Not Worth It

• email this story
• read comments (39)
• post a comment
• 
  
  

For over 25 years I've watched films in the finest screening rooms in Los Angeles, New York, Cannes, Paris....all over. The sound, projection and butt-comfort qualities have been sublime at 90% of them. (Paris screening rooms have the best seats -- velvety, armchair-sized, sofa-soft. The rear seats at Sony's high-altitude screening room in Madison Avenue are almost as good.) The point is that I've been to screening-room Shangri-la hundreds of times and I know how good it can get, and there's no way I'd pay $35 bucks to see a movie at a Village Roadshow Gold Class Cinema.

None of the private rooms I've been to have projection qualities that exceed what you get at L.A.'s Arclight, where a ticket costs $14 on weekends and $11 on Sundays and weekdays. Why the hell would anyone with my champagne tastes pay two to three times that amount to see a perfectly projected film in a really terrific seat with my feet on an ottoman? I wouldn't pay $35 to see a film if they threw in a complimentary neck or back massage. I wouldn't pay $35 bills for a film if they had naked girls as ushers. Well, maybe.

And yet a team of investors -- Village Roadshow Ltd., Act III, Lambert Entertainment and the Retirement Systems of Alabama pension fund -- are dead serious about spending $200 million to build 50 super-theaters over the next five years. Each theatre will offer 40 reclining armchair seats with footrests, digital projection and the capability to screen 2-D and 3-D movies. The first two venues set to open will be in South Barrington, Illinois, and the Seattle suburb of Redmond in October. Others are planned for Fairview, Texas, near Dallas-Fort Worth, and Scottsdale, Ariz.

I see disaster. The same nouveau-riche money-to-burn types who won't blink about paying $$70 for two people to see a new film have, of course, top-of-the-line screening facilities at home. I would go so far to call this a stupid idea.

comment #1

corey3rd says ...

I'll pay $35 to see a movie - with a hooker. And she brings the popcorn

How many movies come out that are worth $35? And they don't give you the DVD?.

comment #2

lazespud says ...

My buddy and I have had the same discussion for a while; I basically argue that I would pay more, possibly much more, if I could a few things guaranteed:

- Reserved Seat Choice (standard all over europe by the way)
- Zero advertisements prior to the movie
- Perfect presentation (no spillover of the image onto curtains, etc).
- Zero sightline issues (but pretty much all theater's have stadium seating these days anyway.

I figured I'd be willing to pay double for this, or about 20 bucks.

35 bucks? Seems way too high, and the article doesn't seem to indicate where we'd still be subjected to ads, etc.

Since one of the planned theaters is near here, in Redmond (home of Microsoft), which has about 100,000 people earning more than 100k a year, I suspect if it doesn't work there it won't work anywhere.

If they offered a free popcorn and drink, then I might consider, but doubtful.

As an amends for hassling you about politics Jeff, when it opens I'll attend a movie and send you a report...

comment #3

JaySmire says ...

Someone's been wearing their bad idea jeans --while smoking crack.

comment #4

Chinaski says ...

Having lived in London for a while, those Archlight prices are starting to look pretty good. I'm often paying 18-20 bucks just to see stuff at perfectly ordinary theaters. Damn that exchange rate.

comment #5

Geoff says ...

I just wish there could be an oversight commitee for the biggest movie chains. THX sound, crisp and perfect projection. I don't want to have to worry about the projection bulb being dimmed for no apparent reason, or the boom mike being seen due to improper framing.

I demand higher quality from Edwards, Regal, AMC etc.

Luckily I'm in L.A. so I go to the best. But out in the valley and elsewhere in the country it gets different.

comment #6

bmcintire says ...

I can't say that I would willingly plunk down $70 for a pair of tickets, but Jeff, myself and more than a few readers of this website are among those in the rarified air with access to some of the posher screening rooms in the US. Countless millions are not (and can't afford to build quite the luxe home-theater set-ups featured on MTV Cribs) and I suspect some of them would be more than curious to try it. Once.

comment #7

Mgmax says ...

I have seen the future and it's plush theaters at a slightly raised price making lots more money off full meals, wine, etc. It's a way to recapture the adult audience and make money off something where you don't have to share the revenue with the studio: food and drink.

That makes sense; jacking the ticket price up and then giving 60% of it to the studio doesn't.

comment #8

D.Z. says ...

The irony is that with the decline of the dollar, they'll probably only make as much as the regular chains do.
But no, if I can rent or own a bunch of dvds for that kind of scratch, why waste money on one ticket? I'm not a tech whore, and I'm not going to be staying at the theater for an average of 90 minutes, so why should I bother? This ain't Japan.

comment #9

rocco says ...

You think something that will imbue high social status for a measly 35 bucks will fail?...the difference between 1st class and business class on a BA flight is negligible, yet people pay the $7000 difference...why? The same reason people will pay $35 to see a movie. Status.

It's genius.

comment #10

CinemaPhreek says ...

Well, who knows if this stupid idea will crash & burn or not.

For example, apparently Scorsese is going to cast DiCaprio as fucking Teddy Roosevelt and no one has the brains to go "Dude, we gave you the Oscar for The Departed claiming it wasn't a Lifetime Achievement Award. Don't do something this boneheaded and prove the naysayers were right."

comment #11

sfdownunder says ...

Currently living in Australia and experienced the Gold Class cinemas there, it isn't such a bad idea and experience. When it first kicked off it was about $25-30. The kicker was that the price includes all you can eat popcorn and soft drinks. You could justify it if you normally would order this because you got a nice cozy recliner for a few bucks more and a reserved seat. Not sure if the plan is to do the same here but $35 seems just that bit much too steep.

comment #12

T. Holly says ...

love it when Wells gets to be a dick about a stupid idea

comment #13

erniesouchak says ...

Wells, I guess you haven't been to the Arclight since ticket prices there went up $1. It's now $12/$15.

comment #14

Armin Tamzarian says ...

The key to making this work is to book films as exclusives, like, say, it's the only place to see a new Paul Thomas Anderson film. Or, it's going to be event programming (e.g., HANNAH MONTANA LIVE).

comment #15

Walter Sobchak says ...

"Hmmm, fewer people are going to the movies....many more are opting to stay home and watch on DVD......How do we lure them back to the theaters?....I know! Let's charge more!"

Oh yeah, and explain your math, D.Z.

comment #16

Arran says ...

There's a 12-screen 'plex here in Auckland (New Zealand) that's had the Village Gold Class thing for some time now. I think it's about $NZ25, which isn't so bad when a standard ticket is $NZ15. It's just one screen, though. They tend to screen the more "adult" films in it (eg, last time I went to that complex they were showing Michael Clayton there).

comment #17

A.H. says ...

I'd pay a lot more than that to bring back 70mm.

comment #18

MilkMan says ...

I would pay 70 dollars for a ticket if it came with the guarantee that the rest of you would shut the fuck up during the movie, and that includes listening to you eat your fucking popcorn like you haven't eaten in weeks, laughing at references to the movies like your the only person in the world who has seen Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia, sticking your fat white fingers up towards the screen in order to point out a particularly nice shot that the bimbo next to you doesn't notice because she's too busy checking her blackberry to see how many times she's been texted in the last five minutes, and snapping your gum because you're a black woman who suffers from hypertension. That I would pay for.

comment #19

corey3rd says ...

You take the wife to the theater - it's got to be at least a $150 tab - the high class food won't be cheap. So after half a dozen nights, you could buy your own HD video projector for the house.

comment #20

T. Holly says ...

It had to be that or Robin Williams, nice one Milk.

comment #21

D.Z. says ...

rocco: A first class flight has perks. This is just the same old film with a higher ticket price.

Walt: I can buy three $10 dvds at Ralphs, or rent about 10 dvds at 20/20. (Assuming the latter hasn't been killed by Netflix yet...)

comment #22

JB Moore says ...

Milkman, you are awesome. That is all.

comment #23

Edward says ...

I can go to our theater pub, pay $3 for a ticket, a minimum of $3.95 for food, $4 for micro brew and a second run film. Why pay more?

comment #24

LYT says ...

To put the Arclight's $12 into perspective == I pay $11.50 for evening shows, during the week, at the AMC multiplex out here, where they haven't trained the employees to shut the damn auditorium doors.

So I watched half of Funny Games with the Doomsday soundtrack in the background before figuring it out and closing the Doomsday door myself.

I don't intuitively think people will pay $35...but to be honest, I never thought folks would pay the $14 at the Arclight either (average prices were around 8.50 elsewhere when it opened).

comment #25

scooterzz says ...

sometimes milkman knocks it completely outta the park.....this would be that.....

comment #26

plastiqueelephant says ...

i live in sydney australia, and the reason they think this will work is because village roadshow is an australian company and this model is going gangbusters down here. i see too many films to pay the double price ($35 Gold Class, $18 normal) but for people who only see the occasional film and have disposable $$$, it's cheaper than a nice dinner and still feels like a special night out. so it's a working model, and you all gonna get some egg on your faces unless you yanks are real cheapskates.

comment #27

lazespud says ...

The Seattle Times did a story about it today and it addressed many of my concerns... 40 seats? Valet Parking? Personal attendents? Guaranteed seats? The likelihood of zero children in the audience?

Damn right I'd go there for 35 bucks...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/eastsidenews/2004306611_movietheater26e.html

comment #28

nemo says ...

Spent the last 3 months working in Austin, and man do I like seeing a movie at the Alamo. I wouldn't call it luxurious, but a meal and wine -- a good meal and good wine -- served promptly and efficiently, with good sound, good projection, in the company of an audience that cares about seeing a good movie -- now that's worth some money. The Alamo is a bargain for what you get.

comment #29

HoopersX says ...

I'd consider it for purely practical reasons. I'm 6'7" tall and the seats at most theatres leave me needing to see a doctor. However, even then $35 sounds a bit steep. Maybe $25.

comment #30

Spicer says ...

I am just repeating everybody else here, but it's astonishing how far off the mark the theater chains are. What people want it competence, not sushi. The moviegoing experience really sucks. I moved to LA about a year ago and the Arclight is really a special place, I don't see why the other chains don't go to a similar format.

The public simply doesn't respect film as art, they see it as disposable, mindless entertainment or a babysitter. So why should they not act like animals when they watch a film?

That said, I would pay $35 if there were no teenagers within a 5 mile radius of the theater.

comment #31

Walshy says ...

I worked for many years at a multiplex in Australia that also had 3 Gold Class Cinemas. Firstly, I should point out that it currently costs AUD$37 (US$34) a ticket at the moment and that includes only the seat in the cinema, so the price is roughly equivalent to that charged in Australia.

But the model has worked very well in Oz (obviously or they would not be expanding it into the US).
Having seen who comes to Gold Class for the last 7 years these are a few reasons that it works:

For people with high incomes, this cost (even with food and drink on top of the ticket) is not that much more than they would be spending on a night out anyway. The prospect of a teenagerless cinema and the chance to have a beer or wine with the movie only add to the appeal for this demographic.

Secondly, vouchers to Gold Class cinemas have become a very popular 'special occasion' gift (especially Christmas, and especially for adult couples over 40 who often don't go the movies that much). The people using vouchers are often not part of the young high income crowd but see it as a special treat and continue to come back for more.

The other point is that this model is not for actual film fans like those on this site - Indeed, it is usually (but not always) only the more popular and thus generally lower quality films that play in Gold Class.

The model also extends to corporate bookings both for films and for generic presentations which are very profitable.

Whether these demographic assumptions play out in the USA is something I guess Village is banking on.

comment #32

themutilator says ...

In Toronto we have "VIP" cinemas. One downtown with 4 screens (attached to a higher end 8 plex)and one with 3 screens in one of the poshier suburbs. The theatres have 24-36 seats, plush reclining xtra wide seats with movable armrests (for the lovers),waiter service, no commercials (1-3 trailers) and are 19+. By far my fave movie theatre. All this for $15.95. Regular screens are $11.95. I always sit front row centre so I have no one impeding my vision and I dont have to see any-one text messaging!!!

comment #33

Rich S. says ...

The point is, you shouldn't have to pay $35 to get good projection, good sound and relief from other annoying patrons. It should be a given of the current model.

The best way to do that is to shrink the size of theaters and reduce the percentage of gross the studios take. But that reduces choice to the consumer and assumes that the studios will cut their take. So it will not happen.

comment #34

Bocephus says ...

$35 wouldn't be that bad if it included popcorn and a drink.

I would pay $25 a ticket to see a film in a theatre with guaranteed great projection, nice seats, no kids, and a bouncer to kick out anyone texting or talking during the movie.

Or better yet, pass out muzzles and make people check their electronic devices at the door.

I don't go to the movies very often, it's already a special occasion thing for when we have extra money. I wouldn't mind paying double for a quality moviegoing experience.

comment #35

Edward Havens says ...

Right now, the El Capitan here in Los Angeles has a $25 top ticket price for Prince Caspian. Granted, that includes a free popcorn and soda, a reserved seat in the center section and an after-movie tour of props and costumes from the movie, but thousands of Angelinos are gladly forking over that much for these tickets, with the knowledge there will be kids and teens and texting and chatting.

comment #36

Pelham123 says ...

I agree with LYT in that I've had multiple experiences at the AMC in Burbank where the staff doesn't close the auditorium doors once the show has started (It happened when I saw "Doomsday" in Burbank). Seriously, how ridiculously easy is it for Management to arrange for the f'n doors to the theater to be closed? My theater going problems usually are caused by the Management and not any annoying customers. I've only encountered the problems listed over and over on this and other websites about people on their cell phones, talking, etc. during the movie just a few times. But, out of focus print, doors left open, movie out of frame, etc. -- more than I'd like to admit. I think that kind of laziness on management's part is a major contributing factor to the customers acting out during the show.

comment #37

cjKennedy says ...

Ahahah...AMC Burbank. My best experience was with Bug...people in the audience kept leaving and coming back...and every goddamn time they'd open the door, it would squeak part way shut, then stick open and you could hear all the people chattering waiting in line for whatever crap movie was playing next door.

Also, am I the only one under the impression that the $35 includes the cost of dinner? Either way, dinner is served which is actually the worst part of the whole idea. Who wants to try to watch a movie during dinner service?

This isn't for peope who like movies, this is for people with money looking for 'an evening out'.
There's probably a market for that, but I'm guessing they don't read H-E.

comment #38

Jay T. says ...

For $35 I sure hope every movie comes with a happy ending...

comment #39

D.Z. says ...

spud: "The Seattle Times did a story about it today and it addressed many of my concerns... 40 seats? Valet Parking? Personal attendents? Guaranteed seats? The likelihood of zero children in the audience?"

If you want something like that so badly, you'd be better off at a spa.

Spicer: "I moved to LA about a year ago and the Arclight is really a special place, I don't see why the other chains don't go to a similar format."

Because then they'd have to put the seats at shitty angles and pay for some jackass to explain the summary and cast to me before the film starts.

Havens: The El Capitan also gives you live performances before shows and exhibits. This just sounds like an overpriced variation of the same thing, though.

Post a Comment