Movies: Do you GO to the movies more/less/the same as 10 years ago?

[ORRFForever]

With so many movies available on line, do you GO to the movies more / less / the same as you did 10 years ago? If less, how much less?

As for me...

While I see a TON more movies than I did 10 years ago, I don't go to the theater very often - it is just too easy to see a movie on line.

If it wasn't for the amazing Pulled Pork Nachos my theater sells (something I treat myself to once in a blue moon - my hardening arteries won't allow more), I'd watch ALL my movies at home.

Click to read more...

 

[Legionnaire]

I hardly ever go even though they finally serve beer and have reclining seats. Most movies are just too long for me to sit through these days - especially considering all of the crap movies and remakes. I used to make it a point to go for X-Men and Star Wars, but this new incarnation of PC Star Wars ended that even. It's just easier to watch at home.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

I go see the big releases in IMAX. IMO its an awesome way to see a movie, and gives you an experience that you can't recreate with a home theater. The size of the screen and immersion into the movie is a unique thing that IMAX adds to watching a movie

standard screen, barely go anymore.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

I still go a few times a month (on average) but definitely not as much as 10 years ago. Age/life factors a little into that too as much as movie accessibility.

 

[discostu]

Frequency of theatre going seems more driven by current period of life that I'd think that a comparison to 10 years ago doesn't reveal much about broader movie trends for most people.

I probably go less, but it's due to having kids. Although I'm getting out more these days than a few years ago, due to having a good babysitter. I'm also going to kids movies,so as a family unit, we're probably spending more in theatres than we did a decade ago.

There was a period that I maybe got to a theatre once or twice in a year.

 

[John Price]

I go only if there's a recliner

I need to lean back with my feet up in the air watching on a huge movie screen

The old movie threater seats don't cut it anymore

 

[dr robbie]

A lot less. 10 years ago I'd go for a random date, or to a movie I was interested in, or with some friends. Now, with kids and theater prices being so high, it doesn't work out that way. I only go now for the Marvel movies and XMen movies.

 

[Pilky01]

More.

But that only means going like 3-5 times a year instead of maybe 1. And most of those are MCU films so they barely count.

I go only if there's a recliner

I need to lean back with my feet up in the air watching on a huge movie screen

The old movie threater seats don't cut it anymore

This is also a big reason why I go more than 10 years ago.. All my local theatres have switched to reserved seating recliners and it really is glorious.

 

[kihei]

I still like going to the movies rather than watching them at home. Movies are meant for a big screen, and that's the way I prefer to watch them when I can. But there is no doubt that the ease and convenience of watching some movies at home, many of which I have access to no other way, has eaten into my yearly average of going out to theatres.

 

[Tkachuk4MVP]

Movies like Gravity, Dunkirk, and Fury Road HAVE to be seen on the big screen, and superhero movies greatly benefit from it as well. But if it's a low-budget film that I'm interested in (which is mostly the case these days), then a 55+ inch 4K TV does just fine, and for like 1/10th the price of tickets and food/drinks.

 

[Shareefruck]

I definitely go to the theater less now, but that's really only because my strategy for spending time on movies has changed to one where I lag behind by at least a year and don't start watching new things until long after everyone has already come up with yearly favorites list (I've completely lost interest in the discovery process, personally). On top of that, a lot of the stuff I want to see is not readily available at the theater in the first place, and I'm too lazy to pay attention to festival schedules. If there were more options at the theater, I definitely would do it more.

I'm much more likely to see a movie at the theater when they screen older movies (like that Studio Ghibli run they had recently) than I am to watch new movies that I haven't seen before, personally. Honestly, I don't even enjoy most of what comes out and that gets hyped, and nothing's worse than being trapped in a theater watching something you don't enjoy, IMO.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I barely go to the movies anymore, not enough time. Go back 15 years ago, when work and hobbies revolved around film, and I'd be there to see at least 5-7 films per week. The quality of the stuff I watch has dropped a lot too. Now mostly crap that doesn't need a big screen (watched Wonder Woman last night and dozed off 2 or 3 times because of how boring it was). I miss it!!

 

[Shareefruck]

One thing for me is that I kind of feel like a lot of the stuff that "demands to be seen on a big screen" aren't actually good enough to be worth being seen on a big screen, whereas a lot of the stuff that "don't need to be seen on a big screen" are what I want to see on a big screen (budget seems to rarely dictate art direction/cinematography). And those trends seem to somewhat dictate what gets screened most often.

I kind of hate this now commonly accepted sentiment that the big screen is reserved for epic/action-y spectacle and that more reserved and thoughtful films don't really benefit from it. I don't think it actually works that way-- they both benefit pretty much the same amount from that-- and the former being sold that way often feels an awful lot like trying to put lipstick on a pig to me. I also feel that if something isn't worth watching on a smaller screen from home, it isn't going to be worth watching anywhere, regardless of the immersion boost, whether it be in 3D/IMAX/whatever.

 

[Xelebes]

10 years ago? I didn't go the movies then. Now? I don't go to the movies now. I just don't like watching movies.

 

[John Price]

I think for something like Avengers Endgame if you didn't go see it in theaters like the day it was released (Thursday night) or Friday...or at least that weekend you'd be spoiled within 2 weeks unless you lived in a cave Kind of makes it required to watch it asap. Probably why I'm going to see Captain Marvel in 4 hours

 

[ORRFForever]

I still like going to the movies rather than watching them at home. Movies are meant for a big screen, and that's the way I prefer to watch them when I can. But there is no doubt that the ease and convenience of watching some movies at home, many of which I have access to no other way, has eaten into my yearly average of going out to theatres.

Owners of the theaters / Producers of the movies must CRINGE when thinking about all the money they lose to On-Line viewership.

 

[Neutrinos]

I prefer watching films from home

The only time I really hit up a theater is when I take my motorcycle into the shop and I have to kill a couple of hours while they work on it

 

[ORRFForever]

I go only if there's a recliner

I need to lean back with my feet up in the air watching on a huge movie screen

The old movie threater seats don't cut it anymore

 

[discostu]

Owners of the theaters / Producers of the movies must CRINGE when thinking about all the money they lose to On-Line viewership.

I think they're probably okay. Film grosses have grown in the last 10 years at a rate on the lower end of inflation. That's not bad, especially compared to how other entertainment revenue streams have done in that time frame. People have predicted the end of theatres for a while but there's still a desire to get out, and a trip to the theatre remains one of the cheapest forms of entertainment. Live sports, concerts and theatre are all pricier options for the big name events.

Myself, I don't find the home viewing experience as a substitute for theatre going. I go to the theatre mainly when I want a night out.

 

[ORRFForever]

I think they're probably okay. Film grosses have grown in the last 10 years at a rate on the lower end of inflation. That's not bad, especially compared to how other entertainment revenue streams have done in that time frame. People have predicted the end of theatres for a while but there's still a desire to get out, and a trip to the theatre remains one of the cheapest forms of entertainment. Live sports, concerts and theatre are all pricier options for the big name events.

Myself, I don't find the home viewing experience as a substitute for theatre going. I go to the theatre mainly when I want a night out.

You make good points.

I just find it difficult to get off the couch and pay the $12 when I can see a (less than perfect) version on line.

I love movies so I hope the Producers are doing okay.

 

[SugarSherm]

I go to the movies way less than I did ten years ago. Ten years ago I was a junior in high school where going to the movies was an exciting night out. My friends and I would always try and go to midnight showings of all the big movies coming out. Now I’m more patient and can wait until it comes out on prime/Netflix/redbox where it’s either part of the subscription or I can rent it for a few bucks but a group of us can watch it. Sit inside of the garage with a case of beer and we’re good to go. Now, I do go and see the movies I’m most excited about in theaters such as Star Wars or Avengers or if someone hits me up randomly I might go but it’s not something I do regularly.

 

[kingsboy11]

I was in middle school 10 years ago so I never really went to the movies without my parents. Now as an adult I can freely go see movies whenever and see movies that my parents wouldn't really care about. But I can be patient with some movies to see if they come out on netflix. Movies like Aquaman and Into the Spiderverse were movies that I could wait to see (although I kind of wish I saw Spiderverse in theaters)

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

One thing for me is that I kind of feel like a lot of the stuff that "demands to be seen on a big screen" aren't actually good enough to be worth being seen on a big screen, whereas a lot of the stuff that "don't need to be seen on a big screen" are what I want to see on a big screen

Exactly, that's why I gave the Wonder Woman example, to make sure there was no confusion about where I stood. You can watch that crap on a phone, same with pretty much every "epic" movies. Give me Nuri Bilge Ceylan on a big screen.

 

[Shareefruck]

Exactly, that's why I gave the Wonder Woman example, to make sure there was no confusion about where I stood. You can watch that crap on a phone, same with pretty much every "epic" movies. Give me Nuri Bilge Ceylan on a big screen.

Oh yeah, I wasn't saying that in response to your post (although it probably reminded me to comment on it). A bunch of posts further up talk about how certain spectacle movies need to be seen on the big screen, whereas smaller budget movies don't. I've never felt that was actually true.

 

[MetalheadPenguinsFan]

Up until like 2 years ago I hadn’t been to a theatre since 2004.

But then I discovered a hole in the wall indie theatre here in Kitchener called the Apollo that’ll play old/cult/classic/foreign horror flicks a few times every month. As a massive classic horror/exploitation film fan, I love that place.

Thanks to that place I’ve now seen the following on the big screen....

- “Night Of The Living Dead” (the 1968 original)

- Dario Argento’s “Suspiria” (the 1975 original restored in 4K)

- “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” (the 1974 original restored in 4K)

- Dario Argento’s “Deep Red” (I saw the Italian cut with English subtitles...which was cool)

- “Halloween” (the 1978 original restored in 4K)