Slashdot Mirror

Looking at http://www.natoonline.org/data... ticket price increases don't seem to be that much.
But I don't think that is including all the extras... 3D, IMAX, etc.. Looking to by 3D/IMAX Batman Vs Superman tickets are over $17 for an adult ticket which is a little bit more than $8.43 national average for last year....

I think this does help them get the record breaking numbers even with though viewer turnout increasing as much.

Drive in theaters and theaters in general are not popular because for many people the additional cost is not reflected in additional quality and user experience.

For not being popular... why are there nearly twice as many screens as there were twenty five years ago? How did the top five movies released in 2012 collectively gross two billion dollars? Who bought the 1.37 billion movie tickets sold in the US in 2012?
 

That said implying the outdoor theatre is dead simply because operators are making a rational decision not to invest in their firms is a bit overreaching. There are two theaters in my city that show live and filmed entertainment. They are both free. They are both jam packed.

Brace yourself - I have a shocker for you... "your city" != "all of the US". (In fact, I suspect it's not even close to being typical.)

Now, the price of the content will go down due to competition and may be some type of extended financial crisis where the 99% gets more squeezed. There is no need to pay $5 or more for any content - book/TV show/Movie tickets and so on.

Here is the problem with your assumption. You assume that with an absence of or reduction in piracy rates, the content owners will be compelled to reduce the price of their content. Why would they do that?

In terms of competition, the content owners are already competing among themselves today. This has not resulted in any visible reduction in prices. Even assuming piracy is entirely wiped out, it will have no net effect on the degree of competition the contents owners face. The same rivals they face today will still be there tomorrow.

You should also know that movie ticket prices have never been reduced since 1948. This also holds true even for the period before the internet was born or piracy became widespread.

Guess you don't have a 60" HIgh Def TV, you like watching commercials, you like public seating, you like paying $25 for oversalted greasy popcorn & a pail of carbonated chemicals. Oh yeah, and they want you to pay 13-17 dollars per butt for the priviledge of watching content on their schedule with no pause for bathroom breaks, someone kicking the chair behind you and watching through the sneeze/virus fog of 200 people.

Me? I'd rather watch at home, skip all the commercials, avoid the one-time only delivery, eat better quality food and have a cold beer with my wife. I guess we have different priorities than your Earth. What are you, a NATO shill?

The industry is used to having it their own way for too long, and they have to realise that their days of bleeding the customer dry are numbered.

To talk of bleeding the customer dry is lunatic.

The federal minimum wage in 1939 was 30 cents an hour. That would buy you one adult ticket to the movies or a single 78 RPM phonograph record.

Two tracks.

The roadshow production of Gone With The Wind would have been priced at $2 to $5 bucks.

The 78 was disposable. The light-weight tonearm with a diamond stylus doesn't come into general use until the mid or late fifties.

The federal minimum wage will rise to $7.25 an hour on July 24. The average U.S. ticket price for a movie in 2008 was $7.18.

The Video-on-Demand rental is $5.
You can do much better than that with a subscription to Netflix.

Amazon's Best Sellers in Music CDs will only rarely set you back more than $9.99. The mp3 single 89 cents.

The customer isn't paying more for entertainment in real terms than his great-grandfather did.

Artists like Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead have demonstrated that the patronage model works well for music.

I'm not sure that they've demonstrated anything. Radiohead's manager says they won't be repeating their stunt -- and it seems to have been exactly that: a publicity stunt. Even Trent Reznor has knocked Radiohead for doing the "free music" thing as a stunt. I have to wonder if Radiohead's manager considers the "pay what you want" thing to be a failed experiment. Regarding NIN: I don't know what Trent's thinking on the matter is. Maybe he just really likes the idea of free music for everyone, and maybe he feels like he has plenty of money - so if he losses income by supporting an idea he likes, then that's his charity for the world. Further, with as popular as NIN is, they can probably still pay their studio costs even if their revenue drops by 90%. (My own expectation is that more bands will release free music as a promotion for concerts. Like Coldplay, they will probably release live recordings, though, because they're cheap to make; much cheaper than studio recordings. Of course, they're also lower quality.)

Despite record levels of film piracy, both the quality and revenue in the film industry are near their historic peaks.

According to US and Canadian numbers, Box Office revenue did reach it's highest level in 2008. However, when you look at the numbers, you see that there's been very little growth since 2002. Box Office revenue has grew by 5% between 2002 and 2008 (6 year period; 0.9% average annual growth). On the other hand, it grew by 118% between 1987 and 2002 (a 15 year period; 7.9% average annual growth). Have movies experienced slower growth because of piracy? Maybe maybe not. I wouldn't claim that piracy hasn't had an effect (and that negative effect could get a lot larger if we legalize filesharing). At least we can say it hasn't dropped the bottom out of the industry (yet).
Source: http://www.natoonline.org/statisticsboxoffice.htm

Legalizing non-commercial sharing would merely acknowledge a right the public has already asserted.

Most people do not fileshare. This is not a right that the public has "already asserted". If you want to legalize actions based on the number of people doing them, I think you should start with eliminating speeding laws. Personally, I'm more opposed to internet filesharing than person-to-person piracy. Why? Because internet-based piracy is basically super-charging piracy, allowing the everyone in the world to get pirated material in an instant. Person-to-person sharing is inconvenient on a variety of levels, which means it can only do limited damage.

As a manager of a large movie theatre, I participate in the annual NATO (National Association of Theatre Owners) meetings, and I can tell you legitimately that the industry heads are not particularly worried about downloaders. What they ARE worried about, are the sophisticated rings of people who record a movie with state of the art miniaturized cameras, upload it to DVD fab plants in Malasia, and press literally millions of bootleg DVDs in a matter of a night or two, and have them shipped back out and on street corners by the end of the film's opening weekend. Downloaders are a different demographic and situation entirely from bootleggers. In general, a sold bootleg DVD is a loss of sale for a theatre, while a downloaded movie is kind of breaking even - either the person will like the movie and go see it, like it but be too cheap to go see it, or not like it and not go see it. You don't hear much about the MPAA suing everyone they can get their hands on - mostly because they learn from their impetuous brother the RIAA, and realized that you won't improve your business via suing, you actually have to accept some losses, fight the ones you can, and do your damndest to make movie going an enjoyable experience.

The National Association of Theater Owners, the businesses that run movie theaters, faced demands for DRM from the movie studios. They agreed, but on their terms, which limit the intrusiveness of the DRM system. Here are some of the terms:

• The System shall not compromise the security of the theatre's in-house network, including the security of digital cinema systems, point-of-sale systems, and other data systems owned and/or operated by the exhibitor. (In other words, Sony can't pull on theater operators what they pulled on consumers last year.)
• The system shall be designed to push data to outside business entities per the needs of the exhibitor, and shall not allow outside business entities to pull data from the exhibitor's equipment or from the premises without the express written permission of the exhibitor on a case-by-case basis. All such communications shall be recorded and shall be auditable by the Exhibitor. (This is the key provision. If it phones home, it does so only under the control of the end user, and the user can easily check the data being sent. The XML formats for this are defined.)
• Systems shall employ the standard interchange method for security log reports prescribed by DCI's Digital Cinema Specification v1.0. Systems shall employ tools that allow the exhibitor to filter security log reports logs prior to sharing. (So when the movie projector sends DRM usage info to the studio, it's in a standard format the exhibitor can read, and even filter.)

Any software that phones home in an enterprise environment ought to be held to standards like these.

• The proposal does not require that, when collecting data, the collecting organization specifically identify itself. EU data privacy laws generally require that. California law requires that web sites give "the actual name and address of the business" before accepting credit cards, and that's a good standard. If you can't identify who collected the data, you can't effectively exert your rights against them. "xyz.com" isn't enough; you need "XYZ, Inc. 1234 Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles, CA".
• "Web sites: Visiting pages on a Web site implicitly means the customer consents to the site's privacy statement and terms of use." - that's very weak, and not supported by law.
• For some things, even explicit consent is not enough. See the standards at StopBadware.org, which prohibit automatic updating which modifies other programs changes the functionality of the one being updated without user consent. (Think Tivo, where automatic updates took away commercial-skipping. That's badware.)
• Personal data transfer to third parties and retention policies need not be specified. Not good. In particular, the owner of the data (the user) needs the right to know which third parties have the data. And the collector of the data must remain responsible for what "affiliates" do with it. This has been a serious problem, where the "good company" disclaims responsibility for what their "affiliate" did. Remember the "outsourced medical transcription" scandal.
• The "privacy" document doesn't address the privacy issues associated with digital rights management (DRM). "Who knows what's on your ebook?"

For a more user-side view of privacy from a technical standpoint, the National Association of Theater Owners Digital Cinema Requirements document is valuable. Digital cinema at the movie theater level has DRM, and the theater owners have organized to tell (not ask) the studios exactly how intrusive the DRM can be. Stuff like

• "The System shall not compromise the security of the theatre's in-house network, including the security of digital cinema systems, point-of-sale systems, and other data systems owned and/or operated by the exhibitor." (i.e. no Sony-type rootkits)
• "The system shall be designed to push data to outside business entities per the needs of the exhibitor, and shall not allow outside business entities to pull data from the exhibitor's equipment or from the premises without the express written permission of the exhibitor on a case-by-case basis. All such communications shall be recorded and shall be auditable by the Exhibitor." (i.e. no spyware; the user has to explicitly send the log data, and can look at it first)
• "System components (servers, projectors) shall be capable of being moved from auditorium to auditorium within the same facility in any combination without limitation and without requiring receipt of new decryption keys." (you can swap components around without DRM problems)
• "Systems shall allow the movement and playback of shows among all auditorium systems within a complex." (you can move the movie from one room to another without DRM problems)
• "New Security Keys shall be delivered within 15 minutes of the time of request." (no long downtime because the DRM people screwed up)
• "Systems shall employ the standard interchange method for security log reports .... Systems shall employ tools that allow the exhibitor to filter security log reports logs prior to sharing." (it's all in XML, and you can see what the DRM owner sees.)

Most theaters, from small independants to big national chains, are members of the National Association of Theatre Owners. Their web site http://www.natoonline.org/ has some interesting statistics like average ticket prices, box office grosses and admissions over the years.

Some highlights:

• The System shall not compromise the security of the theatre's in-house network, including the security of digital cinema systems, point-of-sale systems, and other data systems owned and/or operated by the exhibitor.

  The system shall be designed to push data to outside business entities per the needs of the exhibitor, and shall not allow outside business entities to pull data from the exhibitor's equipment or from the premises without the express written permission of the exhibitor on a case-by-case basis. All such communications shall be recorded and shall be auditable by the Exhibitor.

  That's a nice contractual definition of a "no spyware" requirement. IT managers, put that in your purchase orders.

• Equipment changes and possibly repairs will require the immediate delivery of new Security Keys for all encrypted content in the complex within its engagement window. New Security Keys shall be delivered within 15 minutes of the time of request.

  Good performance requirement. If you have to do hardware replacement, this puts an upper limit on how fast the vendor has to authorize the new hardware.

If we have to have DRM, it needs contractual safeguards like that.

Do not forget about the rising price of movie prices themselves. Look for yourself at how much prices have gone up here. I can tell you inflation was not that high.

Let's look at the prices on that web site for the past 16 years. Notice that the prices from 1989 onwards are the ones based on a survey (also I'm guessing most Slashdot users don't remember, or weren't around to witness, pre-1989 prices).

Price in 1989 = $3.99. Price in 2004 = $6.21. ($6.21/$3.99)^(1/16) = 1.0280

CPI for 1/1989 = 121.2. CPI for 1/2005 = 191.3. (191.3/121.2)^(1/16) = 1.0289

So it looks like ticket prices have been growing by about 2.8%/yr, whereas the CPI has been about 2.9%/yr.. (i.e. inflation > ticket hike, past 16yrs).

Do not forget about the rising price of movie prices themselves. Look for yourself at how much prices have gone up here. I can tell you inflation was not that high.

Look at other emerging markets. Tivo: It used to be that you would go and watch a movie when there was nothing on television. Now you can watch the shows you want to see on TV (and there are a lot more channels to choose from), when you have time. Going to the movie theater is now far more inconvenient than it used to be.

Another emerging market: Video games... With a limited amount of entertainment, dollars available and those funds are currently shrinking... Something had to give way to pay for the emerging video game market. Simplest answer: Movies are no longer having their competitive edge that they once did.

I've always been curious as to how much movie ticket prices have gone up over the years. Here's a quick analysis taken from

http://www.natoonline.org/statisticstickets.htm
and then adjusted for inflation at:
http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm in 2004 dollars:

2004: $6.21
2002: $6.09
2000: $5.91
1998: $5.44
1996: $5.32
1994: $5.20
1992: $5.59
1990: $6.10
1988: $6.56
1986: $6.39
1984: $6.11
1982: $5.72
1980: $6.17
1978: $6.78
1976: $7.07
1974: $7.24
1971: $7.70
1967: $6.90
1963: $5.31
1958: $4.44
1954: $3.44
1948: $2.82

Which is very interesting. What's not at all clear is if this data is from all first run theaters, or all theaters. These prices are obviously the average price, though I don't know any first run, non-matinee theater around my area (Minneapolis) that's only $6.21. Around here typically ticket prices for first run theaters are around $8. The matinee is $6.00.

Can anyone find any more conclusive prices that are only first-run theaters?

Considering the price of movie tickets has doubled in the last 6 years. They aren't selling more tickets, they're extorting money from those willing to pay.

Where did you get your numbers from? Here's what I was able to dig up:

Average ticket price 2003: $6.03
Average ticket price 1997: $4.59
source

Number of admissions (billions):
2003: 1.57
2002: 1.63
2001: 1.49
2000: 1.42
1999: 1.47
1998: 1.48
1997: 1.39
source

It seems the price has not doubled and ticket sales are generally rising.

Considering the price of movie tickets has doubled in the last 6 years. They aren't selling more tickets, they're extorting money from those willing to pay.

Where did you get your numbers from? Here's what I was able to dig up:

Average ticket price 2003: $6.03
Average ticket price 1997: $4.59
source

Number of admissions (billions):
2003: 1.57
2002: 1.63
2001: 1.49
2000: 1.42
1999: 1.47
1998: 1.48
1997: 1.39
source

It seems the price has not doubled and ticket sales are generally rising.

Why not just leave the MPAA wouldn't that really be the meaning of independent? Or, does anyone know if you must be a member of the MPAA to qualify for the awards? Another option would be for them to send them out anyways and disregard teh MPAA altogether on this. I am no longer part of the movie scene ( though was once a member of NATO) might such an action cause repercusions from SAG et al?