Slashdot Mirror
A Subscription-Based Movie Theater
When the local movie theater in Oakhurst, California went out of business, residents were stuck without a way to watch films on the big screen without driving for at least an hour beforehand. Now, three men are trying to resurrect the theater with one major change: instead of relying solely on ticket sales, their business model revolves around subscriptions. From the article: 'They ran models of Nelson's subscription-based theater idea, showing that to break even they would need 3,000 people, or 15% of the mountain communities, to sign up. For $19.95 per month, a member would be able to see each movie one time and buy individual tickets for friends. Non-members could buy a $16 day pass. While researching the theater business, Nelson learned that studios are transitioning to digital distribution. Thousands of independent theaters that couldn't afford equipment upgrades have closed over the last 10 years, according to industry experts. Hundreds of others — which, like the Met, still show print films — remain on the brink. The subscription business model could pay for the new equipment.'
$20 monthly pass pays for itself after 2 movies.
UGC (the AMC theatres in France) used to (maybe still have) memberships that allowed you to see evey movie they show as many times as you want for 15euros. Lots of people were subscribing to it. I am sure they can manage it. Thought the $16 day pass for non subscriber seems over the top. I hope they also have regular $8/10 ticket for one movie. (most people wont see two movies in one day)
the problem is that 20$ a month is way more than the usual person pays for movies. there might be one good movie every 3 months, and that costs 8-12 dollars depending on where you are. if there were more good movies coming out each month then it might be worth it, until then, theres netflix
I've been to theaters that sell monthly/yearly passes to frequent movie-goers. From what I've seen though the model is typically to offer a steep discount for tickets if you hold a pass.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Where I live in Australia it costs around $17 per adult to see a movie at the cinema. The last movie I went to had around 8 people watching it. If they charged $5 per adult I bet there would have been a lot more people watching that movie (that may have also purchased overpriced crappy food from the candy bar).
It is ridiculous to expect $17 from someone to watch a shitty movie, considering the majority of movies pumped out these days are pretty terrible.
would be the Green Bay Packers model of community ownership. Keep the theater private but sell shares in the company; for $300 you would be part owner, and would be able to buy a subscription for either $15/month or get a $3 discount on individual tickets.
Wouldn't it be an even better idea to allow subscribers to see all the movies they want? a) it sounds like a better deal for potential customers and b) they are still likely to purchase overpriced refreshments, which is the real cash cow of a movie theater.
Not to mention not having to track who has seen what.
Duh.
expandfairuse.org
Life as a service. You don't own anything, you owe everyone.
Payphone booths and arcades are. Plain and simple. Too many other options.
I only go to the movies for the latest releases (so few that are worth it). The big players will hang on. I almost think the small theaters are being run out by design - because the longer a movie is out, the bigger cut the theater gets from ticket sales which start out at 100% for the studios.
Today, people can buy 70" flat led screen for around $1900, an 83" Mitsubishi dlp for $1800 (92" for $2800). Rent 3-6 month old movies at Redbox for a little over a buck, stream it from Netflix, etc.
It's a shame, because of the whole going out of the house thing (although, since I only view Matinees where it's empty - any potential social value dwindles to nothing). Speaking of social value, the only theater that's been built in my growing area the last 10 years has been one that is a restaurant and where you can order real food. So, added value options may grow from being a novelty to the norm.
Who knows, with TVs getting cheaper and cheaper all the time, in 30 years, huge A/Ced and heated theaters that sit empty most of the time may have largely become a thing of the past except in places like Las Vegas or the planetariums.
I view the 3D thing as largely a play to stay relevant, and it's probably not working all that well. I'm sure some theater owners are praying for Avatar 2 and 3 to come out soon.
I wish there was something like this near me, I don't see a lot of movie but I would then. Put it near a friggin highschool you'd get a shitton of subscribers.
I have a local 3 screen theater that shows first run movies for $5 (matinee is $4) and another small theater 15 miles away with one screen that is pretty cheap (can't remember ticket price off the top of my head though).
I couldn't imagine these theaters combined have gross receipts for a year coming close to $60,000, let alone having those costs per month.
The other theater is transitioning to digital soon, too.
What, me worry?
How the hell can this cost $60K? Even the highest resolution used on 70' screens is only 4096x2160. The only non off-the-shelf component would be the optical equipment, and couldn't they retrofit the optics of existing 35mm projectors?
Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
How about having actual butter for the popcorn? I can no longer get the overpriced popcorn at theatres, not just due to the shitty taste of the stuff but because the "popcorn topping" is full of MSG and consistently gives me a migraine headache right around the time we're heading home. It used to be "butter" then "butter flavor" and now they don't even pretend it's that. And guess what? It's not just me that doesn't buy it any more.
Popcorn popped in real vegetable oil, with real butter and salt will give off a smell that will draw tons of people out to get some even at movie theatre prices.
Oakhurst, CA: Population 2829. Good luck getting 3000 paying customers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakhurst,_California
I have good memories of movies 10-20 years ago.. the last movie I went to a theater to see was probably 3-4 years ago.. it was packed with insensitive chattering cell phone texting people who made the experience miserable. Sure you can call the usher or whoever and ask them to shut someone up but it seemed like there were more people texting and talking than were watching the movie.. so I decided to say screw the whole overpriced self-induced abuse mess. Screw movie theaters, Ill watch something on Netflix or Prime and save myself the harassment.
15% sounds great, but it's probably not attainable. $240/year per person is not very family friendly. And it's not very senior citizen friendly. I just don't see them hitting the number goals.
It's not Film
It's Television
I book films for a local theatre. Unless there are major changes with film distribution terms, this won't fly. Films are rented to theatres with terms that require a minimum guarantee from the theatre versus a percentage of the boxoffice gross. For a first run title, the percentage will start high (think 90% or so) and drop each week until it gets to 35% or so. For a 90% title, the theatre gets $1 of your $10 ticket, and the distributor gets $9. Boxoffice reports are submitted daily and list the number of tickets sold for each price category and the total number of tickets sold and boxoffice take for the day for the film in question.
There is no way that a subscription pricing model would work under standard film rental terms, since there is no standard ticket price on which to base the percentages. Any theatre that tried this without first convincing the film distributors to all change their business models (ha!) would never be able to get films to show. This is an industry that does not really like innovation and which is reluctant to change a business model that has worked well (more or less) for the last hundred years (or so).
The D-cinema thing is an entirely different issue. Cost is about $60k per screen for the projector and server, assuming that a sound system already exists for 35mm and can be (mostly) re-used for D-cinema. Only DCI-compliant equipment can be used--this is not the same thing as a regular off-the-shelf video projector, as it contains specific crypto hardware to make movie piracy difficult (no doubt it will be cracked eventually, however). No one is actually forcing this conversion at the moment, so 35mm film is still viable for the time being. This conversion process has been discussed for the last ten years or so, but has only really started to speed up over the last two.
I have managed theaters for two large chains. Frankly the concept of a movie theater is dead meat. The hang on, improve and survive executives simply have lost the battle.
Early on the theaters were huge. The cost of admission was trivial. Theaters relied on candy, popcorn and sodas as well as more complete menus the further back one goes. That was the profit gimmick. One need not make a penny on film if one sells enough food. Sadly theaters lost the ability to serve decent snack food as management types cut back on food expenses and quality. That alone was enough to kill the industry but inflation and the invention of TV and then cable were the death songs of the theater industry. One can easily have a first rate movie experience at home and the cost is trivial as it is wrapped in bundled services. For about $5. per day i can have thousands of movies and shows, my phone service and a high speed net connection that dwarfs a wired connection and use these features all day, every day. For another buck or so my home alarm service can also come by cable. Compared to that why would i go to a theater?
I haven't gone to the movies in years.
I remember prices for tickets were like $12-$16 or so in Australia and New Zealand per adult. And that's before you even add in the stupid overpriced cost of popcorn and coke, etc.
Combined with the fact there's very good movies coming out anymore, whats the honest point? I can see why movie theatres/cinema's are going broke.
You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.
I know that Gates is devoting his MS wealth to his various philanthropic causes, but what about all the other tech billionaires out there looking for something to spend their wealth on besides NFL teams, private space missions, yachts and private jets. Have any of them considered being the cultural angels of (selected) towns? It could be a lot of fun for them, they'd be the program directors in return for (presumably) operating at a loss.
If we are talking a movie theater with 6 screens, then sure, sounds like a great deal if you like going to movies. At least that way you are going to get a variety of different movies in, if we are talking 1 or 2 screens, then no, sounds like a rip off, seeing as you probably won't get more then 3 or 4 movies a month.
Now the problem with movie theaters is the Movie Industry takes too big of a cut of the ticket sales, without giving back. Considering they are taking in most the profit, they should be doing the refitting to digital, if that is how they are going to be distributing them.
I find movies going to be a horrible experience unless you are talking a very old theater with 1 screen. I'd much rather watch stuff at home, sure on a smaller screen, but cheaper food, I'm free to drink/smoke and be in my underwear. If i have to go to the bathroom, I can pause it.
I try not to contribute to the Movie Industries profits anyways, since not only do they not put stuff into public domain, but since they treat customers like criminals, on the hunt for "supposed" profit, while doing tricky accounting to make sure the actors, producers, etc on a film doesn't make any profit either.
Be seeing you...
Why is that movie theaters seem to be about the only business that not only doesn't understand or even attempt to follow supply and demand with their pricing of both the attractions and the food, but seem to publicly admit that they don't think supply/demand makes sense? If nobody wants to buy something I'm selling, the price is too high. Any sane person in the world would lower their price. That's the whole idea behind supply and demand. But what do movie theaters do? Jack up the price even more, and claim that they need to do so to survive. On what crazy planet does that even begin to make sense?
Popcorn is CHEAP. Why would you charge $7 for it and then complain that nobody buys it?
Sodas are CHEAP. Why would you charge $5 for it and then complain that nobody buys it?
I don't know about theaters around the country, but where I live we have "cheap nights" on Tuesdays, where movie tickets are a good deal cheaper than usual. And typically the theaters are packed full on that night. Every other night? You could count patrons in a given theater without running out of digits on your hands/feet. And even *THAT* doesn't tell theater owners that their regular prices are too high?! Your theaters are packed full on cheap nights because the price is easier to swallow. It shouldn't cost a family of four over $80 to go have a movie night, yet that's exactly what it cost a friend of mine to take his family to a movie on the weekend. Hell, it cost me and a friend, just two of us, almost $50 to go see 48 fps Hobbits a couple weeks ago. Almost $50 for two tickets and one popcorn/drink/chocolate combo. That's way too much money, and that is exactly the reason movie theaters are struggling, yet they just don't get it.
Supply and demand. This is an insanely old concept that pretty much everyone seems to understand. Except movie theater owners. WHY?!
Look at video games, and Valve's Steam store in particular. They've publicly discussed a few times over the past few years how they have seen insane increases in revenue whenever they have big sales on games, on the order or 40x increase in revenue in one case! Here's what I think was the first article discussing it back in 2009: http://www.edge-online.com/features/valve-are-games-too-expensive/
Movie theaters' own cheap nights prove that supply and demand is warranted in their market, just like any other. If they would lower prices of everything, tickets and refreshments/food, they'd see way more people, and way more money, come their way. If only they'd take their heads out of their asses.
It is an interesting idea and I will be interested to see if it works. Personally, I probably wouldn't go for it. Few movies grab my attention enough for me to head out to a theatre. But I do know people who go a couple of times a month. For those folks this would probably be a good deal. instead of, say, two $15 tickets each month they could get away with a $20/month pass. It would save them over a hundred dollars a year.
Movie theaters serve absolutely no purpose, except as a gate through which films must pass as a delay to everyone else watching them. Unless you absolutely have to watch a movie the month it comes out, there's no reason to deal with the costs, the sticky floors, the shitty seats, the noisy assholes, the crying children, the lines, the driving there and back, the parking, the treats. Save all the money and save making it an all-night event and just watch shit at home. Maybe that wasn't feasible in the 90s, but 50" and 65" HD televisions are common place, movies are cheap to buy or rent, and the sound system that you'd want to experience could be covered after the years of money you'd save from seeing films in theaters and all the associated costs (even if you only payed $20/mo for some subscription).
Frankly, let 'em die out and lets get on with same-day-everywhere-releases.
Besides, at $20 and you can only see each film one time? You'd need three movies to make up for just the savings on tickets and there aren't three movies worth seeing in the theater every month.
It would make sense to use a supply and demand model and start movies off at a set starting price and raise/lower the price based on attendance. More than half the seats filled (or some other threshold), raise it $1 or vice versa. Once the movie gets down to $1 (or free) it gets replaced with a different one. This model would allow for more people to afford them and even if there was a free showing, at least the studios don't get a cut of the vending revenue, so it may even be more profitable.
If the pricing depended on how many tickets were already purchased for a given showing, it would reduce overcrowding on opening weekends while maximizing profit.
"Lets go see if there is a free movie worth watching... Crap! Those all suck. Oh well, we are already here, wanna watch something anyways?"
I recall Cineplex also has something similar because some of the movies listed says "No Passes." I assume this is the subscription-based movies. I also noticed that these movies will eventually loose that particular status. However, as you might have guessed from the wording, subscribers cannot watch these movies for the first X weeks from first public showing.
A certain (IMHO evil) business philosophy will always, with **certainty**, try to take something that people purchase and own indefinitely and make it a 'subscription-based service'...it's 100% predictable and not in any way 'innovative' or 'new'
It's just feature bottlenecking...it's how drug dealers (and drug companies) make their money and it's ruining tech.
If TFA is correct and the theater is in demand in the community and fails anyway, it is **bad business practices** that caused the theater to close...no 'innovation' needed, just a person with the business sense of any stall shopkeeper in an Asian market.
American business has gotten so twisted, many businesspeople and investors really can't conceive of making a profit by any other means than the 'software as service' model. I have seen real, capital building business concepts laughed at in tech settings.
Thank you Dave Raggett
This is my local theater.
Last night they announced that they hit the 3,000 subscriber mark they were shooting for and will make a go at opening.
I wish them the best, though I think there are still some very big questions to be answered about the viability of the business model. Will the studios go along with it? Will subscriptions _remain_ high enough after the buzz fades away to be a viable business? I hope so, but only time will tell. The local economy is almost entirely tourism based, and their model effectively shuts out tourists who I think will be reluctant to shell out $16 for a day pass - so long-term local support is essential.
Why don't they lower the prices, you asked. You then mentioned they do lower the prices, especially on Tuesday. Weekdays cost less than weekend nights. A movie without popcorn costs a lot less than one with popcorn. Their web site has coupons. You can spend $5 going to the movie, or $25.
Theatres are very good at letting you spend as much or as little as you want. Some people will spend $25 or more for Saturday night ticket, candy, and large soda. The theatres have pricing where they'll accept that $25 from those people. They ALSO sell to the $5 crowd, on weekdays.
I stopped going to movies in early 90's
around here we had 1 theater for the longest now 2, 1 shows old movies only and the other shows new movies. Problem is they jacked the price so high it costs the same price to buy the DVD that it does to buy a movie ticket.
Tickets here are 14.99 for after 5pm 12.99 before 5pm / small drink is 3.99 / small popcorn is 4.99 / if I bring my family it's $80 for 1 movie, and I said fuck that.
I started pirating immediately and haven't looked back, with all the spam on television and movie prices soo out of whack it's cheaper to own the movie than see it in theaters, I still buy blurays of movies I really enjoy for the extras. But I now enjoy pirated movies on my big screen with my family, we make our own snacks and enjoy together. And for the economy as is, sorry to say it's about the only way.
I wouldn't watch new movies if there was no alternative.
Plus movies have changed over the decades, if you look back 50s, 60s, 70s, and even into the 80's going out to the movies was a social event, many people even dressed up went out to dinner and to a movie and it was a social event.
but the 90's and 2000's culture environment has sorta turned to more intimate settings, people want more privacy, and we deal with people annoying us all day long in work spaces we want our entertainment to be a bit more intimate in the new decades.
So now watching first run movies at home instead of going to theaters is becoming the norm. Who wants to go spend the same price to buy the dvd that a ticket costs and have to put up with so many people? noise, lip smacking, crunching, coughs, snorts, sneezes, whispers, glow of lcd's, giggles, talking back to screen, talking in general... fuck that
ill pirate from now on, until they offer first run movies in the home on a streaming basis that is affordable and streaming the 1 movie once does not cost as much as the fucking dvd then I'll reconsider.
After my mate and I went to see The Hobbit in IMAX and being charged $65 ($20x2 tickets & $25 for popcorn and drinks) I've sworn off going to see another movie in a theater again. I'm tired of paying for the privilege of someone kicking the back of my cramped seat, and people texting during a movie.
Instead I'll download the bluray rip and play it on XMBC on my big screen. The downfall of theaters is their own doing, and I say good riddance.
If they rolled out a way for people to watch films the day they're released on their home theater for $10, it'd be huge.
http://primacinema.com/
$35k plus $500 a pop ...
"Oh, you hate your job? There's a support group for that, it's called everyone, they meet at the bar."
maybe theaters need to band together and get more than they do for screenings, so they could pay for said equipment. we all know they make the majority of their money from concessions. i once emailed nato (national organization of theater owners) but got no reply. i'd wager than hollywood makes most of its money from first runs, so they do need the theaters as much as the theaters need them. i'd also like to see more alcohol-serving theaters.
I grew up on movies in movie theatres. There is no comparison to movies at home no matter what kind of money you spent. 2001 a Space Odessa in the Stanley theatre, Apocalypse Now in the same theatre renovated to Lucas Thx, and Star Wars in iMax. Not to mention Drive In movies, I feel sorry for todays generation that will never know that experience. I myself have abandoned movie theatres, mostly because of rudeness, people using cell phones silly conversation, etc, and for me the last straw was car commercials inserted before the main feature. I was so angry at paying full price for the movie and also expected to submit to brainwashing that I never returned.
Many a long talk since then I have had with the man in the moon; he had my confidence on the voyage. Joshua Slocum
I've had this idea for a while. Set up a theather that shows old movies. I've talked to quite a few peiple and a lot of people would love to see shows they missed in the movie theather when they were kids or teenages or whatever. I got the idea when thinking how cool it would have been to see Hackers on the big screen.
I'm sure the movie studios wouldn't go for it, can't take their cashflow from the new shit that passes for a movie these days.
Or a pirate movie theather. Rent out a small warehouse/shop set up a nice projector and audio system then invite people to see the shows.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
On Directv with a DRV is nice new movies are pushed to the drv they are in 1080P with no ad's and FULL DVR control.
Both big cinema conglomerates In France still do this, and have for years.
Unlimited movies in all cinemas. No blackout times. 20EU per month, or 35EU per month for a couple.
It's a great idea, and lots of people use it - considering normal adult tickets are 10 - 12EU.
The 'gotchya' is that it's a pain in the ass to unsubscribe - it's auto-debited from your bank account each month, so to cancel you need to send a letter via registered post etc to close your membership.
Small price to pay, however!
I wish the cinemas would finally drop dead. Perhaps then i would get the movies on DVD/Blu-Ray at the release date. I sincerely dislikes cinemas.
Why shell i watch a movie at a fixed times with several (sometimes unpleasent) strangers in a room that cannot compete with my living room in terms of comfiness? To purchase overprices soda? To have a very, very small collections of food stuff to buy? To get the brother of Hulk sitting in front of you and block 20% of the image?
Picture quality and sound at home can compete with 90% of all cinemas and i have enough space for my friends to join.
In my home city there are two cinemas - a big chain multiplex (Cineworld) and a small 2-screen art-house type cinema (The Light House). I have a subscription to the chain cinema (£15 - roughly $23 - per month) and only have to see two movies a month for it to pay for itself (often doing that in just one day). The Light House cinema has recently had to raise funds to upgrade their projection equipment (from digital+film in one theatre and just film in the other to digital support in both). With an increasing amount of films being made available digitally, it wasn't possible for them to show the films they'd like to, when they wanted to, because they often had two new releases both being digital. Even with my subscription at the bigger cinema, I try to go to the smaller one for three main reasons: 1) you get films that just don't turn up at the multiplex; 2) you don't get as many idiots in there (playing on their phone, talking through the film, kicking seats, etc.); 3) you can take the beer you bought in the bar into the theatre.
I hope the poster's cinema subscription idea is succesful, but I know just how hard it can be to get such a large number of people to commit to going to a cinema.
Interesting. So if my rent is 2000 per month and I get 11 subscribers @ 20 each the rest is gravy?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Or less.
Given the tight control Hollywood and other studios have on governing movie theaters and their sales I do not see this being something they will go for. Hollywood uses 'box office smash' sales numbers to advertise. A subscription model will not benefit that.
"Build It And They Will Come." Field Of Dreams
Why is that movie theaters seem to be about the only business that not only doesn't understand or even attempt to follow supply and demand with their pricing of both the attractions and the food, but seem to publicly admit that they don't think supply/demand makes sense?... If they would lower prices of everything, tickets and refreshments/food, they'd see way more people, and way more money, come their way.
Economics, the "dismal science", imagines demand curves as static. In the real world, changes in demand in response to price changes are not instantaneous, but occur over time. The movie theater changes its $7 ticket to a $12 ticket and the next day they have the same audience. People who plan a night out at the movies usually don't turn and walk away when faced with the sudden price change at the door. But next week/month when considering a night out at the movies, they recall the higher movie price and prefer a comparably-priced alternative. The theater owner, not seeing an immediate drop-off in attendance is pleased by the imagined lack of demand elasticity - that price hike was a "success." He doesn't link the price increase to the slow drop-off in attendance over the next year - that's just "people aren't going to the movies anymore." (Same effect on price cuts also, if complicated by advertising shocks.)
Beancounters need to hire folk who grok dynamic systems - simple-minded static spreadsheets lead to pricing "death spirals."
This kind of sounds like Moviepass only moviepass is better because it works at almost all theater chains. I pay $35/month (price varies depending on location) and can see any movie once, one per movie day. www.moviepass.com. My referral link: http://movi.ps/Tudu57 I get a free month if I get 3 people to sign up. Its worth it it me, but wouldn't be worth it to everyone. We also have a new Alamo Drafthouse that took over an old AMC theater in an entertainment district in Kansas City. They have an interesting model that seems to be breaking away from normal theaters. They show cult classics, saw a Back to the Future marathon last night, reserved seating, and all dine in theaters. They also are very strict about talking and texting during movies which I love. Theaters are going to have to do new things to get people to spend money.
Subject: Movie Theaters are dying for the same reason
Payphone booths and arcades are. Plain and simple. Too many other options.
I'll be more willing to accept your illustration if you plug the leaks. What's the alternative to a movie theater if you don't want to have to avoid spoilers for a year while waiting for a movie to come out on home video and pay-per-view? What's the alternative to a phone booth for calling a cab if you don't spend hundreds of dollars per year for a cell phone plan or for stripping off your mundane clothes to reveal your superhero uniform? What's the alternative to an arcade for lag-free multiplayer or for trying games that use expensive specialized controllers?
Rent 3-6 month old movies at Redbox for a little over a buck
3-6 months? Hop wasn't at Redbox until about 13 months after theatrical release.
You're assuming that only one person watches the TV, and that every movie goer lives in walking distance of the theatre. Face it, we have a TV anyhow. Then subtract the cost of going to a movie theatre, including tickets, concession prices versus home prices, travel, and extra time.
You're assuming that "we" have a TV. I don't, and I'm hardly alone; many people have a junky old CRT TV, mostly for news. Many don't have any sort of cable TV beyond the minimum included with internet service (mostly the local broadcast stations.) It costs me nothing to travel to the theater, because I already have a monthly transit pass I use for commuting. It's a 30 minute trip each way, but only because I live in one of the outlying areas; if I lived in almost any other part of the city, it'd be a 15 minute trip.
I spend less than $200/year on movies, and that's seeing at least one film a month. I estimate I'd have to see nearly 50 movies a year for two years to match the cost of a home system, and I'd piss off the neighbors if I turned it up as loud as a theater.
Please help metamoderate.
o Expensive, limited snacks
o Crying children
o The slob next to you, sneezing out his disease for you to inhale
o idiots with cellphones
o inability to pause, coupled with missing stuff when you take a whiz
o the need to meet someone else's schedule instead of your own
o uncomfortable seating with 1 arm per person
o sitting with people... you wouldn't choose to meet
o sitting through local commercials
o getting your shoes washed with coke when the moron behind you spills theirs
o standing in line
o spending money to benefit someone else
o "bragging" rights because you saw something a little bit earlier
o No media copy for you
o no replays
o no showing friends and family
o no resale value
o no subtitles
o no special features
o no image adjustment
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
On the other hand, for shitty movies, its ridiculous to even contemplate watching them in a theater, no matter the price.
Speaking for myself, it isn't just "shitty" movies that I don't bother to see in a theater. I go to the theater to see movies where the visuals and special effects are enhanced by a big screen. Action movies, sci-fi, etc. I see little point in going to a theater for some chick-flick emo sob fest that could be equally enjoyed at home on my TV.
Honestly though, once I can afford a 70+ inch HDTV for home I doubt I'll go to the movies much after that...
You mean not until the next Shrek movie?
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
The theatre in Yuma AZ, charges $5.00 for adults and $4.00 for seniors and youths, sells all you can eat/drink popcorn and sodas for $2.50, all the while showing top of the line flicks and packing the house daily. The theatre I sometimes go to in Concord CA, charges $9.50 to $12.00 and an arm and a leg for a kernel of popcorn and a thimble of soda, and is deserted even on Friday nights. Seems like there is a lesson to be learned about the economics of supply and demand, but corporations are very slow learners...
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
You mean not until the next Shrek movie?
More like the next Slade album...
Last year, I went to a big screen theater to see a one time showing of one of my most revered movies - "Singin' in the Rain".
The place was PACKED!!!!
I had always seen it on the small screen, as it is "older" than I am. These are the kind of movies I would LOVE to see on the big screen. Older movies that are classics.
jdawg