Thing 2 likes “Star Wars,” but he’d never seen the prequels, and when he saw a trailer for “The Phantom Menace” in 3D, he asked to see it.
So, I went to Fandango.com and got 2 tickets to last Sunday’s bargain matinée for $29.25. The theater charges extra for 3D movies, and there was a $2.50 “convenience fee” for buying the tickets online. Obviously, my idea of a bargain matinée clearly isn’t the same as Carmike Cinemas’.
A medium popcorn, a couple of sodas and a box of Nerds came to about $15. So, going to the movies with my 6-year-old became a $45 outing, and as I sat there watching this terrible movie — it earned only a 38% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes — I had an epiphany:
I’m not doing this again.
Then, I thought, don’t be stupid. Of course, you’ll do this again. You’ll take the kids the movies. They’re kids. You like movies. You’re not an ogre.
So, I had another epiphany:
I’m not taking the kids to the movies again unless the movie a) gets great reviews and b) is something they really, really want to see — unless c) we’re talking about going to a drive-in, in which case the movie is less important than the adventure of going to the drive-in, because d) drive-ins are awesome, or e) the restored old movie theater in the town where we live that shows old movies and charges only $5 a ticket.
I also thought, f) great reviews or not, if it’s a movie for grownups, I’ll wait and get it from Redbox or Netflix.
I’m sorry, but I’m looking at you, “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.”
The last grownup movie I saw in the theater was “Midnight in Paris,” the Woody Allen movie. I liked it a lot, but I don’t think I’d have liked it any less if I’d waited 3 to 6 months and watched it at home.
Hollywood hears that a lot, apparently. BoxOfficeMojo.com says total ticket sales in the U.S. fell almost 4% between 2009 and 2011.
This is why so many new movies are in 3D. The studios are hoping we’ll pay extra for an experience we can’t easily duplicate at home.
The problem is that a) 3D glasses make everything look too dark and b) a bad movie in 3D is still a bad movie, while c) a good movie is a good movie, either way.
“The Phantom Menace,” for example, was just as bad in 3D as it was in plain old 2D. It still didn’t make a lick of sense, and Jar Jar Binks was still annoying.
On the other hand, George Lucas was thoughtful enough to replace the puppet of Yoda with a computer-animiated cartoon of Yoda, so, at least, there was that.
I can’t do 3D even if I wanted to. It makes me throw up even if it’s an excellent movie. And I agree, the 3D affect doesn’t make a good movie better or a bad movie good, so it’s not worth the extra price to me, either way. I did make a point of seeing the last two Harry Potter movies (the ones that came out after I discovered I liked Harry Potter) in the theater because it’s just one of those experiences I enjoy having, but I saw them in 2D.
As for reviews, Rotten Tomatoes gave Hereafter something like 45% and it’s one of the best movies I have ever seen in my life. But then I read what the reviewers said about it and I realized they didn’t understand it. So rather than admit they’re stupid, they just say it’s a bad movie.
Sometimes, 3D makes a good popcorn movie like Harry Potter a little more fun to watch, but 3D should be icing on the cake.
I find 10 minutes in, I forget I have the glasses on anyway, so why bother?
If it’s one of those movies that really exploits the 3D, I’m don’t necessarily mind it, but what bugged me about “Phantom Menace” is that the 3D effect wasn’t exaggerated. It wasn’t epic. I’m sure, though, that in a few years, George Lucas will try wring a few more bucks out of people by releasing a new 3D conversion of the movies.
A couple of years ago I was on vacation at the beach and it rained much of the week, so eventually a movie night was the best thing to do. A family came in with about four or five pre-teen and teenage kids and a couple of adults. The kids were making about as much noise as teenagers who’ve been experiencing a rainy beach vacation will do.
At one point, a girl came skipping down the aisle, announcing to mom and the rest of us that “Dad is just so grumpy! I don’t know why he can’t lighten up and have fun!”
Dad was right behind her, carrying the rest of the refreshments. I did the mental math and that “fun” evening at the movies had to have put the guy out over $200, on top of the rest of the vacation costs.
I wanted to buy him a box of Milk Duds.
You’re unusually kind and perceptive, because no one ever worries how dads are doing.
My eyes don’t work together, so 3D movies are wasted on me.
There are some movies where the theater experience enhances the show. Some of those movies just need the huge screen and big sound. Others are better because of the shared experience with a big audience.
OK, I’ll probably see the last Batman movie on the big screen, but what’s really great is seeing a classic like “Casablanca” in the theater.
I go to about one movie a year in the theatre, for the rest my local library is the first choice to rent from. I’ll also buy a movie if I know I’ll watch it more than once or will be able to pass it on to family.
I never spend more than $20.00 going to a movie (which is the same price as a low budget theater ticket to see a play here) but I can sympathize on how expensive taking a child to the movies has become!
What a rip off.
I read this AFTER taking my cousins to see one. Never again. I always want them to live up to the ridiculous amount I’ve spent and they never do.
One thing I’ve noticed is that the studios are trying to make tasteful 3D movies, movies where things don’t jump out at you. I’m sorry, but if you’re gonna charge me $15 for a ticket, it had better be a friggin’ theme-park ride, you know? There had better be a lot of depth, and things had better be jumping out of the screen into my lap, because, otherwise, there’s no point.
I don’t do 3D movies, and fortunately I can use my youngest as an excuse. We have taken him to exactly 2 movies in 3D. The first time we noticed him playing with his 3D glasses, and the second time he refused to wear them at all. Apparently the 3D glasses do not work well with his glasses, and so he couldn’t tell what was going on anyway. That is if they fit over his regular glasses, and then they cause him to have a “sqeezy head” His words not mine, but it sounds terribly uncomfortable, so I choose not to torture him with 3D
I don’t blame you. It’s a gimmick to get people into the theaters, sometimes to see movies they already own on DVD.
Jar Jar in 3D? The horror.
I want to see The Avengers in the theater when it comes out. And even then, I will go to a matinee and smuggle in my own snacks.
You rebel, you.
I live in Canada and they added an extra tax in to going to see a movie. The dreaded HST tax of Ontario. I have never gone back, I have not gone to the hair dresser, I do not buy full tanks of gas…. anything the HST touched is now messed up including theatre ticket sales. My local cheaper theatre was empty for months after the HST kicked in and continues to go down hill except for big releases and even then, the parking lot is not full. They realized after the first year of bringing out 3d movies that they had better sales with the non 3d version, so they started to offer both or no 3d at all unless that’s the only version. With the HST hurting them on top of it, they will likely go out of business in the next few years but the gov got a limited amount of tax revenue for a short term while, good job.
OH and if you have a lazy eye or a predominate eye, you can not see the 3d properly and will likely get a headache, well worth the extra money isn’t it?? This is actually an updated version of the red and cyan glasses that caused headaches. This will fail just the same since its the same tech. Bringing real 3d tech such as holographics would be a good idea towards 3d