Opinion: The next time I want to see Timothée Chalamet, I’ll do it from the comfort of my couch

The following section is provided by Sara Stewart, a writer focused on film and culture residing in western Pennsylvania. The opinions expressed in this piece are solely her own and can be found alongside other editorial pieces on CNN.

I skipped work one day last week and watched a Timothée Chalamet movie at a nearby AMC theater during the daytime. It was the second part of the movie Dune, which I was quite sure I would enjoy statistically. As a big-time movie buff, nothing thrills me more than watching sci-fi and fantasy epics on a grand scale with booming sound effects in an IMAX theater.

You might have already heard that the second part of Denis Villeneuve's film is quite lengthy, lasting for two hours and 46 minutes. However, I was aware of this beforehand. I researched the best time for me to take a toilet break, gathered my popcorn (though I didn't have the limited-edition popcorn container), and was excited to return to Arrakis. It is worth noting that both CNN and the distributor of "Dune: Part Two" belong to the same parent company, Warner Bros. Discovery.

I secured my designated spot and sat comfortably, patiently anticipating the enchantment that Nicole Kidman often speaks on.

Fast forward 40 minutes from the time stated on my ticket, we were still in the opening minutes of Kidman's PSA. All hopes of experiencing something magical had vanished from my spirit. This began earlier with the noisy "Noovie" pre-show presented by Maria Menounos, blaring loudly that it was impossible to have a conversation with those around you.

The show started with a barrage of pushy advertisements that lasted for about 10 minutes. After that came a huge load of previews, which were so long that the audience started to giggle out of tiredness when yet another screen popped up. However, our laughter soon turned into shock as we were subjected to yet another screening of the trailer for "Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire." Maybe the organizers thought that it would be more appealing the second time around? Unfortunately, Reader, it did not make any difference.

There were too many previews and it was irritating, but that wasn't all. Nowadays, trailers show almost all of the important parts of a movie. Gone are the days of intriguing teasers that didn't reveal every single detail. We had essentially seen at least 10 short films before the movie we came to see even began. We were tired and the movie's opening credits hadn't even appeared yet.

To put it plainly, no one likes to sit through excessively long "content" before a nearly three-hour movie they've spent too much money on. It makes no sense to ask people to pay extra to watch ads and trailers that can't be muted or fast-forwarded, as they can do at home with more comfortable seating and better food. It seems like the big movie chains are reacting to the fear of their industry's downfall by trying to squeeze as much money out of their remaining audience as they can.

I propose that we kindly ask them to leave. Instead, why don't we redirect our movie theater funds to watch new releases at our own homes? This way, we can easily access the movies and only pay around $20, which is considerably cheaper than purchasing a movie ticket and snacks.

Are you going to lose the chance to witness the captivating scene of Paul Atreides mastering the art of riding a sand worm on a tremendous movie screen? Unfortunately, yes. (It's truly an awe-inspiring moment.) However, I believe if AMC, and other theatre companies, as well as Kidman, are committed to providing us with the enchantment of the cinema experience, they should make it less harsh. They should treat us as important patrons, not just vulnerable targets.

Although I've mentioned some negative points earlier, I still hold a strong belief in the enchantment of films. In case you are residing near an Alamo Drafthouse or any smaller cinema chains like Nitehawk situated in Brooklyn, then don't hesitate to spend all your savings on it. Let’s cherish the wonderful cinema experience which can certainly be achieved. However, I think developers beyond major cities are not considering it as a valuable investment. They prefer to leave the outdated theaters in the suburbs with just the minimum maintenance.

Last year, CNET’s Joan Solsman reported on a quote from Bob Cooney, a location-based entertainment industry expert, about the traditional moviegoing experience before the pandemic. Cooney described it as sitting in uncomfortable chairs and eating low-quality food only to watch the desired movie. Theaters were able to offer this subpar experience because they had exclusive access to movies for extended periods of time, similar to how airlines provide subpar customer experiences because flying is often the only option for long-distance travel. However, these exclusives were highly valued before the pandemic.

I don't believe the cinema experience has significantly been altered. Even if you choose to watch a recently released movie in a modern state-of-the-art IMAX or Dolby theater, the theater will still bombard you with a considerable amount of ads, including trailers, before the movie starts.

Despite everything, I am positive that you will be delighted to know that AMC's revenue rose by 23% in 2023, reaching $4.81 billion compared to the previous year's $3.91 billion. According to AMC CEO Adam Aron, whose compensation is almost $24 million, "AMC reported impressive results for both the fourth quarter and entire year of 2023, surpassing Wall Street's expectations." (I have a feeling that he has never endured Noovie.)

I am interested in discovering when the large cinema companies will take action. Will they risk losing their viewers by supporting a boycott or will they stop their excessive advertising? If AMC and their rivals are aware of the benefits they receive from the public, they will not make us wait for so long to watch a Timothée movie when it is released.