Slashdot Mirror
Domain: themovieblog.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to themovieblog.com.
Comments · 16
-
The business of movie theaters isn't movies
The snack stand is going to be the demise of the theater.
See that's what you don't understand. The snack stand is where the theater makes all their profit. They don't make any money on the movies themselves. The studio keeps most of the gross profits from the movie. Movie theaters really are just concession stands that use movies to get you in the door. I'm sympathetic if you consider it overpriced but if they didn't charge you an arm and a leg for refreshments they wouldn't be in business for long.
My theater is independent and doesn't show ads.
Then in all likelihood they won't be around for long.
-
Re:Yes, these are also my reasons as well
Of a $12-$15 first run ticket the theater gets 25 cents and the rest goes to the studio that made the movie
Actually, more like $3 in the opening weeks, rising after that. But the point stands that the bulk of theatre profits are from concession sales.
-
Re:$100+ for a family
> But that means charging less for distribution so the theatres don't
> have to rape you on popcorn and soda to turn a profit, and that might
> in turn mean paying actors less than tens of millions for a movie.^ This. Do you realize that first-run movies cost the movie theatres 95% to 100% of ticket revenue for the first week?!?!
http://www.themovieblog.com/20...> For instance, 2 movie theatre managers told me that for Star Wars Episode II: Attack
> of the Clones, the studio took 100% of the box office take for the first week of release.> So if you ever wondered why a $0.15 bag of popcorn is costing you $5,
> and a $0.08 cup of Coke is running you another $4⦠itâ(TM)s because the
> economics of the industry system is so screwed up that the concession
> stand is where theaters have to make most of their money. -
Re:False supposition
They have to pay back the same amount to the studios regardless how how many tickets they sell
Here's some reading for you.
That's not actually true. Most of the big distributors vary the contract per film. They also have variable lengths and variable percentages. An expected blockbuster may have 3 weeks where 100% of the ticket goes to the distributor, and after that the house gets to keep a percentage. A less anticipated movie may have a more equitable split, or only a day or two at a high percentage.
If the audience drops off quickly while in that initial distibution agreement, you can bet the movie will be replaced by something that makes the house something. Which is why some movies only play for a few days, even though some people are still going. If the audience is going strong, the house can keep showing it and make a percentage off tickets as well as concessions.
Typically, indie films or other small films will get shown just because the percentage is higher. Fewer people mean fewer concessions, but it evens out being able to keep more of the ticket.
If anything, theaters should be charging more to cover their initial costs. But at 100%, raising the ticket prices won't do anything for the theater, and the distributor may have a minimum they can't go under (must be at least your normal ticket price).
Plus, theaters probably want to be on the commodity scale, you know what you're going to pay for. Larger communities may have the ability to split pricing, but most theaters want to remain predictable so people make plans without having to check the price first. Wanna go see the new movie? Sure, wait, how much will it be? They don't want you to have that conversation to get in the way of a potential sale unless they have a large enough population that it doesn't matter.
-
Game, movie, what is difference?
The newly named service includes video games, so "flix" would be a bad choice.
-
Re:Harlen
TFA isn't the best source for info here, but as it turns out, it was on his contract, only Paramount keeps procrastinating rather than paying him. For more info check this out.
-
Arnold Better Start Getting Into Shape
-
The Movie Blog did a vdieo responding to this
I read this over at the movieblog.com where the owner of the site put up a very nice and articulate video about what he feels would be the real effects of this delay. You can watch the video at http://www.themovieblog.com/archives/2007/01/open
_ video_letter_to_20th_century_fox_on_canadian_relea se_dates.html/ -
Re:It's about time...
The typical production budget for a Pixar film is approaching $100 million USD.
Just because one figure is very big, and the other was very small, that doesn't mean the DVDs are not badly overpriced.
But let's talk about Pixar. Let's talk about Cars
Cars had a production budget of $120 million. That's high-end for Pixar, who shot The Incredibles for 90 million, but your average of 100 million works fine for recent Pixar films. Cars took $60 million in its first week of cinematic release. And, apparently, cars was considered something of a flop, by Pixar standards. The film went on to take $244 million US dollars on the domestic market, and another $217 million worldwide.
When Cars was released to DVD, it didn't owe anyone a penny. And this, by Pixar standards, was reportedly a failure, remember.
So the main economic constraints on the DVD price is the cost of pressing, storing and shipping the physical DVDs. That still left DVD sales prices greatly over-inflated, but for a long time this wasn't widely appreciated. Then P2P networks cropped up, and broadband became common enough to make downloading a movie a practical proposition, and at the same time newspapers and magazines starting giving away DVDs free, which gave the consumer a clearer ideal of the production and distribution costs entailed.
And suddenly it's a lot harder to justify that twenty dollar price tag. -
Semi off-topic
I think it's funny:
http://www.themovieblog.com/archives/Potter-Star-W ars-Rip.jpg -
Re:In response to overwhelming demand ...
Q. Who shot first?
A. Who cares, as long as you're not the one with a hole in you.Considering that Lucas' "original vision" was for a 9 or 12-story saga
http://www.themovieblog.com/archives/2004/09/mark_ hamill_spills_some_dirt_on_star_wars_episodes_7_8_ and_9.html
http://www.epinions.com/content_4057571460Not to take away from what he's done in terms of pop culture, but it would have been better if he'd stuck to the original idea. The first two episodes of the prequil smack of trying to recapture the ET franchise.
-
For all you nay sayers
http://www.themovieblog.com/archives/2004/10/star
_ wars_tv_series_a_go.html
and
http://www.iesb.net/tv/tvt92804.htm
and
http://www.starwars.com/community/event/celebratio n/f20050419/indexp17.html
not to say that lucas won't decide to do everything himself, but i'm hopeful -
Re:Um no...
-
Topher Who? All I care about is Campbell.
And it's official: Bruce Campbell is playing Spiderman.
-
Re:six days off
What about the recently-announced TV series?
(Ironically, there's a SW Ep 3 banner on the comment page as I write this.)
-
Chewie possibly making a return too?
