4 ms·

I already account for that a bit. Family movies get higher scores, gross-out comedies get lower scores. A 74% on a fantasy horror film may mean it's pretty goo

I already account for that a bit. Family movies get higher scores, gross-out comedies get lower scores. A 74% on a fantasy horror film may mean it's pretty good. Of course, the risk is high for buying movie tickets. The prices are too high these days for "Meh. Why not see this one?" or even, "Let's go to the movies and pick out something there." So the studios would have a more forgiving audience if they figured out how to lower the risk that someone feels they wasted their money.

jtreminio 9y ago
Have you looked into movie pass? We've gone 6 times in the past 3 weeks, saw 2 boring movies, 4 good ones, but only paid the single monthly cost.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  Most of the price these days involved babysitting, so no. If I had a different lifestyle, I'd be very interested.
0x0 9y ago
Good point haha. It's basically "The problem with reducing a movie to a single price of admission is different people like different things."
dragonwriter 9y ago
> The prices are too high these days for "Meh. Why not see this one?" or even, "Let's go to the movies and pick out something there." Adjusted for inflation, movie ticket prices are pretty static; there's some variation, but current prices aren't abnormally high.
- Spooky23 9y ago
  Adjusted for inflation, earning power is less. Taking my date to a $3 movie in 1992 was a relatively smaller investment than taking my kid to see a movie for $15 today.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Adjusted for inflation, earning power is less. Taking my date to a $3 movie in 1992 was a relatively smaller investment than taking my kid to see a movie for $15 today. 1992 was, actually, a notably cheap year for a movies (ticket prices dropped, even before accounting for inflation, from 1990 through 1993), but even so, $3 ($5.23 in current dollars) was well below the average ticket price ($4.13; $7.21 in current dollars ) in 1992, $15 is nearly double the average ticket price (~$8.89) today. And inflation-adjusted earning power (whether you look at median wage or median income measures), while some measures have been relatively static over the last several decades, and generally have underperformed aggregate output growth, were actually lower in 1992 than today. See, for ticket prices, http://www.boxofficemojo.com/about/adjuster.htm http://www.boxofficemojo.com/about/adjuster.htm
    - solatic 9y ago
      It's hard to account for nostalgia if you're not controlling for geography. Rural/suburban theaters (built and owned on cheap land) that OP may have gone to as a child will certainly be cheaper than urban theaters (high rents) frequented as an adult. $15 is cheap for a ticket in an urban/wealthy area.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        Sure, but there is a big difference between “its much more expensive for me to go to movies now”, and “it is generally much more expensive to go to movies now”.
    - Spooky23 9y ago
      I used to frequent a second run theater as a kid that was $3. Iirc correctly, the first run was like $5.50. When I worked at a big mall cineplex in the late 90s, I'm pretty sure it was $7.50. They had a weekday combo where two tickets and a small soda/popcorn was $20. I don't have access to theater demographics, but anecdotally, the makeup of a Friday night crowd seems to skew older and have fewer groups of kids. That might be more about malls dying than movies though.
- yahna 9y ago
  What about after I buy 12 dollars worth of popcorn and water?
- rdiddly 9y ago
  The number of ultra-convenient and cheap alternatives has skyrocketed though.
DanBC 9y ago
> The prices are too high these days for "Meh. Why not see this one?" So much this! I took my kid to see a movie. Two tickets, medium bucket of popcorn, a drink, some sweets: £30 ($40). (If you don't get the food and drink it comes down to about £15). In a 90 seat cinema room there were only 7 people. I'd go far more often if they could bring the cost down a bit, even if it was only for weird times.

jtreminio 9y ago

Have you looked into movie pass? We've gone 6 times in the past 3 weeks, saw 2 boring movies, 4 good ones, but only paid the single monthly cost.

humanrebar 9y ago
Most of the price these days involved babysitting, so no. If I had a different lifestyle, I'd be very interested.

0x0 9y ago

Good point haha. It's basically "The problem with reducing a movie to a single price of admission is different people like different things."

dragonwriter 9y ago

> The prices are too high these days for "Meh. Why not see this one?" or even, "Let's go to the movies and pick out something there." Adjusted for inflation, movie ticket prices are pretty static; there's some variation, but current prices aren't abnormally high.

Spooky23 9y ago
Adjusted for inflation, earning power is less. Taking my date to a $3 movie in 1992 was a relatively smaller investment than taking my kid to see a movie for $15 today.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Adjusted for inflation, earning power is less. Taking my date to a $3 movie in 1992 was a relatively smaller investment than taking my kid to see a movie for $15 today. 1992 was, actually, a notably cheap year for a movies (ticket prices dropped, even before accounting for inflation, from 1990 through 1993), but even so, $3 ($5.23 in current dollars) was well below the average ticket price ($4.13; $7.21 in current dollars ) in 1992, $15 is nearly double the average ticket price (~$8.89) today. And inflation-adjusted earning power (whether you look at median wage or median income measures), while some measures have been relatively static over the last several decades, and generally have underperformed aggregate output growth, were actually lower in 1992 than today. See, for ticket prices, http://www.boxofficemojo.com/about/adjuster.htm http://www.boxofficemojo.com/about/adjuster.htm
  - solatic 9y ago
    It's hard to account for nostalgia if you're not controlling for geography. Rural/suburban theaters (built and owned on cheap land) that OP may have gone to as a child will certainly be cheaper than urban theaters (high rents) frequented as an adult. $15 is cheap for a ticket in an urban/wealthy area.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      Sure, but there is a big difference between “its much more expensive for me to go to movies now”, and “it is generally much more expensive to go to movies now”.
  - Spooky23 9y ago
    I used to frequent a second run theater as a kid that was $3. Iirc correctly, the first run was like $5.50. When I worked at a big mall cineplex in the late 90s, I'm pretty sure it was $7.50. They had a weekday combo where two tickets and a small soda/popcorn was $20. I don't have access to theater demographics, but anecdotally, the makeup of a Friday night crowd seems to skew older and have fewer groups of kids. That might be more about malls dying than movies though.
yahna 9y ago
What about after I buy 12 dollars worth of popcorn and water?
rdiddly 9y ago
The number of ultra-convenient and cheap alternatives has skyrocketed though.

DanBC 9y ago

> The prices are too high these days for "Meh. Why not see this one?" So much this! I took my kid to see a movie. Two tickets, medium bucket of popcorn, a drink, some sweets: £30 ($40). (If you don't get the food and drink it comes down to about £15). In a 90 seat cinema room there were only 7 people. I'd go far more often if they could bring the cost down a bit, even if it was only for weird times.