My Easter movie this year was supposed to be Muppets Most Wanted. Though the last Muppet movie didn't impress me too much, even in spite of my love for Jason Segal, I knew when I saw the commercial for Muppets Most Wanted that I wanted to see it on Easter. Click here if you are confused as to why I would need to see a movie on Easter.
My Easter movie didn't happen, but of course I had opened my big mouth and told Jonathan he could come with me to see Muppets. So when, several weeks later, we were discussing plans to go see Disney's Bears, I shouldn't have been surprised when Jonathan also asked about going to see Muppets.
And because I have no restraint, I told him I would take him to see both movies.
I am going to give you an even shorter review of these two movies than I did in the last post. Because the main purpose of this post is not to review movies, but to bring to question the business of movie theaters in general.
Disney's Bears
I love Disney's whole nature movement, creating movies that educate rather than simply entertain. Bears follows a mother bear and her two cubs as they search for food, shelter, and safety. The narration by John C. Reilly is actually enjoyable, which is surprising considering I have disliked every movie he has done since Chicago.
Muppets Most Wanted
I love the Muppets. As I was growing up, The Muppet Family Christmas was pretty much played on repeat at my house during the month of December. This is one of the rarer Muppet movies, and my favorite. All the older ones are good, too. But, now that Disney owns the Muppets....well, enough said. They just aren't the same Muppets anymore. Also, now that Frank Oz no longer does any of the voices, it's almost blasphemy to watch them.
How can you have the Muppets without Frank Oz? I ask you. What kind of lunacy is this?
Here is the grand revelation I had as I sat watching Bears on Friday night. The movie was one hour and eighteen minutes long, but I still paid a whopping twelve dollars per ticket.
Get that right people. TWELVE DOLLARS. Twelve dollars to sit in the Regal's stiff theater seats* shifting my weight every ten minutes. Twelve dollars to watch a film with one paid actor, and several bears whose theatrical skills were clearly taken advantage of.**
*Jonathan had a gift card, otherwise, dear Lord, we would have been at AMC.
**Worse than Jon Heder getting paid only $1000 for his role as Napoleon Dynamite.
Why are movies at theaters a one size fits all price? How come I paid $12 to see Bears at Regal, and $11.50 to see Muppets Most Wanted at AMC?
I'd like to propose my solution. I realize it does nothing to send my thoughts out to the world on my tiny pathetic blog about...wait, what is this blog actually about again? But the thought is bursting upon my chest so I figure, why not put it in writing to get it off my mind?
Educational movies such as Disney's Bears, should be deep discounted. They should be $5 a ticket for all mankind. Why? Two reasons: 1. They aren't real movies, there are no actual characters, no climax, no conflict keeping me on the edge of my seat. As I watched the first ten minutes, I suddenly was ten years old again, suffering through Milo and Otis. A movie involving a talking cat and dog who have not experienced the world of CGI, is painfully boring. And a movie about bears travelling together, their actions all being narrated by John C. Reilly, is never one put on the must-watch-again-and-again list. Of course, these movies do have their moments. This brings me to my second reason: 2. If educational films are cheaper, they might bring about more viewers. Although Flixster is telling me that Bears has brought in $3.7 million so far, I have to wonder how many of the viewers walked out of the theater thinking the same thing as me: I paid twelve dollars to see a bunch of bears walk around to John C. Reilly's voice for only ONE HOUR AND EIGHTEEN MINUTES?!
This leads me to my main solution to the absurd cost of seeing a movie in the theater. Movie tickets should be priced according to the length of the movie. A shorter movie should certainly not cost as much as a movie double its length.
Hubby says this idea would eventually fail because then the movie industry would purposefully gear their movies towards being certain lengths so that they could fall into the best price category for the theaters.
And I say, SO BE IT.
If there is one thing that irks me more than paying twelve dollars for one hour and eighteen minutes of movie, it's paying twelve dollars for a movie that is three hours long that could have easily been boiled down to two hours.
I'm a complicated character, what can I say?
No comments:
Post a Comment