I saw Project Hail Mary recently, and while I leveraged my assigned seat to show up at the listed time – even though as a kid I developed the instinct that you need to be at a movie early – I couldn’t quite bring myself to trust the conventional wisdom as to how long the previews and ads would go on after that.
I need to get over it. It was something like 28 minutes, and made the entire experience less fun than it should have been. I’m seeing Dune in the theaters, and maybe the Mandolorian movie if the reviews are decent (I’m still a sucker for Star Wars. Is what it is.). If I get to three in a single year, that will actually be a new high for me in the last 10-20 years.
Everything else is fine at home. We have a pretty big TV and a sound bar, and for all but about 1-3 visual and communal experiences per year, that is all I need. I remember when we were living large with a 32" CRT and stereo speakers that faced forward, so I still feel special watching on a “bigscreen,” and the kids these days (LOL… I’m old) all spend most of their time staring at screens from 5-11", so a movie on the big old TV is already a special treat.
My comment history is littered with this idea, but cinemas are settling into their best use case when they can’t benefit from a captive audience. They are there for big events and film devotees, but everyone who went to the theater because it’s the only place where you could see a movie on a half-decent setup will find other options. It’s not entirely unlike live theater before it, and all the grousing from auteurs will not change it. I’m not even saying they’re wrong, just that they benefited from the fact that they the artform they love had built-in technical and economic advantages that gave them a false idea about how invested the broader audience was in the nuances of their work.
That was true with older flat screen technology, but newer tech doesn’t have as big of an issue with larger screens closer to the viewer. The smaller the pixels, the less of an issue it is.
I also saw Hail Mary at a local AMC and had the same experience. 25 minutes of previews, $25 for a small popcorn and drink, 25 people in the theatre, 25 lights on the ceiling, 25% battery life on my phone. Would rate the whole experience 25/100.
I’m not even all that picky. Two or three trailers and a couple of ads, I get it. The butts are in the seat and it’s pollyannaish to assume the suits won’t leverage that. Sometimes I even see a trailer for an interesting-looking movie that I didn’t know was in the pipeline. It’s just such a beatdown the longer it goes, and by that I mean the literal time commitment, yes, but also the sense of the social contract being violated, the tonal whiplash, and the clear diminishing returns on picking their audience demographics.
I saw Project Hail Mary recently, and while I leveraged my assigned seat to show up at the listed time – even though as a kid I developed the instinct that you need to be at a movie early – I couldn’t quite bring myself to trust the conventional wisdom as to how long the previews and ads would go on after that.
I need to get over it. It was something like 28 minutes, and made the entire experience less fun than it should have been. I’m seeing Dune in the theaters, and maybe the Mandolorian movie if the reviews are decent (I’m still a sucker for Star Wars. Is what it is.). If I get to three in a single year, that will actually be a new high for me in the last 10-20 years.
Everything else is fine at home. We have a pretty big TV and a sound bar, and for all but about 1-3 visual and communal experiences per year, that is all I need. I remember when we were living large with a 32" CRT and stereo speakers that faced forward, so I still feel special watching on a “bigscreen,” and the kids these days (LOL… I’m old) all spend most of their time staring at screens from 5-11", so a movie on the big old TV is already a special treat.
My comment history is littered with this idea, but cinemas are settling into their best use case when they can’t benefit from a captive audience. They are there for big events and film devotees, but everyone who went to the theater because it’s the only place where you could see a movie on a half-decent setup will find other options. It’s not entirely unlike live theater before it, and all the grousing from auteurs will not change it. I’m not even saying they’re wrong, just that they benefited from the fact that they the artform they love had built-in technical and economic advantages that gave them a false idea about how invested the broader audience was in the nuances of their work.
Here I am in love with my 21 and 27" CRT still 😁
I don’t like obnoxiously huge screens in the home. 45" is even too big for a flat screen. I also dont have huge rooms which is part of it.
That was true with older flat screen technology, but newer tech doesn’t have as big of an issue with larger screens closer to the viewer. The smaller the pixels, the less of an issue it is.
Makes sense.
I’d get an oled. Because they are as close to CRT as you can get. But I’m not paying those prices !
Defender on genesis through component into my CRT = you’re in the arcade.
I also saw Hail Mary at a local AMC and had the same experience. 25 minutes of previews, $25 for a small popcorn and drink, 25 people in the theatre, 25 lights on the ceiling, 25% battery life on my phone. Would rate the whole experience 25/100.
I’m not even all that picky. Two or three trailers and a couple of ads, I get it. The butts are in the seat and it’s pollyannaish to assume the suits won’t leverage that. Sometimes I even see a trailer for an interesting-looking movie that I didn’t know was in the pipeline. It’s just such a beatdown the longer it goes, and by that I mean the literal time commitment, yes, but also the sense of the social contract being violated, the tonal whiplash, and the clear diminishing returns on picking their audience demographics.