[Prudence]

I think Iger has a point. Yes, the film selection sucks this summer. But for years now I haven't wanted to see movies in the theater.

Why? Because of all the damn people. Why pay big bucks per person to fight for a parking spot, sit behind World's Tallest Human, relieve myself in bathrooms that haven't been cleaned since the bronze age, all so that I can watch glowing blue cell screens and listen to chats about last night's rendez-vous instead of experiencing the movie?

Why not wait until the movie comes out on DVD, invite over friends you actually like (or no one at all!), eat the snacks of your choice, use the bathroom whenever you want, thanks to the magic of the pause button, sit on your own comfortable furniture, and leave the car in the gargage? And all for a flat fee?

However, right now I end up not seeing movies at all. I don't want to put up with the theater "experience," but then the movie leaves the theater and I forget that I wanted to see it. Hubby says "let's go rent a movie" and I say "I can't think of anything I want to see." Or, by the time it gets to DVD I've heard that so-and-so didn't like it so I'm not going to bother.

And I can't think of any movie that I've seen on the big screen plus have on DVD. No, that's not quite true -- I went to the outdoor showing of the Holy Grail. But that doesn't really count. Mostly I see it either in the theater or at home. Usually if it's something I think is going to be really good and have repeat viewing value, I just wait for the DVD. Why pay for it twice?

I think GD's right and quality might suffer more than it already does. I think it has ever since you could first rent movies for home viewing. But as far as marketing goes, I'm probably an example of the type of consumer Iger's was thinking about.