3 ms·

> There’s a disconnect between what the masses find entertaining vs. what the elites find artistically valuable. This gap is far wider now than it has ever been

> There’s a disconnect between what the masses find entertaining vs. what the elites find artistically valuable. This gap is far wider now than it has ever been. When you word it like that, you make it sound like "the masses" don't find movies artistically valuable, and "the elites" don't find movies entertaining. What if "the masses" are able to find movies just as artistically valuable as "the elites", but just don't want to shell out $100 going to see a movie that can be viewed at home in a few months for free without any loss of fidelity? And what if "the elites" take just as much pleasure as "the masses" in seeing the newest Hollywood spectacle in 3D IMAX with 100+ channels of Atmos surround sound? In other words, what if this doesn't have anything to do with social class, but rather with the fact that going to the theater costs 10x as much as it used to cost while home viewing is 10x better than it used to be? I'm not saying the increased theater cost isn't worth it. To the contrary: some movies can really only be properly experienced in the theaters with all the bells and whistles—and those movies are the ones that people are willing to pay for.

ornornor 4y ago
> shell out $100 going to see a movie Haven’t been to the theater in over a decade, does it really now cost that much to see a movie with hundreds of other people farting, chewing on popcorn, slurping their drinks, in maybe a good seat (maybe not), on a fixed rigid schedule? If so, no wonder cinemas are dying… I’d do anything to avoid this “experience” especially if it costs so much. Instead I can watch it at home on my decent sound system without 20 minutes of ads before the movie, no risk of Covid or flu, on my OLED screen, pausing whenever I need, with the volume I like, and subtitles if I feel like it.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  > > shell out $100 going to see a movie > does it really now cost that much to see a movie No. Even with "premium" stuff like 3D and IMAX, it's still only like $20.
  - askafriend 4y ago
    Family of 4 + some drinks / popcorn and you're already in for $125-150.
    - ornornor 4y ago
      That’s a lot of snacks and home theater equipment if you go 4–5 times a year
  - jnwatson 4y ago
    I recently paid $24 a ticket in DC. Perhaps not entirely coincidentally, I just h wars that theater is closing.
  - jahsome 4y ago
    I'm certain they're alluding to a family, or hell, even a couple, and likely including snacks in total cost. I only saw a movie solo once, as I never got the appeal of the movie theater and only ever got dragged there by dates and friends. My kids never cared for it, so the bullet was largely dodged. All that said, using the word "only" as you did indicates a certain level of economic ignorance.
    - josephcsible 4y ago
      > All that said, using the word "only" as you did indicates a certain level of economic ignorance. I wasn't using "only" to say it's cheap from some absolute perspective, just that it's way cheaper than was claimed. For example, if someone says an Airbus A320 costs about $500,000,000, it's not economically ignorant to respond that no, it "only" costs about $100,000,000.
      - legutierr 4y ago
        Yeah, but you're wrong to say that it's cheaper than what I indicated. I took my kids to see Avatar in IMAX last weekend and the total bill was north of $100 including a few snacks.
mxkopy 4y ago
I think OP was talking about the academic/artistic elites, which nowadays seem more divorced from the general population than they used to be. And I think that has more to do with the internet than movie prices. People who want to get into the "theoretical" aspects of a movie can go insanely deep very quickly, whereas the average person won't care as much. On one hand you have a bunch of nerds trying to make/recognize increasingly obscure references as our ability to remember and find things gets better, and on the other hand you have people who just want to see stuff get blown up.

ornornor 4y ago

> shell out $100 going to see a movie Haven’t been to the theater in over a decade, does it really now cost that much to see a movie with hundreds of other people farting, chewing on popcorn, slurping their drinks, in maybe a good seat (maybe not), on a fixed rigid schedule? If so, no wonder cinemas are dying… I’d do anything to avoid this “experience” especially if it costs so much. Instead I can watch it at home on my decent sound system without 20 minutes of ads before the movie, no risk of Covid or flu, on my OLED screen, pausing whenever I need, with the volume I like, and subtitles if I feel like it.

josephcsible 4y ago
> > shell out $100 going to see a movie > does it really now cost that much to see a movie No. Even with "premium" stuff like 3D and IMAX, it's still only like $20.
- askafriend 4y ago
  Family of 4 + some drinks / popcorn and you're already in for $125-150.
  - ornornor 4y ago
    That’s a lot of snacks and home theater equipment if you go 4–5 times a year
- jnwatson 4y ago
  I recently paid $24 a ticket in DC. Perhaps not entirely coincidentally, I just h wars that theater is closing.
- jahsome 4y ago
  I'm certain they're alluding to a family, or hell, even a couple, and likely including snacks in total cost. I only saw a movie solo once, as I never got the appeal of the movie theater and only ever got dragged there by dates and friends. My kids never cared for it, so the bullet was largely dodged. All that said, using the word "only" as you did indicates a certain level of economic ignorance.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    > All that said, using the word "only" as you did indicates a certain level of economic ignorance. I wasn't using "only" to say it's cheap from some absolute perspective, just that it's way cheaper than was claimed. For example, if someone says an Airbus A320 costs about $500,000,000, it's not economically ignorant to respond that no, it "only" costs about $100,000,000.
    - legutierr 4y ago
      Yeah, but you're wrong to say that it's cheaper than what I indicated. I took my kids to see Avatar in IMAX last weekend and the total bill was north of $100 including a few snacks.

mxkopy 4y ago

I think OP was talking about the academic/artistic elites, which nowadays seem more divorced from the general population than they used to be. And I think that has more to do with the internet than movie prices. People who want to get into the "theoretical" aspects of a movie can go insanely deep very quickly, whereas the average person won't care as much. On one hand you have a bunch of nerds trying to make/recognize increasingly obscure references as our ability to remember and find things gets better, and on the other hand you have people who just want to see stuff get blown up.