comment #1

Alan Green says ...

hey, i'll chime in. i don't go to the movies anymore and this is one of the reasons. i mean, come on - you got to have something to munch on while watching a movie (for me, dvd). and popcorn costs about 15 cents to make (literally). if you add in labor (at $8/hr) it's more, granted, but, almost $7?

ick. and the floor is sticky, and the carpet smells, and the lines, and go at the right time, and the freaking commercials, and the damnhellass cell phones, and people checking their damn light up digital watches cause they're bored and wonder how much longer the movie will go on, and you're stuck and can't take a break, and someone else takes a break and you do that 'excuse me' stand up let the guy get to the bathroom thing (repeat when he returns), then you fight the traffic back home, and for what? the movie was probably not that good anyway.

man...i'll make fresh popcorn with real butter and seasalt, and a dash of extra virgin olive oil and enjoy my dvd(s) at home. thank you very damn much.

comment #2

gh says ...

for the sake of journalism you should have bought a bag and photographed in your hand for us to see.

comment #3

gh says ...

"i'll make fresh popcorn with real butter and seasalt, and a dash of extra virgin olive oil"

Hippy.

comment #4

gh says ...

by the way check out Vern's hilarious take on the heinous state of modern age movie going...

http://www.geocities.com/outlawvern/ReviewsF2.html#friday_after_next

And they wonder why people are staying away in droves.

comment #5

Todd J says ...

I smoke so unless it's a fantabulistic film like Batman Begins, Hellboy (Yes! Hell yes, fuckin' yes!), The Machinist, anything co-starring Paul Giamatti or a foreign film (The Story of the Weeping Camel, anybody?), than fuck it! 25% of adults smoke smoke, Jeff. You have to consider that. DVD's rock! Take a break and fuck and then come back to movie. What's wrong with that?

comment #6

Harry Knowles says ...

Who the hell is Vern? And why should I care what he thinks?

comment #7

Dixon Steele says ...

Bad enough that the prices keep going up, but have you noticed how they're shrinking the bags.

comment #8

Neeb says ...

I pay hefty prices at the Arclight, but 1. It's the ArcLight and 2. the food is actually good.

comment #9

Larry says ...

The Arclight is one of my least favorite places to see films. It's more expensive (14 bucks on a weekend night), you have to pick your seat when you buy a ticket (I love being able to choose when I enter the theatre) and you have to sit through a speech by the ushers before the movie starts.

comment #10

Steve C. says ...

I pushed it getting to SUPERMAN RETURNS at The Bridge in West LA (the gotcha of assigned seats - cutting too close to picture start. Luckily, some guy had a seizure right before we showed up, so lights went down like 2mins after sitting).

I knew I wasn't making through 3 hours on an empty stomach and so I was forced to grab a hot dog and a bottle of water.

It was $7.

A plain-no-nothing-hot dog & a bottle of cheapo Aqua-fucking-fina -

$7

It's a combo whose wholesale price is around $1.

So for being a loyal cinema fan who will actually truck down to the local all-stadium seating or classic film palace... I deserve to be fucked in the ass to the tune of a $6 profit?????

This is why I usually bring a bottle of water and an outside snack with me. Look around the next time you go to the theater and notice how many people forgo the concession goodies. Think back to the 80's, when even though it was getting pricey people still bought popcorn, etc out of habit. Remember the MOUND of debris left after a sold-out show in summer - it took like 10 ushers 15 minutes just to get the worst of it.

Personally, I think if they would return to something approaching reason with the prices (like $2.50 for a medium drink that costs a buck at Taco Bell and $2.50 for a medium popcorn that costs them like 75 cents INCLUDING labor to produce) then they would make the same or more than they do at these ridiculously inflated prices.

But more importantly, it would stop pissing us off. When the movies are as mediocre as they are these days, the last thing you want to do is to antagonize your patrons with obscenely overpriced snack food. Because that is something the public adds to their dislike of going to the movies: "Not only do the films mostly suck, but goddamn food doubles the price of the fucking ticket. Fuck that. I got a 60 inch HD and a DVD player now."

Exhibitor Boys better get their shit together on stuff like this.

comment #11

Wendle at ArcLight says ...

As a former employee at ArcLight...I must say, in concept ArcLight is worth every penny they charge. In execution, they owe me a few.

I tried to follow the guidelines that were taught to me, but management would let guests - thats what we call john q. public - they would let the guests do whatever they wanted just to make a buck.

The popcorn was good, depending on who made it...stay away from the smoothies, and the sausages...

reserved seating is awsome, especially if you know where you want to sit. I hate people who complain about it...

The thing with the ushers intoducing the film...if the usher is good, then its enjoyable...too bad they would allow almost anybody do it, by the time I was outta there.

Ask Manly about this place...he quit one day mid shift!

comment #12

girlygirl says ...

unless you see evidence that popcorn had been made that day, it's always a good idea to ask if the popcorn's fresh, especially if it's the 1st or 2nd showing of the day. but, the concessionaire could always fib, right?

the last time i've been in a theater was for LOTR #3. my ambivalence towards the movie-going experience stems from the ticket price, of course, and the quality of the films, but also the perceived uncleanliness of the seats. who knows what's dwelling in the upholstery and forget about letting my head touch the back of the seat. head lice! haha. and no, i'm not a felix unger incarnate.

that thing about reserved seating....i didn't know that existed. that's crazy but i guess great for the major moviegoer.

comment #13

Steven R. Silver says ...

How do you think theaters stay in business? It's not through ticket sales. For every $10 that someone plunks down this weekend to see Superman Returns, the theater might get to keep $1 or 50 cents of it. The rest goes back to the studio. It's only if a movie plays in a theater for a month or more that the theater can keep the bulk of its ticket sales, and how many films are still drawing substantial audiences four weeks into their runs?

The only way theaters make money to pay the workers and the light bills and the rent and to maintain those costly state-of-the-art sound systems and hopefully make a little profit for their ownership is through concession sales or other ancillary sources like those dreaded pre-film commercials. Theaters are still a risky proposition, as bunches of them keep going out of business.

Movie concessions are a bit pricier than what you get at amusement parks or sporting venues, but when you factor in the considerably lower ticket price per person, an evening out at the movies is still your best entertainment value. And what is the real difference between selling 15 cents worth of popcorn for $5 and selling 50 cents worth of booze and mixers in a bar for $8?

comment #14

Steve C. says ...

Steven R. -

But that's my point: by charging what they do, they are essentially making exactly what they would if the prices were more reasonable because fewer people buy it. If 10 people paid $10 for something and 100 people paid a $1, which is the greater number...?

Going to the movies should not be compared to most other entertainment choices because down that path lies ruin. That model only works when you are talking about summer tentpoles, epics and other such spectacles. For those, people don't mind spending 70-80 bucks for a family of four. If the film is good.

But if that is all that will make money, then that is all studios will make. Make a list of your 10 favorite films and think that probably 5 of them never would have been made if the studios had a blockbusters-only mentality. (for the cynical jackasses who are about to type "they do already" why do think they all own specialty units?).

Because the more people have to invest in going to the movies, the less the average person is interested in film as art versus entertainment. They will expect more bang and less brain.

As to the fact that films rarely stay in theaters longer than a month, that problem is the studios with their 4 month DVD window. Just as they did when same day & date theatrical/DVD was discussed, the exhibitors should put pressure on the studios to get back to the 6 or 9 month windows.

The average film goer is aware that the average film will show up on DVD in only 4 months, so when you get past that opening month you are talking 3 months or less. People will wait 3 months for a movie, there are too many other things vying for their leasure hours unless it's a hit that everyone is talking about.

Hell, for big event films the smart money would probably be to hold those street dates for a year - and make it known that it will be a year. A year is longer than most people like waiting for something they are interested in, even if that interest isn't that strong. Plus, it's long enough that more people who liked it might want to watch it again on DVD.

Sorry to digress, but all of these things erode viewership and if the studios are truly serious about stemming the exodus tide being lured with iPods and countless other free-time distractions they better start attacking the problem on all fronts.

comment #15

Dixon Steele says ...

Actually, Steve R. Silver, it doesn't work quite like that.

Unless things have radically changed recently, theaters deduct the "house nut" - the actually theater "expenses" - off the top. Then the rest is split between the distributors (studios, etc.) and the exhibitors (theaters). Yes, at the beginning of the run, the studios get the lion's share, but that levels off as the run progresses.

My sources tell me that an average of 45-50% are kept by the theaters, the rest goes back to the studios.

It's got to be a first for someone on this blog to defend the theaters practices of showing commercials and grossly overcharging for refreshments. Congrats!

Studio will argue that it's they who have to foot the $25-30 million per picture cost of prints & advertising on their own, with no theater help. Of course, theaters see nothing of the ancillary revenue (DVD, TV, foreign, etc.).

But I do agree with you that movies are still a great value, when you consider the joint cost of that product to be an average of $80 million per movie (production & dist. expenses).

But it's obvious that people are sick and tired of being price gouged at the refreshment stand, no matter how you may justify it. And one of the reasons an incresing amount of people are staying home and waiting for the DVD.

And that ain't good for the theaters, Steve, not at all.

comment #16

Alan Green says ...

so. the theater makes a buck or two on the ticket sale - the place smells funny - the guy working the concession stand looks so bored he might drop dead - popcorn, candy, water, soda, et al have to cost a fortune or theater will not make a profit - attendance is down in favor of watching dvds on nice home systems...

not a pretty picture. you think the studios are going to negotiate a new deal where the exibitor makes more per ticket? not bloody likely. it's time to find a new business model. (the catch is: there are only two possibilities: increase ticket prices, and increase the price of snacks). neither one will fly (and both are planned).

comment #17

Steven R. Silver says ...

I remember seeing Jaws for the first time about three weeks into its theatrical run (the first couple of times I tried, it has sold out). It was a midweek matinee and the theater was still nearly full. I was sitting about five or six rows from the front, and, when the shark appeared while Roy Scheider was throwing chum, the woman in the seat next to me nearly landed in my chair. The entire audience was in a state of contagious pandemonium.

That feeling of shared entertainment among a group of strangers, whether it's at the theater or in a ball park, is something you will never get at home, no matter how state of the art your HDTV or sound system is. Movies seem a lot funnier, scarier, more exciting or more dramatic when seen on the big screen with a lot of people around.

Concession pricing is not an exact science, but the dropoff as you raise prices is not as steep as you would think. There is a certain percentage of the film going audience who won't buy concessions at any price, but for most, adding a buck or so to the cost of a tub of popcorn, especially one that can be passed around among the family members, is not a deal breaker.

I do agree that the shrinking window for video releases (I recall that the abysmal Ben Affleck comedy Saving Christmas was on video two months after it came to the theaters, in order to make the Christmas season) has hurt theatrical sales. Blockbuster and Netflix have replaced the Dollar Theater as the place to go to see a movie you didn't catch the first time around.

comment #18

Steve C. says ...

Steven R - "...the dropoff as you raise prices is not as steep as you would think.."

I have to assume that regardless of the inference of the above statement, you are just hazarding a guess based solely on gut instinct.

While my own is not any more scientifically valid, in addition to my own instincts born of working in exhibition and a observing human consumptive behavior I have some empirical evidence to back me.

When the Pacific Theater chain opened their new all stadium multiplex in Culver City a couple of years ago for the first couple of weeks/month they offered a drink and a small popcorn for a buck. Over that period, ever time I came to the theater there was always a line for those discounted snacks and when you went into the auditoriums it was like they were shooting a "Let's Go To The MOVIES!!!" print ad. Easily 80% of the crowd had them.

As I asked before, what's the difference between 10 people who buy something at $10 and 100 who but it at $1....?

comment #19

Anonymous says ...

corrections due to haste:

"... that period, ever time..."
Should be "every time"

"...and 100 who but it..."
Should be "who buy it"