Is it me or is it the movies? Part IV

Between my teens and well into my forties I probably averaged 1-3 movie theater visits per week. It was mostly a way of self-medicating. Trading my reality for a couple of hours in one which wasn't my own. It didn't really matter what movie was playing. It could be triple bill in the Oriental of The Master of the Flying Guiliotine, The Toolbox Murders, and Cleopatra Jones, followed by a walk over to the Water Tower and Being There. Some of these theaters had their first showtime at 8am. It wasn't unusual for me to see almost everything which was released in any given month. And if I ever ran out there was always the Parkway or the Fine Arts. 

In the present it's been at least two years since I've been in a movie theater. COVID accounts for some of this, but is it also because not only the movies might have changed but also how and where we watch them? I have a 75 inch big screen HD TV with a Dolby sound bar, a couple of remotes and a subwoofer under my comfy couch. Multiple streaming services with the ability to pause, fast forward, rewind and super slow-mo. The fridge is within walking distance as is the bathroom. So why did I leave this alternate reality paradise? Bond, James Bond. 

If ever there was franchise which needs the big silver screen I can't think of one at the moment. And that's how I found myself at the Regal City North 14 IMAX & 4DX. I don't much care about the IMAX and 4DX and 14 is for the number screens. I was in screen number 9 and as an added bonus could occasionally listen to the sound track from screens 7 and 11. I don't usually have an issue with digital projection, but the ambient lighting might have been off so everything on the screen had a slight gray tinge to it. That's the price you pay for digital. The sound was good, but the same was true for screens 7 and 11. The film itself unfortunately wasn't the best send off for Daniel Craig. It had the traditional Bond elements, but it was as if the Brocollis decided to do a Merchant-Ivory version of an Ian Fleming novel. The acting was fine. Love Connery, but Craig is still the best Bond. The villains were villainous. The female characters attractive and the cars and scenery beautiful. Not sure if it was the writing or the direction, but it just didn't work. If nothing else On Her Majesty's Secret Service finally has some competition for the weakest Bond film. 

So if Bond can't save the movie theater is that the death bell tolling for the movie theater experience? 

P.S. Random observations from watching 30 minutes of trailers:

I have no desire whatsoever to watch anything in which Roland Emmerich is involved. 

Will Smith is a good actor but he is always Will Smith regardless of what he is in. 

I thought Jon Bernthal was a one note actor. He is not. 

Is Jessica Chastain following the Charlize Theron path? Fine if she is. Just asking. 

Speaking of Chastain's path. As long as Hollywood is willing to make movies like The 355, why spend all this energy arguing about whether or not the next James Bond should be a female? Leave James alone. He has suffered enough. Maybe just spinoff Miss Moneypenny. I'd pay to watch that. 

Love trailers, but 30 minutes is too much of a good thing.

The problem with GREED

"Greed is good!" Gordon Gekko, fictional character. "Greedy people, competing, make the world go round." Paul Krugman, nobel prize winning economist. “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.” Jesus Christ, Savior, son of God. For the record, I am not an economist or an MBA, but I think I can grasp the basic principles of how modern economies are supposed to work. If you want to make money you provide either goods or services that people are willing to pay for. In order to provide those goods or services you need to pay other people to help you. If the demand for your goods or services rises you need to hire more people. These people use the money you pay them to buy goods and services, yours and others, which creates more demand and more jobs. As more and more people start doing this and more and more people are needed to create those goods or provide services you need to pay them more and more money to come work for you which gives them more money to spend and buy more goods or services and everyone lives happily ever after. If you decide to cheat or shortchange the goods or services, or slack off in any way, or stop improving, the people who pay you for those goods and services will stop paying you and pay someone else who does it better. This creates efficiency and self-regulates the economy. While there might be someone out there, I personally know of no one who shows up to work with the desire to make less tomorrow than they did yesterday. Off the top of my head I can't think of anyone who spends any time trying to figure out how to pay more for services and goods than they are worth. Bad business fail, good business succeed, everyone benefits and lives happily ever after. Greed, as Gordon Gekko and Paul Krugman say, is good. One small problem. We are all flawed beings. I think that's what the Savior guy might have been alluding to. I've always found it more than just a little ironic that, for example, usually the same people who want to unregulate GREED want to regulate LUST and those who want to unregulate LUST want to regulate GREED. Why one one and not the other? Wouldn't both wreak the same havoc with our decision making?