Predicting the Movie Hits & Bombs of 2020

That's just wrong. Even a small movie screen is vastly larger than 65", and movie theater audio still fares better than 99% of home theaters.

Size does matter, and seeing movies on a big screen is a much different experience than watching on a 65" TV.

Some people can set up their projectors to rival movie screen size, but that's an insanely tiny fraction, as few people have homes with space for such a large display.

If your local multiplex's screens are only 65", there's something wrong!

 

On the other hand, the communal experience of watching a movie in a theater can make certain films more enjoyable.

Comedies are almost always better in a crowd, as the laughter adds to the experience...

 

But, to state the obvious, you’re sitting much farther away from the screen in the theatre. I personally always sit in the last row.

In a normal living room, sitting a normal distance from the TV, a 65” TV takes up just as much of your field of vision as a movie theatre screen does in the movies. It’s just as much of an immersive, “wow” experience. Yes, the screen is smaller, but you’re in a much smaller room, sitting much closer to the screen. It’s plenty big enough.

 

The last movie I saw in that environment was the last recent Planet of the Apes movie. We were visiting friends in Atlanta, and went to an opening weekend showing, got there late, and had to split up our party of four because there was no room to sit together. Once the movie started, the crowd starting shouting warnings and encouragement to the characters on the screen. I get that some people enjoy that sort of rowdy communal viewing experience. I don’t.

 

If you think so, that's fine, but it's still not nearly the same experience.

I have a 65" OLED and I sit about 7 feet from it. "Field of view" or not, this doesn't compare to even a medium-sized movie screen at a normal viewing distance.

I honestly find it perplexing that movies fans wouldn't want to watch them on the biggest possible screens.

I love my OLED and my HT, but they pale in comparison with even an average multiplex presentation...

 

But that's not the norm - it's not like every movie has people who act like that...

 

The “big” screens at most suburban multiplexes aren’t really that big anymore. To me, a 65” flat screen is too big for most living rooms. The range of flat screen TV sizes that are available and affordable today are more than big enough for most viewing, in my opinion. Unless I’m going to an IMAX movie or something like that, I don’t need to see a movie on the biggest possible screen.

 

But you’re listing that as a plus of the movie experience. “Everyone’s laughing at the comedy together.” Fair enough, but that sort of communal experience is way down the list of things I enjoy about movies.

 

That is absolutely not true where I live. The screens are enormous - much bigger than they were years ago. There is no comparison to watching a big TV at home (which I agree can be nice) with watching an enormous screen at a theater.

 

You don't, and that's fine. But I think most people still enjoy the big screen experience.

As for multiplexes, the nadir in screen sizes happened late 70s. That's when malls would cram multiplexes into tiny spaces, with dinky screens.

Eventually it went back in the other direction. As TVs got bigger and HTs developed, exhibitors needed a way to differentiate, so they went with larger screens, even at huge multiplexes.

The AMC nearest to my house was built 2001, and even the smallest screen there is easily 10 times bigger than my 65" TV.

I've had times where I've gone to movies and the exhibition has been so poor that I might as well have watched it at home, but these days that's inevitably on ancient multiplex screens that didn't get remodeled...

 

Laughing at a comedy doesn't = people yelling "don't go in there" at a "Planet of the Apes" movie.

You described people talking to the screen, not standard laughing at jokes.

If you're 100% happy with movies at home, that's cool, but your comments tend to project your preferences to a much larger group, and I don't think they apply. I think most people think there's a considerable difference in how a movie looks/sounds at the cinema than at home, and they like the moviegoing experience...

 

Not my phone. Don’t use a phone while in the cinema. Meaning if I’m sitting behind someone with a phone on I can block it out with my jacket / coat ... tricky but doable.
Happens every other cinema visit. Irrelevant now, no cinemas!!!!!!

 

Exactly - that's what I got at above.

40 years ago, you could find more than a few rinky-dink screens at mall multiplexes. I remember Skyline Mall here in VA - they crammed 6 screens into a space that probably should've been limited to 2 screens, max.

The auditoriums were so small that if someone in the 1st 3 rows stood, they blocked the screen!

Oh, and there was an Old Town Alexandria single-screen theater that decided to adapt the balcony as its own auditorium.

Now that was a tiny screen - it was still bigger than a 65" TV, but I doubt it was more than 200" diagonally.

And even though this was the late 90s, it just had mono sound!

But those are the exceptions these days. I can't remember the last time I went to a multiplex built in the 21st century that didn't have good-sized screens in all the auditorium - all with quality audio as well...

 

I can't believe anyone would seriously compare a home system to a theater system, unless your region is still trapped with a seventies-style multiplex.

After decades of a typical low-rent Suburban Six falling into disrepair and neglect, my town was blessed with a modern stadium-seating cineplex with Atmos, digital projectors, etc. It is worth the ten bucks.

I'm glad I got to experience great films like ANNIHILATION, HOSTILES, DINKIRK and 1917 in this theater.

 

Maybe Oxford MS still just has late 70s shoebox sized auditoriums!

 

Yes, it’s the old theaters that have dinky screens, and they tend to be art house theaters as well. Those are the theaters that probably have to worry.

 

Oh, that reminds me: I did see a movie on one of those old shoebox screens in 2016.

My then-girlfriend wanted to see "Captain Fantastic", and it was only playing at Fair City Mall, a "multiplex" built around 1977.

Tiny theater, mediocre exhibition.

It was a first-run place back in the day, but it's now "art house", which is how it survived. Smaller auditoriums make sense for movies that don't attract big audiences, and I'm sure costs were low at this place.

The owner also ran University Mall Theaters, a similar late 70s "multiplex" with shoebox screens.

I went there every weekend in the early 90s because they were cheap - $2 tickets for 2nd run movies - and they had midnight screenings that I'd see after I finished my restaurant job.

They're still going - or were, pre-COVID. We used to have a bunch of bargain 2nd run theaters, but I think University Mall is the last one around here...

 

It does. There are two multiplexes, both owned by the same chain, Malco. The newer one has slightly bigger screens than the older one, but neither is impressive. As I’ve noted in other posts, it’s pretty frequent for the projectionist or the computer running the show to forget to turn the sound on for the previews, or even at the start of the main movie. When the sound is turned on, it’s typically boosted to deafening volumes. The technical presentation of the movie is not good. At home you have more control.

 

And the room is likely ten times bigger than your living room. Sitting eight to ten feet away from a 65” inch 4K TV is an immersive viewing experience. I don’t feel the need to see a bigger screen in a bigger room to enjoy the movie more.

 

Sounds like you're just stuck in a crappy movie theater circumstance. Seems like most of us have it better!

 

I patronize an old art house theater in Montclair, NJ, because it is the only place I can see certain films. The viewing experience is mediocre, but I still enjoy the films. Then there is Film Forum in Manhattan, which I used to go to much more often years ago, before tolls were $13+ and the ticket price itself topped $15. But uh oh, I just watched a current Film Forum film on virtual cinema the other night ($10). The experience in my home was not significantly different, and I only have a 40” TV. And I didn’t have to travel 2 hours round trip.

 

One thing I hadn't expected from the stadium seating experience: the incredible work they can do with the sound mix.

ANNIHILATION had an especially impressive sound design, appropriate to its 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY-like storyline. While someone could approximate that with a large enough room and equipment, it would still be a miniature of the stadium seating experience.

 

It doesn't work that way. If all you needed for a TV to be "immersive" is to sit closer, then why not watch movies on an iPhone from 10 inches away?

 

Yeah, there's an overwhelming capability that can occur in a large auditorium but not in a small room at home...

 

Screens aren't bigger around here - if anything they're smaller. I never understood why chains built movie theaters and the key element of the experience was.....compromised.