Spielberg, Lucas Predict $150 Movie Tickets

[HardOCP News]

If they thought movie piracy was bad now, start charging $50 - $150 for a movie ticket and see where that gets them.

Going to the movies is going to cost you 50 bucks, maybe 100. Maybe 150." It will be more in line with sporting events, with films playing in these high-end cinemas for as long as a year. "And that's going to be what we call ‘the movie business.' But everything else is going to look more like cable television on TiVo."

 

[dangerouseddy]

shouldn't that read speilberg predicts no cinema's as nobody in their right mind would pay that much to go to the cinema.

 

[ADRENALIN_2099]

I guess I'm never going to see a movie in theaters ever again. I like my home Theater set up anyways

 

[Vicinity]

Lol, and they thought piracy was bad now...

 

[Dekarx]

Inflation sucks

 

[Ur_Mom]

I doubt that will happen. You'd decrease your audience a lot more than you'd make up for it in the increased cost of the ticket.

1000 viewers at $10 a ticket - $10,000
50 viewers at $100 a ticket - $5,000

I don't know of anyone that would pay >$20 a ticket to watch a movie.

I guess these are the same people that claim when you pirate a movie there was $14,000,000 in lost revenue....

 

[MavericK]

Is this a fucking joke? Are they joking? Or just retarded?

Seriously?

 

[buttons]

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...

 

[Outamyhead]

And that's the day the movie business died, Lucas's golden touch at work again.

 

[///AMG]

Lol, I stopped going to the movies every week when the tickets started costing me $10. Then one of those movie theaters where you can order food and drinks while you watched appeared and tickets there is only $7 I started to go back every week. But if you tell me that tickets are going to cost $50-$150 I will never go to the theaters ever.

 

[soulman901]

Looks like Lucas and Spielberg got out of the old folks home again and making crazy predictions on the red carpet. Time for them to go back to the home so that they can get pudding and not miss Matlock on TV.

 

[joikd]

Well, then they better make these future movies exclusive to the theater only, and never release them on any other format. But, that would mean not double, triple, etc. dipping, which I doubt they can resist.

 

[That_Sound_Guy]

I haven't been to a theatre since last year. I finished installing my HT at home so I never have a need to go back. This sucks for the cinema operator as its lost business for them but the cost, the hassle (drive/gas), the damn kids with no parents around and the cell phones all stopped me from going to movies. Red Box'ing the bluray is my future now.

 

[Deleted whining member 223597]

There better be hookers and blow included for that price

 

[Twisted Kidney]

I think theatres will go away before people pay $150 for a ticket.

 

[chicane]

I go to a lot less sporting events than movies.
If they want me to see 1 movie a year then fine.

 

[ashman]

It already costs $100 or more if you take a family of four, do the math.

Tickets: 4x14.00 if its a high end cinema plus surcharge if you buy them online
Concession:Easily $15x4 for popcorn and drink
Total:$116 or more.
Thats up here in Canada.

 

[arr4ws]

It already costs $100 or more if you take a family of four, do the math.

Tickets: 4x14.00 if its a high end cinema plus surcharge if you buy them online
Concession:Easily $15x4 for popcorn and drink
Total:$116 or more.
Thats up here in Canada.

Totally agree with this , but its 4 people.

so 116/4=29$ and you include popcorn... remove the popcorn and its only 14.

 

[stealthy123]

first off, why anyone asks Lucas about making movies anymore baffles me.

Secondly, I think the article was more about people staying home to watch, and as a response to that the industry will shift towards a model where the cinema is an event, and not some casual thing. New releases will be available in people's homes.

 

[NoOther]

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.

 

[Deleted whining member 223597]

Damn it. I forgot this is hardforum where certain excerpts are taken out of context to make it seem like something else. RTFA is probably the best thing to do

 

[ShamisOMally]

"People aren't going to the movies as much as they used too"

EVERY

FUCKING

YEAR

IS

RECORD

PROFITS

BIGGER

THAN

THE

LAST

Good fucking -GOD- this is why you don't let movie producers fucking speak, the fucking shit that comes out of their mouths fucking BAFFLES me

"We only made 300 million profit! Why wasn't it a korjirrion dollars?! I know, raise prices!"

 

[ninjaturtle]

1. Don't see it happening.
2. Don't really care if it do.
3. Last movie I went to was Star Trek First Contact after coming in 2nd place for a Halloween contest at a tech school I went to.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

Stop paying actors $10-30 million dollars per movie. Be smarter with less marketing money.

 

[MavericK]

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.

Eh...it's a moot point. I don't care how big or nice the theater is, I'm not spending $100+ to see a movie. PERIOD.

He also says something about having to pay between $7-$25 to see a movie IN YOUR OWN HOME (depending on the movie).

Honestly I think they are more than just a little out of touch with the consumer world.

 

[Domingo]

I haven't been to a movie theater in a long time and don't see that changing.
If they do "save" certain movies for the theater, people will find a way to bring those home, too.

I hate to say it, but I really like the iOS retail model for movies, music, games, etc.
Charge a tiny amount with the potential to sell zillions of copies.

 

[/dev/null]

Already costs about $50.

Ticket: $12
Parking: $10
Babysitter for 2 hours: $25..

 

[BiH115]

Is this a fucking joke? Are they joking? Or just retarded?

Seriously?

The first part of your sentence, the second, and also the third.

$10 is too much for a movie. Remember when that shit was like $5? Now, I'd do $20 if it was some kind of out of this world 3D experience that just melted your brain. But $50? The virtual blowjob would literally have to feel like one.

 

[tuksonrider]

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.

Heh... and 1 person actually read the article.

True... it's not that Spielberg and Lucus want to charge $100 for a movie, what they are saying is that lower budget movies (if you can call a 60 million dollar movie low budget) will be available over the internet or cable movies, not at the box office.

$300million dollar budget movies are going to cost a lot at the box office because studios will be banking on putting out fewer, but at a premium cost because they will be like events (whatever that means).

The paradigm shift is that people are going to the mives LESS often, and with recent high budget bombs, the return is making things worse.

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.

Heck, I can go watch a movie for $1.50 at second run theaters after 2 months of the initial premiere, and that's exactly what I do. Studios are figuring out they can make decent return on investment by putting out TV and cable shows than huge mega-million dollar block buster movies that only stay in the theaters a couple months.

 

[pgwalsh]

I predict fewer movies going to the theater and being release directly to the public either via download or disc. TV's are getting bigger and too many crappy movies being released in the theater. Only the best movies will be released to the theaters and they can charge more for them, but not that much more.

 

[DeathFromBelow]

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.

We already have those theaters. They're called IMAX. Nobody in their right mind is going to pay $50-150 to see a movie regardless of how big the screen is or how many speakers they can position around your head or how much money they spent making it. What a fucking stupid idea.

Is this a fucking joke? Are they joking? Or just retarded?

Seriously?

Considering Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and the Star Wars prequels... I'm going to go with retarded.

 

[beowulf7]

I predict Spielberg and Lucas are smoking something illegal for them to make that kind of prediction.

 

[Methadras]

I once said that when tickets get to $15 that I would stop going to the movies altogether. The exception crap that has been produced in the last 10 years makes this an even bigger reality.

 

[M'ichal]

Concession:Easily $15x4 for popcorn and drink

That's not part of the actual movie and you don't need that. I almost never buy the over-priced theatre stuff, just once in a while.

Anyways, that point about sporting events is BS because a sporting even has live players in a venue located in a unique geographical spot that fits, what, 100k people? A movie can be shown anywhere to millions of people, anyone can experience it as long as he has a theatre nearby.

If movie tickets cost $100, I am sure I would stop going.

 

[Sovereign]

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.

If someone can make a movie a truly premium experience (no screaming children) with more than paper-thin stories buried under ACTION (this means epic stories spread across multiple films, HBO Game of Thrones writ super-large), it might work. Emphasis on might. It would change the entire market.

There would have to be no competition (the films in question cannot be watched any other way), the experience would need to be downright godly (you can't pirate the feeling of a live performance, for example), the films would have to be sufficiently genre-busting to appeal to very wide audiences while avoiding lowest common denominator... It's a big challenge.

 

[dandirk]

I honestly can't see how a movie can be a $150 "event".

Make it a movie/live action event like Rocky Horror?

Lazy boy vibrating chairs with 3D and smello-vision with beer service and a nice butter steak?

I just don't see it. I can see more "straight" to the home movies... I cannot see though how the film/theater format can justify anything more then double price.

 

[Shambler]

I find it hard to spend ~$10 on a movie now.


Hmmm.

 

[teh_chem]

Even if they do think that the film industry is going to implode yielding fewer overall films with higher overall ticket prices, I still can't see it being successful that way. Consumer psychology is an interesting thing. Consumers are generally happier buying more of things that cost less per transaction vs. fewer of things that cost more per transaction even if they would have ended up spending the same amount in either case (or more on the case that cost less per transaction). i.e., people are more likely to spend $200 going to 10 movies at $20 a pop, and are very unlikely to go to any movies at all if they cost $100. I'm not predicting what will happen, just using what's understood about consumer psychology.

More likely, IMHO that is, you'll have fewer movies--maybe fewer screens in theaters if not fewer theaters. But the leap they make is that ticket prices will be the same. I don't really see how that leap is made. Movie prices remain the same, fewer movies are likely to come about, but fewer theaters--the price doesn't need to change.

I am curious how ticket sales overlap with socio-economic demographics. Are more lower-income people buying movie tickets? If so, I can't see them supporting hundred dollar tickets, much like how broadway theater is mainly composed of middle-upper class attendees.

Of course, this is all my relatively uneducated guesswork.

 

[Deleted member 126051]

Okay, at $10-20, the price of seeing a film is only mildly outrageous.

$100-150 a ticket? The only reason I'd go to a movie theater again would be to shit into the little ticket-taker slot.

It all sounds great and pie-in-the-sky. And these are creative guys.

But the economics of such a setup just don't work. PERIOD.

This is something along the lines of "640K ought to be enough for anyone!", if you know what I mean...

 

[tuksonrider]

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.