Spielberg, Lucas Predict $150 Movie Tickets

Ur_Mom

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
20,588
They what they are proposing is a whole new venue, not a movie theater (in my opinion), and depending on how it was set up, it MIGHT be worth that much (although, I do see them having these on a much different schedule than movies - quarterly perhaps).

But, how they do these things is going to be tough. How many people actually watch the extra content on their Blu-rays? How many watch the behind the scenes of the average movie? They want to watch the movie itself, not the extras. There are a lot of movies that I just want to watch the main movie. There are a few that I'll watch all the extras I can.

Now, put a few of these around the country in major cities, bring in the actors/actresses to be a part of it, and I can easily see the appeal.

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.
 
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Messages
4
Cartman: Yeah, these guys are only motivated by money, Ted.
Ted Koppel: How so?
Cartman: Think about it. Spielberg? Jew. Lucas? Jew. Kyle? Jew. Coincidence?
George Lucas: I'm not a Jew!
 

Azhar

Fixing stupid since 1972
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
18,876
You're sleeping on the couch tonight.

Haha, I didn't say good directors. I just said its their turn now. I love a good Spielberg and Lucas film, but not the latest ones.

JJ Abrams' Fringe television series is pretty good. So is Whedon's Firefly series. Jackson's LOTR was good. Anything else by them is mediocre.
 

dgz

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
5,838
I knew what what to expect from the article - a whole lot of justifying.

I am not paying 100 euro for a concert, movie, even F1. Keep it if it's so expensive. I am not even going to pirate the shit. I always hated these two directors anyway. They suck and their movies suck.
 

LeninGHOLA

Vladimir Hayt
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
18,416
Haha, I didn't say good directors. I just said its their turn now. I love a good Spielberg and Lucas film, but not the latest ones.

JJ Abrams' Fringe television series is pretty good. So is Whedon's Firefly series. Jackson's LOTR was good. Anything else by them is mediocre.

I can agree with that.
 

LeninGHOLA

Vladimir Hayt
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
18,416
I knew what what to expect from the article - a whole lot of justifying.

I am not paying 100 euro for a concert, movie, even F1. Keep it if it's so expensive. I am not even going to pirate the shit. I always hated these two directors anyway. They suck and their movies suck.

Yea, most concerts I go to are in the $20-40 range still. Unless it's a once in a lifetime event, I never go above that.
 

Stimpy88

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
1,271
So this is what rich j.... think. I think they are wrong, but I can see $50 tickets soon. but maybe in 30 years time $150 won't be seen as insane, assuming the U.S. has not got us all locked up at home, under military curfew.
 

Ur_Mom

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
20,588
JJ Abrams' Fringe television series is pretty good. So is Whedon's Firefly series. Jackson's LOTR was good. Anything else by them is mediocre.

Fringe was more than just pretty good! :)

Firefly was excellent. Lord of the Rings was great, and was one of the few that definitely deserves a good theater viewing.
 

rudy

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
8,704
This is already happening. Half the movie complexes I know of in most towns have gone out of business. About half the ones left have converted to these dinner and movie nicer restaurants. The whole point is this. Now that almost anyone can afford a home theater in their house with a large screen TV that is only limited by the wall space you have... Why go to the theater? The only people going to see movies are people who who have some alternate motive. Maybe its kids who need a place to "make out", maybe its nostalgic adults longing for some memory of their childhood. But what it is not, is normal level headed people looking for a good experience. With about $3000 you can make your home as good as the movie theaters, and if you have a family you can make that back in 30 trips. But heres the catch its really less than that, because you probably owned a TV anyway. In fact you might even own a 50+ incher already. So now you just need the sound. People are starting to wake up and see that listening to all the noise, no bathroom breaks and over priced tickets and food doesn't make sense anymore when you can have a much better experience in your home.

So the obvious conclusion is to try to take the go out to see movies high end, make it an experience that is harder to replicate at home and has more social meaning. Less of the cram 500 people in a small theater to get as much profit as possible meaning.

So to respond to 2 posts above, actually it kinda is becoming a spectator driven business with more experience and less just watch the movie.

The last movie I saw in theaters was avatar 3d.
 
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
531
I haven't been to a movie theater since late 2003, and the last one before that was in 1998. I far prefer to buy a movie on DVD (haven't upgraded to Blu-Ray and probably won't unless DVDs are phased out completely) that I can watch repeatedly and whenever I want than to waste money on a one-time experience the memory of which starts fading shortly after. Plus, at home, I can comfortably watch a film while armed, or while drinking, and if I miss or don't quite understand a scene or a bit of dialogue, I can simply go back a few seconds and watch it again or even enable sub-titles. I simply see no benefit nor appeal to paying $10, much less $50-$150, for a single view at the cinema.
 

Ur_Mom

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
20,588
How many people really have a decent home theater, though? I know some that still use the TV speakers on a big screen TV. At most, it's a HTIAB setup with built in blu-ray player... Much less of those people actually have a dedicated home theater (which is well worth it, IMO) with decent audio components.

A good home theater makes a huge difference, though. That could be why I rarely go to the theater these days (although, Man of Steel is a must this weekend). 110" screen, 7.1 audio, comfortable seating, fresh popcorn and a beer.

There are a lot of people, too, that don't mind shitty quality. So, the home theater route doesn't matter. They'll download a cam copy of a movie and watch it and be perfectly happy. How they can deal with that shit is beyond me. I see a fly on the screen, and I get pissed.

This is already happening. Half the movie complexes I know of in most towns have gone out of business. About half the ones left have converted to these dinner and movie nicer restaurants. The whole point is this. Now that almost anyone can afford a home theater in their house with a large screen TV that is only limited by the wall space you have... Why go to the theater? The only people going to see movies are people who who have some alternate motive. Maybe its kids who need a place to "make out", maybe its nostalgic adults longing for some memory of their childhood. But what it is not, is normal level headed people looking for a good experience. With about $3000 you can make your home as good as the movie theaters, and if you have a family you can make that back in 30 trips. But heres the catch its really less than that, because you probably owned a TV anyway. In fact you might even own a 50+ incher already. So now you just need the sound. People are starting to wake up and see that listening to all the noise, no bathroom breaks and over priced tickets and food doesn't make sense anymore when you can have a much better experience in your home.

So the obvious conclusion is to try to take the go out to see movies high end, make it an experience that is harder to replicate at home and has more social meaning. Less of the cram 500 people in a small theater to get as much profit as possible meaning.

So to respond to 2 posts above, actually it kinda is becoming a spectator driven business with more experience and less just watch the movie.

The last movie I saw in theaters was avatar 3d.
 

MoFoQ

Gawd
Joined
Sep 18, 2002
Messages
849
There better be hookers and blow included for that price :p

+1

on a side-note, even today...box office numbers are published as $ amounts, not number of tickets so it's really hard to compare how well a movie is doing compared to a movie that came out many years ago when tickets were a fraction of what it is today.

Watch, when tickets are $150 a pop....and they release Star Wars 666 and claim it did better than Phantom Menace when tickets were less than 1/10th that.
 

temujin987

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
1,351
i don't watch tv at all and go to the movies maybe once a year. after i'm done with watching an audio-visual abomination of the magnitute of prometheus i realize why i stopped going to the movies in the first place.

a ticket here is 7-10 euros so it's not that bad, but i hate sitting through ads, trailers and anti-piracy videos for 15 minutes to see a movie that is mediocre at best. one of the better movies i watched recently on dvd/bluray was iron sky, but only because it wasn't generic hollywood trash. well, it was kinda trashy, but in a good way.
 

DejaWiz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
21,510
Yeah, no. That would put the American pastime of visiting a theater as a luxury only a few elite can afford. And that would kill the movie industry quicker than letting a random kindergartener write and direct every movie from here on out.
 

Kuraudo

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 7, 2011
Messages
311
Is this a roundabout way of saying they think movies are a dying art form that no one will ever watch?
 

Fonil

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
71
I know release day tickets at the Bob Bullock Imax in Austin hit some steep prices on opening weekend. I think I paid $27 a ticket for opening night of the 2nd batman.
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
31,326
Haha, I didn't say good directors. I just said its their turn now. I love a good Spielberg and Lucas film, but not the latest ones.

JJ Abrams' Fringe television series is pretty good. So is Whedon's Firefly series. Jackson's LOTR was good. Anything else by them is mediocre.

Wtf, what about Dr. Horrible?!? :eek:
 

rudy

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
8,704
How many people really have a decent home theater, though? I know some that still use the TV speakers on a big screen TV. At most, it's a HTIAB setup with built in blu-ray player... Much less of those people actually have a dedicated home theater (which is well worth it, IMO) with decent audio components.

A good home theater makes a huge difference, though. That could be why I rarely go to the theater these days (although, Man of Steel is a must this weekend). 110" screen, 7.1 audio, comfortable seating, fresh popcorn and a beer.

There are a lot of people, too, that don't mind shitty quality. So, the home theater route doesn't matter. They'll download a cam copy of a movie and watch it and be perfectly happy. How they can deal with that shit is beyond me. I see a fly on the screen, and I get pissed.

1 those people are typically only $1000 away from a good enough setup. And more and more of them are figuring that out.
2 maybe those people never cared enough about sound or the experience to make a big deal of it anyway. Seriously go into a long line for movie and interview the people ask how many of them say I am here because the sound quality is just so much better. Look at the NVidia shield thing with randy pitchford, guys got lots of money and a HTIB. So for these people simply having the big screen is apparently good enough. Most of them are just there because a friend took them and they think its the only way to see the movie till it comes out at rental places.

I know one friend who makes sure if he goes to an imax he sits in the center so he can get the correct sound profile, but look at the other 100 people in there, scattered around they don't even know or care about the sound.

And finally if you really care about sound, its probably a toss up if its better to have a mediocre bose HTIB or listen to great sound in an imax with people farting, talking texting and moving around everywhere creating a bunch of noise.
 

rudy

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
8,704
Yeah, no. That would put the American pastime of visiting a theater as a luxury only a few elite can afford. And that would kill the movie industry quicker than letting a random kindergartener write and direct every movie from here on out.

It wont kill it, it will just change it. I have said for a while now and I still believe that movie producers could make way more money if they allowed people to view movies on opening night in their home. Charge $50 via youtube, pay per view, etc... People will host parties, or just watch it and you will widen your audience just like super bowls, big fights etc...

The problem is these industries find it hard to change and slow. But they are going to get there sooner or later. As the movie theaters have less and less money they wont be able to afford to keep the opening night releases exclusive and sooner or later some big player like amazon or google will say you know what, I want to release avatar 2 on opening night and I got more money than NCG to pay for that right.
 

Ur_Mom

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
20,588
And finally if you really care about sound, its probably a toss up if its better to have a mediocre bose HTIB or listen to great sound in an imax with people farting, talking texting and moving around everywhere creating a bunch of noise.

I've found that there are a few theaters that have a very good sound setup, great visuals and a quiet room with not a lot of people in there during the slow times (maybe 2 other people).

I think it's the sound + big screen that makes it worthwhile. The popcorn and 'theater vibe' is cool, too, but not that big of a deal.

People like us can recreate the theater experience at home. But, that's our passion. We care about the visual quality and sound quality and a great experience. Typical movie goers aren't that into it. They have a big TV, but probably don't use HDMI for their Blu-ray player or have their surround speakers set up correctly (if they have a speaker system at all)... That's why they go to the theater.

Maybe more people than I think have decent set ups (or at least those that are movie people that like going to the theater...) at home. Some people don't care about the quality. But, there are some that like the theater like some of us like an arcade. Those games (and newer ones) are available at home on bigger screens. It's that nostalgia and experience that goes with it. :)
 

Nytegard

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 8, 2004
Messages
3,603
although, Man of Steel is a must this weekend

Even Man of Steel isn't a must for me. I live in an area where movies are $15+ (and IMAX is more expensive).

Fortunately I do have a good home theater system, but even if I didn't, I like the idea of being able to pause and rewind when and where I want. I also don't care for the overly loud sound system that theaters have, nor the 3+ constantly whining/crying baby brats that their parents are too selfish to find a baby sitter for and decide to spoil everyone else's enjoyment for that night.

Even the places that serve food and wine can't really justify the price. Even with $20 tickets, that's what, $130 going to food? I might not eat fast food, but that's still way over budget for the quality that they'll probably serve.
 

SolidBladez

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 4, 2008
Messages
6,298
All this money is getting to these directors/producers heads. I can see $150 ticket prices in a few hundred years but certainly not anytime soon.

burningmoney.jpg
 

/usr/sbin

Successfully Trolled by Megalith
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
3,927
Yeah, if movie tickets reach $50 I'll just go to a live event (concert, etc.) instead. Live events are more fun, when we go out for a movie, we're looking for a "cheap" night out.
 

ptrout

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 15, 2002
Messages
222
It wont kill it, it will just change it. I have said for a while now and I still believe that movie producers could make way more money if they allowed people to view movies on opening night in their home. Charge $50 via youtube, pay per view, etc... People will host parties, or just watch it and you will widen your audience just like super bowls, big fights etc...

http://primacinema.com/about_prima_cinema.php

This is what you want ? BTW remember this looks expensive then again if its going into a 100k home theater, its really not.
 

rudy

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
8,704
Well sorta, I think they just need to do it through already available channels that most people in the USA have access too. IE payperview, youtube, amazon prime, hulu, Netflix.
 

Ocean

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
4,927
i would pay $100 for a movie viewing. it will have to be a good movie, it will have to have a top notch screen and sound. it will have to be accompanied by real food. the seats will have to be great as well.

last time i went and saw a movie, it was 75$ for me and my gf (we bought popcorn and drinks!), low def, out of focus, and the audience laughed the entire time. the movie was paranormal activity 2. a really shitty movie, on a shitty screen. gave up after that.

i think the only appeal left in movies is for tweens that need to rent a couple of dark seats to have a makeout session.
 

Spidey329

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 15, 2003
Messages
8,683
Is this a fucking joke? Are they joking? Or just retarded?

Seriously?

I think he's just trying to drum up support for a billion dollar movie budget.

Issue is, production costs are skyrocketing, talent costs are skyrocketing and there's about a thousand "middlemen" that need to be paid as well. Whose going to foot the bill? The consumer. Let's not forget that movie studios bump out tons of failures for all of their big hits, who absorbs those expenses?

One guess.
 

Scythe5

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 3, 2012
Messages
194
Wow. I cannot seriously believe they think anyone would spend that kind of money to see a movie. Most movies are re-hashes and/or pure shit anyway.
 
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
531
Another of the many drawbacks to watching a movie at the theater: the place is packed, the only empty seat is the one right in front of you, and it's quickly occupied by someone with a huge afro that obstructs your view of the screen. This happens more often than you think.
 

Galvin

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
2,697
The theater I go to has stadium seating, but this one guy was so tall that his head blocked my view. I had to switch seats, but that was rare though. I go to the movies during the day, much better time to go than at night.
 

TheCAD

Gawd
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
581
I can see it. The technology has to advance to the point where its worth paying $50+ to see and it isn't there yet obviously. You won't be paying $50 to see a movie on a sony 4k projector. Imagine a huge production like avatar on some futuristic hologram experience or something.

You'd pay $50 to see that shit.
 

ShamisOMally

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 24, 2010
Messages
1,480
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.

"Press one if you want to see Calculon do his taxes for 3 hours, press two if you want Calculon to be in a massive explosive gun battle!"

"TWO! TWO! TWO!"

"You have pressed.....One"

"But I pressed two!"

"I'm pretty sure you have pressed, one!"
 

t0ked

n00b
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
23
When movies cost that much to see, I'll be be getting the AAA discount for $20! But seriously, even now, I'll only watch movies with my AAA passes 3 weeks after the movie has been out. I'm beginning to understand my parents more and more... "I remember when movies only cost..."
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,827
If they thought movie piracy was bad now, start charging $50 - $150 for a movie ticket and see where that gets them. :rolleyes:

Do you actually read the articles you post links to? It's pretty clear that they're saying most, if not all, movies will be released directly to the home. Even the event films that would be in that ridiculously expensive price range, will likely be available for viewing at home around the time they hit theaters.

If piracy increases, it's going to be because people find a way to rip the stream. That'd happen even if prices were 8 bucks.
 

thedge

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
273
Id pay $100 to see a movie....





As long as that included two tickets.



And four beers.




And reclining chairs.





And that price includes food, delivered to me.





And theres no kids around.






And theres privacy screens so the wife and I can get it on during whats sure to be 3 hours of intros.
 
Top