As I told you yesterday, my family and I went to Long Island's wine country last week, and we had a great time.
But my wife and son's vacations were not over on Friday, so on Saturday, amidst the things we normally do on Saturday, we went to the movies as a family for the first time since last December, when we saw the latest installment in the "Star Wars" franchise.
This time, we saw the latest installment of the "Star Trek" franchise, so I guess you can say we are into "Star" sequels.
Anyway, the reason we don't go to the movies very much anymore is really two-fold.
The movies generally stink and the prices for tickets are too high.
That is as succinct as I can make it.
And on Saturday, we saw "Star Trek Beyond," and while the movie was OK, the price for tickets was Ridiculous, and yes, I used that capital "R" on purpose.
It used to be that the movie was the spectacle, and that is why you went to the theater.
You wanted to see the stars, you were interested in the story, and it was a relatively inexpensive way to pass the time for two or three hours.
And it was a great place to go with your friends to have fun, or better yet, even go out on a date.
Today, the seating arrangement has become the spectacle, and you wonder why many of us don't go to the movies anymore?
We walked into the theater, and I kind of knew we were going to get fleeced.
The particular multiplex theater has a reputation for having high-priced tickets, but if we wanted to see this movie on Saturday, we really had no choice of theater, because the time was right for us, so yes, it is partly our fault that we paid so much for tickets.
My wife and son went to the food stand as I paid for the tickets. I told the cashier, "three for 'Star Trek' at 3:25."
She spins the screen to me, and she said, "Pick your seats." I knew I was in trouble right there.
I picked three seats on an aisle, and she turned the screen back to her and said, "Forty-one-twenty-five."
Yes, $41.25.
I paid, but shook my head as a paid.
I went back to my wife, told her what I paid, and she said, "I know all about it. I just paid $30 for water for us and ice cream for Josh."
We walked into the theater, and there were a few people already inside. The theater was pretty big, we located our seats, and we saw that they are those luxury seats, which you can spread out on, by a push of a button. You can lie on these seats as if you were in the dentist's office if you want to, and yes, I feel like I just had a root canal on my wallet.
You see, this is what the movies have come to. The seating arrangements are more important than the film itself.
To me, that is wrong, wrong, wrong. That is not why you go to the movies.
For years, I have sat in the usual movie seats, walked on sticky floors, and had other experiences in the theater in my life--one death, one fire, among other things--that I didn't pay an exorbitant fee for.
Today, the seat is the thing, and not the movie.
And you wonder why these so-called "blockbusters" make millions and millions of dollars.
I think the true measure is ticket sales, and don't tell me that "Star Trek Beyond" will sell more tickets than, let's say, "Gone With the Wind" has in the theaters, even though the former will probably make many times the money that the latter made in a shorter time.
As for the movie, it was not as good as the first "Star Trek" reboot, but much, much better than the second one in the series. The film features as good a crop of young actors as you will find in a current film, and although the first half of the film was OK, it picks up in the second half.
And once again, the actor who plays the younger Spock, Zachary Quinto, completely steals the show.
But to pay $13.75 a ticket to see Quinto steal every scene that he is in is simply not worth it.
Look, don't get me wrong, it is fun going to the movies, and it is fun seeing a movie with your family.
But it will be a long time until I go to the movies again, nice chairs or no nice chairs.
The movie is supposed to be the attraction, not the seating arrangements, but I guess I am behind the times with this concept.
Woe is me.
LOL, We also saw the movie Saturday. We prefer choosing our seats, it's a more civilized way of going to the movies. Given all the forums for watching a movie elsewhere -- you can watch a DVD in your car these days, you can stream it to any device with Internet access -- theaters have to find new ways to entice bodies into the seats. I agree that this is a better movie than the second one, not as good as the first one. I found the scenes honoring Leonard Nimoy very moving. And the scenes with Anton Yelchin ... The best part of the movie, aside from the special effects, was the myriad of "Easter eggs" scattered throughout the storyline. Since you're not a Trekker, you will have missed a number of them, but we had fun.
ReplyDeleteI go back to the original series, so whether I am a so-called "Trekker" or not, I thought the movie was good, but certainly not worth the price of admission. This film, like the first, had quite a bit of humor in it, something lacking in the second installment. I can't foresee myself going to another movie with my family at such prices, which was the point of the entry, anyway, not the quality of the film. And funny, we were quite civilized when we simply paid for our ticket and chose our seats when we walked in the theater, which was the only way to do it for decades. Why is the new way supposedly more civilized? I like the old way just fine, and if the only reason to change it is to boost the ticket price, then who needs it?
ReplyDeleteLarry, Queen to queens level 3? If you can't answer you aren't a "Trekker".
ReplyDeleteSo who really cares about that? I enjoyed the first show, I was a big fan of it, but you can be a fan without being a know it all about it. Heck, I even remember signing the petition to keep the show on, and "The Monkees" too. It helped "Star Trek" stay on for another season, but it didn't extend "The Monkees" run. I like the original "Star Trek," didn't love its sequel shows, and I am very comfortable with that.
ReplyDelete