Slashdot Mirror
Christopher Nolan and Sofia Coppola Urge Fans To Watch Films in Cinemas, Not On Netflix (theguardian.com)
Christopher Nolan and Sofia Coppola have urged audiences to see their films in the cinema at a time when the movie industry is reckoning with the growing popularity of video on demand and streaming platforms such as Netflix and Amazon. From a report: Presenting their forthcoming films at CinemaCon, the annual convention organised by the National Association of Theatre Owners, the directors said that they hoped fans opted to watch them at movie theatres, where they were "meant to be seen." Nolan made his comments during a presentation of his second world war drama Dunkirk, at which he previewed footage from the film. "This is a story that needs to carry you through the suspenseful situation, and make you feel like you are there, and the only way to do that is through theatrical distribution," Nolan told the audience. "I am depending and relying on all of you to try to present this film in the best way possible." Coppola echoed Nolan's comments during a Focus Features presentation for The Beguiled, a remake of the Clint Eastwood civil war drama starring Colin Farrell and Nicole Kidman.
Then tell the annoying teenagers behind me to shut the hell up if you want me to go to a theater.
"Please support a dying business model because our industry is too stupid to innovate"
I'd love to. I enjoy seeing movies in a real theater.
But I have small children, so there is little opportunity to go out. Netflix and other online providers are my best hope for seeing any movies at all, and even then I see them only long after they've left the theaters.
If you don't want people to watch it on Netflix, don't sell it to them. But, I bet you would make a lot less money if you didn't.
... different people have different preferences. One person may love to see Nolan's "Dunkirk" on a huge cinema screen, where the experience is probably quite overpowering. Another may prefer to pop the Dunkirk Bluray into his living room Bluray player and experience the film on a smaller screen in the comfort of his home. Also, some people - like working adults with children - simply don't have the time for a 3+ hour trip to the local multiplex. I used to love going to the cinema when I was 13 - 25 years old. I wanted to watch everything on the big screen. These days I like watching Bluray's or streaming movies at home - some even on a laptop screen with headphones on. The films still work. After the first 3 minutes, you forget what kind of screen you are watching on. You cannot expect everybody, in this day and age, to prefer cinema over home viewing options.
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
I take my kids to movies in theaters and we always do 3D which is fun.
Otherwise, they need to update the configuration of theaters to enhance the experience.
I suggest they use the Oatmeal's suggestions:
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/m...
"Into the Dome Motherfucker!"
BlameBillCosby.com
. . . does that work for you ? Because it works for me. No crying babies, chatty teens, or rude patrons playing with their smartphones. Better bathroom, and I can pause the movie while I take care of that. And no highly overpriced "refreshments". . .
. . . and besides, afterwards, I can re-watch scenes, and even MST3K them if warranted. . .
Theaters suck, I will never go to a theater again
Drive across town, pay to park, drive around looking for a spot, walk to the theater, wait in line, try to find a good seat, wait until the movie starts while being forced to watch commercials
Once it starts, it can't be stopped, paused or rewound
Worst of all..no subtitles. I'm old with bad ears (too many years in the rock band). Without subtitles it's almost impossible to make out what the actors are saying, especially when the music and FX are mixed loud
At home, I can have a beer and a reasonable priced snack, while being in control
Instead of simply asserting there's some sort of magical experience that a only a theater can provide, how about theaters actually focus on differentiating themselves? It's clear they've lost the technology race, as good sound system, large and 3d televisions are relatively affordable, etc. You have a group of strangers in a room together, watching a film. Right now, I think many of us perceive this as a negative, as there are usually a few who are rude/noisy, using their phones, etc. Turn that negative into a positive. Turn that room full of strangers with a shared interest into a community. See Rocky Horror Picture Show for details.
How about writing some new stories, instead of remaking movies?
But really, people want to see movies in the comfort of their own home, not be ripped off for popcorn. Deal with it.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
"This is a story that needs to carry you through the suspenseful situation, and make you feel like you are there, and the only way to do that is through theatrical distribution," Nolan told the audience.
That may have been true some 10-15 years ago when average TV sizes were still pretty small and home theater setups were prohibitively expensive. But now I can get a 60" TV for $400, and a HTIB for ~$300. That used to be the price of just a TV, and a small one at that.
Last time I went to the theater (last weekend) I had an obnoxious kid talking on one side of me, and another kicking my seat. I think I'll manage with my big screen, surround sound, and a beer in one hand.
That's a movie I actually will watch in theaters, just because it looks to be a film that benefits from the big screen experience. I'm willing to pay to see large-scale films that take advantage of every inch of the screen and benefit from having big speakers...but tickets here are less than $5 for a regular screening and around $8 for an IMAX screening, so I can afford to do that easily. Were I paying as much for tickets as others mention they pay, my large, high-def TV with surround audio would have to suffice.
Of course, the vast majority of films are little more than "junk food" media. They don't push boundaries or improve significantly when viewed with a bigger screen and better audio, so the theater experience is wasted on them. I'll wait for those to come to Netflix or RedBox before watching them, assuming I watch them at all.
As long as theatres feel that "making up the difference" means overcharging their remaining customers, they'll continue to lose their following.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
In your own home you can also stop for a call of nature, cup of tea, a fresh beer, spread out on your couch in a onesie, with the sound volume only set high enough to give you mild tinnitus rather than so loud you'll probably come out of the movie bald.
Going to the cinema has its place, such as a dozen of you going as hobbits to what turns out to be a disappointing sequel
That's cool, but maybe if it didn't cost me around $90 to go to the movie with my wife and two kids ($16ea for adult, $13ea for kids) plus 1large($7.50) and 1medium($5) popcorn, medium drinks x4 ($4ea) then if we feel like having a sugary treat add another $3 for each of those.
Or...we could stay home and watch a movie on Netflix and pay $10 for the WHOLE month, unlimited views, and we can devour that 15pack of Act2 Popcorn over the course of the month that cost like $8 to buy.
So yeah, $90 for a night, or $18 for a month...
Really, I was just about to cancel. But now I'm keeping Netflix for sure. When are the entitled Hollywood types going to realize that they are not in a position to ask for charity? Nolan, Coppola_ go back to work making content. You have no influence over where that content will be consumed. When I feel like going out and getting popcorn with friends or family, I'll go to the theater. I may or may not pay to see a first run movie when I do so. I may go to the cheap theater or a rivival house too. Nothing has changed. You two, though, Nolan and Coppola---you're TERRIBLE popcorn salespeople. Theater owners take note. Next year, talk about how the popcorn is better than microwave.
Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
Me and my wife have different tastes in movies, so we can rarely find one that we can both agree to go watch in theaters. If we do go to a theater to see a movie, we go to one of the new types of theaters that serve food and drinks at the seats, which means it's an easy $40-50. I'm already paying for premium movies channels on cable, have access to Netflix, and there are Redboxes all over the place we can use too. There is simply no incentive in most cases to see a movie in theaters anymore.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Actually, if the tickets were tiered (some movies definitely don't earn their ticket price), if the concession prices weren't obscene, and if there were ushers who would actually remove patrons disturbing everyone else...
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.
I hope the existing system crashes and burns, it is ridiculous. It needs to normalize so the economics make sense for all the players. If that mean wages move towards the mean, I think everyone but the very top will be OK with that. If that means budgets drop a bit, we'll survive. If it means investors have to invest in more movies to make the same amount of money, lawyers will take a slightly larger cut for the extra paperwork.
It'll all work out, and the average moviegoer, actor, and crew will be happier for it. But first Hollywood needs to burn.
What about being unable to
I still prefer to watch movies in the comfort of my home while nothing and no one are distracting me from them.
Has anyone else noticed how bad the sound-mixing is in Nolan's films when in theaters. You can barely hear what the actors are saying. It was like this for Dark Knight Rises and Interstellar. I did some research on it and apparently its a creative choice. Nolan is one of the only directors that could still get me to go to the cinema anymore. But if the sound mix for Dunkirk is terrible, I'll be waiting to see it on Netflix. I have a home theater set up that's comparable to a full theater anyways.
I live 5-minutes from a major theatre, I go once every few years. Even if you can get a seat in a decent viewing position you're still stuck with an uncomfortable seat. At 6'1" I'm tall, but normal tall and yet the only way I fit in seats is to cross my shins.
Insult to injury, a single ticket is ballpark of a blueray and much more expensive than renting.
Design them to be seen on my TV, I have no interest in theaters. kthxbai
and the $30 for pop and popcorn and I'll go watch it.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
I will see more movies in the theater if Hollywood makes movies that are worth paying $10 to see once. Frankly, in the last year, there haven't been a lot of those. Rogue One
and Get Out are the only ones that come to mind.
Otherwise, my wife and I can watch Netflix or Amazon Prime on our big screen TV, in our pajamas, and have a more comfortable experience. Plus my homemade popcorn recipe is cheaper and tastes better than theater popcorn.
Finding God in a Dog
First of all, yes you can have a big screen, surround sound, and a beer at home. But, you can have all those, plus a wide,comfy leatherish recliner, reserved seating, at modern theatres. Yes, my local multiplex has a full bar and even a kitchen that makes reasonably edible sandwiches.
But here's the difference: once you're in the theatre, you respect the movie. You don't pause it to take a whiz, or answer a text from a friend (I hope!), etc. So there is something to be said for being in a theatre and giving your full attention to the movie.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
A Hollywood movie experience is not the same one as your typical sticky-floor cinema. When the stars attend a showing, it's an event where people go to watch it. No slobs are present and the place is likely immaculate. That's a lot like my home Netflix based movie watching. Thanks for your suggestion anyway.
The theatrical experience is no longer so much better than that you can get at home. With big TV screens and sound systems available at prices that the vast majority of the population can afford, the theatrical experience is not that compelling any more. Sure, the sound is louder, but that is it. Theaters should start providing something else that you cannot easily get at home - and I say "else" because couples have been using the advantages of the theaters for generations. When it comes to just watching movies, the theater is not that compelling any longer.
Christopher Nolan and Sofia Coppola have urged audiences to see their films in the cinema at a time when the movie industry is reckoning with the growing popularity of video on demand and streaming platforms such as Netflix and Amazon.
Translation: We're in charge of the current situation and if it changes we'll have less control.
Boo-hoo. Not my problem.
"This is a story that needs to carry you through the suspenseful situation, and make you feel like you are there, and the only way to do that is through theatrical distribution"
Bullshit. Maybe that's the only way it works for him but I can decide for myself what the best way for me to view a particular movie is. Sometimes that's the theater but I have a large 4K screen at home with a good sound system too. For me I enjoy going to the theater but more as a social outing than for any practical movie going reason. It's certainly not convenient to go. The best theaters offer amenities I cannot get at home and that might be more than just the movie. If I can replicate the experience to a good approximation in my house why would I bother going to a theater and paying a lot of money? Big screen? Got it. Popcorn? Check. Dark room? No problem. Good sound? Probably better than most theaters. What is he really offering me that I don't already have? Give me something more if you want me to make the extra effort to go to a theater.
"I am depending and relying on all of you to try to present this film in the best way possible."
Whose definition of best? The only one I care about is mine. If our opinions of "best" happen to match then fine but I'm not worried about what the director wants. I'll enjoy art on my terms, not someone elses.
I urge directors to buy my ticket if they're so concerned about me seeing their films in the theater.
Last night I watched the IMAX 3D of Ghost in the Shell, does that count?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Hey Christian/Sofia,
Are you volunteering to babysit my kid, then?
It is practical to enjoy the cinema experience at home more than it has been in the past. TVs are better. Sound systems are better and relatively inexpensive. Delivery systems are better. Sure Netflix might not have the movie but I can rent it from Amazon or Apple or cable. Then it's also way more convenient. I can see a movie starting at 1 am with 7 buckets of popcorn. There are no screaming children or obnoxious other patrons.
Of course, I will see a movie in the theater, but I usually pick movie chains that offer beer and food and better quality seats.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Fans urge Christopher Nolan and Sofia Coppola to make Netflix their primary distribution model.
There are plenty of fantastic, high-quality, engaging stories being told in long and short form through Netflix. Challenge yourselves to do the same with your story-telling.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
...then remove ads at theaters, I'm not paying to watch ads.
Note, I already only attend matinées at reduced rates, so consider that in terms of what I'm willing to pay already.
(I've thankfully not been bothered by other rude patrons, and find films often enhanced by shared reactions, but for many people you'd have to eliminate the audience too.)
Music has changed to reduce the deeper tones not resolved in tiny earbud headphones, as fewer listen via speakers nowadays, perhaps movies should likewise adapt to how they are consumed?
You want me to soend $20 on a ticket to see a movie once with a bunch of people...most of whom dont know how to behave in public. You want me to pay out the butt for a beverage and snack. Screw that. I'll wait till it comes on HBO or something...where I can eat affordable food...pause when I need to pee...and enjoy the movie by myself on a 70" screen with 9.2 sound thats at a volume other than "goodbye eardrums"
I'd love to, but for the price of seeing one movie at a set time (admittedly in a very nice environment) I can subscribe to Netflix and watch anything they have the time of my choosing for a month.
People must have nicer cinemas around them than me. To me a cinema experience includes:
* Sticky Floors
* Uncomfortable Seats
* Way too loud Sound System
* AC that is almost always freezing my nads off.
I don't remember ever going to a cinema that I would consider a nice environment. Some are nicer than others, but every cinema I have been to has been dirty and uncomfortable.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
You keep making films like The Dark Knight and Interstellar, and I'll keep watching them in the theater! I really enjoyed watching Interstellar in 3D.
Memento, The Prestige, Inception... all good films imho, but I'm not sure what the theater would add. I regret going to the theater for The Dark Knight Rises. Actually Inception was interesting in the theater, but it just wasn't the movie I thought it was going to be.
I'll bet Inception would be really good in a cannabis club with a theater room. There's an idea for those of you out there in Denver.
I'm fairly sure the National Association of Theatre Owners have not been putting 2% of their budget towards defense spending.
That would make them smart.
What's wrong with using bath salts while you're bathing?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Oh ... oh my goodness ... ok, this was great, really.
Didn't know Nolan and Coppola are doing comedies. Some more killer gags like this and they could really revive the genre.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Lets see, I could spend an obscene amount for the ticket, sit through 30 minutes of ads + 15 of more ads for upcoming movies, pay another obscene amount for stale popcorn and flat coke, sit in front of that person who talks on the phone while crunching loud chip, and have to rush to the bathroom, elbowing people out of the way and find that I missed the best part of the movie.
Or I could sit in my living room, no tickets, no ads, food of my choice that I've already paid for, the only one crunching chips is me, and I can pause when I have to pee and not miss a thing.
Tough choice!
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
People to ride a horse instead of the automobile.
If filmmakers think watching a movie in a theater is somehow analogous to seeing a live stage play, they are even more out-of-touch than I thought.
It's called a "home theater" for a reason. I've got ~87 high-def inches of projector screen that takes up my entire field of view, and speakers that I like just as much. Unless I have a burning need for 4K, which I don't, there is literally no reason to go to a theater except timing.
When I can sit in a theater naked, with a glass of vodak in my hand and porn on my 'puter, I'll pay for a ticket that costs as much as a monthly subscription to Netflix.
The hollywood profiteers can go to hell.
I can see the fnords!
135" screen, 5.1 surround, theater style reclining chairs for 4 people, cheap refreshments, non-sticky floor, ability to pause or replay certain scenes..
or I pay $40-$50 and the only advantage is a bigger screen with a better sound system.
I will still go to a movie theater once or twice a year, normally as a reward for my young son for doing well at something.. I don't mind waiting a year to see new movies courtesy of Netflix, amazon prime, or just buying the disc. Big Star Wars fan, still haven't seen the latest movie.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Every subtitle system in the theaters forces the viewer to switch between two distances: the screen and the subtitle screen, which is MUCH closer to the viewer.
I don't have to put up with that for DVDs and I see no reason to fry my eye muscles trying to figure out WTF a character I can barely hear just said.
There's actually a theatre in my town that charges only $2 per head for matinee's, but it's a second run venue, so you have to wait a few weeks to see a title.
Great for taking the kids, though... no metaphor. And $1 hot dogs. But you gotta put up with the other kids.
You get what you pay for. Including the hot dogs.
I can see the fnords!
You realize everyone doesn't have to take your family to a theater to go there themselves?
I do go to the theater when I can. But for the other 95% of films I see for the first time, I can't afford the time, ticket, and babysitting.
I think from living in the LA area, I've absorbed some of the film connoisseur mentality, so I'm right there with them. The first time I saw Interstellar was at the Chinese Theater in Hollywood and the experience completely affected my appreciation of the film. But for the vast majority of films, I'm either going to see it on our 37" living room budget TV after my kids go to sleep, or not at all.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
Is your world really that scary? How do you manage to get out of bed in the morning?
Only I can judge you.
In my own home, I can also watch TV in bed with my arm around my girlfriend. Theater seats have immovable armrests which prevent getting close to your companion.
And yeah, it's nice being able to make any food or drink I want, instead of being limited to whatever overpriced shit they sell at the concessions stand. Not to mention being able to pause and rewind.
If Hollowood would get some ... oh, I don't know... *NEW IDEAS*... yeah, silly thought there, what am I thinking? ... maybe I'd be a bit more inclined to subject myself to their product?
Of the three movies they were touting in TFA, two were remakes.
There's very little of their output that I'd consent to waste what's left of my dwindling lifespan on if it were free.
("Hollowood" was a typo, but I decided to keep it. Pretty much says it all.)
Christopher Nolan is IMHO one of the few filmmakers who still makes movies the proper way - with film, in regular old 2D cinemascope and uses the whole image, with good cinematrography. Each movie I have seen of Nolan's has been both a visual treat, an immersion into a very special world and sometimes thought-provoking. They have made me think about the movie experience for days afterwards.
But most of the movies these days are cookie-cutter action/comedy "popcorn" movies, and always with 3D glasses that provide worse image quality than even a regular DVD on a 27" TV.
You already had me, Nolan. But you can't persuade me to go to the theatre to see something else than your own.
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
My ticket is not going to make a dent in your gross revenue.
That is the same type of thinking that a lot of people have about voting too. "What difference does my one vote make?" If more people voted, we might have a different president right now.
ONE MONTH'S service on Netflix is the same cost as ONE MOVIE TICKET.
Really, you think there's a compelling argument to get us to go into theaters Chris?
-Styopa
..those filthy places that smell like urine, have sticky floors, crap all over the screens, surround you with obnoxious people on all sides, and then charge you a small fortune for this terrible experience? Hahaha f*** off. Let them die.
(Had to vent.)
If more people blindly voted, you'd have the exact same president and it would be even harder for the people that gave a crap to make a difference.
The last thing you want is a bunch of people going down and checking the box next to the name with the bigger advertising budget.
When cable TV started up the theater industry fought tooth and nail to stop cable. The movie houses argued that cable would destroy the theater industry. And it was true. Cable did knock the theaters on their rumps and the movies houses are not what they used to be at all. And it is true that some movies may have a greater emotional impact if viewed in a theater. None the less cable won out big time. Now we have a situation in which Netflix and others are hammering the cable industry. Streaming will beat cable and become the norm. But there is a hidden weapon that gives cable too much power. Cable is also a huge internet provider and their data caps apply to streaming but not their own channels as streaming is considered as a data service. Cable carriers have an unfair advantage. One cure is to have multiple cable lines into every home so that carriers would be forced to compete instead of having a monopoly on your service.
... will begin to use digital Cameras, digital editing, and produce Netflix-front-and-center typw of films (not that they will not release in cinemas, DVD and Blue-Ray, mind you).
So the movie will be produced first and foremost to play to Netflix (and other streaming services) strenghts and limitations, and all the other forms of distribution will be an accesory revenue.
In 10 or so years, well check back to see who's making better, financially speaking.
*** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
>"This is a story that needs to carry you through the suspenseful situation, and make you feel like you are there, and the only way to do that is through theatrical distribution,"
Oh really!
So, I can sit in my darkened greatroom, and watch my high-end 75" 4K TV from my high-end electric lazy-boy chair, listening to my high-end, perfectly balanced and tuned surround system... and that is somehow inferior to a "theatrical distribution"??
* No extra noise through the entire movie
* Better sound than I have EVER had at any theater
* Correct volume level so I don't have to wear earplugs
* No people waving phones or making other visual distractions
* Nobody tapping or kicking my chair or sending vibrations through connected chairs
* Seated perfectly in the center of the screen, every time
* Perfect ambient temperature
* Ability to pause and do something else IF WANTED
* No having to drive anywhere or wait in any lines
* No 20 minutes of "previews" and commercials.
Actually, if the tickets were tiered (some movies definitely don't earn their ticket price), if the concession prices weren't obscene, and if there were ushers who would actually remove patrons disturbing everyone else...
Effectively, they are tiered. If you want to see it on day 1, and think the movie will be worth it, you can spend $20 and go see it in iMax 3D. If you don't think its worth that much, go see it for 2/3 to 1/2 price in normal "2D" (which you can also do on day 1, if you look around, but you'll have better luck waiting a week). If you don't think its worth even that much, wait 4+ weeks, and go see it at the discount cinema. If even that isn't worth the time/bother, then you've got HBO/Netflix for $10 a month, all you care to watch.
In other words: Our business model isn't working, therefore our customers must all change their behavior.
[Insert pithy quote here]
Fuck Christopher Nolan and Sofia Coppola. They can both kiss my ass. I'll watch what I want, when I want, where I want.
I don't need some self-important shitbags telling me where I should watch the current crop of shitty movies.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
> 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.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Fail. Market is changing. Change with it.
Nah. It fucking isn't.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
I used to go to the movies, but I refuse to watch movies unless they're in their original language and also in 2D. The problem is, I used to have a choice "English or Norwegian" at the theater. Then it became "Norwegian 3D, Norwegian 2D, English 3D". So, I stopped going.
Now, I simply watch on a 120" projector screen 720p, with somewhat budget surround sound at home. I even bought a little movie theater popcorn machine.
You know what... I don't mind paying $50 for a new release film if they ever get that going. It's cheaper, cleaner, nicer than going to the movie theater. I would probably watch 8 new releases for every one I see now. I think I went to the movie theater last year... was Suicide Squad last year?
Oh please, you're ridiculous. Theaters offer many valuable features you simply cannot easily get at home. Here's a few:
* teenagers using cellphones
* screaming kids (esp. in R-rated movies)
* people talking about the movie
* people talking *to* the movie
* arguments between patrons
* patrons shooting each other
Don't know where you live but I've been in plenty of homes with ALL of those amenities available.
That's what's so special about going to a theater, and why you can't replicate it at home. At home, it's just a dry, inhuman experience with only you there alone, or maybe 1 or 2 other people.
It's only a "dry, inhuman experience" if you make it one. That is 100% within your control.
At a theater, you have a whole room full of wonderful people to share that experience with, along with all the other great things that come with being around other humans, including the talking, screaming kids, use of cellphones with bright screens, and shootings.
There is this thing called being social. Try it sometime. Did you know you are actually allowed to invite people over to your home? I know, crazy, right?
A $0.15 bag of popcorn isn't costing me $5, nor is a $0.08 cup of Coke running me another $4, because I'd never pay that. It always amazes me that everyone except the movie theater industry seems to understand supply and demand. You're never going to make more money by charging insane prices for popcorn and drinks because those insane prices will stop the majority of people from buying those things at all. If they charged reasonable prices for those items they'd move more volume on those items. You're not making more money by selling those items for that much if you're selling way less volume. Let's look at two cases, one with those prices you mentioned, and one where they sell the stuff for a buck. Say they only sell 100 pairs at the high price.
100*0.15=$15 popcorn cost
100*0.08=$8 Coke cost
$23 cost, $900 gross, so $877 profit.
It is pretty reasonable that if those items sold for a buck a piece instead that you would have many more people buying them. How many would need to buy at that price to equal the same amount of profit? (Yeah, we're ignoring the overhead of labour and all that stuff.)
1-0.15=0.85 profit per popcorn
1-0.08=0.92 profit per popcorn
0.85+0.92=$1.77 profit per item pair
877/1.77=495.5
So they'd have to sell 496 pairs of those items to make the same money. So roughly 5 times more people would have to buy a popcorn and Coke. But at $2 versus $9 for that combo how many more people are going to buy? I'd never buy at $9, personally. I wouldn't even think about it. It is too much money. But at $2 I'd buy every single time without a second thought. How much cheaper would it have to be than $9 to get me to bite? Well, I don't know, exactly. Would $4.50 be enough? Meh. $4? Or $3? Perhaps. But $9 is nuts. And that's why nobody is buying it. The fact that you've got a monopoly in your venue isn't enough to make those prices acceptable. It still has to be good value, or overall you won't have people biting.
As far as I'm concerned, movie theaters should be practically giving away popcorn and soft drinks. A buck a piece and they'd have practically everyone buying, I would wager. Obviously with other items, candy, and who knows what else (I've seen burgers and nachos, among other things now! wtf?) there are going to be differing costs and profit margins. You could probably get away with better margins on items other than popcorn and soft drinks. But if you charged a buck a piece on a reasonable amount of popcorn and drink (i.e. not a freakin' garbage pail) I'm sure you'd be making a lot more money than you are with the gouger prices. Those two items are cheap as hell, and everybody knows it, so when you charge out the ass for them you usually just get a thumbed nose instead. Why theaters aren't actually playing with those prices to find the supply/demand teetering point is beyond me. Seems like business 101, no? The whole "We aren't making enough money, jack up the prices!" idea makes absolutely no business sense. You'd have to be a fool to think it did make sense.
And it isn't our fault that they don't know how to deal with movie studios concerning the pricing they get for screening their movies. Studios should want to have their movies shown. But it seems whoever has been running them ever since they started whining about nobody going to movies anymore has no clue how to do their job. Making it harder and harder for theaters is just another bonehead example of what not to do in business. But obviously it will be harder for theater owners to organize and finally start getting better business deals with the studios.
I seriously believe theaters would make way more money if they started charging reasonable prices, based on reasonable profit margins, for popcorn and soft drinks alone. Don't change your prices for candy and all the other crap you guys are selling now. But make the popcorn and soft drinks super cheap, because your cost is super cheap, and make a big stink about dropping those prices with really obvious signage in the place. Guarantee you'll start moving crazy volume compared to what you're doing now. That stuff is cheap. Sell it cheap.
Frankly they could just force you to buy a ticket by only licensing the movie to be shown in theatres. This is like licensing a product to be sold at Wal-mart and Sears, then telling a bunch of people not to buy the product from Wal-mart because that's not what you intended.
The children of old Hollywood seeking to protect their inheritance, nothing more. Not gonna work, the genie's out of the Internet bottle and running amok, killing fossilized and outdated business models all over the place.
It was worth going to the movie theater before we all had at least a 50 inch TV in our house. Personally, I wait till the movie comes out so I can watch it as often as I like, in the comfort of my own home. For a family of four the tickets are like $50.00, plus snacks..cheaper to buy the movie.