What's new

Roger Ebert lays out why Movie (theaters) suck (1 Viewer)

NY2LA

Screenwriter
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
1,337
Real Name
.
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.
 

Tony J Case

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2002
Messages
2,736
Yeah, it's very Drafthouse-y (drafty-house?), if the Drafthouse only ran first run movies. I would love if Cinnabar started doing Friday night midnight movies of old flicks, spaghetti westerns, monster movies, old comedy and drive-in movie fare. That would be truly awesome!
 

NY2LA

Screenwriter
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
1,337
Real Name
.
I should say I meant the place that said "We will throw you out" sounded like Alamo. The place with the lounge chairs sounds more like Gold Class, which is reportedly too pricey and snooty to have any wide appeal.
 

Joe_Pinney

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Nov 28, 2002
Messages
186
Location
Jamaica, Queens, NY
Real Name
Joe Pinney
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.
 

Todd Erwin

Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
10,381
Location
Hawthorne, NV
Real Name
Todd Erwin
I remember sometime last year, I went to the theater and the couple sitting next to me were using their cell phone as a baby monitor. I guess they lived in the apartments across the street, but still....
 

NY2LA

Screenwriter
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
1,337
Real Name
.
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 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.
 

Richard Kaufman

Supporting Actor
Joined
Nov 5, 2011
Messages
508
Location
Washington DC
Real Name
Richard Kaufman
Just as it seemed unimaginable 20 years ago that there would be viritually no book stores or music stores in many cities in the US, I think that in 20 years there will be no movie theaters. Once VOD is perfected in a way that delivers a reliable product with better quality (I gave up after having buffering issues and another two movies just quit in the middle), and TV screens get larger and larger and cost less and less, and the price of going to the movies continues to escalate--well, the whole thing is just going to shift. And as movie theaters make less money, the quality of the presentation will deteriorate even further because they'll spend less money on projectors, upkeep, cleanliness, etc., causing a downward spiral. The generation growing up now has stopped thinking about going to the movies as a necessity, and has stopped thinking about buying a physical product (DVD) as a necessity--they just watch stuff on small delivery devices like smart phones or the iPod touch. The screen is tiny but they don't have to spend any money or get out of the seat in order to watch a movie. Just as many people have moved away from holding a physical book and turning the pages and eased seamlessly into using e-readers or tablets for this purpose, generations of kids in the NEAR future will grow up seeing a physical book as an inconvenience. Tablets will take the place of textbooks (this is already happening). You may not like it, but that's where we're heading. 20 years may even be an overestimate. It's taken about that long for internet sales to decimate the brick and mortar store. There are exactly two places to buy DVDs, CDs, and blu-rays in Washington DC and the surrounding area: Best Buy and Barnes & Noble. While B&N has kept their in-store stock at a decent level, Best Buy has drastically decreased the amount of floor space they devote to physical media. The selection of DVDs and blu-rays they carry consists of a few short aisles. It's as if they consider it an inconvenience to carry these products in their stores and are psychologically pushing the customer to buy online. And when Best Buy and Barnes & Noble go belly up--and eventually they will, probably opting for an online only presence, there will no longer be any physical stores in which to buy books, DVDs, CDs, blu-rays, and so on in the nation's capital. I would advise those of you who enjoy owning what you pay for to stock up on all the DVDs and blu-rays you can now, because in 10 years there will be no sales of physical media at all. And in case you haven't noticed, with VOD you pay to watch, but you don't get to keep.
 

Todd Erwin

Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
10,381
Location
Hawthorne, NV
Real Name
Todd Erwin
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. The major chains (AMC, Regal, Cinemark, etc) obviously have higher overhead, and thus find it necessary to charge more, especially if that location gets a lot of foot traffic. Also, since most movies these days do not have "legs," and usually disappear after 3-4 weeks (and show up on DVD and BD within a few months), that rental fee rarely drops below 75%. Because the theaters need money to stay in business, they have to make that money by charging high prices for concessions (especially popcorn and soda) and sell advertising on both their screens and on popcorn and soda buckets.


I really miss the independent or smaller, regional chains. Because they had lower overhead (and fewer screens per building), they could not only charge less for admission and concessions, they also typically ran their theaters more like a family business. Starlight Cinemas operates a handful of older theaters in Southern California they acquired from the majors that they renovated and refurbished (so much so that you would not recognize them), have very reasonable admission prices (evening shows are $9, all shows on Tuesdays and Thursdays are $4, and 3D is only $2 extra), and have no problem escorting any chatters or texters to the parking garage. My wife and I used to drive by this theater on our way to see a movie when it was owned and operated by Regal, but began frequenting this theater shortly after it changed hands and the renovations were completed. Unfortunately, we moved out of the area, so we no longer visit it, and have to rely on the only game in town, Regal.
 

Adam Lenhardt

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2001
Messages
26,971
Location
Albany, NY
Todd nailed it. That's why I always try to buy at least a candy from the concession stand, overpriced as it is. I'm investing in keeping cinemas open. Going out to the movies is important to me, and provides an experience that home theater simply doesn't.
 

NY2LA

Screenwriter
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
1,337
Real Name
.
Yeah Studios take a lot from earliest ticket sales but percentage goes down over time and the exhibitors shot themselves in the foot by grossly overbuilding in the 90s. After creating too many screens, the window for theatrical got smaller because most of the audience can see a movie in its opening weeks, before the percentage turns to their favor. Neither side is innocent in the degradation of the moviegoing experience. However its the exhibitors who have the most control over it.
 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
42,426
Location
The basement of the FBI building
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.
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?
 

Richard Kaufman

Supporting Actor
Joined
Nov 5, 2011
Messages
508
Location
Washington DC
Real Name
Richard Kaufman
No one wants to spend that much, which is why it's a better idea to buy a DVD or blu-ray: the math is so simple it's stupid. Movie theaters may be overbuilt elsewhere, but not in the Washington DC and nearby suburban Maryland area, They've done nothing but close theaters here for years. I have only two multiplexes as close options, one AMC and the other Regal. They both stink.
 

RobertR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 19, 1998
Messages
10,675
Jason Hughes said:
Ebert needs to go see MI:4 at the Henry Ford IMAX.
You really think seeing ONE movie at ONE location obviates the problems with theaters in general?
 

streeter

Screenwriter
Joined
May 24, 2001
Messages
1,419
Real Name
Michael
I think the movie experience sucks mostly because of the horrible behavior of audiences. Actually, I think most people behave and are quiet and courteous. But too often, an audience will have a few people who can ruin it for others. Cell phones, talking, obnoxious behavior, crying babies, kids kicking seats, etc... Theaters do nothing about it. In Manhattan, where I see most of my movies, it gets pretty bad, especially at the big multiplexes. With revenue down in 2011, Hollywood needs to work on the movies and theater owners need to work on the theatergoing experience. Cuz right now it sucks unless you go to the right theaters. I really wish more theaters took a hint from the Alamo Drafthouse. All that said, I went to see exactly 100 new films in the theater in 2011. I think pricing, especially in NYC, is too high, but I've managed to average about $8.50 per ticket for 2011. And that included plenty of 3D and IMAX shows, visits to Cinema Suites nearby in New Jersey (which I absolutely love, BTW, especially for longer movies, although the wall comment from before is crazy and would have driven me up one) and other dinner theaters, and even some special events with Q&As that were more expensive. But I think the $8.50 average I paid is decent and I wouldn't be going as often if I had to pay $13 each time. $13 is just too much to pay to watch a movie among obnoxious jerks. We have a few tricks to save money: -we buy AMC movie passes in bulk, 50 or 100 at a time, directly from AMC. $7.50 for new movies and $6 for films that have been out for more than two weeks. The only thing that's a drag with these passes is that you have to stand in line and you can't use them to order advance tickets online. -we also like seeing movies in the morning. AMC tickets are $6 before noon. It's also a bit quieter then. We basically avoid the theater on Friday and Saturday nights because we hate dealing with the crowds. Plus, I love going to the very first showing on a Saturday or Sunday - some start as early as 9:30 - and getting out of the theater and still having the entire day open to do other stuff. -in fact, we mostly go to AMC theaters and independent theaters (where we do pay the full $13) where they play stuff that isn't playing at an AMC theater. Regal rarely gets our business. Regal has no matinee pricing in Manhattan, and very limited in Brooklyn where we live. There is a Regal/UA 12-screen theater a few blocks away from our apartment in Brooklyn, but we never go there because it's full price and it's a zoo. They have bulk tickets just like AMC but the theater is always filled with loud and obnoxious people and it's not the safest place to be (there's usually a police car right outside and cops patrol the building). People seem to go there to hang out rather than actually watch a movie. There is an independent theater (showing mostly regular Hollywood movies) a few more blocks down and it's much more civilized there. -one thing I didn't account in calculating the average ticket price is that we do the AMC Stubs thing. I alone got $50 in gift cards since that started in April. The passes we use count, too. I also get AMC gift cards at 20% discount with credit card points, which I use for the $6 matinee shows. So going to the movies doesn't have to be too espensive, even in NYC.
 

Joe_Pinney

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Nov 28, 2002
Messages
186
Location
Jamaica, Queens, NY
Real Name
Joe Pinney
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.
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)
 

JonZ

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 28, 1998
Messages
7,799
I go to the theaters so rarely, that I dont really complain about the prices.


Its people talking so loudly theyre distracting, and cell phones that annoy me.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,813
Messages
5,123,609
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
1
Top