What movies have you watched multiple times AT THE CINEMA

[King Mark 3,631]

Interesting. So far I thought people's lists would be longer

[Quintus 5,399]

For example, there's no way in hell I can rank Avatar with the likes of Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark or Star Wars.

There's no way in hell I can rank Avatar with the best movies of today either, though.

Avatar was the event movie of last year and that is where it will remain. I think it has zero longevity and little appeal beyond a 3D equipped theatre.

I agree with KM that they don't make 'em like they used too, however I dont believe that to be a constant phenomenon; I think it's purely the result of Spielberg, Lucas and Williams and the timing of their arrival into the movie industry. A one off triangle of talent which will probably never happen again.

[Bowie 45]

(500) Days of Summer

[Matt C 453]

I saw Batman Begins, Superman Returns, Stardust and HP: Half-Blood Prince twice each. Saw The Dark Knight three times, though.

[Taikomochi 1,136]

Well, I unfortunately am not old enough to have seen SW in theaters and don't remember if I saw the special editions.

Let's see...

Titanic - At least 5. The subject fascinated me as a child

The Lost World - 3

Phantom Menace - 3

LotR FotR - 3

Two Towers - 3

RotK - 4

Attack of the Clones - 2 or 3

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - 2

War of the Worlds - 3

Revenge of the Sith - More than 5, probably. I saw it several times at the cheap theater that shows movies that have just left theaters for $1.

Dark Knight - 5

Up - 2

Inception - 2

Star Wars Clone Wars - 2(Not by choice...)

Avatar - 2

Mother(The South Korean film) - 2

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - 2

Toy Story 3 - 2

No Country for Old Men - 2

Precious - 2

KotCS - 3

[MrScratch 294]

Most recently:

Zombieland - 2

Inglorious Basterds - 2

Pan's Labyrinth - 2

I don't do multiple cinema viewings too much any more. ROTS was the last movie I saw more than twice.

[pixie_twinkle 48]

I saw Close Encounters the most times at the cinema when I was 8. It came out when we were on a family cruise. The cruise ship had a cinema. I sat through CEOT3K about 4 times in the space of a week. At the time I preferred it to Star Wars.

[Red 75]

All the Lord of the Rings movies - 3, 2, 4

The Dark Knight - 3

Inception - 2

[Jacob 0]

Titanic - At least 5. The subject fascinated me as a child

I'll bet she did.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I think Quint was surprised I'm over 40 and posting in the videogame thread and like movies usually aimed at a younger crowd. What I mean is that your taste in movies and your pass times aren't going to change because you get a bit older, especially if you stay single like me. If your forced to by someone else it's a different matter

I'm with ya, KM. I'll be playing till the day I die. My uncle came to visit not too long ago, and asked "You're still playing these games?" To which I responded, "I'll probably be playing Call Of Duty on my deathbed."

Now to the topic at hand:

Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest - 2

The Dark Knight - 2

Inception - 3

Machete - 2

Those are the only ones I can remember. Although I think I saw Batman Forever in theaters like 15 times when I was little, don't really remember.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Poseidon Adventure, 4

Towering Inferno, 5

Jaws, 12

Star Wars, 12

CE3K, 8

Jaws 2, 6

Superman, 10

Alien, 5

STTMP, 10

ESB, 16

Raiders, 8

ET, 12

ROTJ, 6

TOD, 8

HA 4

JP, 6

haven't done the multiple views as much these days, it was so cheap in the 70's and 80's. It cost 6 bucks a ticket for matinee, and 7.50 for regular admission. add in drinks and popcorn and its a 34 dollar event for us.

I did see Avatar 3 times in the theatre, unlike The Great Eye, I still admire the film on several levels.

[Quintus 5,399]

Oh don't get me wrong; I still appreciate Avatar as a brilliant and good experience, but for me it isn't a movie which holds up to repeat viewings. It's a good movie, just not a great one.

[artyjeffrey 20]

With all of the cam bootlegs that are downloadable, most people, even if they do like a new release, aren't likely to slap down money for admission to a cinema more than once for a movie that they really enjoy.

I hate going to the movies. I can say, though, that I saw Jurassic Park 3 times. You had to see that in a movie theatre; watching it once it came out on VHS was noticeably less effective.

[King Mark 3,631]

Oh don't get me wrong; I still appreciate Avatar as a brilliant and good experience, but for me it isn't a movie which holds up to repeat viewings. It's a good movie, just not a great one.

yes,exactly

I was just bit to young to experience the Jaws phenomenon

With all of the cam bootlegs that are downloadable, most people, even if they do like a new release, aren't likely to slap down money for admission to a cinema more than once for a movie that they really enjoy.

I still not sure who'd want to watch one of these

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I still not sure who'd want to watch one of these

Millions upon millions do. Very few people care about picture and sound quality. It's the reason why ticket prices are so high and keep rising, because the industry is losing money to piracy. I personally cannot watch them, it's the equivalent of listening to like 60kbps mp3s.

[Andy 4,123]

I'd say my list would clearly resemble Joey's and King Mark's. You have to remember that home video changed everything. My family didn't get a VCR or cable until 1985. That meant that the only way you'd even conceive of enjoying a film you liked, was to see it again and again in the theater. Anyone remember when the newspapers would print "FINAL WEEK!" in the ad? That meant you had to get your ass to the theater to see Empire one last time before it was gone for good. Beyond that, there were "Story of" records or Super 8mm excerpts. And films with staying power were allowed to play in the theater for much, much longer. Instant accessibility of films has done quite a lot to diminish their cultural significance. I practically have to drag my 7 year old to the theater.

[Taikomochi 1,136]

Titanic - At least 5. The subject fascinated me as a child

I'll bet she did.

"Mommy, what are they doing in that car?"

"Hugging. And kissing."

[Matt C 453]

Millions upon millions do. Very few people care about picture and sound quality. It's the reason why ticket prices are so high and keep rising, because the industry is losing money to piracy.

Piracy isn't a big factor, it's just a lot more people are using the cheaper option of Netflix, Redbox, VOD or even blind-buying a copy of the film on DVD/Blu-ray. Especially the first two.

[Romão 2,274]

I've never seen a movie more than twice at the theatre, and that includes the following films:

Jurassic Park

Batman & Robin (I kid you not)

The Phantom Menace

Revenge of the Sith

The Dark Knight

and that's pretty much it

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I think 2 is a good number. You don't want to oversaturate yourself in it. When the DVD/Blu hits, you want to go "Yes! Can't wait to watch it again!" I have no desire to Inception a fourth time in theaters. Although the movie has to be pretty good in the first place to warrant a second viewing.

Nowadays though, I tend to see a movie over and over considering it's the nature of my job. I've seen the end to Inception a good 7 or 8 times.

[Josh500 1,615]

Avatar was the event movie of last year and that is where it will remain. I think it has zero longevity and little appeal beyond a 3D equipped theatre.

Zero longevity?

I love how some people--and you too, apparently--have mastered the art of overstatement. Just because it won't be a classic for the next 100 years doesn't mean it has zero longevity. Especially not a movie that's the most financially successful ever, in movie history.

[Quintus 5,399]

Fair enough, Josh. I guess time will tell.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,516]

Ignoring the quality of films today, don't you think it is more connected to your age? Didn't sweets have a better taste when you were little, even though it is exactly the same recipe as today?

Karol

I swear Wagon Wheels were larger when I was a kid.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Even at home? You haven't watched Raiders over and over? Or Star Wars?

I didn't say that. Seeing a movie in the cinema is expensive, and I'm just not such a fanatical devotee of any film or franchise that I'd have to go and see a film that many times.

[Quintus 5,399]

Clarified.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Avatar was the event movie of last year and that is where it will remain. I think it has zero longevity and little appeal beyond a 3D equipped theatre.

Zero longevity?

I love how some people--and you too, apparently--have mastered the art of overstatement. Just because it won't be a classic for the next 100 years doesn't mean it has zero longevity. Especially not a movie that's the most financially successful ever, in movie history.

It's actually in 14th place.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,516]

I saw Close Encounters the most times at the cinema when I was 8. It came out when we were on a family cruise. The cruise ship had a cinema. I sat through CEOT3K about 4 times in the space of a week. At the time I preferred it to Star Wars.

I still do, Pixie. I still do...

Avatar was the event movie of last year and that is where it will remain. I think it has zero longevity and little appeal beyond a 3D equipped theatre.

Zero longevity?

I love how some people--and you too, apparently--have mastered the art of overstatement. Just because it won't be a classic for the next 100 years doesn't mean it has zero longevity. Especially not a movie that's the most financially successful ever, in movie history.

It's actually in 14th place.

14th place? How so? Besides, "Avatar" might well be successful, but was it profitable?

Just remembered: "The Towering Inferno":5

"The Hindenberg":3

"A Star Is Born" (1976):3. Loved that film then; love it now. Still waiting for the R2 release. I guess I should "watch cloesly, now".

[mahler3 478]

Pulp Fiction wins it for me. Being a student at the time of release in 1994, it was THE film of the moment and genuinely improved with each viewing! I saw it 8 times in total.

Looking back, that era was a pretty exciting time for cinema with Jurassic Park the year before and the Coens Hudsucker Proxy. Many happy days spent in cinemas, whilst I should've been revising!

- Tim

[Quintus 5,399]

I left school the year Jurassic Park came out and I remember seeing Pulp Fiction the following year on video. A landmark couple of years for me for a number of reasons, the impact of those two movies on me included.

[Wojo 2,453]

It's actually in 14th place.

14th place? How so? Besides, "Avatar" might well be successful, but was it profitable?

It depends on how you view the numbers. You can view ticket prices in terms of cost at the time, or in terms of money at a certain point in time, i.e. adjusted for inflation.

Worldwide, Avatar made $2.7685 billion, and is still rolling. That is "number one of all time." Its domestic (USA) take has been $760,137,070, in 2009 money.

This second number is important because BoxOfficeMojo gives grosses "adjusted for inflation" only for domestic releases. Its "adjusted gross" is $772,808,800, which is #14 of all time.

#1 in "adjusted gross" is -- and will probably always be -- Gone with the Wind, at $1,606,254,800 in adjusted money. Unadjusted, it made a paltry $198,676,459 in 1939 money.

Was it profitable? Avatar cost $237 million to make and $9 million to re-release. You bet your kazoo it was profitable.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Let's not forget that 3D and IMAX charges added a lot to that number. If Avatar was only 2D, the total gross would be considerably less.

[Taikomochi 1,136]

It would probably be about 2/3 of it's total gross, which would still probably put it at #1 or #2, if you ignore the lost marketability.

[Matt C 453]

It's actually in 14th place.

With inflation, yes. When you just look at tickets sold, "Titanic" was far more popular than "Avatar." And then "Gone With the Wind" has sold the most tickets than any of them -- it's inflated gross would be $1B domestically.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Taikomochi 1,136]

I don't like adjusting for inflation. The way the movie industry functions has changed. There's probably a lot less people who see movies with Netflix, Redbox, and illegal downloads, so to have the price higher balances out the proportion. Not to mention, it is a lot less common to see a film multiple times in theaters than it used to be. Even with the increased population...

In any case, it's kind of stupid to make claims based off the adjusted numbers because there are so many factors to consider in that, and it is just adjusted for price. I don't consider that reliable.

[Sandor 797]

Not to mention, it is a lot less common to see a film multiple times in theaters than it used to be. Even with the increased population...

Yeah, and there are many more screens nowadays then there used to be so that should balance things.

In the end, it's much more "fair" to look at ATTENDANCE figures instead of gross. I find it more interesting anyway.

With album sales, the world seems content with 'units sold' instead of gross. Why can't it be the same with movies?

[Wojo 2,453]

Well for one thing, there are many "cheap" movie theaters that don't show movies until after the bigger theaters have discontinued them. For instance, the big theater in my area no longer shows Inception ($6.50 matinee, $8.75 evenings), but it's currently at the cheap theater ($3 matinee and $6 for evenings). There is overlap of course, because Machete and Eat, Pray, Love are currently at both.

I guess the difficulty with "head count" is that it becomes dependent on two things. Firstly, every movie theater is free to charge their own prices. Those are ticket prices in my area, western PA. I found an AMC in Santa Monica, CA that charges $11.75 for a 9:15 showing of Inception. It's not a big difference but it's enough to skew the numbers if you try to divide the take by the average ticket price.

Secondly, why not just record the number of heads that go into the theater? Just because you paid to go see one movie doesn't mean that's what you actually saw. I don't have statistics to show how many people bought a ticket for G Toy Story 3 to go see R Inception, but maybe it's enough that the studios don't feel comfortable reporting head count.

Head count doesn't sound as impressive as "this movie made a gazillion dollars today." Hooray. But tickets cost 0.1 gazillion dollars. Ten people saw your movie. Must suck.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

AOTC:2

ROTS:2

KOTCS:3

[MrJosh 892]

I have a short list:

TPM: 4

AOTC: 3

ROTS: 3

Titanic: 2

The Dark Knight: 2

The list is short mostly due to lack of money. There have been quite a few films I'd not have minded seeing a few more times in the cinemas.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,516]

I understand all the arguements, guys. I's just that I look at HP+THBP, and I do not see $250,000,000 on screen.

[Melange 446]

I recall going to more than one viewing of a movie in a cinema, when I was about 17.

It was the Summer of 1991 (I think) and it was Terminator 2. Aspects of the movie 'really' struck a chord with me at that time, so I watched the movie about 3 times in the cinema. Saying that, I 'may' have gone to see Alien 3 two times in the cinema a couple of years later, but I can't be sure of that. But anyway, I certainly don't do that now.

Once is enough for most movies I see in the cinema.

[Richard Penna 3,686]

I'm amazed that someone can see any movie 15 times in the cinema.

I saw The Two Towers twice. Once with a friend, and again when my family saw it. And I saw the first half hour of Dark Knight twice in one evening when the projector broke and we moved next door to a later showing.

[Jeff 10]

Millions upon millions do. Very few people care about picture and sound quality. It's the reason why ticket prices are so high and keep rising, because the industry is losing money to piracy.

Piracy isn't a big factor, it's just a lot more people are using the cheaper option of Netflix, Redbox, VOD or even blind-buying a copy of the film on DVD/Blu-ray. Especially the first two.

An industry can't just raise prices and expect to make more money. In a free market, prices are optimized to maximize profit. Anyone who has taken Economics 101 (studio execs included) knows that prices increase when demand increases or when supply decreases.

I think it's pretty obvious that supply of movies is not decreasing (well, good movies maybe) and all the reasons you have given would lead to a DECREASE in demand (i.e., people can watch pirated, Netflix, Redbox, etc. instead of going to the theater). Logically, that would mean theaters would have to DECREASE ticket prices to lure more people into the theater to watch something they could watch for free on the internet.

My personal opinion why ticket prices are increasing is because the desire for escapism is increasing, which often happens in a depressed economy. Also, theaters are tacking on all sorts of premiums for IMAX and 3D. They can charge more cause we're willing to pay it. We're willing to pay it because we like escaping our lives by watching 3D movies on a gigantic screen.

[King Mark 3,631]

I really don't see movie making less money than they used to or piracy being a big factor.

[Trent B 337]

The thing about the price jumps for tickets is that it will keep people away since they can't afford to pay them that's not including drinks and such at the concession stands. Even the drinks and such at the concession stands these days the prices for them are ridiculous. That's why some people sneak in their own stuff as you can get it cheaper at a store.

If theaters around the world (especially here in the U.S.) started lowering prices for tickets again to what they were about 10-15 years ago then more people would end up going.

When people are tight on money in this economy today they really can't afford to go to the theaters every time a new movie comes out they want to see.

[King Mark 3,631]

I usually don't go full price. Most theaters lower their prices to 5$ on Tuesdays and Wednesdays here. Most cineplex only check the ticket at the main entrance so you can see a second movie if you want to .

The drinks and popcorn always have been ridiculously expensive

[Jeff 10]

If theaters around the world (especially here in the U.S.) started lowering prices for tickets again to what they were about 10-15 years ago then more people would end up going.

Believe me, the studio execs have analysts working on this every day. Sure they can get more people to go, but the question is if that will translate into more total revenue. If they agree with you, they will lower prices. I suspect there might be a minor correction in the next year.

Still, I wouldn't expect prices to come down significantly. They can get Mark's money by getting him to buy the discount tickets or go to a matinee viewing. They can get my money full price on a Friday night because I work during the day. They are obviously getting a decent amount of people to buy full price or else prices would come down.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

I would go to the theater more often if it was cheaper.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Piracy is a big factor, the industry loses over a billion dollars a year because of it. You (the general you, not anyone specifically) need to realize that studios pretty much have control over the ticket prices. The theater locations themselves don't make money off ticket sales, it all goes to the studio (well, most of it). I think we get something like $2 out of every $11 ticket, and the longer a movie stays at a location, the more the theater makes off the ticket sales. That's why concession prices are ridiculous, that's how the theater makes their money. AMC prices have been gradually rising in the past year, tickets and concession, and don't seem like they're going down anytime soon. Every 4 to 6 months there will be 50 cent increases.

[Jeff 10]

Piracy is a big factor, the industry loses over a billion dollars a year because of it.

Piracy is a big problem but it is not, in and of itself, a cost - it is lost revenue. Studios are raising prices because they believe they can get more revenue that way. They do studies to figure out what price they can afford to sell at. For instance, they may find through research or experience that they can sell:

1) 3 million tickets at $5 ($15 million in revenue) or

2) 2 million tickets at $10 ($20 million in revenue)

Scenario 1 they get higher attendance. Scenario 2 they get more money. So they'll likely go with scenario 2. Their research may have been wrong; if so, they will figure that out very quickly when only 1 million tickets are sold and revenues drop to $10 million. Then they will lower prices.

The studios are "losing" money to piracy because some of the 1 million viewers in scenario 2 who didn't want to pay $10 for their ticket resort to piracy or rentals. The studios accept that because they're still making more money. (In the meantime, they spend a portion of the extra $5 million to fight piracy.)

If I'm wrong and the execs truly are so foolish as to raise prices because people aren't buying their product, they will drive more people to piracy and rentals and lose big time. As stupid as these characters are sometimes, they care enough about their money to hire people who will get it right.