289
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2023
289 points (95.0% liked)
Movies and TV Shows
17 readers
2 users here now
General discussion about movies and TV shows.
Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.
Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain
[spoilers]in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title's subject matter.
Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown as follows:
::: your spoiler warning
the crazy movie ending that no one saw coming!
:::
Your mods are here to help if you need any clarification!
Subcommunities: The Bear (FX) - [!thebear@lemmy.film](/c/thebear @lemmy.film)
Related communities: !entertainment@beehaw.org !moviesuggestions@lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I wanted to see a movie last week with the kids. It was either Oppenheimer or Barbie. The 2 hour movie won. 3 hours is too long for a movie. I can't wait to watch Oppenheimer ... while I'm on my couch.
If you can go see it in imax, do it. I saw it last night and it was amazing. It didn't feel like a 3 hour movie. Watching it on the couch in wide-screen I can see it not being a huge difference.
For me it might actually be the other way around. Being in the cinema forces me to pay better attention, which especially for a long movie can be helpful. And imo there is no "too long" in absolute terms, what matters is whether the movie requires the time or if there is a lot of padding that could have been cut.
Havent gone to see Oppenheimer, but for example when it was released i went to see "Drive my Car" (179 minutes long and subtitled) in the cinema. I've since also watched it at home, but i am glad i went to the cinema on my first watch. It's my own flault, but i am not sure if i would have had the same focus and attention when watching it at home or if i'd at some point would have gotten distracted by something.
I'm the same. If I'm home, I'm gonna pause to...do whatever. So I actually prefer seeing movies I want to pay attention to in the theater.
Plus I just love the experience of a theater. I understand why someone who wasn't into that would prefer streaming. But I've always loved it and I don't expect that's going to change. So I'mma hold onto this AMC A-list membership for now
For me it depends on what we define as "theater experience":
I absolutely never care about the rest of the audience (unless they'd be actively annoying). The Part where it forces me to pay attention is the biggest draw. And the technical aspect (better/larger screens) only matters for certain movies ever since i got a decent sized oled tv. So i'd go see Oppenheimer if there were an IMAX cinema in my area (which sadly isnt the case) or i went to see Avatar 2 last christmas, because i think there the technical aspects matter more. There i went to see it on a large screen, whereas otherwise i often choose smaller independent cinemas, whenever i go. Next one is probably gonna be "Past Lives".
A membership sounds nice, but i feel like i wouldn't have enough movies i truly want to see to justify one. Also i think the one that's available in my city that i know of would be 20€/month, but not truly unlimited but 8 tickets/month (but i guess that is still plenty to see everything).