Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Public Perception of Digital

This is topic Public Perception of Digital in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=002372

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 05-20-2010, 09:04 PM:

We had a special showing this evening of To Kill A Mockingbird. 35mm reel-to-reel print. Since is was sponsored by the Alabama Humanities foundation, I gave a little pre-show speech. Had about 263 people in a 350 seat house. Just to be snarky, I mentioned we were the only theatre in town that could show this movie because "All of the other theatres have downgraded to digital."

I was expecting confused silence, or maybe a snicker, instead I got laughter and a big round of applause.

It seems, at least among a certain crowd, there is a negative perception of digital. I know there is a negative perception of the other theatres in town, but I'm not sure that is what caused the reaction (though may be a catalyst).

Anyway, maybe there is hope.

Posted by Elise Brandt (Member # 5552) on 05-20-2010, 11:10 PM:

Hmmh. I can understand the negative perception, I used to think that too before I knew what digital really was. I was proud of the "old ladies" in the booth and I do love them, I grew up around them. It really hurt to think, ten years ago, that someday we would have to go digital and abandon the faithfully working beautiful machines that seemed to be the centre of the whole theater. There IS something in film that isn't there in any other format, I think everyone here might agree. (one of the retired ladies was dragged to be shown at our entrance, she welcomes people in... most of them see her for the first time after enjoying her work for two decades)

Saying that, you have to look at this from the customers' point of view. Fact is, not very many of them know the difference let alone care. It's all in how you sell it. If you talk about downgrading and being the only theater to be able to offer something to them that they want, they see it as a very positive thing and go home thinking why the heck does everyone go digital... if you give a speech before the movie and ask them to note the sharp image, the scratch- and dirtfree picture that is stable and enjoyable all through the movie and say how technology today will change the face of the movie industry and now they get to be a part of it... I seriously think the reaction will be what you were after.

It's all in how you sell it.

We all might have our perspectives and we love, like, dislike or hate the new or the old technologies but eventually they will grow on us no matter what we thought at first. This is my view, and I don't kid myself into thinking I'm necessarily right [Big Grin]

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 05-21-2010, 02:21 AM:

To be honest, I don't think the public really cares what's upstairs. As long as they get to see the movie on the big screen. The only time I ever get comments about presentation is when we have a scratched print, and even then it's only if the scratches are major.

While a 35mm house may be the only one who can show a 35mm print of To Kill A Mocking Bird, all those digital houses could show it with a DVD player and put the sound through the theatre sound system.

In the last few months I've gone round and round with various platter problems - including scratched prints which I talked about in another thread. I know digital won't eliminate maintenance issues, but at least it won't ruin a print when something goes wrong.

I've been projecting film for nearly 15 years. I know this won't be a popular opinion here, but I actually look forward to the day I don't have to deal with film any more. For what it's worth, I do love the movie business; I just don't have a love affair with 35mm film.

The other thing I'll add is that most of the public thinks theatres are using some digital media anyways. Almost every time someone asks me a question about the projection room, they just presume the movies come on a DVD now days. They are usually surprised to hear it's still film.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-21-2010, 07:52 AM:

My highly non-scientific research suggests that most people (at least 2/3) don't notice or care, as long as everything looks and sounds reasonably good. Some people have very low standards for this, unfortunately, and don't really notice film damage or bad sound. Among those who notice presentation issues, most seem to be more sensitive to sound issues than picture issues.

The only time when these people start to care is if they are truly blown away with quality or if a particular show is hideously bad. One of my favorite overheard comments ever was from an adolescent who was sitting behind me during a screening of Lawrence of Arabia; he said "you really can tell a difference with that 70mm thing"--he didn't know or care what it was, but he knew that it was better than what he normally sees in theatres.

Among those who care, I would say that most prefer film (this especially applies to fans of classic films). In some cases, this may be that people like the "idea" of film (in a Cinema Paradiso way), not that they actually have a preference for the aesthetics of the image. There is a small but vocal minority that really doesn't like film at all and has a strong preference for [dlp]

. I suspect that many of these people have legitimately had bad experiences with "film done wrong." Others are "filmmakers" who turn up at festivals with badly shot movies made with handycams and who insist that "the story is what matters." I've seen these people get excited to be told that they would be watching SD video instead of 35mm. Idiots.

Posted by Manny Montes (Member # 5639) on 05-21-2010, 11:41 AM:

I feel that once something goes wrong (and it will no matter how great you are in booth) people hate film, and when nothing goes wrong, people generally don't care if its a brand new NEC series 2 digital projector up there, or a 40 year old strong chugging away.

One thing I love about digital is the ability to "rewind" the film effortlessly. To the patron that's one huge advantage

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 05-21-2010, 11:48 AM:

In all honesty, I think it is a perception of how people feel about the way they are treated at chain movie theatres, and digital is just the marker that signifies those chains.

On other threads I have noted how bad the digital presentation has been in this area, not as bad as their film presentation, but part of the trend. So last night's audience may just have been reacting to something they couldn't articulate.

Yes, they will sit through a DVD presentation and not say a word, we've done it several times. A good B&W DVD can look quite good.

I did give them a bit of a warning about how sound has changed since 1962, so no complaints about that. One member did come out and say, "They can make the films with digital sound all they want, it doesn't matter if there's no story."

As far as handicams and whatever. Loved The Celebration. Cameras are tools, you can use them to make something good, great or crappy. That's what art is all about [Wink]

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-21-2010, 11:57 AM:

Interestingly enough, I ran the same movie in March, in a changeover Theatre for a library event with almost 600 people which also have digital, but a smaller Christie unit that sits away from the booth about halfway down in the auditorium, yet can still project a very good picture on the screen.

When I was leaving after the performance, some of the patrons recognized me as the projectionist and complimented me on how they did like seeing this coming from film than from the digital unit - just had more personality.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-21-2010, 12:03 PM:

quote: Scott Norwood
Some people have very low standards for this, unfortunately, and don't really notice film damage or bad sound.

That's for sure. I remember one time, we got a print with a HUGE yellow scratch right down the middle of the whole print from start to end. Of course it was a last minute shipment, one week booking so there was no changing prints. I explained the situation to everyone who came in and was standing there ready to receive complaints when they exited...and the most common comment I got was, "It didn't bother me once I got used to it" and some people even said they didn't notice it at all!

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-21-2010, 12:52 PM:

This shows that the people in Mike's area don't let things bother them that are not important to their lives, thus are more forgiving of the errors of mankind.

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 05-21-2010, 01:21 PM:

quote: Martin McCaffery
I was expecting confused silence, or maybe a snicker, instead I got laughter and a big round of applause.

Given the film and the demographic, you were probably playing to a very anti-digital crowd in the first place. They probably still have their LP's.

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 05-21-2010, 01:33 PM:

I will never stop missing film done right! I used to point out great looking prints and images to staff in the last days of needing a projectionist licence.
Some understood what i was pointing at and others didn't care but it was that group of people who first destroyed the film done right theater's we had around here when they took the reins.

It has only gotten worse since then and the sloppy digital installs around here have not made up for it!

My heart is broken. [Confused]

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 05-21-2010, 01:52 PM:

quote:
That's for sure. I remember one time, we got a print with a HUGE yellow scratch right down the middle of the whole print from start to end. Of course it was a last minute shipment, one week booking so there was no changing prints. I explained the situation to everyone who came in and was standing there ready to receive complaints when they exited...and the most common comment I got was, "It didn't bother me once I got used to it" and some people even said they didn't notice it at all!

About three days ago I had to run a show of Iron Man 2 with the processor in bypass.
I rang down to the manger to let them know that they might get some complaints after the show, but they got nothing, granted it was a weekday show so there were only a few customers, but not one single complaint.

For your average multiplex customer, so long as there is picture on the screen and sound of some sort coming from the speakers they will be happy. In my opinion it's a shame but it's true.

Posted by Tony Gallimore (Member # 5358) on 05-21-2010, 04:36 PM:

I know I'm an old die hard, but I agree with Martin... for years theatres have been in the process of downgrading in one form or another. I started in the theatre business as a fifteen year old projectionist back in the 60's. In those days we gave a "presentation" even at the drive ins. The film was checked carefully for any bad or out of frame splices. And these were cement splices not the fast tape splices of today. After the feature was checked, we "built" the presentation reel which consisted of a cartoon, sometimes a travel logue, sometimes both depending on the feature or features, yes we had double features regularly. To the cartoon we added our trailers preceeded by a date strip announcing when the movie would be playing... usually within the next two weeks. We NEVER ran a trailer that wasn't booked to play on our screen. Now I realize that the trailer assault is a contractural boondoggle from the film distributors. We never assaulted our customers with "ten-in-a-row trailers for your viewing pleasure". Maybe it's time for theatre's to renegotiate their contracts to run only those trailers that are firmly booked for their screen. As far as digital goes, I have spent most of my life in the electronics field... I've been through the digitization of radio and television, and yes there is some good to be said for digitalization. However, I have noticed that in digitizing the TV signals many customers who received their signal through an antenna can no longer receive anything even after purchasing the digital conversion box. The signal just isn't as stable. The same has occurred with radio. I owned a station back in the 80's and 90's. We had the digital transmitter, etc. and still experienced the atmospheric drawbacks inherent to broadcasting. Digital just didn't clean things up the way we were promised by the Federal Communications Commission. They didn't tell us that we'd have to stay within five miles of the transmitter to experience all the wonders of digital. In other words, we get what we get, like it or leave it. Now we see the theatres converting to digital which in my opinion is pretty lame. First patrons are assaulted by the twenty minute back-to-back trailer fest. Sometimes the sound decoder transfers from source to source as it's supposed to and then sometimes the projectionist has to manually force it into whichever mode is called for... then sometimes the projectionist doesn't give a !@#$^% and does nothing, so the patron endures whatever he gets. The picture is really my greater concern, though. 35mm definately presents differently on the screen. Even the carbon arc I started out on in the 60's was miles ahead of the flat look of digital. The light and colors of a film presentation are warmer and don't just hit you in the face when they hit the screen. Digital on the other hand gives you a face full of not so small dots (pixils) and these little dots are very active as the color and picture changes. Not only are they active, but they are very annoying too! Now I realize that many in the general public have never focused a picture tube nor worked face-to-face with the lowly pixil, and don't really know what it is they're seeing, therefore it must be good. After all, it is digital, and all the hooplah says digital is better... right??? I know of two families who ask what the format of the movie is before buying a ticket. Theatre's that have converted solely to digital don't get any money from us, anymore. And I certainly am not going to pay even more for the privilege of wearing those not-so-functional 3D glasses that make my head throb. I don't know where it is headed, but I don't really see the patrons being in the mix. The film distributors seem to have the attitude that what they want to give the patrons is adequate... patrons just need to fork over the money, sit back and be quiet. Unfortunately, I've run into several die hards like myself who will do without rather than conform to digital.

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 05-21-2010, 07:10 PM:

I don't think it has much to do with digital being better. The issue is that your average member of the public doesn't notice\doesn't care. They just want to watch a movie.

When some one like me or Tony or Victor or anyone on film-tech goes to see a film we sit there scrutinising the picture and sound quality as well as watching the film. But people like us are the minority of film goers. Most people who go to the cinema are ordinaly folks, they work a 9-5 job during the week and on a friday or saturday night they want to left of steam by watching whatever the latest big blockbuster it. They are going to watch the film - they are interested in weather the story is any good, how are the action scenes?, how is the dialog? and so forth. For most people movies are not either their hobby or part of their professional life, just something to do occasionally on the weekend.

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 05-21-2010, 07:50 PM:

The issue isn't the format for the public, it is making sure we're doing it right both downstairs and upstairs to create a relaxed experience. You could have the best presentation ever with Carbon arcs, 70mm and perfect sound but if the toilets haven't been attended to in hours your guests will remember that more. On the other side take Mike's example of the scratched print above, part of why his guests probably didn't notice or mind was because they were looked after at a well-run Cinema.

I prefer film, but as I see most films a few weeks after their release digital has been a good thing for me.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 05-21-2010, 10:10 PM:

quote: Sam Graham
They probably still have their LP's.

I've got mine!

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-21-2010, 11:40 PM:

I still have all my LPs too. (Not in a beautiful cabinet like that, unfortunately.) It's so dumb....I've replaced all my favorites with CDs, but for some reason I just can't bring myself to dump the records. They're like my old friends or something.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-22-2010, 12:18 AM:

(..and not to drift off-topic into the vinyl world, but to add..)

I've got about the same quanity, but mainly classical, and a good linear turntable (sorry, not a Bang and Olefsen) and agree with Mike-they're like a part of the family.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 05-22-2010, 12:45 AM:

Part of my extensive LP library consists of all of the music Ludwig Van Beethoven wrote on the Deutsche Grammophon label as well as a collection of almost fifty complete operas. I also have tons of other classical music as well as a extensive collection of movie soundtracks. All of my LPS have been handled very carefully and most of them had been played only once. Many others have never been played at all. I have a Thorns turntable and a Shure SME arm but need a new cartridge. Hopefully one day, I will buy a cartridge and enjoy listening to my records again. Perhaps very soon during my old age. [Smile]

-Claude

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 05-22-2010, 07:38 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
I still have all my LPs too. (Not in a beautiful cabinet like that, unfortunately.)

That beautiful cabinet was built by one of my projectionists. It's the best built piece of furniture I own!

Meanwhile, back on topic, and idiot story in today's NYT
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/cinematic-change-and-the-end-of-film/?hpw

quote:
Exhibitors are also showing you movies digitally, though they might not tell you you’re paying $12.50 to watch a Blu-ray disc. Film Forum in New York, which shows a fair number of digital movies, does tell you what you’re watching.

Does this reporter actually think multiplexes are showing BluRays, or is it just bad writing when he meant to say places like Film Forum, which shows lots of indie stuff that is not Hollywood product, sometimes shows BulRays or, more likely, DVD's?

And we wonder why the public is confused. The so-called pros don't have a clue.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 05-22-2010, 01:19 PM:

The public has thought theatres showed DVD's for years. We've all had customers ask if we can rewind the show, then act surprised when you explain why we cannot. It's because the technology has been available in their home for so long, the assumption is that an equal or better technology is available at a commercial business. The idea that it's actually a much older technology doesn't compute.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 05-22-2010, 02:05 PM:

I think it's just a matter of what you grew up with.

When educational films in schools were shown on film, everyone was familiar with the A-V cart & the pull-down screen. It was easy to relate to them what was going on in the theatre booth... "just like that A-V cart in school... but bigger".

Now, with the carts gone and a DVD player and video screen in every classroom, that's what people think must be going on upstairs. I can't imagine how anyone would think that we get a DVD onto an 86 foot screen and make it look as good as it does, but they do... and it doesn't really occur to them how it's done.

How many people do you think know what a filmstrip projector is/was? Remember the ones that were synched to a record or cassette, with beep tones to advance (usually manually) the frames?

Good times! [Big Grin]

Just think how good those filmstrips would have looked if we'd had Filmguard back then!!

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-22-2010, 02:41 PM:

..I grew up with people thinking it was videotape or sorts that we're projecting movies from...or, sometimes 8mm film...

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 05-22-2010, 03:18 PM:

quote:
Exhibitors are also showing you movies digitally, though they might not tell you you’re paying $12.50 to watch a Blu-ray disc. Film Forum in New York, which shows a fair number of digital movies, does tell you what you’re watching.

This implies the delivery method is somehow important to justify the price. Never mind the large screen, the surround sound, the heating or air conditioning, the theatre seats, or the fact that you're not sitting at home. And even if it's a Blu-Ray projection, the picture quality will not be noticeably different to most viewers.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 05-23-2010, 04:24 PM:

> This implies the delivery method is somehow important to justify the price.

While delivery method is irrelevant to the price, it does give the viewer information about the quality of the image they are paying to see, and that is relevant. I certainly would not pay money to see a Bluray movie in a theatre, in fact I would feel ripped off if I was not told before purchasing my ticket.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-24-2010, 12:07 PM:

quote:
Exhibitors are also showing you movies digitally, though they might not tell you you’re paying $12.50 to watch a Blu-ray disc. Film Forum in New York, which shows a fair number of digital movies, does tell you what you’re watching.

Yeah, well that reporter needs to brush up on the new "upticks" that the industry seems to be broadly embracing. Seems like the days of the $12.50 movie ticket are quickly becoming similar to those often heard reveries "....I remember when it used to cost $4.50 for a movie ticket."

Try fathoming the just announced new ticket price for Disney's TOY STORY n in IMAX, which will set you back a nice round number -- $20. Funny thing, the MPAA just the other day, when announcing that the ticket prices this year are up 3%, still followed it with that old line they liked to always throw out (I mean other than "piracy is a cancer in the belly of the industry") that "movies are still a bargain."

Hmmm, if they had a smart PR person, they might be advised to refrain from using that line in the same sentence when they are also announcing a ticket price increase to 20 bucks a pop for a cartoon retread.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-24-2010, 03:22 PM:

The price of a movie ticket alone may be a bargain compared to the cost of seeing a top name band perform live in an arena, seeing a live Broadway play, eating at a high quality fine dining restaurant or watching an NFL game in the stadium. Those other forms of entertainment are a costly, rare treat for the vast majority of Americans. For instance, on a good year I might see 1 or 2 headline quality rock concerts.

People are accustomed to visiting movie theaters more often than concert/sports arenas or live stage theaters. Movie watching is a more casual form of pre-recorded, non-live entertainment. So I don't think it's appropriate to compare movie-going to live entertainment and the prices of live entertainment.

The rising prices of tickets and concession items as well as the price gouging going on with fake IMAX, digital 3D or "XD" stuff like Cinemark is selling is raising the risk of a public backlash. Factor in the negative aspects of today's movie-going experience, foremost the unruly members of the audience who constantly disrupt the show, and a lot of the intended value built into the price of that movie going experience evaporates very quickly. If presentation quality is lacking then the deal seems like even more of a rip off.

Home video pricing and the cost of seeing a movie in a theater draw frequent comparisons. The comparisons aren't so flattering when all those premium surcharges are added to the equation. With fake IMAX or digital 3D added the evening ticket prices per person at some big city movie theaters are nearly equal to the price of buying a copy of the same movie newly released on DVD. Add in popcorn and soft drink and the cost for one person gets close to the Blu-ray purchase price. Ticket prices aren't quite as high here in Lawton, but they're not exactly cheap ($9 evening price, $3 surcharge for digital 3D). Even here it doesn't take too much activity at the snack counter to tally up a bill higher than the cost of a DVD. Compound those costs out for a couple on a date or a family of four and the movie-going experience can get pretty expensive.

I think movie theaters have been getting a pass up to this point because it seems like the public may not be quite so aware about the total cost of a movie theater visit. But I have heard at least a few negative comments about a bag of popcorn hitting the $7 mark.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-24-2010, 04:25 PM:

Go to a minor league baseball game...most all of the tickets are under $10...it is live entertainment and generally lasts 3 hours. Kids can run around and not be too disruptive. The concession prices can still be obscene but overall...a much better value than going to a movie theatre. Then again, with rare exception, you are not going to get the same emotional stimulation at a baseball game as at the movie theatre and you are not as weather dependent.

Steve

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-24-2010, 06:54 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
you are not going to get the same emotional stimulation at a baseball game

If you're not a baseball fan you're not going to get ANY emotional stimulation. And, even if you are a fan, and your team loses, you might just get pissed off. Not so much of a bargain then.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 05-24-2010, 11:51 PM:

I'm with Bobby, I've always been annoyed by the concert/sporting event comparrision too for the same reaons.

Oh, and our local baseball team charges $5 for tickets, $30 for the fan deck with all the beer and food you can drink/eat (limited seating of course) and the concessions are about half of what we charge.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-25-2010, 06:43 AM:

I've been to a LOT of minor league (and major league) baseball games...I've yet to find a fan that got really POed at a minor league game. Not that it doesn't happen but it is the rare case. Its minor league...if the player is REALLY good...they are going to leave the team and move up so the quality of the team is always in flux. That is part of the minor league experience.

As to not getting emotional stimulation if you are not a baseball fan...go to a minor league game and see for yourself...not very many people snoozing away there and you will see multi-generations at the same game.

In terms of bang-for-the-buck...it is a very tough thing to beat. It certainly does not have the adventure, love story...etc aspects of movies though. But in terms of value, it is much higher than the typical movie theatre. I don't begrudge movie theatres making a living (or the studios) but there will come a time when folks just won't pay anymore. Once the stigma of "over priced" is created, it will be VERY tough to shed. The one that has already filtered to me (and I don't listen for it) is the $20 lie-Max price (as well as the concert 3D crap).

Steve

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-25-2010, 01:14 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
As to not getting emotional stimulation if you are not a baseball fan...go to a minor league game and see for yourself...not very many people snoozing away there and you will see multi-generations at the same game.

I've been to a few baseball games, most recently a Seattle Mariners game. If it wasn't for the giant screens to watch, it would have been a total snoozefest even though the Mariners won. As far as entertainment goes, it was the worst $11 I ever spent.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-25-2010, 02:09 PM:

Wow...a whole $11 for a major league game. Imagine if you went to a minor league game in your area.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-25-2010, 03:42 PM:

They built a spanking new minor league stadium here in Coney Island and the place is doing slam-bam business; many games are near-capacity sells. I am not an avid baseball fan, never have been, but we do go to the games here and they are wild fun....more fun than I've had watching many movies of late.

Thing is, if theatres don't watch out, when that family of 4 or 5 has to ante-up $20 a pop on a ticket because the kids just HAVE to see TOY STORY n, seems like since there isn't any way they can be frugal with the ticket price -- it is what it is -- dad may very well just tell the little tikes, "OK kids, fill up on candy and popcorn now (and stuff what you can in your pockets) because we are not going to spend another penny on popcorn or candy or soda when we get to the LieMax Theatre."

If a trend developes with the penny-wise consumer deciding to cut back on or even (gasp!) eliminating the one thing they CAN control -- the purchasing of a trunk load of empty calorie concession items when they visit the theatre (how long will it take them to figure out that one doesn't have to strap on a freakin feed bag in order to enjoy a movie?), I can't think of anything that would be quit as nightmare-ishly catastrophic than that for the theatre owner. Trying to run a profitable theatre operation with most patrons proactively avoiding concessions....now THERE'S a mission impossible.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-25-2010, 05:33 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Wow...a whole $11 for a major league game.

I think it was a pre-season game, or something. (Can you tell I'm not a baseball fan?) And, our seats were total nosebleeders.

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 05-26-2010, 03:50 PM:

I went to a Mariners-A's game in the Kingdome back when Billy Martin was coaching the A's.

The fans were astoundingly ignorant about digital anything.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 05-26-2010, 04:50 PM:

Frank, you talk as if the $20 IMAX 3D will be the only available option for watching Toy Story 3. Many theatres will be showing it in 2D. And in many parts of the country, a family of 4 can still go to a matinee and get snacks for under $40-$50.

I like the idea of a minor league ball game. However, the closest minor league park is several hours away - not much closer than the nearest major league park.

That's one of the main differences between the movies and other entertainment options: most people have a movie theatre in their community. But many people have to drive - often more than an hour for things like amusement parks or ball games. While these other things my sometimes be cheaper than an actual movie ticket, the price goes up when you include gas and travel time. Plus, if you're driving several hours to get somewhere, the trip is often going to include a meal at a restaurant.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 06-08-2010, 09:14 AM:

Spending any money to go and see a baseball game when you're not a baseball fan is just as silly as spending money to go see a movie if you don't like movies. Of course it would be a snoozefest for you.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-08-2010, 12:58 PM:

quote: Chad Souder
Spending any money to go and see a baseball game when you're not a baseball fan is just as silly as spending money to go see a movie if you don't like movies.

Well I'd heard so many people say how much fun it was to go to a major league game and how there's so much to see etc etc etc that it sounded like fun. It was a new experience. If we'd had better seats it would have been a lot better. What were we talking about again?