailer is "we fought a war--we lost."
> 
> They need to channel this kind of spirit a little more:



I wonder what Lou Wasserman at Universal  thought when Star Wars became a huge hit at the box office ? That could have been his , He also passed on Indiana Jones too.


----------



## KGeo777

BAYLOR said:


> I wonder what Lou Wasserman at Universal  thought when Star Wars became a huge hit at the box office ? That could have been his , He also passed on Indiana Jones too.


Universal had done the disaster film and made money that way. Then Jaws of course.
Fox had done science fiction already--we were discussing this on another forum.
Charlton Heston was the first A list star to do a science fiction or horror film.  Planet of the Apes.
Up to that time, it was not considered a good career movie for a star.
Rod Taylor did the Time Machine and the Birds but he wasn't at the top.
Likewise, Stephen Boyd did Fantastic Voyage at Fox but he wasn't A-list.
Gregory Peck avoided it until the Omen I assume.

Yul Brynner did Westworld but his career tanked after that. It may have harmed his career.

Clint Eastwood did it early--in the 1950s but after that he shunned it (except maybe for the supernatural ghost element).
And Eastwood is the last Hollywood star who sold a film entirely on his name and personality.
Without a reliance on special effects or stunts.
Firefox had that but otherwise no.
Every star after the 70s--from Harrison Ford to Schwarzenegger to Willis and onward--they either were sharing the selling point with stunts or FX or some name director.
Eastwood was the last star where he alone sold the movie. 
His personality and performance were the main draw.


----------



## BAYLOR

KGeo777 said:


> Universal had done the disaster film and made money that way. Then Jaws of course.
> Fox had done science fiction already--we were discussing this on another forum.
> Charlton Heston was the first A list star to do a science fiction or horror film.  Planet of the Apes.
> Up to that time, it was not considered a good career movie for a star.
> Rod Taylor did the Time Machine and the Birds but he wasn't at the top.
> Likewise, Stephen Boyd did Fantastic Voyage at Fox but he wasn't A-list.
> Gregory Peck avoided it until the Omen I assume.
> 
> Yul Brynner did Westworld but his career tanked after that. It may have harmed his career.
> 
> Clint Eastwood did it early--in the 1950s but after that he shunned it (except maybe for the supernatural ghost element).
> And Eastwood is the last Hollywood star who sold a film entirely on his name and personality.
> Without a reliance on special effects or stunts.
> Firefox had that but otherwise no.
> Every star after the 70s--from Harrison Ford to Schwarzenegger to Willis and onward--they either were sharing the selling point with stunts or FX or some name director.
> Eastwood was the last star where he alone sold the movie.
> His personality and performance were the main draw.



 Lucas and Spielberg   working with Universal would have been a boon for that Studio . They would gained two marque franchise and made millions more.   Given how successful they were ,  it must have  bothered Wasserman that  he passed on these two  lucrative franchises. He could have two go the greatest producer director working for him and with him.


----------



## KGeo777

BAYLOR said:


> Lucas and Spielberg   working with Universal would have been a boon for that Studio . They would gained two marque franchise and made millions more.   Given how successful they were ,  it must have  bothered Wasserman that  he passed on these two  lucrative franchises. He could have two go the greatest producer director working for him and with him.


Universal wasn't hurting financially. They did ET right.
All the big studios shared their successes. What did they do not do, is let new people come along.
And that's why it got stifled.
I mentioned before, one of the biggest box office hits of the 1970s was a film made entirely outside of Hollywood.
Bootleggers. It cost $200 000 and made somewhere around $5 million.
Hollywood was not interested in replicating that. It was a regional film with a very specific audience and yet it did very well in the US in certain areas.


----------



## Valtharius

KGeo777 said:


> Supposedly they did not make that much money. The merchandise was where most of the money came and Lucas had the  control over that.
> I don't know what is really true with the financial situation--I feel that it's a ponzi scheme or something--they never really run out of money or go bankrupt so I don't know.


I know most of the Star Wars money is in toys, but it sounded off to me that they didn't make a lot of money from the first movie. This is what I was able to find:








						The $11 million spent on “Star Wars” in 1977 was the best film investment ever made
					

The movie, released 40 years ago, spawned an empire worth countless billions.




					qz.com


----------



## paranoid marvin

Star Wars captured lightning in a bottle. It was a relatively low budget movie with relatively unknown lead actors and an - at best - average script (apparently Alec Guinness thought it was 'fairytale rubbish'). But against all the odds it worked. And perhaps because it wasn't expected to be a success the actors relaxed and gave a more natural performance. You could definitely see a chemistry between the various characters on screen. On another day with a different director, or perhaps with the same director under slightly different circumstances, the movie would have been a turkey like many, many Star Wars/2001 wannabes from the 70s and 80s.

Honestly if I was another director who turned down the movie? I'd probably be glad, because under them it probably would have flopped, and then the world would have missed out on one of the greatest sci-fi trilogies of all time.


----------



## Vladd67

paranoid marvin said:


> Star Wars captured lightning in a bottle. It was a relatively low budget movie with relatively unknown lead actors and an - at best - average script (apparently Alec Guinness thought it was 'fairytale rubbish'). But against all the odds it worked. And perhaps because it wasn't expected to be a success the actors relaxed and gave a more natural performance. You could definitely see a chemistry between the various characters on screen. On another day with a different director, or perhaps with the same director under slightly different circumstances, the movie would have been a turkey like many, many Star Wars/2001 wannabes from the 70s and 80s.
> 
> Honestly if I was another director who turned down the movie? I'd probably be glad, because under them it probably would have flopped, and then the world would have missed out on one of the greatest sci-fi trilogies of all time.


Wasn't Damnation Alley with George Peppard expected to be that years blockbuster?


----------



## KGeo777

Supposedly, the Other Side of Midnight was expected to be the big box office champ of the year.
A novel-based romance film.
Damnation Alley was assumed to be Fox's sci-fi success but there's not much there to give it that prediction. Peppard was not a big box office magnet.

When you look at how people reacted--there's a 1977 Harrison Ford interview that brings it up--it was the novelty of the spfx. The Star Destroyer at the beginning.
No one had seen anything like that before. That is what got people into theaters.
The unique nature of the spfx and the production design etc.
The irony is, a director who cared more about acting would probably have not been interested in advancing the spfx side of it. Lucas was interested in the technology more than anything else and that allowed for the experimentation they did.

And none of the copycat films had the spfx equivalent. Battlestar Galactica did-but that was because two of the major Star Wars people (Dykstra and McQuarrie) worked on it. Battle Beyond the Stars had James Cameron which helped. But the story for that was better than Battlestar Galactica.
BG could have been a lot better. The cast was fine--it was the story and cheapness of the production design. Tv quality.


----------



## BAYLOR

KGeo777 said:


> Supposedly, the Other Side of Midnight was expected to be the big box office champ of the year.
> A novel-based romance film.
> Damnation Alley was assumed to be Fox's sci-fi success but there's not much there to give it that prediction. Peppard was not a big box office magnet.
> 
> When you look at how people reacted--there's a 1977 Harrison Ford interview that brings it up--it was the novelty of the spfx. The Star Destroyer at the beginning.
> No one had seen anything like that before. That is what got people into theaters.
> The unique nature of the spfx and the production design etc.
> The irony is, a director who cared more about acting would probably have not been interested in advancing the spfx side of it. Lucas was interested in the technology more than anything else and that allowed for the experimentation they did.
> 
> And none of the copycat films had the spfx equivalent. Battlestar Galactica did-but that was because two of the major Star Wars people (Dykstra and McQuarrie) worked on it. Battle Beyond the Stars had James Cameron which helped. But the story for that was better than Battlestar Galactica.
> BG could have been a lot better. The cast was fine--it was the story and cheapness of the production design. Tv quality.



Battlestar Galactica should have gone the feature film route , Larson should have hired Irving Kirchner to direct it and have someone like David Drake to write  the story and screenplay for the film .


----------



## worldofmutes

In reference to the overall topic, 
Few years ago I used to go every week and drink a pint and watch, for onstance, *Dunkirk *and *The Revenant. *Obviously those are kind of old by now.

I would love to go to the theatre again when I start making more money, as I enjoy it. As it is it’s pretty expensive I guess.

One time I asked the guy at the liquor stall for a white russian and he MacGyver’d one together with coffee creamer. Was funny, I think he got a good tip. Wasn’t awful.


----------



## KGeo777

BAYLOR said:


> Battlestar Galactica should have gone the feature film route , Larson should have hired Irving Kirchner to direct it and have someone like David Drake to write  the story and screenplay for the film .


Buck Rogers the feature films looked better than BG.  But it is shame those shows had such cheap sets. They are so cheap--in BG they use bubblewrap as futuristic curtains.


----------



## paranoid marvin

KGeo777 said:


> Buck Rogers the feature films looked better than BG.  But it is shame those shows had such cheap sets. They are so cheap--in BG they use bubblewrap as futuristic curtains.




One of the great things about the BBC , particularly from the 1960s-80s, was the special effects department. The director or scriptwriter (or whoever) would go along to the department, tell them what they wanted , and wait to see it created. The budgets were obviously miniscule, and computer technology almost non-existent, but what they did in creating effects and props was amazing (and certainly convincing to the mind of a child). 

I think that we've lost a great deal these days with the easy and cheap access to CGI.


----------



## BAYLOR

paranoid marvin said:


> One of the great things about the BBC , particularly from the 1960s-80s, was the special effects department. The director or scriptwriter (or whoever) would go along to the department, tell them what they wanted , and wait to see it created. The budgets were obviously miniscule, and computer technology almost non-existent, but what they did in creating effects and props was amazing (and certainly convincing to the mind of a child).
> 
> I think that we've lost a great deal these days with the easy and cheap access to CGI.



The Zygon Spaceship in *Terror of the Zygons* comes to mind , both the interiors and the the Model work was very impressive stuff .


----------



## Matteo

Ahh...Classic Dr Who special effects - "running down corridors with the walls wobbling".

Very unfair, though oft-spoken, criticism.  The special effects were very impressive.


----------



## KGeo777

paranoid marvin said:


> One of the great things about the BBC , particularly from the 1960s-80s, was the special effects department. The director or scriptwriter (or whoever) would go along to the department, tell them what they wanted , and wait to see it created. The budgets were obviously miniscule, and computer technology almost non-existent, but what they did in creating effects and props was amazing (and certainly convincing to the mind of a child).
> 
> I think that we've lost a great deal these days with the easy and cheap access to CGI.


It wouldn't matter so much if the story was engaging but Battlestar Galactica was not.
Your mind drifts to the set decorations.


----------



## paranoid marvin

Matteo said:


> Ahh...Classic Dr Who special effects - "running down corridors with the walls wobbling".
> 
> Very unfair, though oft-spoken, criticism.  The special effects were very impressive.



Yes, considering the budgets, what they managed to do with shows like Doctor Who and Blakes 7 is very impressive. Even today the effects of the Tardis and the Liberator (internally and externally) are impressive. When you consider they had to do it all in a very short period of time with limited resources makes it doubly so.


----------



## paranoid marvin

KGeo777 said:


> It wouldn't matter so much if the story was engaging but Battlestar Galactica was not.
> Your mind drifts to the set decorations.




I think that the original BSG along with the likes of Buck Rogers started well with some good ideas, but they kind of lost their way quite quickly.


----------



## BAYLOR

paranoid marvin said:


> I think that the original BSG along with the likes of Buck Rogers started well with some good ideas, but they kind of lost their way quite quickly.



What would have been intriguing was to have Galactica  and the fleet show up in Buck Rodgers. Ive seen a couple of fan fiction crossover idea where that happens.


----------



## Rodders

Urgghhh. I HATE crossovers.


----------



## BAYLOR

Rodders said:


> Urgghhh. I HATE crossovers.



This one actually would have been fun to watch.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

After many years of none attendance -Started by my utter disgust at watching the way the "ooo ooo Eight of ten" franchises had reboots and their fishing net plot errors - I was tempted last week to visit the local cinema photographic emporium to watch

Uncharted.






I enjoyed it. Good old fashioned ripping yarn treasure hunt nonsense in which I could switch off my normally forward optomistic joyful outlook for a couple of hours.

Course it helped I had played all the games. It was pleasing to see they mainly kept to the "script"

Looking forward the the next one.


----------



## paranoid marvin

Rodders said:


> Urgghhh. I HATE crossovers.




I think it depends on how it's done. Lister and the Red Dwarf team turning up on Coronation Street was hilarious. And if Terry Nation's idea of having the Daleks turn up in Blakes 7 that could have been terrific.

There's no reason why separate franchises shouldn't co-exist in the same universe, but I think it has to be done for the right reasons for it to work.


----------



## BAYLOR

paranoid marvin said:


> I think it depends on how it's done. Lister and the Red Dwarf team turning up on Coronation Street was hilarious. And if Terry Nation's idea of having the Daleks turn up in Blakes 7 that could have been terrific.
> 
> There's no reason why separate franchises shouldn't co-exist in the same universe, but I think it has to be done for the right reasons for it to work.



There was a very good Graphic novel crossover Dr Who/Star Trek the Next Generation,  *Assimilation 2. * It makes me wish they would allow a television crossover with these two franchises .


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

@BAYLOR

They effectively did that when they had the "Groundhog Day" reset which for me completly ruined the whole business.

I no will no longer have anything to do the films.

I prefer that when a character comes out a shower he's maybe a little wet: not flung back in time to before he was shot.

Not unless it's a straight up front in your face no messing time travel story.

Although most of them are crap too.

(So too with Foo Foo eight and and the Sca Fell Pike nonesense)


----------



## BAYLOR

TheEndIsNigh said:


> @BAYLOR
> 
> They effectively did that when they had the "Groundhog Day" reset which for me completly ruined the whole business.
> 
> I no will no longer have anything to do the films.
> 
> I prefer that when a character comes out a shower he's maybe a little wet: not flung back in time to before he was shot.
> 
> Not unless it's a straight up front in your face no messing time travel story.
> 
> Although most of them are crap too.
> 
> (So too with Foo Foo eight and and the Sca Fell Pike nonesense)



In the movies , no one is allowed to die permanently  as long as there is money to be made.


----------



## KGeo777

I didn't want to create a thread just for this but since it does reference modern films here and there--seems a good place for it.











						The Land That Time Forgot (1975) / At The Earth’s Core (1976) / The People That Time Forgot (1977) / Warlords of Atlantis (1978)
					

Director: Kevin Connor Screenwriters: Michael Moorcock, James Cawthorn, Milton Subotsky, Patrick Tilley, Brian Hayles By Roderick Heath Movies like Star Wars (1977) and Raiders of the Lost Ark (198…




					filmfreedonia.com
				




"Films like these are generally a punchline today. They’re tacky and goofy and soft targets for lampooners, and the sort of bad-old-days fare genre fans tend to cringe at. But to me, they contain far, far more of the essence of the fantastical than so many of their inflated children."


----------



## BAYLOR

KGeo777 said:


> I didn't want to create a thread just for this but since it does reference modern films here and there--seems a good place for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Land That Time Forgot (1975) / At The Earth’s Core (1976) / The People That Time Forgot (1977) / Warlords of Atlantis (1978)
> 
> 
> Director: Kevin Connor Screenwriters: Michael Moorcock, James Cawthorn, Milton Subotsky, Patrick Tilley, Brian Hayles By Roderick Heath Movies like Star Wars (1977) and Raiders of the Lost Ark (198…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> filmfreedonia.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Films like these are generally a punchline today. They’re tacky and goofy and soft targets for lampooners, and the sort of bad-old-days fare genre fans tend to cringe at. But to me, they contain far, far more of the essence of the fantastical than so many of their inflated children."



Those films are still fun to watch , 

*At The Earth Core , *that one is  the most fun  and  you see that both Doug McClure and Peter Cushing were both and alot of making that film .


----------



## Rodders

These movies were a staple for me growing up and would watch them whenever they came on TV.


----------



## KGeo777

The Land That Time Forgot is the smartest--I like the dialogue--especially between the submarine captain and the scientist.
This is what is missing in movies now--this is a case where the characters are smarter than the audience. It's rare to find that now.


----------



## BAYLOR

KGeo777 said:


> The Land That Time Forgot is the smartest--I like the dialogue--especially between the submarine captain and the scientist.
> This is what is missing in movies now--this is a case where the characters are smarter than the audience. It's rare to find that now.



Michael Moorcock co wrote the screenplay .


----------



## paeng

For blockbusters, they are all generally the same:

- more than two hours long and filled with spectacle (and mostly computer-generated) to justify the high ticket prices;

- rated PG or so in order to maximize viewership;

- a focus on plot and action in order to appeal to multiple cultures, as selling to the domestic market won't be enough; and

- rehashes, reboots, sequels, prequels, etc., in order to speed up development time and milk franchises for all they're worth.

For anything else, probably something like the effects of Bloom's "anxiety of influence," i.e., not much to add that's already been done.

There's similar for pop music (e.g., a century of three-chord, three-minute songs, regular beat, major scales, a dozen or so bars, banal lyrics), video games (the same types of games but with different skins), and so on.

But there are many works from the past to consider, such as over 2,000 movies across multiple decades and countries. That's certainly enough for watching (and rewatching, and thinking about) one movie a week for the next 50 years or so. And then do similar for music, books, etc., and you'll feel the complete opposite of indifference.


----------



## LostCosmonaut

I've never been that much of a cinema-goer---even when I worked at a movie theater for two and a half years, I only ever used my free movie pass three or four times. It's still the case now; I only saw three new movies in 2021, and all of those were with family members. The same goes doubly for prestige TV, which I categorically don't watch, partly because I don't have time, and partly out of an aversion to new, hip, and/or trendy media. If a new release really _is_ good, it will be just as good in five or ten years. 

The great works of the past are where it's at!


----------



## Indoril Nerevar

paeng said:


> For blockbusters, they are all generally the same:
> 
> - more than two hours long and filled with spectacle (and mostly computer-generated) to justify the high ticket prices;
> 
> - rated PG or so in order to maximize viewership;
> 
> - a focus on plot and action in order to appeal to multiple cultures, as selling to the domestic market won't be enough; and
> 
> - rehashes, reboots, sequels, prequels, etc., in order to speed up development time and milk franchises for all they're worth.
> 
> For anything else, probably something like the effects of Bloom's "anxiety of influence," i.e., not much to add that's already been done.
> 
> There's similar for pop music (e.g., a century of three-chord, three-minute songs, regular beat, major scales, a dozen or so bars, banal lyrics), video games (the same types of games but with different skins), and so on.
> 
> But there are many works from the past to consider, such as over 2,000 movies across multiple decades and countries. That's certainly enough for watching (and rewatching, and thinking about) one movie a week for the next 50 years or so. And then do similar for music, books, etc., and you'll feel the complete opposite of indifference.



agreed, furthermore, the formula for an MCU film has been a disaster to cinemas. i once went to a theatre in downtown vancouver after an exam, the three movies it was showing: spiderman far from home, another marvel movie of which the title i have forgotten, and a DC movie. the cinema is slowly progressing towards become a new disney world attraction. good, novel cinema (unless it has a huge director like nolan backing it) is in the domain of streaming services now. a company that owns multiple theatres thinks, "why should i run this potential box office risk when i can get a guaranteed ticket seller with MCU film #257?" and thus marks the death of the cinema.


----------



## KGeo777

Life imitates cinema










						‘Jaws’ child star named police chief of town where movie was filmed
					

From starring in “Jaws” to enforcing laws: Jonathan Searle is now top cop of Oak Bluffs in Martha’s Vineyard, which is where the movie was shot back in 1975.




					nypost.com
				





‘Jaws’ child star named police chief of town where movie was filmed
By Andrew Court
May 19, 2022



From co-starring in “Jaws” to enforcing the laws.

Jonathan Searle has been named the new police chief of Oak Bluffs — 47 years after he filmed Steven Spielberg’s iconic shark shocker in the same Massachusetts town that went by the fictional name of Amity in the classic summer blockbuster.

His appointment generated a big bite of buzz when the tiny town’s board announced it had voted 3-1 to offer the top cop role to the longtime community servant.

“I’m finding the whole thing quite funny myself!” Searle, 56, told The Post on Thursday amid all the fuss on the island located south of Cape Cod.

Oak Bluffs, which is home to just over 5,000 full-time residents, is part of ritzy Martha’s Vineyard, where “Jaws” was shot back in 1975.

In that movie, Searle and his real-life brother, Steven, memorably played two pranksters who caused mass panic on the beach after swimming into the ocean with a cardboard fin.


----------



## cyprus7

KGeo777 said:


> Life imitates cinema
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘Jaws’ child star named police chief of town where movie was filmed
> 
> 
> From starring in “Jaws” to enforcing laws: Jonathan Searle is now top cop of Oak Bluffs in Martha’s Vineyard, which is where the movie was shot back in 1975.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘Jaws’ child star named police chief of town where movie was filmed
> By Andrew Court
> May 19, 2022
> 
> 
> 
> From co-starring in “Jaws” to enforcing the laws.
> 
> Jonathan Searle has been named the new police chief of Oak Bluffs — 47 years after he filmed Steven Spielberg’s iconic shark shocker in the same Massachusetts town that went by the fictional name of Amity in the classic summer blockbuster.
> 
> His appointment generated a big bite of buzz when the tiny town’s board announced it had voted 3-1 to offer the top cop role to the longtime community servant.
> 
> “I’m finding the whole thing quite funny myself!” Searle, 56, told The Post on Thursday amid all the fuss on the island located south of Cape Cod.
> 
> Oak Bluffs, which is home to just over 5,000 full-time residents, is part of ritzy Martha’s Vineyard, where “Jaws” was shot back in 1975.
> 
> In that movie, Searle and his real-life brother, Steven, memorably played two pranksters who caused mass panic on the beach after swimming into the ocean with a cardboard fin.


There's a time travel story lurking in that piece somewhere.


----------



## mccullcla

I thought dune was pretty good


----------



## BAYLOR

TheEndIsNigh said:


> After many years of none attendance -Started by my utter disgust at watching the way the "ooo ooo Eight of ten" franchises had reboots and their fishing net plot errors - I was tempted last week to visit the local cinema photographic emporium to watch
> 
> Uncharted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I enjoyed it. Good old fashioned ripping yarn treasure hunt nonsense in which I could switch off my normally forward optomistic joyful outlook for a couple of hours.
> 
> Course it helped I had played all the games. It was pleasing to see they mainly kept to the "script"
> 
> Looking forward the the next one.



And there will be a sequels.


----------



## KGeo777

Tom Holland and Mark Wahlberg... move over Chuck Connors, there's some real macho men in town now!


----------



## CupofJoe

Re-purposed from FB


----------



## KGeo777




----------



## KGeo777

I know Sorbo is into Christian movies (he doesn't talk about it there)  but he makes a good point about how technology allows one to do so many things. Teenagers have access to media tech that wealthy filmmakers couldn't access before the 2000s.

This guy cracks me up because he analyzes these awful film--why does he torture himself?


----------



## BAYLOR

KGeo777 said:


> I know Sorbo is into Christian movies (he doesn't talk about it there)  but he makes a good point about how technology allows one to do so many things. Teenagers have access to media tech that wealthy filmmakers couldn't access before the 2000s.
> 
> This guy cracks me up because he analyzes these awful film--why does he torture himself?


And down the road there will likely be more Jurassic related movies.


----------



## KGeo777

I saw an advertising inside a Walmart for recent movies--a T-Rex was roaring in one of the images-superheroes...-it all felt so sterile.


----------



## BAYLOR

KGeo777 said:


> I saw an advertising inside a Walmart for recent movies--a T-Rex was roaring in one of the images-superheroes...-it all felt so sterile.



I didn't bother going to see it.


----------

