To Those Who Say Going To The Movies Is Dying, I Say “Well, Bye”

Andrew Donaldson

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has been the Managing Editor of Ordinary Times since 2018, is a widely published opinion writer, and appears in media, radio, and occasionally as a talking head on TV. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter@four4thefire. Andrew is the host of Heard Tell podcast. Subscribe to Andrew'sHeard Tell Substack for free here:

Related Post Roulette

16 Responses

  1. Doctor Jay says:

    Johnathan Last has the finance wrong. Netflix is not surviving on free money. It is cranking out profits, which is why its stock is so desirable.

    Netflix along with the other streaming services, allows for a very different kind of – what shall I call it? – moving picture experience. The two-hour film exists because of human limitations.

    But now binge-watching at home, where you have a pause button and an available bathroom, and snacks that don’t cost an arm and a length, have opened up a space for moving-picture experiences that last 10 hours, or 30.

    That’s good.

    AND, there’s something to me about being with a big crowd I like. It’s odd, because I’m kind of an interovert. And yet, I went to Husky football games and yelled “AIITCH!!!” at the top of my lungs with 80,000 other people when the cheerleader said, “Give me an H!”

    It was glorious, it was powerful. I like being in a theater with other people, even when they aren’t screaming at the top of their lungs.Report

  2. Oscar Gordon says:

    The easiest way for cinema to survive is for studios to stop charging theaters so much for a movie, or by making the contracts so difficult to profit from.Report

    • Doctor Jay in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

      I dunno, Oscar. That sort of thing strikes me as “two rich and powerful parties arguing about who gets the last penny”. They are welcome to do that.

      I don’t like rising ticket prices, of course, but I think they have a pretty good sense of what they can charge.Report

      • Oscar Gordon in reply to Doctor Jay says:

        Yep, it is. And the beauty of streaming is that consumers now have another option besides waiting forever for the movie to hit cable, or paying high ticket and concession prices.

        My understanding of the concession prices is that is where theaters make their profits, as most of the ticket sales go straight to the studios for the first few weeks of a showing. If people have a choice to see a movie at home, then theaters won’t make as much profit, and won’t be able to afford what the studios are charging.

        So either the theater goes out of business or the studios charge less.

        What annoys me is people ranting about how it’s up to the consumer to save theaters by tolerating the argument between two rich parties in order to support the one that provides the product packaging they prefer.Report

  3. John Puccio says:

    Well said, Andrew.

    The gap between the multiplex experience and a home theater experience is pretty small at this point. (A flatscreen and sound bar in every pot!)

    Add in the convenience, new releases available on demand and hell being other people, if Tarantino doesn’t make another film, I may never step foot in a movie theater again.Report

  4. rexknobus says:

    Good heavens. Could this be any more “apples v. oranges?” Seeing a film on a television is not the same experience as seeing one in a theater amongst an audience. More examples? Seeing a ballgame on TV is not the same experience as being at the ballpark. Seeing the actual Mona Lisa on-screen is not the same experience as standing in front of it. Actually…uh…procreating is not the same experience as watching people…uh…procreate on television. It is certainly acceptable to compare those things, but to equate them is totally missing the point. I understand negative feelings about ticket prices, or bad facilities, or crowded conditions, but if you think that you are getting the same, or even a closely equivalent, experience from your television/handheld device as you would get at the theater, that’s just not the case. My strategy, as a pretty goofy movie fan, is to go to half-price matinees at good theaters when there are few people there. I miss a bit of the “crowd zeitgeist,” but I get the immersive effect. Probably shouldn’t recommend this but, though I am usually loaded up with popcorn (essential movie adjunct), there have been times when I filled my pockets with something before going into the theater. I feel a bit guilty about that, but judging by the comments here, people are upset enough about the “filthy corporate overlords” that I probably won’t catch much flack about depriving them of a sale or two. Theaters forever!Report

    • John Puccio in reply to rexknobus says:

      A movie is not a concert, it’s not a sporting event, and it certainly isn’t sex.

      When I’m immersed in a film or television show, it’s a completely personal experience. It’s made for an introvert like myself. A crowd can only detract from my viewing experience. I don’t want or need to share it until it’s over. (then I love discussing it).

      People talking, chewing loudly, cheering? No thanks.Report

      • rexknobus in reply to John Puccio says:

        Introvert to introvert — I get your point. Don’t really agree, but I get it. FWIW I have a DVD library of over 300 titles and a giant home theater system. (It even says “Home Theater” on my monitor “Input” list!). In a room alone is quite a different thing than “swept up in the crowd emotion.” For me, a movie definitely can be very akin to a concert or a sporting event and, Femrex will tell you, perhaps even a little bit of the latter, given the film. I can get a quite passionate over a movie sometimes. Talking? Chewing? That’s why theaters have parking lots. Perfect for those reprobates.Report

    • Slade the Leveller in reply to rexknobus says:

      My response is kind of along these lines, but the crowd really has little to do with my movie going experience. Many of the movies made these days are perfectly suited for the small screen. However, watching, say, Lawrence of Arabia on TV leaves a lot to be desired (I’ve done that, and seen it in all its 70mm glory, and let me tell you, they are not at all alike.).

      My complaint, thus, is that too few movie makers are taking advantage of the big screen real estate, rendering their films perfectly suited to a TV, or, God forbid, a phone. Give me the set design of Wes Anderson, who is able to make small movies that need a big screen!

      As far as concessions go, I certainly don’t begrudge the theater operator my purchase. Are they a rip off? Most likely, but it’s part of the movie going experience for me. (Which is not to say I haven’t carried my own stuff in at times. I used to see movies with a friend who liked to think she was putting something over on the theater by sneaking in some Nando’s wings and a bottle of wine. I never had the heart to tell her the minimum wage ticket takers sure weren’t going to make a scene.)Report

      • rexknobus in reply to Slade the Leveller says:

        One very cool thing about Wes Anderson’s flicks is how they demand to be seen on a large, very detailed screen, AND have to be watched via DVD/streaming where one can hit Pause and scan all the background details that fly by so quickly and are so worth the search.Report

  5. Rufus F. says:

    All I’m gonna say is I just got back from the movie theatre a few hours ago.

    Okay, also that there will come a day when Covid will finally be completely over, and the next day people are going to be headed out to public spaces. Movie theatres will be fine. It’s easier for kids to make out and grope each other in the back of the theatre than the living room.

    Finally, I vaguely remember writing a similar rant about how annoying movie theatre-going can be like a decade ago here, and there was a thread full of a troll starting a fight because I was supposedly too PC to have made the rant about Black folks at the movies, something that *never* occurred to me.Report

    • Slade the Leveller in reply to Rufus F. says:

      My wife and I went to see To Sleep with Anger, a movie with an all black cast. Naturally, the audience was primarily black, and the talking at the screen was epic. There’s a scene in which a male character strikes a woman in the kitchen and she grabs a knife from the counter and waves it at him. A lady in the audience yelled out, “That’s right, cut him.” It brought the house down. This happened 30 years ago and I remember it like it was yesterday.Report

  6. Saul Degraw says:

    I like going to movie theatres but the trend as been going the other way long before COVID. The issue seems to be the kind of stuff that will get made without movie theatres. It is not the MCU I an worried about. It is movies like Licorice Pizza or Drive my Car. Movies, you know, that believe in acting and dualogue, not boom boom wow.Report

  7. Burt Likko says:

    How did Rose sink the ship, Andrew? Obviously not directly; the iceberg was an impartial, uncaring world that intruded upon the fantasy bubble that was Titanic. But I don’t see that Rose did anything to disturb the world. Failing to see the iceberg was the lookouts’ fault, not Rose’s. She could hardly have been the first pretty girl kissing a boy on the deck of the ship they had seen even that night.

    Indeed, it seems to me she entered a world of fantasy when she fell in love with Jack the sincere, world-appreciating man and resisted marrying the uncaring and superficial Cal. Then the real world (the iceberg) crushed Rose’s happiness along with everyone else’s.

    At best, are we to take from this interpretation that the world works in a certain way and you must simply go along with it, suffering unhappiness along the way, lest daring to try for something better invite disaster and ruin? That’s a pretty bleak emotional message to what is, after all, a fairly standard love triangle story.Report

    • rexknobus in reply to Burt Likko says:

      Nice rejoinder to Andrew’s “Rose Calumny.” How can anyone refer to Rose as “the greatest cinema villain” when there’s Scarlett O’Hara, roaring through the South like a tornado, cutting a swath of destruction almost as complete as Sherman’s.Report