5 ms·

$100 to go to the movies for a family of four. No thanks. There’s no mystery why the movies are dying. They’ve priced themselves out and then they give away the

by woeirua 7mo ago

$100 to go to the movies for a family of four. No thanks. There’s no mystery why the movies are dying. They’ve priced themselves out and then they give away the product on streaming several months later anyways. If they want theaters to come back then they’ll have to put movies behind a paywall again.

lotsofpulp 7mo ago
I doubt increasing the price of their goods will work when the supply of alternative ways to spend time at almost zero cost is near infinite.
- xp84 7mo ago
  You’re probably right. Big franchises would survive, a bunch of people would pay modestly for each new Marvel movie if it were never coming to streaming. But the films that do still exist that have no marketing, would probably do even worse without having any streaming release.
johnnyApplePRNG 7mo ago
So do you want to pay more, or less? I am confused.
- delecti 7mo ago
  I think it's more about being unwilling to pay so much when a free version is just a few months away. Streaming is too good and too cheap compared to the theatrical release.
  - righthand 7mo ago
    “Free” but you pay a monthly subscription. No one seems to know what free means anymore.
    - delecti 7mo ago
      Watching a movie using a service the parents were likely already paying for has no marginal cost.
      - righthand 7mo ago
        Right your cost is distributed and covered by others. Internet, electricity, a computer are three things not listed in the subscription price. So not free.
lanfeust6 7mo ago
The missing middle from 20 years back is rentals. That was $5-10 a pop, people rented almost weekly. The option is there digitally now but its not in the public conscience for the same reason as cinema, people can just wait for the streaming option as the turnover is so short. (And granted, more people went to the cinema back then) Meanwhile consumers are whining about the increases in streaming cost and diffusion, and low quality content. It had to happen, the math wasn't working out. In the social media bubbles users argue they will "just pirate again", over and over as though those who would care to don't already do so. Its toothless. Average people are not going to pay for a VPN and navigate things they don't understand just to pirate. They will eat the cost, whether it be streaming or renting
FreeKill 7mo ago
Yeah, I think the prices also have resulted in a massive change in how consumers decide to go to movies as well. With the price so high for a family of four, people rely much more heavily on positive word of mouth/reviews before making a decision. So people are much more risk adverse. I've never understood why they don't do tiered pricing based on the type of movie it is. If it's not a mega blockbuster type film, reduce the price a bit to make it easier for people to take a risk and try out a movie without it being a 90%+ rating on rotten tomatoes. I'd personally probably go a lot more if a movie like say Marty Supreme was $10 instead of $20.
dgrin91 7mo ago
And its $100 minimum... at least in NYC. Right now its 20-25 a head and that doesn't include transportation or food.
dominotw 7mo ago
thats so much cheaper for a family of 4 for 3 hrs compared to other options. what are the other cheaper options? going to free parks and museums? i am sure going to free museum will be a big hit with the kids :]
- derwiki 7mo ago
  Even not free parks. Our Zoo and Cal Academy memberships amortize down to $50/trip for 4.
  - dominotw 7mo ago
    yes we have those too but you can go there only so many times.
- lucaspm98 7mo ago
  People are living in entirely different cost of living realities outside of NYC and the Bay Area. Within 5 miles of me with 2 adults and 2 kids and $100, you could go to a trampoline park, ropes course, bowling, hours at an arcade, water park, race go-karts, several months of pool membership, or 5+ museums. Possibly 2 of those activities. For free there’s dozens of playgrounds, courts and fields for any sport, community and religious-sponsored events, and after you can get a nice sit down meal with money leftover from your $100 budget. $100 would be above many families entire entertainment budget for a week.

by woeirua 7mo ago

lotsofpulp 7mo ago

I doubt increasing the price of their goods will work when the supply of alternative ways to spend time at almost zero cost is near infinite.

xp84 7mo ago
You’re probably right. Big franchises would survive, a bunch of people would pay modestly for each new Marvel movie if it were never coming to streaming. But the films that do still exist that have no marketing, would probably do even worse without having any streaming release.

johnnyApplePRNG 7mo ago

So do you want to pay more, or less? I am confused.

delecti 7mo ago
I think it's more about being unwilling to pay so much when a free version is just a few months away. Streaming is too good and too cheap compared to the theatrical release.
- righthand 7mo ago
  “Free” but you pay a monthly subscription. No one seems to know what free means anymore.
  - delecti 7mo ago
    Watching a movie using a service the parents were likely already paying for has no marginal cost.
    - righthand 7mo ago
      Right your cost is distributed and covered by others. Internet, electricity, a computer are three things not listed in the subscription price. So not free.

lanfeust6 7mo ago

The missing middle from 20 years back is rentals. That was $5-10 a pop, people rented almost weekly. The option is there digitally now but its not in the public conscience for the same reason as cinema, people can just wait for the streaming option as the turnover is so short. (And granted, more people went to the cinema back then) Meanwhile consumers are whining about the increases in streaming cost and diffusion, and low quality content. It had to happen, the math wasn't working out. In the social media bubbles users argue they will "just pirate again", over and over as though those who would care to don't already do so. Its toothless. Average people are not going to pay for a VPN and navigate things they don't understand just to pirate. They will eat the cost, whether it be streaming or renting

FreeKill 7mo ago

Yeah, I think the prices also have resulted in a massive change in how consumers decide to go to movies as well. With the price so high for a family of four, people rely much more heavily on positive word of mouth/reviews before making a decision. So people are much more risk adverse. I've never understood why they don't do tiered pricing based on the type of movie it is. If it's not a mega blockbuster type film, reduce the price a bit to make it easier for people to take a risk and try out a movie without it being a 90%+ rating on rotten tomatoes. I'd personally probably go a lot more if a movie like say Marty Supreme was $10 instead of $20.

dgrin91 7mo ago

And its $100 minimum... at least in NYC. Right now its 20-25 a head and that doesn't include transportation or food.

dominotw 7mo ago

thats so much cheaper for a family of 4 for 3 hrs compared to other options. what are the other cheaper options? going to free parks and museums? i am sure going to free museum will be a big hit with the kids :]

derwiki 7mo ago
Even not free parks. Our Zoo and Cal Academy memberships amortize down to $50/trip for 4.
- dominotw 7mo ago
  yes we have those too but you can go there only so many times.
lucaspm98 7mo ago
People are living in entirely different cost of living realities outside of NYC and the Bay Area. Within 5 miles of me with 2 adults and 2 kids and $100, you could go to a trampoline park, ropes course, bowling, hours at an arcade, water park, race go-karts, several months of pool membership, or 5+ museums. Possibly 2 of those activities. For free there’s dozens of playgrounds, courts and fields for any sport, community and religious-sponsored events, and after you can get a nice sit down meal with money leftover from your $100 budget. $100 would be above many families entire entertainment budget for a week.