sounds like Alamo Drafthouse who even turned an angry voicemail from an ejected idiot into another policy trailer. I believe they are expanding into other markets. The upscale version with lounge chairs and gourmet fare seems to be less popular.
I think today's common De-evolved movie plexes DO suck in comparison, but the rest of your statement is right on the nose. Google Cinema Etiquette for some interesting stuff including a Muppets policy trailer.Joe_Pinney said:I would qualify this. Movie theaters don't suck; the modern movie theater experience is what sucks. If movie theaters always sucked, I never would have loved going to the movies as a kid. What sucks is what they've done to the moviegoing experience in the last 20 -30 years - i.e., jack up the ticket prices to an insane degree, jacked up the concession prices to an even more insane degree, stop showing double features, not let you view a movie as many times as you want, overbuild multiplexes, eliminate showmanship in presentation (sorry, IMAX & 3-D just don't make up for it), eliminate theatrical re-releases (thus relegating to TV screens virtually forever all those classic films that deserve to be seen on the big screen), and make a greater effort at catering to teenagers and the 18-24 crowd (this is Hollywood's fault, too), which has resulted in a lowering of the expected maturity level when it comes to individual personal behavior. A side effect of the whole home video/cable way of viewing movies (which didn't really exist until the early 80s) has been the phenomenon of people acting in the theater like they would in their living rooms, to varying degrees. Those of us who approach movie theaters in a manner similar to the way some approach church (i.e., with reverence; speaking in hushed tones, etc.) are no doubt appalled by this, and very understandably so, but at least it's good to know that there are many others like us out there who feel very much the same way, and want that brought back to movie theaters. The real issue is whether or not theater owners (and Hollywood) will listen to us, recognizing that our dollars are just as green as the dollars paid by younger audiences.
I fully understand that the theater only gets a fraction of the cost of the ticket but when your high prices drive away customers, 90% or 10% of zero is still zero. The studios getting so much of the opening weekend ticket has always been the theater chains' excuse for the high prices at concesssion stands. Also the longer the movie stays, the percentage that the theater gets increases (and while almost no movie makes more money as it continues its run, the theaters are still making more money per ticket for movies that keep playing). In the last decade, prices at the theaters around me have basically more than doubled (especially if you factor in 3-D and IMAX) and that's driving down attendance more than anything else. Like I've said, it's not really a big deal for me to spend about $15 on a ticket but if I was taking a wife, 2 kids and buying food, I'd be spending around $75 on one movie and even if someone can afford that price, who wants to spend that much?Toddwrtr said:As for high ticket prices, the studios are mostly to blame. What most people do not realize is that theaters pay a percentage of the box office take as the "rental" fee, which typically begins close to 90% for the first two weeks (even higher for a high-profile release), and slowly drops throughout the film's run. In other words, when you see a movie opening weekend, and your ticket costs $10, the theater gets to keep $1.
You really think seeing ONE movie at ONE location obviates the problems with theaters in general?Jason Hughes said:Ebert needs to go see MI:4 at the Henry Ford IMAX.
How?Jason Hughes said:Yes, I do.
That's actually a bit of an exaggeration (although I do see your point, and it's valid); a quick search of Yelp for the DC area shows that there are not only FYE and Sam Goody stores but also plenty of non-chains involved in the selling of pre-recorded music & movies. http://www.yelp.com/search?find_loc=Washington%2C+DC&cflt=musicvideo And I think that while major American corporations might be inclined to go all-digital and VOD (or majority) when it comes to the delivery of their product (and by the way - plenty of people BUY digital copies of movies, via iTunes and other services), there is still a market for actually owning a physical copy of media, despite the popularity of digital media formats, and so there will always been suppliers to meet that demand (decreased though it may become). Just remember - vinyl almost (but never fully) went away, and in the last few years, it's actually seen an increasing comeback. Check out how many used book stores there are in the DC area: http://www.yelp.com/search?find_loc=Washington%2C+DC&cflt=musicvideo#cflt=&find_desc=used+books In the same vein, I think there will always be a market for the movie theater experience. If all movies are going to be VOD in 10 years, why on earth would the industry be making so much of an investment in digital cinema? Wouldn't they just bypass digital cinema and tell exhibitors to simply make do with 35mm prints until they all go out of business in a decade? Maybe you know people who own homes with walls big enough to house a 90 foot IMAX screen, but the average American does not. I think that as long as exhibitors bring their "A" game and provide a theater experience that simply cannot be matched by what one can get at home, people will want to gather with others in darkened rooms and auditoriums to view moving images projected onto large screens. In many respects, the ball is in the exhibitors' court now. Among other things, what's needed in modern first-run movie theaters are more aggressive on-screen notices to keep it quiet, like these ones from Alamo Drafthouse - (caution: Salty language)Richard Kaufman said:There are exactly two places to buy DVDs, CDs, and blu-rays in Washington DC and the surrounding area: Best Buy and Barnes & Noble.