>>115828260Nah, think of it like this. You already wasted your money on a shitheap movie. You already wasted your time and effort getting to the theater and getting snacks or whatever and getting to your seat, and you've wasted even more time getting however far into the movie you currently are. But time is also precious, and not something you can get back, and very rarely do theaters give money back on tickets or concessions.
Are you really going to continue to waste time on a film you already hate when time is so precious and limited? How does sitting in a theater and wasting more of your precious and limited time on a movie you hate possibly make up for the time and money you can't get back?
It doesn't, you're just wasting that time instead of using it on something better. You could just go home, or sneak into another film, or do literally anything else that you know you'll at least have a chance of enjoying instead of sitting through something you hate that you won't get anything of worth out of.
That's the sunken cost fallacy, when you put more time/money/effort into something that's already a bust because you've already invested so much into it. Most of the time there's no chance that investing even more into a loss will turn it around, so it's purely wasting even more out of spite.
Never made sense to me to finish a movie I hate, I'll just do something else.
