I think Alamo Drafthouse in Austin is doing it right:
1. Food & beer/wine served with movie -- convenient and much preferable to overpriced popcorn.
2. Cellphones must be turned off.
3. They take talking seriously, and preface each film with a strongly (and amusingly) worded statement to that effect.
4. No babies allowed except on specified baby nights.
5. Creative and fun special events, such as quote-alongs, sing-alongs, live comedy (Master Pancake, which is sort of like live MST3K), movie/food pairings, etc...
I pretty much refuse to go to any other theater, and judging by their crowds, they seem to be doing quite well with this formula.
Cineplex here in Canada is getting much better. They've started opening VIP theatres, which because of the drinking age here in Ontario means absolutely no-one under 19. People paying the extra couple bucks don't use their cellphones and don't talk during the movies.
In their main theatres they now have stroller screenings where the volume is reduced and the lights stay on low. They've done the sing-alongs. They also let you rent out the theatre to have xbox gaming with Halo or whatever you want to play.
Sadly the general theatres aren't great at policing the cellphones or no talking. Although I've heard several times that they're interested in the cellphone jamming, but it's illegal to jam 911. I have heard, and noticed, that in a lot of the newer theatres you get really poor reception in the general theatres. It could just be coincidence from them being out of the way and all the steel, but I do appreciate it nonetheless.
I'm a fellow Austinite and will vouch for the Drafthouse as well.
The prices --while still obviously above raw cost-- are fair in comparison to the traditional competition. Four dollars for bottomless coke; six dollars for popcorn. They have a gigantic selection of brews and wines. There are various entrees available at the same price of a typical restaurant.
The pre-show entertainment isn't just a thinly veiled sequence of advertising. It can be hit or miss --apparently they're _all_ edited by two fellas in an office somewhere-- but it's nothing like the "LOOK AT THIS AWESOME PRODUCT!" strategy. Regal FirstLook, I'm looking at you and don't particularly care if the tablet survived a thousand foot drop from the sky or not.
Finally, they are able to cater to various crowds and match the atmosphere and the expected behaviour. Traditional movie-going? STFU and watch. "Quote-alongs" for the hits of the recent past? Feel free to revel in your shared heritage of Big Lebowski references, (polite and relevant) chatter welcome. Movie Marathons? Be prepared for Harry Potter supersaturation for the next 24 hours as you go from Sorcerer's Stone to Deathly Hallows. Don't have cable television but still want to enjoy The Walking Dead? There's a screening for that.
Oh, and regarding their no talking and texting rules. Think they don't take it seriously? Think again :)
Every time I sit down to see a Drafthouse movie, and I see the montage of that month's events, I inevitably find myself saying, "I want to come for that!" at least a few times.
If I just want to watch movies, I can sit at home and Netflix my brains out. The Drafthouse makes movies events again, and that's what gets me excited and wanting to come to the theater.
I'm a little fanboyish for the Drafthouse, I must admit. It was one of the things I was most looking forward to coming to regularly when I moved to Texas.
Alamo Drafthouse was great last time I was there (crap...6 years ago?).
For those of you not fortunate enough to get to Austin, the seating was not regular theater seating, you had some space and a table area for your food and/or bucket of beers. They often showed silly movies like Halloween I, where people will yell out things like "Don't open the door!" There is also wait staff, so you placed an order and they brough it to you. And they had a mix of films, from current movies to niche films.
From their website looks like they have expanded and are showing more first-run movies, but maybe it's still similar. When I started going there, there was only 1 theater downtown on 4th street. Ah...the good old days.
So far, Portland has a couple of theaters I've been to that serve beer/pizza, but you buy it at a regular snack counter and take it with you to your seat. Just not the same.
I went to an Alamo in Houston and while I liked the concept, the theater was a bit dank (which I worry is an inevitable result of serving beer and food) and not a place I'd prefer taking my kids --- which is relevant because "family of four" seems to be the core market for blockbuster films.
I like Alamo, don't get me wrong, but there are downsides to the model.
Why is there nothing like like this in the SF Bay Area? It seems to me a theater that served beer and decent pub food would do well in SF and I'd pay a premium both for the movie tix and the food, but at the same time similar quirky places like the Red Vic shutdown.
I'm a big fan of Alamo Drafthouse as well. I think their model really brings back a sort of "event" feeling to going to the movies which helps differentiate away from going to an ordinary theater or watching at home.
The Prince Charles Cinema in London, UK [1] is also doing this kind of thing and is about the only place I can be bothered to go see a film these days.
Might as well give a shoutout here to the Cleveland Cinematheque. It's a humble operation in some ways, but run by folks with an incredible amount of passion and devotion to film (film on film to be precise; none of this digital nonsense) and to the craft of showing and curating the art. I could probably go on and on about what they do, and how special it is, and how it changed my life. Cleveland is really one of the best cities to live in if you're a film buff.
For the NYC crowd, there's a spot very much like this in Williamsburg: www.nitehawkcinema.com
Food is quite good, service is impeccable. It's a more intimate affair, only two people per booth - and there's only 30 or so seats per house. They do drink & entree specials themed with the films, which is pretty cool I guess. They helped get state law changed in order to serve cocktails and beer in the actual house.
In-between the featured presentations is curated from local (often quite good) film artists.
Exactly, a good night like that is awesome. We recently had a Horror Night in the back room of a pub, so we had pies and ale delivered to us (I literally ate two pies as they were fairly priced and goddamn awesome), and it was a lovely atmosphere, everyone sitting around on chairs, the odd technical hitch providing a smoking break. Absolutely awesome.
Never been to the Alamo, but I imagine the process of kicking someone out who is using his/her cell phone during a movie must be quite distracting to everyone else, no?
2. Ticket prices are too high. People have always made that complaint, but historically the movies have been cheap compared to concerts, major league sports and restaurants.
I had to check this claim, because inflation and purchasing power can fog people's memories. Using average U.S. ticket prices[1] adjusted to 2010 dollars[2], I get the following:
Year | Price | 2010 price adj. w/CPI
---------------------------------
2010 | 7.89 | 7.89
2005 | 6.41 | 7.15
2000 | 5.39 | 6.83
1995 | 4.35 | 6.22
1990 | 4.22 | 7.04
1985 | 3.55 | 7.19
1980 | 2.69 | 7.12
1975 | 2.03 | 8.23
1971 | 1.65 | 8.88
1967 | 1.22 | 7.96
1963 | 0.86 | 6.13
1958 | 0.68 | 5.13
1954 | 0.49 | 3.97
1948 | 0.36 | 3.26
Assuming my calculations are fair and correct, it appears that movie ticket prices quickly outpaced inflation until the late 60s, saw a peak in the 70s and then began a steady decline until the mid 90s. Since then they've been on a march upwards again.
So prices aren't historically high - that honor goes to the 1970s. And compared to sports events and concerts...?! I don't have the data, but I'd bet tickets for those have risen even faster, both of which, incidentally, suffer from the same competition movies do: high quality home theater setups and internet streaming. Which of course is the real problem - ticket prices need to drop against inflation, because entertain distribution options are not the same in 2011 as they were in 1971. The movie theater or concert venue does not have a monopoly on high definition entertainment any more.
7.89 for movies? What? Where? I'm guessing this data is skewed by the low prices of rural and suburban centers that are underpopulated. Here in the urban world where most of the population lives, movies start at 11 or 12 dollars and then there's a 3D surcharge of a couple bucks. When my gf and go to the movies here in Chicago its about 30 dollars before any snacks. Toss in a few bucks parking too. Oh, want to order online? That's another two dollars per ticket.
At the end of the day, Hollywood is asking us to drop 30-40 bucks to see yet another disposable experience. On the value vs cost curve, Hollywood is losing.
Meanwhile, Netflix streams to all my computers and my Boxee. Vudu too. I think I can wait a few months until its on Vudu or On-Demand for a fraction of that price. Even then its still not a compelling experience. I'm in my 30s. Where are the Scorsece's, Allen's, Spielberg's, and Coppola's of my generation? I'm not sure, but they aren't getting work in mainstream Hollywood.
Taking your "average ticket prices" data from the National Association of Theatre Owners is a bit disingenuous. I imagine they're averaging over time (rather than per-theatre-attendee or something), which would tend to favor the cheaper, daytime prices. When people go to the movies it's usually after work and on the weekends when ticket prices are $10+. I've seen prices well above $10 everywhere from small town Iowa to downtown Chicago and Minneapolis and they've definitely been higher in the last 5 years.
Add to that the cost of "renting" 3D glasses (a new phenomenon) and the higher ticket price for the "IMAX Experience" (not necessarily new, but much more widespread lately) and your average ticket price is definitely higher than it was historically.
"both of which, incidentally, suffer from the same competition movies do: high quality home theater setups and internet streaming."
Live events shouldn't be so easily compared to movies and home entertainment. While you can wait for a movie to come to DVD for a similar experience, it's not the same for a live event. Watching a concert on YouTube isn't nearly as much fun as going to watch it live. Going to a live event is an experience.
Media entertainment is one of those areas where inflation is hard to calculate, the price of watching a movie at home has been deflating from impossible, to $1000 VCRs, to $8 Netflix on a machine you have anyway.
When I want to go to the theater near me (Metreon in SF, local mall's theater in NY), the price you cite is a little over half of what I would have to pay for a single ticket. Its usually closer to $11-$12. And thats without imax or 3d.
I like that some independent films are beginning to branch out in their strategy. For example, one of the best films of the year -- Margin Call -- was released on a variety of streaming services the same day it was available in theaters.
Sometimes I like watching a movie at home, other times I'm looking for a chance to go out. Dates will probably always involve movie theaters for my girlfriend and myself -- even if I have a very nice home setup.
That being said, I think the film industry is in for secular decline due to the compound effects of high quality home theaters with streaming content, some piracy, unrealistically high ticket prices ($32 for two tickets?!) and high quality television production.
I do think the most significant threat is high quality television productions though. Downton Abbey, Mad Men, and many other cable dramas are produced with extremely high artistry both in production and story values. Several times I have found that rewatching these TV series on Netflix has been far more rewarding than the latest 90 minute theater affair.
One thing that's become an issue for me, at least at my local theater (and I admit I may be in the minority here), is volume.
Now, before you pull out "too old" or "don't be a wuss", I'll say that I'm only 29, and I play in a _loud_ rock band, and go to many loud concerts. I am no stranger to loud things, and have permanent tinnitus to prove it. I still enjoy concerts as much as I ever did, but I've found myself bringing earplugs to movies. They can be downright painful at times.
I guess... and of course I defer to Ebert on all things cinematic... but these are all critiques you could have leveled with equal force in 2002. There've been good years in the preceding decade.
Except for 3D. But how much of an effect is 3D having? Most movies aren't 3D.
I'll say this: I went to see Super 8 at an old 60's-70's style theater in the far-out suburbs, one almost identical to the ones I saw movies in when I was a kid. No stadium seating. Simple seats. No cupholders. Massive screen. Minimal concessions. Maybe it was just the movie I was seeing --- like how watching South Park on your computer enhances the experience --- but it was awesome.
Ultimately, my bet is that the problem with theaters is simple: for the core market (the family of four that wants blockbuster mainstream product), the substitutes are just too good now. Mainstream consumers have, relative to 1995, spectacular home theater setups, and diverse options for feeding content to them. Is it any wonder theaters suffer?
It seems that at any given time about 1/3 of my local theater's screens are 3D. Also non-3D movies have broken the $10 mark, which I think is a fairly important psychological barrier.
Yeah, I generally enjoy going to the movies, but in the past couple of years, a setup that puts most theater experiences to shame has become pretty affordable. A fairly good high def DLP projector is in the ballpark of $1k. Add a $100 Roku or Apple TV and a $300 set of 550W Logitech speakers (including amp), and you've got a great general purpose theater for less than $2k, and without the hassles.
(If you don't have a good wall to project on, you can make a screen out of two metal poles, blackout cloth, and staples, or spend a wildly variable amount on a manufactured screen - from 100 to 1000 and up)
In addition to ridiculous ticket prices, the actual movie doesn't start until 15 minutes after the scheduled showtime. While you're waiting, you're expected to watch advertisements. I don't have any concrete data to back this up, but I feel it wasn't always this bad.
1. Kids get bored quicker, This year, I've left the cinema four times before the movie finished because the kids were bored. This makes me less likely to go back, they prefer to stay home on the xbox/lappy or go out for pizza/bowling instead.
2. Mass appeal movies are shit. There's just no quality or focus anymore, every movie is trying to be everything to everyone and ends up crap.
Don't get me started on the overuse of CG.
Instead of learning from filmmakers, the CG guys picked up tips from animators, that's why every CG creature walks and talks the same, with over emphasised, unrealistic, and ridiculous movement patterns that don't fool anyone and ruin the moment. You know why Jurassic Park is still awesome? and ghostbusters, and all those other heavy animation movies? Because they don't look obviously fake.
I still go to the movies. It's still a great excuse to turn your phone off for an hour or two, tell your friends to shut up and sit still for an hour or two, crank the volume all the way up for an hour or two, and have animated discussions about the thing you just watched with people who also just watched it and paid attention to the whole damn thing.
Hard to argue with anything Ebert says in that article. As a kid I loved going to the theater. I tried to see a movie every time I had a free weekend.
However, these days going to the movie theater gives me an immense amount of anxiety. Despite the cost going up, my moviegoing peers seem to care less and less about actually watching the movie they paid to see. If it's not blinding cell phone screens, it's people talking way too loud and way too often.
As a result there are very few movies I'm not willing to wait for watching it in my own home.
Plus, most of the movies I hear about are ridiculous sequels or odd sounding takes on old properties. A Battleship movie? Really?
Agreed, I find that the independent movie theaters cater to a crowd that actually cares about film. They also show a mix of old and new films so you can catch the classics on the big screen. The Harvard Film Archive just had a great retrospective on Clouzot and the experience of the theater is really impressive.
The problem is movies have become too expensive to make. When a movie cost 100-200 million dollars to make, studios believe that to be successful they must make, or more typical take, a brand and develop a movie around that brand. Studios need a brand that ideally people already know that they can franchise into a cartoon, plush dolls, a theme park ride, and 3 sequels in hopes to try and get the 150 million back. This why we end up with Land with the Lost and a baker's dozen of Charlie's Angels movies.
I wish I could say the studios were wrong and that people vastly prefer a movie with just a great story rather that 3D explosions, but sadly I'm not sure that is the case for most movie-goers in America.
edit: Down voted already, eh? Do you disagree or am I way off base here?
Yes. When movie prices were at around $6/ticket when I was younger, I went to watch a movie about once a week or two. Now, at $14.67 per general admission ticket (after tax, at Scotiabank Theater in Toronto) and $21.46 per IMAX 3D, it's almost impossible to justify going to a theater, rather than downloading a movie.
I don't know any other industry that raises prices in a seemingly elastic market, while competition increases and gets cheaper.
Some good reasons, especially regarding competition with other forms of entertainment, which is one of the bigger factors IMO. But I can't believe he didn't say anything about sequels. The top 7 grossing movies of this year were all sequels (http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2011&p=.htm)
On the one hand, this suggests that sequels are successful. On the other hand, the total revenue of those sequels was much lower than other top films of comparable prior years (just change the year in the URL and do some custom math), and if you account for ticket price inflation it's even worse. I think this points to studios not wanting to take on as much risk; sequels (and the proliferation of remakes... another Superman series already? really?) are low-risk because there's already some sort of existing awareness/fanbase to tap into... but I think they are also proving to be lower reward as people get burned out and don't care about going to see these sequels/remakes because the other reasons (prices, experience, etc) outweigh existing possible interest.
This is all anecdotal evidence of course, but last night I went to see Hugo at a new megaplex that just opened by my house. Not only was the movie incredibly heartwarming and reminded me of why I love the movies, the experience was great.
There were no commercials or PSAs, and only 4 trailers before the feature started. A nice woman politely told us to turn off our cell phones, as opposed to an annoying loud surround sound gimmick. The tickets were only $11 for a 3D film. Parking was free. And the film was absolutely perfect.
There was a time that the movie experience was bad. Theaters built during that time are still bad. But the new ones are fantastic.
I don't know how many others get this benefit, but I live across the street from a library. It's awesome. Dvds are free for a week, they have tons of old and artsy stuff, they have a great collection of educational stuff (especially the Great Courses -- http://www.thegreatcourses.com), and things you put on hold they deliver to the library of your choice.
On top of that, I most of the time I get out a book or dvd at the same time, also free. Right now I'm borrowing a Richard Feynman book and 4-Hour Body, just because I saw them lying there at the library ... and they're free. If I don't get around to reading them, no big deal.
I have to wait for movies to arrive at the library, but that turns out to help me. Without the opening hype, you choose more based on quality and other people's reviews.
I should be careful talking this way, though. The movie and book people might shut the libraries down.
Anyway, there are reasons the cost of living in Manhattan is worth it. Culture is more convenient than cars here.
I never go the theater anymore. The largest factors for me are the cost and comfort.
The cost is almost as much as buying the Blu-ray on launch week from Amazon or Best Buy, I'm not including the beverages or popcorn and candy (I don't ever buy those anyway). I can own it or I can watch it once in an uncomfortable, cold, dirty cineplex. Hmm, I've waited this long, what's a couple months more.
The comfort level at all the theaters around me make this an unpleasant experience. Chairs don't recline and are much to upright to sit at for 2+ hours, it's sticky and dirty all around. I get dried out soda and candy on the bottom of my shoes. Usually the air conditioning is set so cold you need a winter coat.
It's just not worth the cost to not have an enjoyable fun experience. I just wait for the Blu-ray.
Now with HD and home digital projectors, I've lost all interest in going to the theater.
Watching a 2 hour movie at home takes, 2 hours. Watching one in a theater is 4 hours (getting ready to go, going there, waiting in line, waiting for it to start, sitting through the ads, going home), and going there with a group cost $$$$.
Besides, having "movie night" with friends at home is so much more fun. You can drink beer and make loud, snarky remarks about the movie, pause if someone needs a potty break, replay the naughty bits, fast forward to see if the piece of crap movie gets any better, adjust the volume so if you aren't already deaf the movie won't make you deaf, etc.
The movie theater is going the way of the drive-in.
I haven't seen a movie in months and don't plan to for the foreseeable future and the movie going experience is a major reason why. I will pay the ticket price without too much trouble, I don't mind kids(going to midnight showings during the week helps with that) and I never eat concessions so I don't care how expensive they are. My problem is once I get into the theater. Most movies today aren't shown correctly(I have no idea why they expect some kid making minimum wage to run 20 screens at once to know what he / she is doing), the watermarks every 20 minutes, and the poor sound quality. But the worst part by far is the commercials. I find it incredibily insulting that I pay $12 for the privilage of watching ads for 15 minutes straight. No one likes a double dipper.
The problem is simple. Hollywood is conservative and hates taking chances. Every movie that's come out the last couple of years has been a sequel, another comic book franchise, or a remake of an already epic (unneeded remake) movie.
I see a deeper issue though, most of the directors/script writers who Hollywood desperately needs to inject life into its lifeline are off creating movies with all the cheap/newly accessible tools outside the system. Think iOS/Android app developers who left Apple/Google
Plus HBO/Showtime/FX who need a reason for people to subscribe now that movies are accessible elsewhere, so are enabling these independent teams by funding them. I haven't seen more creative TV or stories than I have the last few years on premium cable. The budgets are minuscule, but the teams are well adept at running slim already.
The creativity is there, it's just untamed and Hollywood is scared of it. Ebert blames the theaters themselves, but if there are great movies, people will go see them.
Movies now days are like commercials designed to last an hour long. I especially love when they blatantly promote products in the movie. Did I really have to know that the main character uses iTunes and drinks Pepsi? Fuck you Hollywood.
[+] [-] msluyter|14 years ago|reply
1. Food & beer/wine served with movie -- convenient and much preferable to overpriced popcorn.
2. Cellphones must be turned off.
3. They take talking seriously, and preface each film with a strongly (and amusingly) worded statement to that effect.
4. No babies allowed except on specified baby nights.
5. Creative and fun special events, such as quote-alongs, sing-alongs, live comedy (Master Pancake, which is sort of like live MST3K), movie/food pairings, etc...
I pretty much refuse to go to any other theater, and judging by their crowds, they seem to be doing quite well with this formula.
[+] [-] electromagnetic|14 years ago|reply
In their main theatres they now have stroller screenings where the volume is reduced and the lights stay on low. They've done the sing-alongs. They also let you rent out the theatre to have xbox gaming with Halo or whatever you want to play.
Sadly the general theatres aren't great at policing the cellphones or no talking. Although I've heard several times that they're interested in the cellphone jamming, but it's illegal to jam 911. I have heard, and noticed, that in a lot of the newer theatres you get really poor reception in the general theatres. It could just be coincidence from them being out of the way and all the steel, but I do appreciate it nonetheless.
[+] [-] aspensmonster|14 years ago|reply
The prices --while still obviously above raw cost-- are fair in comparison to the traditional competition. Four dollars for bottomless coke; six dollars for popcorn. They have a gigantic selection of brews and wines. There are various entrees available at the same price of a typical restaurant.
The pre-show entertainment isn't just a thinly veiled sequence of advertising. It can be hit or miss --apparently they're _all_ edited by two fellas in an office somewhere-- but it's nothing like the "LOOK AT THIS AWESOME PRODUCT!" strategy. Regal FirstLook, I'm looking at you and don't particularly care if the tablet survived a thousand foot drop from the sky or not.
Finally, they are able to cater to various crowds and match the atmosphere and the expected behaviour. Traditional movie-going? STFU and watch. "Quote-alongs" for the hits of the recent past? Feel free to revel in your shared heritage of Big Lebowski references, (polite and relevant) chatter welcome. Movie Marathons? Be prepared for Harry Potter supersaturation for the next 24 hours as you go from Sorcerer's Stone to Deathly Hallows. Don't have cable television but still want to enjoy The Walking Dead? There's a screening for that.
Oh, and regarding their no talking and texting rules. Think they don't take it seriously? Think again :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L3eeC2lJZs
[+] [-] Legion|14 years ago|reply
Every time I sit down to see a Drafthouse movie, and I see the montage of that month's events, I inevitably find myself saying, "I want to come for that!" at least a few times.
This month's for the Austin area Drafthouses: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBQNmmoEirc
If I just want to watch movies, I can sit at home and Netflix my brains out. The Drafthouse makes movies events again, and that's what gets me excited and wanting to come to the theater.
I'm a little fanboyish for the Drafthouse, I must admit. It was one of the things I was most looking forward to coming to regularly when I moved to Texas.
[+] [-] qdog|14 years ago|reply
For those of you not fortunate enough to get to Austin, the seating was not regular theater seating, you had some space and a table area for your food and/or bucket of beers. They often showed silly movies like Halloween I, where people will yell out things like "Don't open the door!" There is also wait staff, so you placed an order and they brough it to you. And they had a mix of films, from current movies to niche films.
From their website looks like they have expanded and are showing more first-run movies, but maybe it's still similar. When I started going there, there was only 1 theater downtown on 4th street. Ah...the good old days.
So far, Portland has a couple of theaters I've been to that serve beer/pizza, but you buy it at a regular snack counter and take it with you to your seat. Just not the same.
[+] [-] tptacek|14 years ago|reply
I like Alamo, don't get me wrong, but there are downsides to the model.
[+] [-] willwagner|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] callmeed|14 years ago|reply
McMenamins in Oregon does similar things:
- Couches in some theaters
- Order food and beer from their restaurant
- special events (like Monday night football)
[+] [-] jakarta|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tseabrooks|14 years ago|reply
1) Always been more upclass than competing theaters (and more expensive).
2) Far less seating.
3) Beer, Food, salads, wraps, and traditional snacks.
4)Located in the "Brewery District" or "Arena District" This means there were never any children there because the area doesn't lend itself to it.
They always stayed busy.
[+] [-] deathwarmedover|14 years ago|reply
[1] http://www.princecharlescinema.com/
[+] [-] jberryman|14 years ago|reply
Here's what's showing right now http://www.cia.edu/extended_film_schedule/
[+] [-] jonprins|14 years ago|reply
Food is quite good, service is impeccable. It's a more intimate affair, only two people per booth - and there's only 30 or so seats per house. They do drink & entree specials themed with the films, which is pretty cool I guess. They helped get state law changed in order to serve cocktails and beer in the actual house.
In-between the featured presentations is curated from local (often quite good) film artists.
[+] [-] antihero|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seats|14 years ago|reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo9v_GIuDBk
Definitely a good place to watch a movie, and I think Ebert is spot on.
[+] [-] rjj|14 years ago|reply
Reserving a seat (just like on airplanes, for those who haven't seen it) is so awesome.
[+] [-] hansy|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sigzero|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dons|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wwkeyboard|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rhplus|14 years ago|reply
I had to check this claim, because inflation and purchasing power can fog people's memories. Using average U.S. ticket prices[1] adjusted to 2010 dollars[2], I get the following:
Year | Price | 2010 price adj. w/CPI
---------------------------------
2010 | 7.89 | 7.89
2005 | 6.41 | 7.15
2000 | 5.39 | 6.83
1995 | 4.35 | 6.22
1990 | 4.22 | 7.04
1985 | 3.55 | 7.19
1980 | 2.69 | 7.12
1975 | 2.03 | 8.23
1971 | 1.65 | 8.88
1967 | 1.22 | 7.96
1963 | 0.86 | 6.13
1958 | 0.68 | 5.13
1954 | 0.49 | 3.97
1948 | 0.36 | 3.26
Assuming my calculations are fair and correct, it appears that movie ticket prices quickly outpaced inflation until the late 60s, saw a peak in the 70s and then began a steady decline until the mid 90s. Since then they've been on a march upwards again.
So prices aren't historically high - that honor goes to the 1970s. And compared to sports events and concerts...?! I don't have the data, but I'd bet tickets for those have risen even faster, both of which, incidentally, suffer from the same competition movies do: high quality home theater setups and internet streaming. Which of course is the real problem - ticket prices need to drop against inflation, because entertain distribution options are not the same in 2011 as they were in 1971. The movie theater or concert venue does not have a monopoly on high definition entertainment any more.
Sources:
[1] http://www.natoonline.org/statisticstickets.htm
[2] http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl
[+] [-] drzaiusapelord|14 years ago|reply
At the end of the day, Hollywood is asking us to drop 30-40 bucks to see yet another disposable experience. On the value vs cost curve, Hollywood is losing.
Meanwhile, Netflix streams to all my computers and my Boxee. Vudu too. I think I can wait a few months until its on Vudu or On-Demand for a fraction of that price. Even then its still not a compelling experience. I'm in my 30s. Where are the Scorsece's, Allen's, Spielberg's, and Coppola's of my generation? I'm not sure, but they aren't getting work in mainstream Hollywood.
[+] [-] yellowbkpk|14 years ago|reply
Add to that the cost of "renting" 3D glasses (a new phenomenon) and the higher ticket price for the "IMAX Experience" (not necessarily new, but much more widespread lately) and your average ticket price is definitely higher than it was historically.
[+] [-] MichaelApproved|14 years ago|reply
Live events shouldn't be so easily compared to movies and home entertainment. While you can wait for a movie to come to DVD for a similar experience, it's not the same for a live event. Watching a concert on YouTube isn't nearly as much fun as going to watch it live. Going to a live event is an experience.
[+] [-] ultrasaurus|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zev|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rojaro|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tsunamifury|14 years ago|reply
Sometimes I like watching a movie at home, other times I'm looking for a chance to go out. Dates will probably always involve movie theaters for my girlfriend and myself -- even if I have a very nice home setup.
That being said, I think the film industry is in for secular decline due to the compound effects of high quality home theaters with streaming content, some piracy, unrealistically high ticket prices ($32 for two tickets?!) and high quality television production.
I do think the most significant threat is high quality television productions though. Downton Abbey, Mad Men, and many other cable dramas are produced with extremely high artistry both in production and story values. Several times I have found that rewatching these TV series on Netflix has been far more rewarding than the latest 90 minute theater affair.
[+] [-] ubercore|14 years ago|reply
Now, before you pull out "too old" or "don't be a wuss", I'll say that I'm only 29, and I play in a _loud_ rock band, and go to many loud concerts. I am no stranger to loud things, and have permanent tinnitus to prove it. I still enjoy concerts as much as I ever did, but I've found myself bringing earplugs to movies. They can be downright painful at times.
[+] [-] tptacek|14 years ago|reply
Except for 3D. But how much of an effect is 3D having? Most movies aren't 3D.
I'll say this: I went to see Super 8 at an old 60's-70's style theater in the far-out suburbs, one almost identical to the ones I saw movies in when I was a kid. No stadium seating. Simple seats. No cupholders. Massive screen. Minimal concessions. Maybe it was just the movie I was seeing --- like how watching South Park on your computer enhances the experience --- but it was awesome.
Ultimately, my bet is that the problem with theaters is simple: for the core market (the family of four that wants blockbuster mainstream product), the substitutes are just too good now. Mainstream consumers have, relative to 1995, spectacular home theater setups, and diverse options for feeding content to them. Is it any wonder theaters suffer?
[+] [-] jwallaceparker|14 years ago|reply
Netflix streaming wasn't around in 2002. This (and similar services) is the biggest factor in theaters losing market share.
[+] [-] learc83|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChrisLTD|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ericd|14 years ago|reply
(If you don't have a good wall to project on, you can make a screen out of two metal poles, blackout cloth, and staples, or spend a wildly variable amount on a manufactured screen - from 100 to 1000 and up)
[+] [-] jsaxton86|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brador|14 years ago|reply
1. Kids get bored quicker, This year, I've left the cinema four times before the movie finished because the kids were bored. This makes me less likely to go back, they prefer to stay home on the xbox/lappy or go out for pizza/bowling instead.
2. Mass appeal movies are shit. There's just no quality or focus anymore, every movie is trying to be everything to everyone and ends up crap.
Don't get me started on the overuse of CG.
Instead of learning from filmmakers, the CG guys picked up tips from animators, that's why every CG creature walks and talks the same, with over emphasised, unrealistic, and ridiculous movement patterns that don't fool anyone and ruin the moment. You know why Jurassic Park is still awesome? and ghostbusters, and all those other heavy animation movies? Because they don't look obviously fake.
[+] [-] neutronicus|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChrisLTD|14 years ago|reply
However, these days going to the movie theater gives me an immense amount of anxiety. Despite the cost going up, my moviegoing peers seem to care less and less about actually watching the movie they paid to see. If it's not blinding cell phone screens, it's people talking way too loud and way too often.
As a result there are very few movies I'm not willing to wait for watching it in my own home.
Plus, most of the movies I hear about are ridiculous sequels or odd sounding takes on old properties. A Battleship movie? Really?
[+] [-] dantheman|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bradly|14 years ago|reply
I wish I could say the studios were wrong and that people vastly prefer a movie with just a great story rather that 3D explosions, but sadly I'm not sure that is the case for most movie-goers in America.
edit: Down voted already, eh? Do you disagree or am I way off base here?
[+] [-] Shenglong|14 years ago|reply
Yes. When movie prices were at around $6/ticket when I was younger, I went to watch a movie about once a week or two. Now, at $14.67 per general admission ticket (after tax, at Scotiabank Theater in Toronto) and $21.46 per IMAX 3D, it's almost impossible to justify going to a theater, rather than downloading a movie.
I don't know any other industry that raises prices in a seemingly elastic market, while competition increases and gets cheaper.
[+] [-] joshuahedlund|14 years ago|reply
On the one hand, this suggests that sequels are successful. On the other hand, the total revenue of those sequels was much lower than other top films of comparable prior years (just change the year in the URL and do some custom math), and if you account for ticket price inflation it's even worse. I think this points to studios not wanting to take on as much risk; sequels (and the proliferation of remakes... another Superman series already? really?) are low-risk because there's already some sort of existing awareness/fanbase to tap into... but I think they are also proving to be lower reward as people get burned out and don't care about going to see these sequels/remakes because the other reasons (prices, experience, etc) outweigh existing possible interest.
[+] [-] cdcarter|14 years ago|reply
There were no commercials or PSAs, and only 4 trailers before the feature started. A nice woman politely told us to turn off our cell phones, as opposed to an annoying loud surround sound gimmick. The tickets were only $11 for a 3D film. Parking was free. And the film was absolutely perfect.
There was a time that the movie experience was bad. Theaters built during that time are still bad. But the new ones are fantastic.
[+] [-] spodek|14 years ago|reply
On top of that, I most of the time I get out a book or dvd at the same time, also free. Right now I'm borrowing a Richard Feynman book and 4-Hour Body, just because I saw them lying there at the library ... and they're free. If I don't get around to reading them, no big deal.
I have to wait for movies to arrive at the library, but that turns out to help me. Without the opening hype, you choose more based on quality and other people's reviews.
I should be careful talking this way, though. The movie and book people might shut the libraries down.
Anyway, there are reasons the cost of living in Manhattan is worth it. Culture is more convenient than cars here.
[+] [-] b3b0p|14 years ago|reply
The cost is almost as much as buying the Blu-ray on launch week from Amazon or Best Buy, I'm not including the beverages or popcorn and candy (I don't ever buy those anyway). I can own it or I can watch it once in an uncomfortable, cold, dirty cineplex. Hmm, I've waited this long, what's a couple months more.
The comfort level at all the theaters around me make this an unpleasant experience. Chairs don't recline and are much to upright to sit at for 2+ hours, it's sticky and dirty all around. I get dried out soda and candy on the bottom of my shoes. Usually the air conditioning is set so cold you need a winter coat.
It's just not worth the cost to not have an enjoyable fun experience. I just wait for the Blu-ray.
[+] [-] WalterBright|14 years ago|reply
Watching a 2 hour movie at home takes, 2 hours. Watching one in a theater is 4 hours (getting ready to go, going there, waiting in line, waiting for it to start, sitting through the ads, going home), and going there with a group cost $$$$.
Besides, having "movie night" with friends at home is so much more fun. You can drink beer and make loud, snarky remarks about the movie, pause if someone needs a potty break, replay the naughty bits, fast forward to see if the piece of crap movie gets any better, adjust the volume so if you aren't already deaf the movie won't make you deaf, etc.
The movie theater is going the way of the drive-in.
[+] [-] daimyoyo|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jarjoura|14 years ago|reply
I see a deeper issue though, most of the directors/script writers who Hollywood desperately needs to inject life into its lifeline are off creating movies with all the cheap/newly accessible tools outside the system. Think iOS/Android app developers who left Apple/Google
Plus HBO/Showtime/FX who need a reason for people to subscribe now that movies are accessible elsewhere, so are enabling these independent teams by funding them. I haven't seen more creative TV or stories than I have the last few years on premium cable. The budgets are minuscule, but the teams are well adept at running slim already.
The creativity is there, it's just untamed and Hollywood is scared of it. Ebert blames the theaters themselves, but if there are great movies, people will go see them.
[+] [-] smokeyj|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CrLf|14 years ago|reply
No need to go any further.