They are just pissed because their box office reciepts aren't as large anymore.


Yeah right.... did the music industry jump at the chance to profit from napster and digital music?

These state of the art home theater systems are presently available on the market for all the average, rich and famous consumers who'll have the accommodations, and are able to afford them. There are exclusive, extravagant homes, and mansions of the rich who have such posh commercial emulated theaters in their private homes, but are not strictly exposed to the public.

Which is somewhat odd, because a lot of dates are so you can get to know the other person. You don't really get to know the other person if you're both in a dark room watching a big screen, unless the other person cheers or laughs at the wrong places [like, say, during Silence of the Lambs].

And you're right about communal experience. But that assumes you *want* to share that experience with other people, and that their reactions reinforce yours, rather than annoying or distracting, which is primarily what we're seeing talked about here.
Nowadays I think the internet, message boards, blogs, are the main 'communal' experience of lots of people and to discuss lots of things. I'm actually surprised there isn't something like "DVD Talk Movie Night" where a bunch of people watch the same DVD on the same day/night, then discuss it that night or the next day. I know that there are TV-show threads and 'One and Only *New Movie* Discussion Thread', but this would be a little more 'organized.'

We do have a movie theatre/restaurant that serves you meals and adult beverages at your seat [they actually have tables], and are reasonably quiet about taking care of the meal portion of your evening. We went once, but I don't know how much I like it. It's not like eating a pizza in front of the tv at home. If I'm going to watch a movie in a theatre, I'll either eat 'movie food' [popcorn] or nothing, generally.

You're taking date as "first date."

People still go on dates with their wives, fiancees, girlfriends etc. and movies are always a popular choice.


Which is really said. We're (and I'm including myself here) becoming a society of anti-social computer geeks.

And those of us disagreeing are saying DVDs are worse and don't offer a comprable substitute.

They offer a lower quality, less immersive substitute.

Don't get me wrong...I love DVDs, but given the choice I'll take a quality theater presentation (which thankfully is the norm for me) over a quality dvd presentation on a nice home theater any day.

I keep seeing, "on the big screen with sound all around".

Does anyone want to define how big warrants a "big screen"? If you have a 30 foot wide screen and sit at 45-60 feet vs. a 10 foot wide screen and sit at 15-20 feet is the 30 foot screen automatically better? Or is it relative? IMO, given a screen width of at least 7 feet you can have the "big screen" experience that is intended.

No one has really mentioned sound much in this thread, but I'm much happier with the surround field produced by my speakers than I get at the theater. The sound field is much more detailed and transparent. In addition I sense better directional information. The theater is absolutely no match. (For reference I'm using 5 Martin Logans: 2 SL3s, 2 Aerius, 1 Theater plus one self powered sub). The JBLs I see on the wall of the theaters just don't hold up that well for me.

I think it is interesting to note that in an "ideal" theater you would only have 2 side speakers not a dozen or so down the side wall like in a bigger theater. The reason there are more than 2 side speakers is because they have to have sides for each set of rows. The effect of this (IMO) actually muddles the surround field. Similarly with rear speakers there are often 4 or more on the back wall to account for the width of the theater. In effect they mess up the sound to attempt to have "no bad seats".

You can probably say "don't offer equivalent", but I'd say that they do offer a "comparable" subsititute. Otherwise, there wouldn't be so many people here arguing that they do. Also the Academy Awards president wouldn't have to get up and make the case against DVDs/home viewing. And you wouldn't get a standing ovation from the audience (of actors/actresses/etc.) who feel that DVD is a threat to their wallets.

Honest question: Have any of you who think there is no comparision between a good front projection HT vs a "real theater" actually watched movies in a good HT? Just curious...

Oh...you mean...like yours?
Haven't you jacked off all over this thread already as it is?

And again...do you think MOST people have good HT's that aren't going to movies? Give me a break.

Don't you wish...

And there are plenty on here with very fine HT setups, digi...

And how come so many of your responses seem to involve shooting a load?

Adding credibility: *yawn*

I'm sure they're going to the movies....but not as much.

Exactly. I go to the big ones I like, of course, like King Kong, Revenge of the Sith, and I'll be going to The Hills Have Eyes. Others I pick up when they hit the $1 tier.

I use these viewings to see which ones I want to buy later on DVD. You know, so I can see them on my little, sub-standard, small-screened, no-comparison-with-the-real-cineplex $25k+ home theater. In glorious mono sound.

Lower quality substitute... in terms of resolution and sound... yes, I agree....that's why it's a substitute that I pay less money for.

"less immersive substitute"

That all depends on the viewer's presentation setup and perception.

True, I was just meaning to state my opinion. The theaters I frequent do excellent jobs in audio and video presentation.

And just in generaly when you have huge wall to walls screens and sound much louder than you can get at home (and not get the cops called for those of us that don't live in isolated or sound proof homes) is just much more immersive.

Of course, maybe the gap is less for someone like awmurray who spent $25K on his hometheater. But that's not on option for 99.9% of the population. Hell, I probably won't spend much more than that on movie tickets, rentals and dvd/hd-dvd purchases in my entire life.

Despite the buckets of sarcasm dripping off it, I think this also makes a good point. Even the best HT won't be as good, as the best theatre (things like cellphones and babies notwithstanding). But you can't discount the HTs out of hand, as many have posted, there are ways of creating a very, very nice system in the home, and when compared to the average theater experience (cellphones, babies, smelly people), it's hard not to take what many consider a minor hit in screen and sound quality (or not), in order to avoid those factors in a public theater.


And I still feel the movie folks are approaching the DVD factor the wrong way. Yes it's having an impact on the industry as a whole, but to use the MP3 example, if they don't adapt and move forward, they're going to be left behind.

DVD movies are really good and i definitely agree that they have increased the viewing of those movies. going to the theatre is totally a different issue and one who wants always goes there even if he has a dvd.

This is quite a long thread, and pardon me if I'm just repeating what's been said, but I DO think that all feature films (not including those made for TV broadcast) are intended for cinematic exhibition. Why else would the 2.35:1 ratio still be used? I still think there's no comparison to seeing a film in the cinema.

Yes...but...but...but...his is GOOD. That's how everyone should have theirs. (insert specs here)

I don't wish. I haven't seen a pic of you.

Mostly because your posts seem to consist of you boasting about what a fantastic set-up you have and everyone who is complaining OBVIOUSLY doesn't have one quite as good as yours. Your posts are masturbatory.

... ...

this thread hasn't been closed yet?

It sure is, thanks to digitalfreaknyc, and awmurray