Stephen King has a theory on the reasons why people prefer to stream films in theaters
It is no secret that ticket sales are still decreasing. The first quarter of 2025 was largely dismal at the box office, and the successful season was not much better. A new film universe of superheroes was launched with the release of “Superman” by James Gunn, but this film made around $ 600 million, which, although impressive, did not denounce a supra-hit in the blockbusters before 2019. Marvel also struggles, its three films of 2025 also making $ 600 million or less. The “F1” unsubstantial car racing film also made around $ 600 million, which was not much, given its overwhelming budget.
Anecdotal evidence also indicates general dissatisfaction with the theatrical experience of the 2020s. You may have heard your friends complain of rowdy crowds, too expensive concessions or Sales theater spaces. Many theater enthusiasts seem to stay on their phones, even in a dark theater, and the pre-show coils of the AMC theaters now last more than 30 minutes. We can also note a very general journey for people to stay at home; Many believe that leaving the house to see a film just not worth the hassles. Why see a new blockbuster the opening weekend when it is available in streaming in only three months? The convenience of having thousands of movies and television programs easily available at home will win the “local cineplex” disorder “and to see a film on the big screen in a dark room.
The famous author Stephen King has an additional theory to explain why the figures continue to drop: subtitles. King recently published on threads that modern game, in particular young artists, encourages whispers and marmonage, leading home viewers to light subtitles. In theaters, we cannot activate subtitles and actors remain incomprehensible. The subtitle option, known as King, gives the house in vision a massive advantage.
Some people need to watch movies with subtitles
Many studies have been carried out over the years on the visualization habits of film observers, and it has been concluded (by Indiewire) only half of home viewers watch films with the subtitles based on. It is a result, it seems, of the blurred audio. This could be a problem with the audio mixture on modern televisions that increase the volume on action scenes, but produce a dialogue at a low volume. Many films are mixed for the multiple channels of a large -scale cinema audio system, even the same audio can feel unbalanced on an ordinary television. Some viewers like subtitles as a means of concentrating; With dialogue on the screen, this forces them to look instead of distracting themselves by their phones.
King believes that modern game is also to blame. Generations of actors grew up in front of the cameras while not necessarily doing a lot of work on stage. With a camera and a microphone a few centimeters from your face, it is no longer necessary to project their diaphragm or emotion at the back of a concert hall. The modern “close” film game was a pioneer as soon as Mary Pickford in the 1920s, but the latest generation of actors feels King, is particularly bad about enunciation and projection. As he wrote:
“The obvious advantage of streaming on movie movies is that you can watch them at home. The secret weapon of banners, especially with regard to films where the characters have strong accents: subtitles. […] Young actors in particular do not seem to understand the projection. Perhaps because they work in television and films without any stage experience. “”
King is, more precisely, referring to a particularly naturalistic actor style – certainly fashionable at the moment – which is supposed to feel out of the way and improvised. Projection and enunciation are not part of this style, to which King opposes.
It is a fairly fair theory. Will people return to theaters if the sound was mixed to be more suitable for dialogues, and the actors were better for the clarity of the clarity of naturalism? Who can say?
