Hacker News Reader

Comment by jedberg | Hacker News Reader

As a parent, I'm super excited about this. I love going to see movies. My wife and I used to go every week. Until we had kids. In the last six years, I think we've seen maybe two movies in the theater.

I have however watched every day-of streaming release that's come out, even the ones that cost $30, just to support the idea.

I would gladly pay $20 to see new movies in my home. My TV and sound are good enough.

I'd still like to see the big action flicks in the theater, and if I were a teen, I'd still prefer dates in a theater rather than at home, and I'm sure a lot of people feel safer having a date at a theater than at someone's house.

When the VCR came out, everyone said it would kill moviegoing. To prevent it, they usually waited 4+ years to release a movie on VHS. It turned out, when they shrunk that window to 4 months, it didn't really affect moviegoing.

I hope they find the same is true here -- that there isn't a lot of overlap between people who want to watch at home and people who will go to a theater.

View on HN

> I'd still like to see the big action flicks in the theater, and if I were a teen, I'd still prefer dates in a theater rather than at home, and I'm sure a lot of people feel safer having a date at a theater than at someone's house.

I never understood why going to the movies is a common thing to do on a date, don't you want to get to know the other person and be able to talk to them?

Getting to know someone is a process -- talking before and after the movie gets that going. The shared experience of watching the movie gives you something to talk about and reflect on. One need not know everything about a person before beginning to enjoy spending time with them.

If someone is so interesting in pre-movie conversation that you mutually decide that the conversation is better than whatever the movie has to offer, the movie will be there tomorrow.

Also, movie theaters are dark rooms in a fairly safe public space, which is relatively unique. It is a safe place to, say, hold someone's hand for the first time without immediate societal visibility.

If movies don't seem like a great date venue, there are other people out there who feel the same way.

Somehow one of my friends manages to almost always get sexual during the viewing of the movie.

I guess some people are just real pros at that particular date.

In general it never made much sense to me.

It's possible that what happens and what you are told happens don't match up.

It's also possible that they do.

Didn't need to go there.

Movie then dinner after gives you something to talk about. It used to work better before movies got so crazy long but it's the same concept of any activity paired with a date something to do/talk about when you have a pause in conversation.

That makes a lot more sense. I always pictured it as dinner first, then the movie, or just the movie itself, which never made sense.

Still, how long could a conversation after the movie about the movie even last? "Yeah I liked it, it was funny when that side character said X, and it was cool when plot twist Y happened." 5 minutes later you're back where you were unless you're both film buffs and do a whole critique of it.

I prefer date activities where you can talk about them as you do them. Even bowling sounds more fun than a movie date, to me. But maybe that's just me.

"Wasn't it funny when charter X did Y?"

"Yeah! That reminds me of a time I did Y! Let me tell you how that happened"

Movies are a great shared cultural experience that can be a good jumping off point for a conversation.

I feel like movie&dinner is low effort and more for married and longer term couples looking for an excuse to get out of the house or that have a large interest in the actual movie being shown rather than in the first 3 or so dates.

I 100% agree around actual activities something to really do while it happens. Bowling is honestly pretty good as you can go as fast as you want or as slow as you want. Good conversation going on just keep talking. Conversation slows throw a few while you think of a new topic or one comes up organically. Bonus points as no one expect you to be any good.

I think you're correct, but also it's a great "training date" when you're first starting off in your dating career. You don't have to interact much, and just being by someone you like holding hands can be enough when you're 16 years old.

I wouldn't make a movie my go-to first or third date in my 20's though, as it's not really accomplishing the goal of getting to know someone and finding a mate.

Now that I'm married? Dinner and a movie sounds pretty awesome...

Actually talking too much can ruin dates.

This probably depends more on what the topics are, and how they're talked about.

If you talking ruins your dates, you may consider that it is instead what you choose to talk about. If conversely you prefer your date speaks little (or not at all), I don't know what to tell you.

Going to a concert or a movie has worked exceptionally well for me.

You have a joint experience to reflect on and something to look forward to beforehand.

I think it's a holdover from when movies were 1) cheap, and 2) a warm place to make out in the dark for singles who lived at home or in small rented rooms that didn't allow guests. People do it now because they're told it is a thing that is done.

They're also good as a lead-in to a dinner date, or drinks. Gives you conversation material.

Movies are as cheap as they have been for the past 20+ years, in real dollars. But many other things have gotten cheaper over time.

This isn't really true. Movie tickets (in the US) are a classic example of a cost that is rising faster than inflation (although as noted, movie popcorn is rising even more)

https://money.cnn.com/2017/08/02/pf/expenses-inflation/index...

It's a terrible date for someone you've just met. Though it's fantastic if you're already past the interviewing each other phase. It's a short shared experience that requires zero effort. The act of just sitting next to someone for that long can be very intimate.

Also, and I can't stress this enough, you learn if they're capable of sitting quietly for 2 hours. Some people just can't do it, and I've learned that it is a big red flag.

Stage one is feeling comfortable around the other person.

Besides, conversation is generally held during the "dinner" part of the canonical "dinner and a movie".

It's shared experience that gives you a lot to talk about. But more importantly, it has a social contract of just sitting idly by and not actively interacting, which can be very helpful for feelings of anxiety, unease and responsibility to keep talking and doing something interesting when you're next to this new person. Instead of worrying about all that, you can just sit, be quiet and don't even worry that much about how you look — it's dark anyway, and they're probably looking at the screen, not you.

There’s a comfort with someone that comes only with spending time near them. The conversation I’m going to have, the answers to the exact same questions, is going to be different if I’ve just met someone compared to if I’ve just met someone and then spent an hour and a half sitting next to them, maybe with some hand on knee or around shoulder action.

This goes doubly so for online dating. Where when we first meet we might be at acquaintance level of information about each other while still at complete strangers level of comfort.

As a reasonably well-adjusted adult living in a city with plenty of interesting stuff to do, sure, there are a million better date options. Drinks, a museum, a walk in the park, almost anything beats a movie.

But as a nervous 16-year old kid who probably couldn’t fill a whole dinner with engaging conversation if his life depended on it, an opportunity to sit next to a girl for two hours in a dark room was a godsend.

Best explanation ever! I think I need to steal these two paragraphs.

Right. And I would hate to be looking forward to 2+ hours of being with someone after I figure out that I'm no longer interested in the person within the first 5 minutes of a first date.

Dinner following the movie gives you all sorts of opportunities to screw up and then you still have the task of finishing the meal. Bad table manners, getting messy food all over your face, making odd eating noises and the list goes on. Leave all that until after your date is already much into you.

Best date? Coffee. Explicitly tell your date that you're going to be out after one cup or 15 minutes, which ever comes first. If the date goes bad, then either party only needs to wait 15 minutes or drain the coffee and run. It's only 15 minutes of conversation to fill. Memorize a list of questions if you have to. Then try to improv on the questions and the following conversation. Don't have anything to say? Let the date answer the questions. Date is answering quickly? Then make sure you create lots of questions. Or maybe the conversation just isn't that interesting and you should drain your coffee.

Repeat for date #2

Then you can start getting more creative after that.

Date doesn't like that the meeting was so quick? There's plenty of fish in the sea.

Edit: Yeah, I'm not a dating advice guy. Sorry about that. I don't know where this came from. I guess the point is to make those first couple of dates quick and also easy to bail on.

Yeah, that would never fly for me. Nobody is going to become more interested in me as experienced in only a 15 minute sitting, while conversely I can maintain interest in ANYBODY for 15 minutes. That's just a recipe for me getting in my head about people that I would realize are not right for me within another 30 minutes, who will never call me again.

1st date is more about maintaining the level of interest, not raising it. They were interested enough in you to go on a date with maybe just remote correspondence. A quick date is just an extension of that. Maintaining enough interest in a first date will lead to a second. The first two are just like job interviews. You get a ton more information seeing someone face to face than you do with remote correspondence. I can find out more about a person in 5 minutes of meeting than I can in 5 weeks of chatting on a messaging app. It's the in-person 1st impression. That impression can't be erased with another hour of time with the person.

I'm looking at limiting downside of a meeting while not necessarily raising the ceiling. The downside is more important to me. If I don't pass the first impression, then I don't want for the person to be stuck with me for an hour following. Just break it off right there, but we'll finish our coffee first.

>It's the in-person 1st impression. That impression can't be erased with another hour of time with the person.

I honestly don't think that I show any personality within the first 15 minutes of meeting someone. I am polite and interested, sure, but 15 minutes is about the minimum to organically hit on conversation that moves past that level.

Right, but my focus is more about making the date tolerable if you don't click right away. There's nothing worse than being on a long date with someone when you know within the first 5 minutes that you aren't interested. And again, you showed enough to get the person to meet you in the first place and that was likely through the exchange of remote messages. Maybe I miss out by not giving the date more time to work, but there's an abundance of options. There will always be more dates as long as you are putting in the right effort. That first date is like a quick interview which screens people for a more extensive meeting.

I'm one hundred percent with you on the long date thing. I do believe first dates shouldn't be in a locked-in setting. My first date probably look exactly like yours, except that my goal is to keep things going as long as is enjoyable.

Going to a movie with someone tells you a lot about them in a low-key setting (can they share snacks? Do they eat a ton? Are they somewhat capable of managing money? Do they talk during movies? Are they inappropriately handsy when you don't want them to?).

If afterwards it turns out you did not like it both of you at least had a good time due to the environment, so it is pretty unlikely to end as a huge disaster (and stick inside your head as such). Especially when you prefer low-stress personal interaction, it's easy to see the appeal.

Makes no sense to me.

> I would gladly pay $20 to see new movies in my home

I'm not sure many people would. $20 seems astronomically expensive to me to see a single movie. I don't think I could ever justify that.

Eh... yes and no. There is the convenience and comfort of one's own home. Plus, of course, for a single $20 payment you could have several family members and friends participate in the viewing experience.

On top of that, of course, you get the benefits of home-movie watching generally, such as being able to pause or reverse the movie back or forward if you wish, cheap snacks and candy (since you're not paying movie theater prices), and so on.

$20 is definitely not a terrible deal, especially if more than one person might be watching.

They have no way of knowing how many people are in the room with you. That $20 could be split ten ways.

I guess it could. Are a lot of people watching movies with ten people round at their house? I really doubt that.

Definitely in undergrad. And also now that I have kids and kids have friends. Invite one other family over and we’re pretty close...

Based on the prices at a local theater, $20/viewing is about par for one ticket + snacks, and $30 is generally better than two people + snacks:

  n=1: $13+food
  n=2: $26+food
  n=4 (2 kids): $46 + food

When you factor in being able to have cheaper food, not to mention intermissions whenever you want (bathroom break, making popcorn, etc), I feel like streaming is still better than theater, price-wise, even at $30/movie.

Unfortunately, it doesn't _feel_ that way. We still haven't seen Mulan yet, though, and I'm not sure if price is a factor in that. I suspect it's a small factor -- we subscribed to Disney+ to see Hamilton, for example -- but it just hasn't come up in months. I forgot about it until writing this comment.

It's hard to convince myself that I should pay $20 or $30 for a screening, when a year from now I can likely rent it on Prime for $10 or less.

Yes, it could be seen that way, but in practice, are people really going to collect a few dollars from everyone who's watching a movie in their house with them?

There are ways to justify a $20 movie rental, but it feels different to go spend that at a theater vs paying it at home. I will wager that it's a much harder decision to make as the value proposition is different.

> are people really going to collect a few dollars from everyone

If they are poor, yes. If they are rich, no one cares.

> 20 movie rental, but it feels different to go spend that at a theater

It costs a lot more than $20 for 4 people to go to the theater.

> are people really going to collect a few dollars from everyone who's watching

Eh, not really, and that's not really the point. The gist 8is split amongst everybody (all your friends getting value out of the same $20) even if you're still paying the whole amount.

Plus when this happens usually they'll bring food and drinks, or they'll do similar when at their house, or cover you when the next time you go out, etc. So it all evens out.

It's the same concept as having a BBQ. You're not the only person eating the bbq but you likely bought it and ate doing the cooking lol

People do this all the time for pay-per-view fights and the like, where they cost $50 and up. Have a bunch of friends over, throw a party.

I regularly pay $4-5 to watch streaming 4k movies, even ones where I know I own the DVD and hence have a copy on my NAS that I could watch for free.

It depends... I went to see "New Mutants" and after the covid period, I think the ticket was something like $14, and the consession (popcorn and a soda) were another $20 and that was just for me alone... a date would be closer to $60-80 and a family close to $100...

Vs: $20-30 at home, where you can pause etc and microwave your own popcorn for under $2

Are those American or Canadian dollars? Or like HK dollars? Although concession prices are high, I've definitely never seen them that high. Or was $20 the price of ticket and popcorn+drink?

USD, Phoenix, Harkins after Pandemic lockdown relaxed...

I remember the ticket being around $14 and the popcorn and drink being around $20, just for myself... It's been a few months, so I may be off by $2-3 on each portion, but the sticker shock was real... I'd be more open to $20-30 and staying home.

Right, I guess I haven't tried (nor wanted to try) to go to the theatre since roughly January. Missed that part of your original post.

Agreed. We've gotten used to a few models of digital downloads it seems:

1. Pay to "own"[0]: ~$10

2. Pay to rent for 24h or so: ~$5

3. Unlimited streaming of all titles: ~$15/mo

It'd be a bit weird to pay $20 for #2, even for a first-run movie. I get that the price we pay doesn't always reflect just the seller's cost (sometimes we pay more just for the perception of a premium product), but it's hard to justify paying an extra $15 for the costs of running a theater when you aren't actually going to that theater.

I get that there are certainly people who would value that (like the OP who has kids and can't get out with his wife to go to the theater), but I expect most people of average means would balk at $20 for home viewing, and just wait for a normal rental price or for it to appear on whichever AYCE streaming service the subscribe to.

[0] Scare-quotes because of course the download you get is still DRMed, which means you don't really truly own the copy.

I just checked and IMAX tickets here are $21.31 per person. Even $50 is a bargain if you want the luxury of a few handfuls of popcorn. Watch with another couple and it’s downright cheap. Obviously doesn’t apply everywhere, but for cities it is perfectly priced IMO.

There is a huge difference between going to the movie and watching the same movie on a 4:3 20-32 inch standard def, CRT TV that was prevalent when VHS tapes were popular and watching a movie on a 65 inch 4K, HDR flat screen TV.

Currently you can buy a good enough 4K/HDR 65 inch Roku TV for less than $500. That’s less than the first TV I bought with my own money - a 27 inch Sony CRT Trinitron.

I'm excited about this too for the same reason. I too have been paying the high prices to support the idea of on demand new releases that skipped the theatre. I wouldn't be surprised if this means a price hike on the HBO subscription price, and I'd be willing to pay more for that in this case.

Before covid, we still got to the theaters once in a while, but this will be awesome. Hopefully you can find a good babysitter and get back to the theater more too (when it's safe of course).

> Hopefully you can find a good babysitter and get back to the theater more too (when it's safe of course).

Ugh. We actually found the most amazing babysitter ever. She is a high school student and watched the kids during the day for us in summer until school started. We were so excited that we could finally go to movies again.

And then the pandemic kicked in. Sadly, by the time it's safe to go to movies again, she'll have graduated and left. :(

Sound is the issue for me. Totally happy with the visuals: TV big and close enough to fill my vision. But the sound over streaming is compressed shite. Even when they say "Dolby Atmos", it's a thin Atmos layer over the compressed signal DD+, not Atmos over True HD lossless audio. I suppose, from their perspective, it makes sure I also buy the 4K disk after paying for the movie on streaming.

True. But the amount of people who care about that is tiny compared with the masses. For music for example, I'm a happy Qobuz customer because I appreciate hi-res quality and I have the gear to enjoy it, but I know plenty of folks who are just fine with Pandora or Spotify. Same with this. I'd be willing to bet a huge percentage of folks will watch these movies in their mobile.

Yeah. I have lossless Tidal. Pay more for it. Would pay more for lossless movie audio.

Same here. No matter what I do my sound won't be as good as a theater, and then there is the source data issue too. That's why I want to see loud movies in theaters.

But for most movies, the sound doesn't matter that much, it's more about the story and characters and visuals.

As you'll have noticed, Atmos isn't really an audio quality indicator (the way the Dolby Digital trademark was used). Atmos is really just a metadata stream for multidimensional audio panning so a single set of audio streams can be interpreted across many different surround setups.

Hypothetically you'll get a more accurate spatial response, but again as you noted, they tend to just do a surround background bed with a few Atmos objects for voices and explicit sources.

The lossless + Atmos tracks are often 3 gigabytes or more by themselves. I'm not sure if you can replicate this in AAC tracks.

Sure. 18Mbit/s for True HD 7.1. Buy I've had at least 50Mbit/s downstream for over five years now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com