Sherlock? Why would a rehash sequel have better legs than the first one? First one had a 3.37 multiplier. SH2 would need a 4.375 multiplier to hit $175m. No chance of that one happening.
I still remember some idiot near me during TDK in IMAX texting. This was on opening Saturday and the guy had stood in line for an hour and a half, but apparently didn't want to see the movie enough to keep his phone off. Pathetic.
That's great. Not surprised it's like that down under. Here in America we can't even get people to stop texting while DRIVING, never mind get them to stop it during a movie.
But it's rare to see a movie where everyone has their attention on the screen. Texting, chatting, cell phone conversations, etc. Plus my local theater fucks up the surround sound a lot of the time. Seems like they crank the surround speakers so much that you can't hear the dialogue.
I don't. I see maybe a handful of movies each year in the theater, at most. I'm very selective in what I'll bother shelling out $10 to watch in a theater. If I'm going to pay that kind of money, it might as well be to own the movie on Blu-ray and that will only happen if I like the movie enough.
I think it's amazing how you find the time/money to go to the movies as often as you do. I mainly don't have the time. I definitely have plenty of cash to blow it on that kind of stuff, but the risk is too high. Why spend $10 on a movie you know is probably going to suck? That line of questioning applies to 95% of the mainstream stuff being put out by Hollywood these days.
Baumer, there is a ton of truth in your post. I think the biggest problem is a combination of high prices and unoriginal content. People will pay the high prices if it's something they really want to see. But if it's just some rehashed stuff, they'll wait to rent. Especially when you can rent movies for $1.