Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AMC is Creating a Rival Service To MoviePass (axios.com)

Posted by msmash on from the how-about-that dept.

AMC said on Wednesday it is creating a VIP tier of its loyalty program, a subscription movie theater pass called AMC Stubs A-List, which will allow users to see three movies a week in AMC theaters for $20 a month. From a report: The offering rivals that of MoviePass, a subscription movie service with longstanding tensions in negotiating pricing and theater distribution agreements with AMC. Tensions between AMC and MoviePass had gotten so bad that last year that AMC said it would try to block MoviePass. MoviePass CEO Mitch Lowe told Axios in an interview in January that MoviePass brought in 1 million tickets for AMC in December alone. Like MoviePass, the AMC subscription will let users see a certain number of films for a monthly flat fee, but will only be viewable in AMC theaters.

72 comments

  1. Bankruptcy by crypticedge · · Score: 2

    Also, AMC isn't nearly bankrupt, unlike moviepass

    1. Re:Bankruptcy by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Also, AMC isn't nearly bankrupt, unlike moviepass

      This is probably a very smart move, unlike MoviePass. $20 a month is probably too much for average Joe who only sees two or three movies a year; but it might encourage somepeople to sign up thinking less than $6.50 a movie - sign me up... and the gym factor sets in. It's cheap enough people don't cancel- but people stop going anyway... free money for theatres- those not going subsidize those that do.

      This would have been great when I was a young, single and dating. I would buy two of these passes and hold onto both. This would have been a cheap way to date. Cinemas are an expensive way to date right now. If you go a month without a girlfriend... well, now you see 6 movies that month. Or treat one of your friends.

      Movie Pass isn't a threat for AMC- they get paid regardless... but this is a smart move by AMC.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:Bankruptcy by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Also, if the buyer doesn't see a movie, there's no revenue sharing with the studios. All it takes is a missed movie once in a while to greatly increase their ticket profits with this.

    3. Re:Bankruptcy by Junta · · Score: 1

      Here they control things from getting *too* out of hand (3/week at most), they mandate brand alignment (AMC theaters), and sure they have people who will pay and not use, but it won't be too terrible for people to feel like they *should* go to the theater to get value for their subscription and then blow a ton of money on concessions ('hey, I didn't have to buy tickets, I can buy even *more* crazy expensive concessions!' is the sort of thing our brains tend to do).

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    4. Re:Bankruptcy by rockout · · Score: 1

      They also still get $9 for a bucket of popcorn that costs .25 to make, or similar profit margins on anything that people buy at the concessions. Outside of opening weekend for blockbuster movies, there's tons of empty seats at every showing, so getting people inside, where most will spend extra money, is a huge side benefit to this supposed bargain.

      --
      I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
    5. Re:Bankruptcy by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Here they control things from getting *too* out of hand (3/week at most), they mandate brand alignment (AMC theaters), and sure they have people who will pay and not use, but it won't be too terrible for people to feel like they *should* go to the theater to get value for their subscription and then blow a ton of money on concessions ('hey, I didn't have to buy tickets, I can buy even *more* crazy expensive concessions!' is the sort of thing our brains tend to do).

      And chances are, your three movies a week won't tend to be expensive first run ones - you may have noticed that there are generally only 2-3 movies opening a week, and "big name" movies generally only have one (e.g., Star Wars). So in general, you're not likely to get people seeing all three first run, and probably even better, they won't all congregate on the busy periods (i.e., you're not likely to see 3 movies all day Friday, or all day Saturday), so you'd likely catch the latest, and then something else during the cheaper times of the week (e.g., midweek).

      So in reality, they probably calculated that most people will see at most one brand new movie a week on opening day. If they see a first run movie after the first couple of weeks, the studio share goes down (first two weeks, maybe it's 100%/0% for the studio/theatre, then drops down to 75/25 or 50/50 as time goes on).

      And if they were smart, they'd throw in small concessions now and again - especially if they realize people travel in groups (movie going is a social thing). So if someone has a pass and gets a free small popcorn, it generally will encourage "upgrading" to a large popcorn, as well as now everyone in the group would buy a drink. Or the other people now will want their own popcorn and a drink. And this can be encouraged by simply offering a small discount as well - say 10% to everyone in the group if someone has a pass.

      It's much more likely AMC will succeed in this because they know exactly their customer behavior, and even things like cheap or free concessions to the cardholder or their group can encourage more sales (e.g., if a small popcorn causes everyone to buy concessions versus no one buying in the first place)..

      It would be a perk I expect customers to get as a bonus - which is a win-win - AMC gets more concession sales, and customers get extra value.

    6. Re:Bankruptcy by Junta · · Score: 1

      True, if you get a free concession then you stop at the concession stand, whereas otherwise you might blow past it.

      Of course, I have also seen theaters do away with the ticket office and instead require you to go to the concession counter to get your tickets, so they do have alternative methods of getting people right in front of the concessions.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    7. Re:Bankruptcy by Kulahan · · Score: 1

      That profit margin is entirely thanks to movie studios, not movie theaters, FYI.

      For popular movies (like Star Wars), there's a good to great chance that theaters are making $0 on each ticket sale for the first few weeks, because in order to show those movies, 100% of proceeds must go back to the studio.

      For less popular movies, maybe only 85% of the proceeds go back to the studio. Yay.

      If they charged reasonable amounts on concessions, they'd all go out of business. If they don't play by the rules of the studio, they get blacklisted and don't get to show the popular movies anymore.

    8. Re: Bankruptcy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is likely because there are not 12 movies a month I want to see. Especially at an amc.

    9. Re:Bankruptcy by mentil · · Score: 1

      An AMC near me has a theater with reclining plush seats and an HDR laser projector; a ticket is ~$18. If this could be used for that, it'd pay for itself after 2 movies. If it could be paid for month to month, one could wait for a few good films to be showing at one time, maybe subscribe every other month, or only when a 'must-see' film comes out. I'm sure the details will be finessed so that it ends up making AMC more money rather than less; if it turns into a Netflix-style "why pirate when you can see it for free anyway?" deal then it could be a winner.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    10. Re:Bankruptcy by rockout · · Score: 1

      The theaters are charging exactly the amount that people are willing to pay. If you think they'd lower the prices on concessions if the studios suddenly let them keep more than half of the ticket sales gross, you're a naive fool. The studios know that they make tons of money on concessions, and that's precisely why they can get away with keeping all the proceeds on a blockbuster, because they know the theater still won't go out of business.

      In other words, you have it completely backwards, "FYI". And the only people that are to blame for "high" ticket prices AND concessions prices are... you guessed it, the people buying those things at those prices.

      --
      I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
  2. How do the studios get paid? by paiute · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I was under the impression that the studios received the majority of the box office for the initial run of a movie. How are they going to be happy about getting 20/12 bucks now for each ticket?

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re:How do the studios get paid? by suutar · · Score: 1

      we don't have details on _which_ movies AMC will include in the program, so my first guess would be that the initial run of anything big will not be allowed, like with the free passes and such. Once the studio cut is down to the buck-and-change per, they can pay that from the 20 dollar fee and let the theater reap the profit from your snacks and drinks.

    2. Re:How do the studios get paid? by aicrules · · Score: 1

      I was surprised this includes new releases...but the press release and the consumer FAQ both at least imply that there are no restrictions on what movies can be seen. Perhaps the business model includes the assumption that some percentage of members won't use all three movies each week. I mean honestly, I don't think I could keep up with 3 movies a week. That's a lot of time commitment and there just aren't that many movies out at any given time that I want to see. I guess if I knew in a given month that there were more than a couple movies that I wanted to see then I would consider signing up for one month, but then I'd want to cancel. I don't think AMC wants that kind of subscriber.

    3. Re:How do the studios get paid? by doconnor · · Score: 1

      The studios don't mind. The cinemas make their money on popcorn and snacks. People who can go to a couple of movies a week are less likely to buy the vastly overpriced snacks ("cheapening the movie experience"). The cinemas aren't making much money of them even if they receive full price for their ticket.

    4. Re:How do the studios get paid? by Junta · · Score: 1

      I presume the studios receive whatever price they mandate, and that pricing details are up to the theaters and any amount above of below the studio's take is up to the theaters. So if more people come out, the theaters presumably have to pay the same rate to the studios even if the theater is discounting to the customer.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    5. Re:How do the studios get paid? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

      In my town we have a theater that runs first-run movies for $4/seat. (Place was filled for Incredibles 2 this week.) They make it work, probably like other theaters do: rape you on concessions.

    6. Re:How do the studios get paid? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Use a studio in Canada and save. Try a New Zealand. Ireland? They welcome movie making and support new TV shows and movies.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    7. Re:How do the studios get paid? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      ... the assumption that some percentage of members won't use all three movies each week. I mean honestly, I don't think I could keep up with 3 movies a week.

      Even if you just saw 1 movie a week, $20/month for 4 movies is still a deal compared to the regular price.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    8. Re:How do the studios get paid? by rockout · · Score: 1

      Rape you?

      Uh, just don't buy concessions. How hard is that?

      --
      I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
    9. Re:How do the studios get paid? by aicrules · · Score: 1

      I rarely find four movies in a month that are playing at theaters that I want to see. I realize this means I'm probably not their target market, but even four movies a month consistently seems like a stretch. Even a summer blockbuster month like June... I might want to see a couple of the films released this month. Incredibles 2 and Jurassic World 2..maybe Ocean's 8. If I was going to sign up for this AMC thing, I'd have to change my entertainment plans to consistently be going to movies. Not too dissimilar from how I cut cable and went to Netflix. I watch the shit out of Netflix. I get my 11.99 worth for sure. Anyway, that's just me.

    10. Re:How do the studios get paid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rape you? Uh, just don't buy concessions. How hard is that?

      We can't continue to allow AMC to rape our country, and that's what we're doing. The trade imbalance is totally unfair. They buy nothing from me!

    11. Re: How do the studios get paid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn right. There is zero value in a prerecorded performance. The economy is about people more than dollars.

    12. Re:How do the studios get paid? by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they specialize in kids movies. It's harder for a parent to refuse to buy concessions for screaming begging kids. Anyway as someone who never wants to eat in a theater and probably wouldn't take the popcorn if it was free, I'm happy being subsidized.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    13. Re:How do the studios get paid? by rockout · · Score: 1

      If you're a parent and you can't say no to a "screaming begging kid", you deserve to pay an 800% markup on Skittles.

      --
      I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
  3. AMD is creating a rival service to MoviePass by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    Why would AMD be creating a service similar to MoviePass? I mean it doesn't make any -

    oh wait.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
    1. Re:AMD is creating a rival service to MoviePass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And here I was hoping they would throw in a few free lines of bowling to seal the deal...

      oh wait.

    2. Re:AMD is creating a rival service to MoviePass by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      GMC... all you can drive. Pick any truck off any GMC lot- and drive it as much as you want for a month. $400 a month. Subscription pick-ups.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re: AMD is creating a rival service to MoviePass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You joke, but that is a real thing. A lot more than $400/mo though.

    4. Re:AMD is creating a rival service to MoviePass by hawk · · Score: 1

      It already exists. Not for trucks, but for Cadillacs. https://www.bookbycadillac.com/. $1,500 month includes insurance and maintenance. They pick up and deliver when you want to change model or col9r.

      I believe there's a more expensive plan for V-series.

      Other luxury makers, or those that fancy themselves as such, have similar.

      No $400 truck plan, afaik; it would probably be near-cadillpc in price if it existed.

      hawk

    5. Re:AMD is creating a rival service to MoviePass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They sell cars at GNC now? I know the regulation of the contents of nutritional supplements is laughable, but that's just taking things too far.

    6. Re:AMD is creating a rival service to MoviePass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, what's the iron content in one of those things these days... can't be enough to register on the daily recommended allowance chart!

    7. Re:AMD is creating a rival service to MoviePass by mentil · · Score: 1

      The movie studios were convinced that FreeSync was a reincarnation of the Analog Hole, so AMD tried to invest in Popcorn Time but bought out some lousy movie ticket subscription company on accident.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  4. Do the math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Do the math on this. I just looked up movie ticket prices in my area (MN) and it's $12.90 for a regular non-discounted movie. If I saw three of those types of movies per month, call it $39. So for about half that ($20/month) AMC will let me see three movies each month.

    My problem is that I just don't want to see that many movies anymore. Movies have become stale, the ones you hear about are shooting for "blockbusters" and "action." Even movies that focus on story can only fit so much into 100 minutes. There's a lot more interesting stuff on TV these days, with services like Netflix and HBO putting out really compelling, high-quality series that tell a deeper story over a season.

    Netflix is $11/month, and HBO Now is $15. So for a little more than the cost of AMC's monthly offering ($26/month vs $20/month) I can see a bunch of great movies and series. Without having to pay $$$ for pricey popcorn and drinks. Yeah, I know where I'm spending my money.

    1. Re:Do the math by YuppieScum · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Do the math on this. I just looked up movie ticket prices in my area (MN) and it's $12.90 for a regular non-discounted movie. If I saw three of those types of movies per month, call it $39. So for about half that ($20/month) AMC will let me see three movies each month.

      A little more maths is required, along with a smidge of reading comprehension. The summary says three movies a week, which is (more or less) twelve movies a month with a potential saving of ~US$135.

      On the other hand, I doubt there are that many movies I'd care to see, unless they also show lots of classic back-catalogue material...

      --
      This sig left unintentionally blank.
    2. Re:Do the math by ginoledesma · · Score: 1

      AMC's pricing becomes better if you take advantage of premium offerings, namely IMAX, Dolby, and 3D options; some tickets will go as high as $20 for a single screening. However, I just find it better to take advantage of their $5 Tuesday Tickets --- there tends to be less people overall, and most movies by then will have passed the opening-weekend-surge.

      For me, there seems to be a different psychological effect between AMC's approach ($20/month --- watch LOTs of movies) vs Cinemark's approach ($9* ticket/month). The former feels like I have to force myself to watch 3-4 movies a month just to "break even", while the latter is more "Oh, I can watch a new movie, and pay the same price if I want to watch another".

      *Cinemark MovieClub bills you $9/month, which gives you 1 movie credit â" access to regular/premium screenings. Credits roll-over. All subsequent tickets are also $9.

  5. They might have the size to push back by H3lldr0p · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Considering that AMC is now the largest theater chain in the US, possibly the world (depending on how that partnership with the Chinese firm goes), they might have the ability to push back against Hollywood's unreasonable financial demands. Like the ones where Disney demands the entirety of the receipts for the first three weeks of certain Avenger or Star Wars films. Or where Disney asks for an extra 25% of receipts from any or all special events the theater may host ahead of the premiere of said films.

    Just so we're all on the same page, this isn't the theater chains being greedy. They're just trying to survive the ever increasing avarice of Hollywood.

    1. Re:They might have the size to push back by rockout · · Score: 1

      "ever increasing avarice of Hollywood." - as if AMC is any different.

      There is a pie. Everyone wants a bigger slice than they currently have. Studios, AMC, actors, writers, cable pullers.... everyone. It's just a constant battle where everyone is pushing against everyone else.

      --
      I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
    2. Re:They might have the size to push back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a pie. Everyone wants a bigger slice than they currently have. Studios, AMC, actors, writers, cable pullers.... everyone. It's just a constant battle where everyone is pushing against everyone else.

      And, this is a general problem with consumer stuff ... they all think we're going to spend zillions every year to buy their shit. But, we only have so much money to go around, and it's not all earmarked for them.

      The pie doesn't get any bigger, but they all irrationally think they're going to get more.

      Same for companies who sell actual products .. Apple can sustain levels and have a huge market share, but if it didn't grow by 10% year over year, the idiots in the stock market think they've "missed" their targets.

      The reality is, so much business is ran with the totally irrational expectation from the stock market that they can all grow by a certain percent ... every year, forever. Never mind the fact that is totally impossible and insane.

      Me, I'm over contributing to box office numbers. I watch my movies in my living room, either on Netflix, or on BlueRays I've bought. If I'm interested enough I'll buy it when it comes out. Otherwise, I don't go out of my way to see it.

      My entertainment budget is more likely to be a dinner out with the wife than spending money on what film companies want me to.

    3. Re:They might have the size to push back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but I'd be a lot more likely to pay to go see a movie, if it was this cheap than the current situation where the ticket alone is generally over $9 even for the cheap screenings with some being as high as $12.50 for just the screening with no extras.

      The big problem that I see with this proposal is simply that there aren't that many movies worth going to. There are points in the year, where this might make sense from a customer side of things, but most months don't have anything playing that I'd want to see and if there is't just one movie, which would make it more reasonable to just pay for the ticket.

    4. Re:They might have the size to push back by H3lldr0p · · Score: 1

      The size of the pie does not stay constant and the game is not one of being a zero sum. Competition has a place in these things but not to the detriment of the kitchen that it's being held in.

    5. Re:They might have the size to push back by mentil · · Score: 1

      The obvious question is why they don't limit first-run films to a single showing per day, and then blow it up on the second run? AMC has enough theaters they could get away with it, far fewer people would see it on the first run. The only thing I can think of is that losing concession stand sales to first-run masses going to another theater loses them more than they gain from increased second-run ticket sales. And there'd be potential antitrust issues if they attempted it.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    6. Re:They might have the size to push back by rockout · · Score: 1

      What detriment?? Studios are making money. Theater chains are making money. Actors and crew are making money. People are clearly being entertained and still going to the theaters in record numbers, despite all the home entertainment options that have cropped up in the last decade. What detriment?

      I don't even know what the "kitchen" is supposed to represent in your analogy, and I don't think you do either.

      --
      I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
  6. AMC - Please 'look under the hood' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Before you do or think or especially spend *any*thing - look into exactly Who Owns AMC theatres...

  7. Re:AMC - Please 'look under the hood' by aicrules · · Score: 1

    Wanda Group. Relatively large multi-national China-based conglomerate.

  8. AMC needs more dolby atmos screens and $8 beers by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    AMC needs more dolby atmos screens and $8 beers

  9. Here in France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can watch all movies, open 7 days a week, 10am-10pm, FOR less than $25 per month with a yearly renewal contract!
    I bet USA will never beat that price...

  10. Comprende? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I comprehended his post that 3 movies a month was a probable assumption for an example case, based on the more likely average frequency for the average movie goer.

    I did not interpret it, as you seem to have, as meaning that that was the maximum limit of some no-life Lord Of The Rings twat that spends all day in movie theaters rather than out looking for a job.

  11. Limitless by russelllkrauss · · Score: 1

    Both my partner and I are in a membership program called Limitless and for €21.99 per month we can see as many movies as we wish for that month including blockbusters. We go most weekends and see about 2 to 3 movies each time. After 2 movies we're quids in. Over all its quite a good deal.

  12. Side note - terrible hyperlinking by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I went to read the (very short) article linked to by the summary and the link to the actual AMC announcement was just the word "Wednesday" hyperlinked...

    I have to admit I was pretty unsure what I would get clicking on a link to just the word "Wednesday". Would I get a dictionary definition? Some kind of add for an Adams Family Blu Ray special? Almost the last thing I expected to reach was the AMC press release...

    Very curious choice.

    Also for those curious, the program opens Tuesday, June 26 on the app and website.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  13. Great for them, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...I'd be more interested in a meal plan. The movie is like 30% of the cost of the entire visit once you pay for the popcorn and soda.

  14. Hey old man by rockout · · Score: 1

    You are not the target demographic.

    --
    I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
  15. This isn't a rival service by Kevin108 · · Score: 1

    A third of the movies for twice the money isn't a reasonable alternative to Moviepass.

    --

    It's a perfect time for being wasted.
    A perfect time to watch the stars.
    - Burden Brothers, "Beautiful Night"
    1. Re:This isn't a rival service by technical_maven · · Score: 1

      Agreed! There is nothing here that would make me give up my Moviepass! AMC is just pissed that they don't control Moviepass and that they didn't think of it first!

    2. Re:This isn't a rival service by Paxtez · · Score: 1

      A third of the movies for twice the money isn't a reasonable alternative to Moviepass.

      While I enjoy my MoviePass, I would get this if I had AMC theaters in my area:
        - Book on-line (instead of driving to the theater and seeing that there are no good seats) and buy in advance
        - IMAX and 3D Films (IMAX Good, 3d Meh)
        - Same movie multiple times
        - Don't have to worry about AMC going up in smoke or deal with increasing MoviePass issues (changing of rules, photo of ticket stub, etc.)
        - Seeing multiple movies in a day might be useful (although you can't really do the one thing I might do and see two in a row)

    3. Re:This isn't a rival service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AMC is just pissed that they can't sell at a loss and hope that things turn out alright.

      Moviepass can be a good deal because they'll have all the deb wiped when they go bankrupt.

    4. Re:This isn't a rival service by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      It might be from a bank's point of view, that is, it's less likely to go bankrupt than Moviepass.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:This isn't a rival service by Kevin108 · · Score: 1

      You do have some good points. Having to go to the theater to reserve a seat is an inconvenience. IMAX and 3D make my wife motion sick and I'm just cheap, so we never see anything in those formats.

      You can use Moviepass to see the same movie more than once. Just use the unlisted showtime feature.

      --

      It's a perfect time for being wasted.
      A perfect time to watch the stars.
      - Burden Brothers, "Beautiful Night"
    6. Re: This isn't a rival service by Paxtez · · Score: 1

      Yes, but by doing so you're violating the terms (which annoys me since I bought the year pass) and they could suspend your account by reviewing the ticket stub photos.

    7. Re:This isn't a rival service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reasons I haven't gotten moviepass despite seeing many movies each month:

      1. Have to buy ticket there; I prefer pre-purchasing and reserving a seat in advance, often times I see movies at theaters an hour or more from home because that's where my friends live. If I couldn't pre-purchase my tickets I would not be able to get the best seats.

      2. No premium screenings; I am a huge fan of recent advances in the cinema-going experience such as Dolby Atmos, Laser Projection, HDR, recliner seats, in-theater dining, and other such premium boons. I already have a very excellent setup at home for watching movies and TV, so sitting in a stiff chair looking at a faded image on a damaged screen (i'm looking at you Regal cinemas) is not something I want to pay for. If I'm going to go see a movie I am Going To See A Movie!

      3. No more middlemen!; MoviePass is trying to build a business model by gaining enough subscribers that they can strong-arm the big chains into doing what they want, possibly even hollywood itself, under threat of those chains and films disappearing from the app, negatively impacting the bottom line. You know what other form of entertainment went through this process and now sucks? Live Shows! Concerts, Musicals, Plays, Burlesque, Comedies, all things live go through ticketmaster who managed to worm themselves in as a middle-man while bringing nothing of substantial value to the experience. Now you get to pay for the privilege of printing tickets at home, on top of untold other fees and charges. How about we don't turn going to the movies into the same thing?

  16. Why? by registrations_suck · · Score: 1

    Three movies per week?? Shit. I don't even find three moves per YEAR worth seeing in the theater.

    AMC should concentrate on:

    1). Having content worth watching.
    2). Having a movie-going experience that doesn't completely suck (props to Alamo Drafthouse here)

    Too bad Chick-Fil-A doesn't go into the movie theater chain business. You can bet the experience would be awesome and the food good....just be a drawback that you couldn't give them your business on Sundays.

    1. Re:Why? by jonwil · · Score: 1

      #1 is outside AMC's control. Although given that films like Infinity War, Black Panther, Ready Player One and many others make in the millions of dollars, your definition of "worth watching" and that of the public at large probably differ.

    2. Re:Why? by registrations_suck · · Score: 1

      Not really. AMC could fund the production of quality content if it wanted to, just like Netflix and Amazon do.

      I heard Netflix is looking to buy a theater chain to put its stuff in. Maybe it will buy AMC (:

  17. A Decent Deal by rally2xs · · Score: 1

    Except my nearest AMC is 50 miles each way, an extra 30 miles from my most-visited city, Fredericksburg, Va. The AMC is up the road at exit 156 of I-95, while F'burg is at Exit 130. 26 miles plus a little more to get to the theater. OK, the theater is maybe 48 miles each way. But the extra 52 miles is about 2 gallons extra for the new Jeep at $2.60 a gallon or $5.20 per movie. Extra. And of course that's not considering depreciation of the extra miles, or tire wear, or more frequent oil changes, etc. So 12 movies a month (yes, I would see every one - I see almost everything) would be $62.40 on top of their $20 for $82.40. Hmmm....

    I'll continue to use my Movie Pass at the theaters in Fredericksburg for the $105.35 / yr I paid earlier and got the money back in about 5 weeks of seeing "almost everything", at least for as long as the Movie Pass is viable. If Movie Pass have some real geniuses at the top, they MIGHT be able to keep from going bankrupt. They changed the rules so that you can only see each movie just once, which is OK, and always had the rule that they don't do IMAX and 3D, and hope that is enough, but I'm really expecting it to turn into Cinderella's Pumpkin in a few months. Until then, I'll keep using it.

    AMC just might not go bankrupt with their scheme, I dunno. Hope its successful.

  18. Which Screens? by Only+Time+Will+Tell · · Score: 1

    I'm curious if the offer is restricted to just the standard screens or if the IMAX and Dolby theaters are included. If so, I'm grabbing my wallet now.

  19. I wish there were 3 movies a week worth watching by gameboyhippo · · Score: 1

    This would be awesome if there were great movies being released every week. But for the most part, I'm happy waiting for most movies to wind up on Netflix or Amazon.

  20. how do they justify it? by bobmagicii · · Score: 1

    it sounds like an amazing deal. the amc in the mall in highland park (dallas) the tickets are usually about 16$ each before you even look at the food board. (in contrast, the amc in valley view which is literally an abandoned mall (and half demolished)) are only 6$. but this means for 20$ i can go sit with all the people ok with paying 16$ three times a month without showering or shaving just to stick it to The Mans that go there!

  21. Or AMC TV! by antdude · · Score: 1

    https://www.amc.com/ :P

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).