These interactions then act as a second "mirror," as it were. Not only are the characters and events on the screen used for identification, but this identification process is also modified via interaction between the subjects. It is therefore a more complex process than cinema viewing. Metz's process of identification in the movie theater is therefore all-encompassing, individual and absolute, while home viewing is a much more complex process. Indeed, home viewing is subject to a number of change factors. The identification process is influenced by the number of subjects present in the room as well as the type of interaction between viewers. If the viewer is for example distracted by noise and non-relevant conversation, the identification process is not as complete as when conversation revolves around the images projected. Identification is also more complete and absolute when the subject is alone than when a partner joins the viewing. Such joint viewing may result in a more complex...

Because there is no subject to subject interaction in the theater, identification takes place in an absolute and linear sense. Interaction multiplies the dimensionality of identification in the viewing process.
One could take Metz's image of the mirror a step further: the interactive screen acts as a mirror to view not only one, but many subjects in relation to each other and commenting on what is seen.

I do not believe that any of Metz's theories should be invalidated, although they are not necessarily universally applicable to all viewing technology. Instead, one could add to what he has established, and use the existing theories as a basis for creating new ones.