←back to thread

The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

(www.newyorker.com)
231 points frogulis | 10 comments | 15 Jul 25 03:52 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
somenameforme ◴[15 Jul 25 04:23 UTC] No.44567805[source]▶
Fun fact: movie sales, in terms of tickets sold, peaked in 2002. [1] All the 'box office records' since then are the result of charging way more to a continually plummeting audience size.

And this is highly relevant for things like this. People often argue that if movies were so bad then people would stop watching them, unaware that people actually have stopped watching them!

Even for individual movies. For all the men-in-spandex movies, the best selling movie (by tickets sold) in modern times is Titanic, 27 years ago.

[1] - https://www.the-numbers.com/market/

replies(25): >>44567864 #>>44567968 #>>44568136 #>>44568154 #>>44570905 #>>44570997 #>>44571105 #>>44571251 #>>44571355 #>>44571403 #>>44571486 #>>44571608 #>>44571759 #>>44571905 #>>44572267 #>>44572485 #>>44572904 #>>44573167 #>>44573177 #>>44573253 #>>44573502 #>>44573585 #>>44574449 #>>44576708 #>>44580563 #
zamadatix ◴[15 Jul 25 14:38 UTC] No.44571608[source]▶
In 2002, watching a movie at home for most people meant flinging a low quality VHS or DVD onto a ~27" tube TV (with a resolution so worthless it might as well be labeled "new years") using a 4:3 aspect ratio pan & scan of the actual movie. Getting anything recent meant going out to the Blockbuster anyways. In 2022, watching a movie meant streaming something on your 50+" 16:9 4k smart TV by pressing a button from your couch.

Box office ticket sales say people go to the theatre less often, not that people watch movies less often. Unless you specifically want "the movie theater experience" or you absolutely have to see a certain movie at launch you're not going to the theatre to watch a movie. The number of movie views per person may well be down (or up), but box office ticket sale counts don't really answer that question.

replies(11): >>44572352 #>>44572470 #>>44572546 #>>44572564 #>>44572738 #>>44572859 #>>44573434 #>>44573975 #>>44574881 #>>44575039 #>>44575905 #
1. x0x0 ◴[15 Jul 25 16:02 UTC] No.44572564[source]▶
Also, I know this sounds like get off my lawn, but people behaved better. Or maybe they didn't didn't, but the penetration of flashlights kept in people's pockets wasn't 100%. Which is pretty annoying now that a movie for two is like a $75 experience with popcorn.
replies(2): >>44572933 #>>44574236 #
2. nilamo ◴[15 Jul 25 16:32 UTC] No.44572933[source]▶
> a movie for two is like a $75 experience with popcorn

A ticket is less than $15 during the expensive times, and $10 off peak. Where in the world are you seeing movies?

I get it, I don't go to the theater anywhere near what I used to, but the nice one near me with a bar and a player piano in the lobby is still nowhere near $75 for two tickets.

replies(6): >>44573109 #>>44573619 #>>44573630 #>>44573803 #>>44573943 #>>44574283 #
3. probably_wrong ◴[15 Jul 25 16:43 UTC] No.44573109[source]▶
I know there are smarter ways to invest your cinema money, but I checked how much I could spend in a fancy cinema in Munich, Germany for the OPs experience and came up with 19€ per ticket (balcony plus a popular superhero movie), plus 16€ for a (big) popcorn and two drinks, for a total of 54€ or ~USD 63.

I agree that the average experience could easily cost half that, but the point of how expensive cinema can be (imagine adding a second popcorn or, God forbid, nachos!) is a good one.

4. Finnucane ◴[15 Jul 25 17:23 UTC] No.44573619[source]▶
$40 for popcorn.
5. xoxxala ◴[15 Jul 25 17:25 UTC] No.44573630[source]▶
Pricing greatly depends on location. Full-price tickets are $28.99 in New York for non-IMAX or special showing. Los Angeles is $22-24. My local theater in a small Arizona town is $10 full-price and $5 off peak.

We just saw Superman in a Las Vegas IMAX and it was $85 including fees for three tickets. $75 for two seems perfectly reasonable in LA, SF or NY once you include concessions.

replies(1): >>44576146 #
6. johnnyanmac ◴[15 Jul 25 17:40 UTC] No.44573803[source]▶
It was a fancier theatre, but I saw Elio a few weeks back and each ticket at a Burbank AMC was $22 (this was on a Wednesday Night). That's just California for you.

the local theatre I normally go to is $12 off-times and $20 on-time. A nice special kick to the head that they need to separately specify a $2 "convinience fee" for saving their time and ordering online.

7. x0x0 ◴[15 Jul 25 17:52 UTC] No.44573943[source]▶
Each non-imax ticket at my local theater is $20.74. I just punched in the 2 tix, 1 popcorn, and 2x sodas: $61.08 + tax. And that's w/ no candy, and I love sour candy.
8. rurban ◴[15 Jul 25 18:17 UTC] No.44574236[source]▶
I watch about 3 movies a week with my wife. The cheap ticket is 6.50€ (Mondays), the normal is 8.50€.

Dresden, Germany

We don't watch streams, as my wife constantly talks over it. Which she cannot in the movies

9. mrandish ◴[15 Jul 25 18:21 UTC] No.44574283[source]▶
Went to see the F1 movie a couple weeks ago in suburban Northern California on a local theater's "LieMax" screen (ie not one of the ~30 real IMAX 15-perf film theaters in the world but just a slightly larger mall theater screen that (probably) has a newer bulb and more recently calibrated speakers). It cost just over $75 for two adults + a large popcorn, soda and bottle of water.

I was a bit surprised at the price too. Seems maybe 15-20% more than my last theater outing last Summer. We don't go often because we have a dedicated home theater room that's fully sound proof with total light control and 9 custom theater loungers on two levels facing a 150-inch screen with 4K HDR10+ calibrated digital laser projector and built-in 7.4.2 surround THX-rated speakers. While there was nothing wrong with the "LieMax" theater, the picture, sound, seating and overall experience at home are meaningfully better - even when everything works at the cinema and no one is annoying. And I say that as someone with fairly significant professional video engineering experience. Of course, one of the ~30 real IMAX screens is objectively better (when showing 15-perf 70mm film, which they don't always do) but the nearest one is nearly an hour drive, costs even more and has $15 in parking on top. The last time I went was for Oppenheimer two years ago. But short of going there, it's hard to see much reason to go to a local cinema if you have a high-end home theater rig (other than just having a night out).

There's not even an advantage to the claimed "big screen" at the LieMax. While I prefer a slightly larger theatrical field of view than most people (around 45 degrees), my FOV at home is 46 degrees sitting 12.5 feet from the floor-to-ceiling screen (https://acousticfrontiers.com/blogs/Articles/Home-theater-vi...).

10. ProfessorLayton ◴[15 Jul 25 21:46 UTC] No.44576146{3}[source]▶
>$75 for two seems perfectly reasonable in LA, SF or NY once you include concessions.

Perhaps it's reasonable for a very occasional and special event, but it's not actually that expensive for anyone that cares about seeing movies in theaters. I'm paying $27/mo for effectively all-I-can-watch[1] movies via a subscription in SF, and includes IMAX. When I travel to LA I can use it there too, and it's available in NYC. I saw Superman for the cost of popcorn because I saw Elio earlier this month, it's a great deal.

If one doesn't go to theaters that often or cares for IMAX, there's other chains that offer 1 2D-only movie for $12/month and the tickets roll over.

[1] 4x movies/week, which is indeed more than I have time for.