absolutely, I would rather spend a couple of buck renting a movie than spending the cash on a movie ticket to be let down by a second-rate movie

Absolutely not. I enjoy the theater experience. I like watching films with others so that I can see their reactions to the films, especially horror films.

Personally, I like the theatre a lot of the time, but I prefer the convenience of owning in the long run. This is a big question and the MPAA have been trying many different things over the years to make sure people continue to go to the theatre rather than wait for home viewing (TV/VHS/DVD/Blu-Ray). Steven Soderbergh released his movie "Bubble" (2005) to DVD and the theatres on the same day and it was a theatrical failure. This seems to support the MPAA's fears. Back in 1953, the MPAA switched the "preferred aspect ratio" to widescreen in order to keep people in the theatres, figuring that when shown on TV, a widescreen movie wouldn't look as good. In the sixties, they put incentives in place to encourage movies to be shot in colour as most televisions were B&W. The current push is for polarized 3D which cannot be done in the home without very expensive hardware and therefore there is nothing available in this format. The current "home" version of 3D is anaglyph 3D (red/blue) and although it is pretty good, it doesn't compare to the theatre experience. Although most new 3D movies are currently animated and/or concert films, James Cameron has developed a new technique that allows for cheaper and more realistic 3D and it looks to be taking over the next crop of feature films. Look for "The Final Destination" (2009) coming out this week and from Cameron himself "Avatar" (2009) later this year, for examples of this latest idea to keep all of our asses in theatre seats. Hope this helps.