Spielberg, Lucas Predict $150 Movie Tickets

There are certain stories the movies can't do. Like game of thrones. The story is so big it would have to be cut back a lot for a 2 to 3hour movie once every 2 years. This is where hbo, showtime come in.

I only go to the movies for the big films that have action mostly and a good story. There's no sense in going to a big screen to watch a comedy or something imo. I go to the movies around 3 times a year now. So I agree with some of the article about movies being good for the big budget films.

The cost though 50 bucks maybe if I'm only going 2 or 3 times a year.
 
NoOther said:
I have to guess by the responses that practically no one above who has commented yet actually read the article or watched the interview. They clearly were saying that a shift is coming where more movies and events are going to come to TV or other media. Which will leave the huge mega films for the theaters. But these films will have massive budgets and will be far fewer than what is out there now. There will be less theaters because of the transition to TV and streaming, and the new theaters will have far more options than what you see today. So likely you will have more theaters that have bigger screens, better sound, and better service overall leading to a much higher price.

What they are not saying, which seems to be the assumption above, is that hollywood is going to shell out the same pictures in the same theaters for 5-8x the cost.
Click to expand...

I read the article before I posted. :/ My post still stands.

Doesn't matter how much they spend on the movies and the budget. It's still just a movie in a theater that is expected to keep up with technology. Costs will go up slightly to cover those, but seeing a $250 million budget movie on an IMAX screen with upgraded theater (no sticky floors?!) isn't worth $100-$150. There may be a niche market where these "super elite theaters" can flourish, but I don't see the majority of people actually using them.

Theaters are raking in massive profits, but I can say that I've stopped going weekly and gone to either monthly or quarterly. It's just not worth it for the cost. I'm spending $60+ each time for a family of 4 (tickets, popcorn, gas, etc.). That's probably double what it was a decade ago. If you make the theater better, the movies bigger, the sound louder, it's still not worth the higher ticket. In the past 30 years I've seen bigger and better movies, better sound, better theaters. Just the nature of the business. Things evolve and improve. Costs have gone up, but (for me, at least) attendance has decreased.

With a nice home theater, with nice theater quality video and sound, I can wait for the Blu-ray. Some movies I still HAVE to see in the theater. But, there is a limit to where I say "Fuck it", and it's well before $50-$150 a ticket! I don't care what the movie is - $100 is too much.

Movies are not a sporting event. They are playback of a recorded and edited performance.
 
tuksonrider said:
I have a friend who balks at paying $10 for movie ticket, but when blue man group arrived in town, he was the first to pluck down 2 $150 tickets to get front row seats for him and his wife. Go figure.
Click to expand...

Your friend isn't unreasonable at all. He (like many others) will pay a lot more for live and interactive entertainment, like a concert or ballgame, then for a passive and prerecorded entertainment, like a movie.
 
This kind of talk is a the kind of shit you do when you plan to raise moved 50% or 100% in price.

What they are trying to do.
"OMG, Movies are going up 1,000%"
"Nah, dude, its only 100%"
"oh, ok."

To avoid.
"OMG, Movies are going up 100%"
"Yeah, dude, that fucked up"

Social engineering to change your expectations.
 
Errr or the obvious thing they could do is put them on pay per view at the current rate upon release and people could watch them from home. Crazy idea that.
 
tuksonrider said:
Heh... and 1 person actually read the article. :)

You have more viewers wanting to watch game of thrones every week, or Walking Dead, Breaking Bad, etc than you can get people in theaters every week.
Click to expand...

That's because they have content worth watching that doesn't have any of last century's has been actors, their children acting, and people actually want to watch. They have everything a man (or woman, no sexist puns, except for badgers) would want to watch other than some shitty rehash by a no talent ass clown trying to make a few bucks.

How many shitty spinoffs of america's got talent are there? How about American Pie? Isn't it up to 12 rehashes of the same shit? First one was decent, if you want to see the rest, might as well watch the first and call it a day.

I am not spending another dime in a damn theater if its not gonna be worth a shit. With all this 3D in your face crap, F@@k that, might as well have 3D porn at the theater, and the money shot IN YOUR FACE!!!!
 
The reason sporting event tickets can go so high is they are incredibly limited. There is ONE Super Bowl per year. There are about 70k seats available. With the hundreds of thousands (or millions) that would like to attend prices rise very high. This is supply and demand.

A movie in a theater is much more like a piece of digital software than a discrete event. The movie can be played any number of times on any number of screens. There is no rarity to drive price. Even if the event has a "live" or unique component, it could still be played simultaneously on any number of screens.

The only way to make charging those prices make sense would be to make the movie event entirely unique.
 
Sporting events aren't expensive. Hell, they hand out Mariners tickets for free half the time here.


Oh, they actually charge for them if your team is good? Good to know.
 
My guess is he's getting his prices from an equivalent to Broadway, where $100-150 for decent seats on blockbusters is the norm. That's also with an average audience of 1,000-2,000 people, and profits are anything but thin. The excerpt on [H]'s main page states that he said "as long as a year," also similar to Broadway runs. I have no doubt that when Broadway first competed with movies in the 1920's that people thought it was ridiculous that one day the former would cost 10x the latter for a ticket. Now, it's true that people didn't have plays in their living rooms at that time...oh wait, they did, it's called radio. Not defending any of their statements, just saying that's clearly what they're thinking.
 
Give me a live action Star Wars with REAL light sabers cutting extras in half, a live version of the Titanic where they sink a REAL cruise liner while people are still on it, or a live action Avatar with REAL blue monkeys fucking each other with their pony tails and I will gladly pay $200 for a ticket. Until then Spielberg and Lucas can eat a bag of dicks.
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
Give me a live action Star Wars with REAL light sabers cutting extras in half, a live version of the Titanic where they sink a REAL cruise liner while people are still on it, or a live action Avatar with REAL blue monkeys fucking each other with their pony tails and I will gladly pay $200 for a ticket. Until then Spielberg and Lucas can eat a bag of dicks.
Click to expand...

I approve.
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
Give me a live action Star Wars with REAL light sabers cutting extras in half, a live version of the Titanic where they sink a REAL cruise liner while people are still on it, or a live action Avatar with REAL blue monkeys fucking each other with their pony tails and I will gladly pay $200 for a ticket. Until then Spielberg and Lucas can eat a bag of dicks.
Click to expand...

LOL!
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
Give me a live action Star Wars with REAL light sabers cutting extras in half, a live version of the Titanic where they sink a REAL cruise liner while people are still on it, or a live action Avatar with REAL blue monkeys fucking each other with their pony tails and I will gladly pay $200 for a ticket. Until then Spielberg and Lucas can eat a bag of dicks.
Click to expand...
Well played sir!
 
No. Between the 20 minutes of commercials and other bullshit, I can barely standing going at the cheap price early in the morning. In truth, I mainly go for the popcorn.
 
I rarely go to the movies. Maybe 1 or 2 a year at best. Too many disappointments, even with epic films. Can't stand the noisy munchers or the guy that just laid a rotten egg from hell next to me or the person that keeps bumping my seat and whispering to his fat kunt nasty need some deodorant pizza pie face. Much better to enjoy at my leisure on my home theater system. But I understand not everyone has the space or budget for a theater system.

However it took me years to build mine. First L/R, then center and then surrounds and sub. Then higher end components etc etc etc
 
NoOther said:
I have to guess by the responses that practically no one above who has commented yet actually read the article or watched the interview. They clearly were saying that a shift is coming where more movies and events are going to come to TV or other media. Which will leave the huge mega films for the theaters. But these films will have massive budgets and will be far fewer than what is out there now. There will be less theaters because of the transition to TV and streaming, and the new theaters will have far more options than what you see today. So likely you will have more theaters that have bigger screens, better sound, and better service overall leading to a much higher price.

What they are not saying, which seems to be the assumption above, is that hollywood is going to shell out the same pictures in the same theaters for 5-8x the cost.
Click to expand...

Yes people read it but unlike you they understand the market will not support those prices even for mega films. Many people will not go to movies now because of the cost at $50+ the vast majority will not go ever. The numbers need to support mega budgets will not show up.

Spielberg and Lucas are frankly economic idiots and do not understand that for the foreseeable the economy will not support large price increases. If they persist at this rate Hollywood big pictures are going to die and the whole industry will be offshored.

Their primary concern should be cost containment, good stories the audience want to see, and creative cost effective use of technology. You do not need huge sums of money to make good movies but the problem now is Hollywood thinks you can fix crap stories with CG and effects but you cannot. Anymore there simply are not that many truly good movies made in a year the vast majority of it is bad self indulgent crap, and therein is the actual problem.
 
Ar, them be pirating words.

pirate-fuck-that-shit-meme.png
 
After reading the entire article the only thing I can say is that both of them, like most of Hollywood, are out of touch with reality. They say the movie industry is headed for a cliff yet they fail to realize that they are the reason it is. Rather than charge $150 for a movie that runs for a year why don't they stop paying actors $10,000,000 a film and pass the savings on. Maybe when a movie outing for a family of 4 doesn't break the bank people might start showing up.
 
halcyon said:
Errr or the obvious thing they could do is put them on pay per view at the current rate upon release and people could watch them from home. Crazy idea that.
Click to expand...

I'm torn on that - If a movie was released on PPV at home for $30-40 the same time it hit theater, I'm not sure if I'd buy. I'd probably wait for the Blu-ray. I'd get more of the 'double dip' feeling. I don't care about FIRST!, I care more about the experience. I have a good HT setup (not great, but good), but going to the theater is fun, you're out of the house, big screen, big sound.... The atmosphere (unless you find the shitty one).

I'd probably watch them that was about the same amount I do now.

The biggest downside - piracy. There is no one to stop you from capturing the high quality video at home. There would be high quality downloads within a few hours of the release. That's one time when I see piracy being the problem...
 
My high end local theater is about $30 per ticket, and basically every single weekend show is sold out. You typically need to book it about a week in advance. To me, if it's a movie I really want to see, it's worth the extra $20 to get a reserved seat and virtually assure there will be no disruptive jackasses.
 
i think he is saying that with digital media streaming the home is going to be the mainstay for movie watching, but going to the theater will be more like an event or amusement park. but with gas at over $4 pg, my home will see more of my money than anything else.
 
buttons said:
I really enjoy going to the movies, no matter how good my home setup is. I just like an excuse to get out of my F$#@!ing house once in awhile...
Click to expand...

Plenty of other reasons to leave the house, that don't involve going to a movie theater.

The crappy seats, overpriced food and drinks, obnoxious audience(random asshats laughing, screaming, yapping on the phone, making a bunch of noise with food wrappers, screaming children), getting stuck sitting at a crappy angle because you didn't show up 90 minutes early to get to the front of the line to get a better seat, can't just pause the movie to go do something else(take a leak, answer the phone, etc.), and so many other things I just don't have to deal with sitting at home watching a movie.
 
Ur_Mom said:
I read the article before I posted. :/ My post still stands.

Doesn't matter how much they spend on the movies and the budget. It's still just a movie in a theater that is expected to keep up with technology. Costs will go up slightly to cover those, but seeing a $250 million budget movie on an IMAX screen with upgraded theater (no sticky floors?!) isn't worth $100-$150. There may be a niche market where these "super elite theaters" can flourish, but I don't see the majority of people actually using them.
...
Movies are not a sporting event. They are playback of a recorded and edited performance.
Click to expand...

But this is where you are wrong. The idea of these new theaters is giving new experiences beyond what you are getting now. This is exactly what I was talking about in my post, they are NOT saying you are going to get the same movies with the same theater experience. It will be a totally new experience.

Ideas that have been talked about in Hollywood are interactive movies that offer more social interaction with the audience and the movie. They will be making into an event, not just a movie you sit and watch. Sit and watch movies will be going to TV and streaming, where you will pay LESS money than you would if a new movie came out in the theater. It is funny how many people are completely out of touch with what they are eluding to here.

Instead of paying $15-20 for a new movie in a theater, you will pay $7-15 to watch it at home. There may be additional charges up to $25 depending on options they provide (such as buying the movie, or longer video rental periods). Remember that currently you pay $10-15 or more to see a theater ONCE in a theater at a dedicated time. Now you will be renting a possible window to see the movie multiple times if you want. Also there may be extra content you can purchase to go along with that.

So the point being, you get less but more technologically advanced theaters that promote audience interaction with the movie, that may change with multiple visits to the same 'film' (think choose your own adventure in a theater or possibly a variant of Rocky Horror Picture Show, etc). Then you get better options for home viewing of NEW movies that will cost LESS than going to the theater.

I would say these directors are far more in touch with the consumer than many of the posters here.
 
Merc1138 said:
Plenty of other reasons to leave the house, that don't involve going to a movie theater.

The crappy seats, overpriced food and drinks, obnoxious audience(random asshats laughing, screaming, yapping on the phone, making a bunch of noise with food wrappers, screaming children), getting stuck sitting at a crappy angle because you didn't show up 90 minutes early to get to the front of the line to get a better seat, can't just pause the movie to go do something else(take a leak, answer the phone, etc.), and so many other things I just don't have to deal with sitting at home watching a movie.
Click to expand...
zackly... Just the fact that I can sit down with a nice cocktail and get blown is reason enough.
 
Who cares. I have a MoviePass that will get me in for $35 a month.
 
60" Panny Plasma + Pioneer Elite Receiver + Definitive Tech 7.1 Surround + BluRay = Not going to see a movie at the theatre for more than $20.

I enjoy going to the theatre and have a very nice one just a few miles away, but there are limits. Who'd a thunk that filthy rich, old, white men would make comments like this?
 
anyone recall anyone stating during the great depression, going to the movies was america's way of getting away from problems... i think it actually help give rise to Hollywood at the time too. anyone else see the tragedy here
 
MavericK96 said:
Is this a fucking joke? Are they joking? Or just retarded?

Seriously?
Click to expand...

I'm thinking they're just dinosaurs. Spielberg and Lucas's times are over. JJ Abrams, Joss Whedon and Peter Jackson's time is now.
 
Cinemas can and should just die. Viewing a movie at my home on my 50" plasma (a pretty good but not amazing set) is 100x more enjoyable than any movie theater.

-No admission price (especially not $50-150)
-No assuming that I'm a terrorist (i.e. no bag checks)
-Any snacks I want for reasonable prices
-Beer! And at reasonable prices.
-Don't need to drive anywhere.
-Don't have to deal with jerks who won't shut up, turn their cell phone off, spill their soda on my chair, etc.
-Don't need to support the movie industry which thinks of itself as god

etc.

I buy some stuff on DVD/BD and I Netflix/cable some stuff and I download some stuff (not gonna say what lol). Personally I don't care if the entire movie industry dies, and actors stop being role models that they should never have been to begin with. Make them get real jobs, too.
 
I am sure this has been said already, but the "Lux Levels" in movie theaters, for 2 seats around Boston run 50 bucks easy. Drinks and dinner...Ya, I spend 150 at the movies for me and the old ball and chain.
 
And exactly what sporting events are they talking about? Listen, I own season tickets to multiple teams, and none of them approach $150. Yes, I know tickets for certain teams can get that expensive (and more), but they're typically tickets bought by rich ****** or given away as a bribe to your client or something, Or maybe a very special occasion. But most people don't purchase tickets that expensive.

It comes down to what a sporting event is and what a movie is. A sporting event has fan participation. Movies? Please turn off your cell phone and shut the **** up. Sit still and don't move. Plus, most sporting events last well over 2 hours.

Unless they're talking about some form of super spectator involved movie that has never been done before, movies will never give the same type of atmosphere as attending a Super Bowl game, or even just a mid season MLB game.

I'll just gladly wait to watch it at home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top