Netflix. Hulu. Prime. HBO Go. Amazon Fire Stick. Chromecast. Movie theaters, cinemas and drive-ins are dying. Each new streaming entertainment service is another stab wound to the cinema industry. Unfortunately, with the interminable obsession with technology, there doesn’t seem to be much incentive to reverse this trend. There’s this notion that going to the movies serves little actual purpose, other than a means to an end: suffer through a forced family outing or awkwardly navigate through a first date.

The movie theater was created to be an escape from society. Every film director wants to immerse their audience in all of the visual and audio effects that a movie theater can provide. Not every film needs the theatrical experience, but at the very least, it never takes away from the event that is watching a movie.

A film like last year’s Best Picture winner, “Moonlight,” isn’t enhanced significantly by the movie theater setting because it’s heavily driven on a realistic, current setting and great acting performances. A film I watched in Imax, “Dunkirk,” would simply not have the same suffocating, claustrophobic effect without hearing the gunshots and constant ticking. It was like I was at Dunkirk, witnessing the close-up tracking shots while characters were drowning. It’s a visual and auditory masterpiece that wouldn’t have had nearly the same effect if seen on a more moderate, standard home entertainment system.

If you haven’t noticed by now, I’m a true proponent of going to the movie theaters. Perhaps I’ve been brainwashed and conditioned by the spectacle. The totality of it is very endearing in my eyes: arriving early to beat the rush during opening weekend, picking a seat in the middle of the third row from the back and even paying that extra $1 to get a large popcorn instead of a medium one.

It’s a tradition that predates modern technology, and although film’s capabilities have expanded, movie theaters as a medium to experience them have not. This is most likely because of a shift in people’s perception of time. In a highly competitive society, why waste extraneous time on a movie you may or may not like? Instead, they should wait until there’s a high-quality pirated copy online or on-demand or Redbox to watch it. The medium of film itself isn’t dying, but people are becoming more selective on what films they wish to watch, effectively limiting their possibilities for enjoyment based on the external factor: critics’ reviews.

As people are more selective with their time, they need to pick movies they have a high likelihood of enjoying. Some people have a genre they get excited about, such as Marvel films or Tarantino flicks, so those societal tendencies are important to consider. Marvel has a reputation for making well-made superhero movies, and the critics agree. Critics slammed “Batman vs. Superman” and the general audience did too. Was it bad? Yes. Was it quite as bad as people whined about? Probably not. Film critics clearly have the power to shape an audience’s perception of a movie before they see it.

How can film studios convince people that movie theaters are amazing and require a similar level of reverence and respect as opera and other forms of theater? Maybe tradition will keep cinemas open until film studios directly market and sell to private sector distributors or clusters of people. TV shows on Netflix, Hulu and HBO are dominating the public discussion because many Hollywood actors are moving to television for more consistent paychecks, and yet significantly more people watch the Oscars over the Emmys.

Perhaps there’s something to be said about the universality of movies, that you don’t need a cable plan or even a television to go to a cinema. Perhaps people don’t wish to go farther than their living room to enjoy a well-made production. Why are cinemas dying? I guess people are just lazy. It’s probably just that.

Lal Birali is a second year pursuing a combined major in computer science and business.