>it's easy to complain about the films, but part of me wonders
>if the penetration of digital content into American living
>rooms, coupled with an inreasingly thrifty public, makes it a
>much better option to stay at home. I can queue up Netflix
>Watch Instant on anything from an Xbox to a PS3 to a Roku and
>get access to a pretty robust library, sit on the couch, not
>get reamed if I want to snack during the film, pay less in an
>unlimited monthly subscription than the $20+ just for tickets
>that it would cost for me and a friend for one movie, and
>watch 2-3 movies in a night, all in HD on a nice TV set, I
>mean cmon.

This is probably the real reason. It's not that movies are particularly shitty. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. The fact is this is probably the norm, and frankly I'm surprised this didn't happen tot he movie industry sooner.

If I go to a movie in theaters I pay $10.

If I stay at home, for $1 I can rent the movie and:
- watch it without people talking
- pause it, rewind, etc. to make sure I don't miss anything
- watch it on a better screen
- eat whatever I want without paying
etc.

Basically the only advantages of seeing a movie in theaters are the sound system (which is USUALLY better) and the fact that I don't have to wait a couple months to see it. The waiting is what gets people to come out for movies that look sick as fuck...but if a movie doesn't look sick as fuck, there is just too compelling an argument to stay at home and put that money towards other things.