quote: Movie prices, altogether, are utterly outrageous.
So many people say this, yet so many people still pay them. My mom used to say (back when movie prices went up to $5 for non-matinee tickets) that we should all organize a "boycott movies" week where everyone who thought the prices were too expensive simply didn't go to the movies that week. Today with the power of the internet it shouldn't be too terribly difficult to arrange something like that. What do you think the effects would be if suddenly one week (let's say a traditionally Big Blockbuster week like Memorial day weekend) less than 30% of normal movie goers actually went to the movies? Do you think theaters/distributors would lower ticket/concession prices? What else might happen?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Actually, theaters barely make a profit as it is - and this comes almost entirely from concession sales, not tickets.
Thus, if 30% of moviegoers suddenly stopped going, it would not drive prices down because prices are already at minimum levels. Instead it would either drive the level of service down, or it would drive the theaters themselves out of business. Or, it could drive prices up, to make the ones not protesting pay for the costs that otherwise would have been paid by those not coming.
[ March 23, 2004, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Starla* (Member # 5835) on :
No, I don't think they would. They would probably lay off the poor kids who work long hours for minimum wage, if the losses were bad enough.
Support your local independant theaters. There are two that I know of in south New Jersey--the Ritz in Voorhees, which I've never been to, so don't know the prices (it's about 50 miles from me), and DeMarco's in Vineland, less than 20 miles away.
DeMarcos charges $5 a ticket, almost all the time--the only exception is when they have double-features, which are *gasp* a whopping $8. Popcorn, soda, and other snacks, are incredibly affordable. Usually when I go to a movie, I have to spend $10 just on a small drink and a small popcorn. Going to the independant, I spend maybe, maybe $10 on everything.
Unfortuantely, that theater is not doing well. I stopped by one night, and was chatting with an acquaintance who worked there, at the time, they only had 2 people in one theater watching a movie. The woman came out to complain her brother was cold (it was below 30, and the dummy came from the outside with out a jacket), and couldn't they turn on the heat. In that particular theater, the heat didn't work as well, and she kept complaining.
I felt like saying, lady, you spent $5 on a movie ticket in this incredibly old AMC theater, and you're complaing about the heat?! GET A COAT! Or spend $8 at the Regal down the road.
Rambling. many apologies.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
So if they're barely making a profit, why have ticket prices gone up 50 percent or so in the last several years?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Personally, I don't have a problem paying what I pay locally for a trip to the movies. That said, though, I also don't entirely buy that prices are already as low as they can go. To a large extent, the price is a balance between what movie theaters need to charge to make a profit and what the public will pay. If no one was willing to pay $8-10/ticket for the movie itself and $10-20 for concessions for two people then the price would come down. I don't think theaters would go out of business. Some might if they couldn't adapt to the new market. And for theaters to stay afloat, the studios may have to start (or return to) letting them keep a larger portion of ticket sales, (meaning they may have to cut film production prices, etc.) But I think the prices would, in fact, come down.
That said, I think that this would only come about if there were a long-term reduction in movie-going across the board. I don't think an internet organized protest would do much because:
1. The theaters would also know about it and probably prepare somehow. Maybe they'd close that week to save costs. 2. The studios would probably mark that weekend and move their big releases to another weekend. 3. Even if the week loss in sales hurt, if things went back to normal quickly after, or (more likley) if the rush in sales the following weekend made up for the loss, they'd know the protest wasn't particularly sincere. They'd know (the fact) that people really don't think the price is all that outrageous.
Thoughts?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Movies aren't that expensive, if you smuggle in your own treats and above all don't buy their popcorn. That's where they're making most of their money.
Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
If the film distributors lowered the prices they charge the theaters for the films, maybe the theaters could afford to pay their employees more and offer them benefits.
I work at a theater. I make $5.35 an hour and don't have health insurance.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
But you get free popcorn, right?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I went to the movies with my friends quite frequently when we were about fifteen. It was $3 for a matinee and $5 for an evening show. Now it's $4.75 for a matinee and $7.50 for an evening show. That's a pretty huge jump over seven years. If the theaters are charging just barely enough to make a profit, then why are ticket prices going up so much? Are distributors merely charging theaters a lot more than they used to? Why?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Great link, Boon. That sorta backs up my second post. Clearly the prices could come down, but it won't as long as people are willing to pay the current prices.
If it's true that theaters are just squeaking by at the current rates, and if people were unwilling to pay those rates, it just means that the studios/distributors would have to eat the loss in order to keep theaters afloat.
Personally, the cost of a night at the movies isn't a big deal to me. However, wouldn't it be nice if something like a slowdown in ticket sales forced Hollywood to make better films at lower cost. (Yeah, I'm dreamin', I know.)
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
If they lowered their prices they couldn't have the number one movie that week.
I hate these top 10 grossing movies of all time list. That needs to be adjusted for inflation.
msquared
Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
frisco, yes we get free popcorn, but I'd rather make more money and have health insurance. You tend to get burned out on popcorn when you spend the whole night eating it.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Speaking of popcorn...
The new theater they just built in American Fork lets you put butter on your popcorn yourself. You can squirt as much as you want on it from the separate butter dispenser they have. The problem was getting the butter down further than the first inch or so. Next time I go, I'm bringing a large bowl so I can mix the popcorn around and get butter on all of it. MMmmm. I can feel my arteries clogging now. *does Homer-style drool*
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
Here's another one.
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
Directed at no one in particular:
But don't you think people will start going more often to the movies if prices were brought down? People who don't normally go to the movies would go too.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Well, all you have to do is convince theaters that:
Current Price * Current Attendance < Lower Price * New Attendence
In certain markets, like college towns, this might be true. In other markets, though, maybe not.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
JonBoy:
The cost of making movies has also gone up dramatically because of
1. skyrocketing actor salaries 2. the need for special effects [films feel like they have to have them] 3. the over-reliance on sequels, which provide a 'safer' return, but also higher costs as actors, directors, writers, etc. all want more to do the second film
Of course, the movie studios (most of whom are also distributors [another part of the problem]) are still bullying theaters for the same cut rather than absorbing some of the costs.
Another factor that directly impacts ticket prices is that studios are pushing films and doing marketing for a big opening week and then not worrying so much about big dropoffs [they figure they'll make up some in DVD sales]. The longer a film runs in a particular theater, the larger a percantage of the take for a specific showing a theater gets. All these movies that run in wide release for only a few weeks have hurt the theaters as well.
There's another factor that hurts
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Ah. Je comprend.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But don't you think people will start going more often to the movies if prices were brought down? People who don't normally go to the movies would go too.
It wouldn't make me go to more movies because my movie-going is limited by availability of good movies more than price.
Basically, movies I want to see in the theater are rare enough that the cost isn't an issue at current prices.
Dagonee
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Maybe that is why theaters loved LOTR.
msquared
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
I don't go to movie theaters much at all (about one or two movies a year) because of the movie prices. Instead, I often buy DVD's of the movies afterwards. Movies usually cost between $15-25 for the DVD, and $7-9 for a movie ticket. I'd much rather have all the beautiful extras and all the niceties of watching at home for $15.
Course, I don't do either _that_ much. Maybe when I have a real job and a more permanent place I'll buy more DVD's.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Hmmm, as it is, Porter and I hardly ever go to a full price movie because the price is higher than we are usually willing to pay. We just wait till the dollar theater or rent it. So you might say we are already boycotting movie theatres. We also rarely go out to eat for the same reason.
I tell ya, if everyone in America spent money like we did, the economy would keel over and die.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I think I'm getting ripped off.
I pay between $11 and $15 for a non-matinee show. Unless I buy the student tickets at the student life centre ahead of time, which are $9. But they often run out, and they don't always let you use the passes at the theatre.
I would *love* to be paying $9 regularly. And that's sad.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Another reason that movie prices are high, I think, is because movie theater companies have been building huge multiplexes close together, and that cuts down on individual profits for each theater. I'm pretty sure that's the reason Regal went or almost went bankrupt (I can't remember which).
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Eaquae Legit- is that American dollars?
I pay $10 Canadian, but that's student price. Four or five years ago, it used to cost $6.50.
Posted by ladyday (Member # 1069) on :
KarlEd, do you ever go to Muvico at Arundel Mills? One night when I went there with my husband I could have -sworn- I saw you there...you looked to be with a group though, so I was too shy to run up and say hi (dork).
This was a while ago...I just remembered. *thinks* It might have actually been a really long time ago, I forget which movie we were seeing but since it's been practically forever since we've been to the movies...
*starting to really feel like a dork*
Anyway, I go to the movies pretty rarely and tend to go to the afternoon shows, but I can see how the price would be a drag if you went once a week or so. Maybe its more of a matter of, not boycotting, but making sure you're paying for good quality movies. Somehow forcing the movie industries to make movies that are worth the price of the ticket. Let's blame the four people who saw Glitter!
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The problem isn't high movie ticket prices, it's a minimum wage falling in comparison to purchasing power. In '68, minimum wage was $1.60/hour while the average ticket price was ~$1.40. Using the same ratio of 8to7 with a $10 movie ticket leads to a minimum wage of $11.40/hour, which sounds pretty fair to me.
Posted by jexx (Member # 3450) on :
I would love to go to the movies with my husband, but that would mean hiring a babysitter. Or taking my son. Which means going to see Jimmy Neutron (which we did and it wasn't bad, but it wasn't Hidalgo). The older my son gets, the more his ticket price goes up. I'm still unwilling to sit next to him during a movie like Hidalgo (which I don't really have qualms about him seeing, but I know he will be very very very very very bored and disruptive to me).
So the price of the tickets+babysitting+concession food doesn't entice me to give up some of my hard-won greenbacks in order to see a movie I may or may not like.
Besides, I have a Really Big Television, so when it comes out on DVD, I have a Near Theater Experience.
*grin*
I do miss the movie theater though.
Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
I have only been to two movies in 10 months because of babysitting. Part of it is the cost, and part of it is moving and not having a stable babysitting arrangement.
Closing the theaters for a week wouldn't save them that much money. They have to pay rent on their square footage/parking whether they are open or not.
Cost of parking for a megaplex is a factor, since they have to have enough parking for their maximum volume.