Some movie theaters quietly raising ticket prices this weekend

[Deberg_1990]

I simply wont pay this kind of jack to go see a 3D movie. Insane





http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2010/03/24/movie-ticket-prices-heading-higher/


Starting this weekend, it is going to cost you a little bit extra to go the movies.

Media analyst Richard Greenfield, now with the New York-based investment firm BTIG, notes that with 2010 box office receipts up nearly 10% year-to-date, “a meaningful portion” of U.S. movie theaters will raise ticket prices this coming weekend. Greenfield said 2D ticket prices will be up marginally, but that 3D ticket pricing will be up as much 26%: 3D Imax tickets in Boston for How To Train Your Dragon will go for $14.50, up from $11.50 last week for Alice in Wonderland.

“It appears that theater owners increasingly believe that consumers are so ‘hungry’ for 3D content that they will not mind paying substantially higher prices relative to 2D screenings and that for the best 3D presentation, even greater ticket price premiums are achievable,” he writes.

At the AMC Kips Bay in New York, it will cost you $63 for four tickets to see a 3D version of How to Train Your Dragon, up from $55 for Alice now.
At the same theater, an Imax version of Dragon for four tickets will be $71, up from $59 for Alice.
A survey of 10 random theaters in major U.S. markets found a 4.1% 2D adult ticket price increase coming this weekend, with an average 8.3% rise for non-IMAX 3D movies, and a 9.9% hike for IMAX screens.

“If consumers absorb the prices increases without issue, we believe it bodes well for the pricing power of the movie exhibition industry, particularly their highest quality product - in IMAX 3D - as well as the major movie studios who would continue to see theatrical performance improve (which is much needed given the continued decline in their core DVD/home entertainment business).,” he writes in a research note.

[seclark]

i've gone to 1 movie over the last 15 years, and slept through that one.

if mrs. sec wants to go to a movie, i'll wait for her at one of the bars down the block.
sec

[Fairplay]

I want to see the Clash of the Titans in 3D April 2ND.

Raise both hands and give them your wallet.

[Otter]

i've gone to 1 movie over the last 15 years, and slept through that one.

if mrs. sec wants to go to a movie, i'll wait for her at one of the bars down the block.
sec

Same.

I got drug to a Wizard of OZ play about 2 months ago and told her I was going to the bathroom and went to the bar across the street for about 30 minutes. I said dinner wasn't agreeing with me.

[seclark]

Same.

I got drug to a Wizard of OZ play about 2 months ago and told her I was going to the bathroom and went to the bar across the street for about 30 minutes. I said dinner wasn't agreeing with me.

:clap:the things we do for our women.
sec

[MOhillbilly]

i've gone to 1 movie over the last 15 years, and slept through that one.

if mrs. sec wants to go to a movie, i'll wait for her at one of the bars down the block.
sec

i think the last movie i seen was the 2nd lotr. Before that it was the 2nd Adams family movie....i think.

[gblowfish]

I have a great home theater set up, so why would I pay $15 to see a movie? I can wait three months and rent it at a Red Box for $1. Sheesh.

[Mr. Plow]

At least some of you guys have a decent theater to see a movie in. Our theater charges us that much and is a piece of shit. The only time I see a movie is if I happen to be in Wichita and feel like going to one. Even then I usually go to the one that serves beer during the show.

[Deberg_1990]

I have a great home theater set up, so why would I pay $15 to see a movie? I can wait three months and rent it at a Red Box for $1. Sheesh.

Still though, nothing beats seeing a movie on a giant screen with great sound.

But im not going to pay those $3-5 for those 3D surcharges.

[MOhillbilly]

Fuck hollywood anyway.

[MMXcalibur]

Huh....

...well now I don't feel that bad about smuggling candy into a movie theater via my wife's purse.

[AndChiefs]

We need to get Congress on this. This is almost as important as a college football playoff.

[Fish]

This is suicide for the theater business. Attendance has already dropped quite a bit. How can they think that raising ticket prices will be a good thing? They aren't content with charging $8 for a bag of fucking popcorn? Fuck em...

[Jenson71]

Huh....

...well now I don't feel that bad about smuggling candy into a movie theater via my wife's purse.

Never feel bad for that.

[Fairplay]

Be thankful the theaters aren't loudly raising the prices.

[Dayze]

i've gone to 1 movie over the last 15 years, and slept through that one.

if mrs. sec wants to go to a movie, i'll wait for her at one of the bars down the block.
sec

Same here for the most part.
I've been to a few more in the last 15...but not alot. and, most of thouse cam courtesty of AMC movie tickets/certificates we usually get from family members at X-mas.

I think the last movie I saw was the last Bond film; and before that, The Departed.

[TrebMaxx]

Last movie I went to was Saving Private Ryan. I can live with watching movies at home with a nice home theater set up.

[Deberg_1990]

Attendance has already dropped quite a bit.

No, actually attendence is up. I think they are just testing the threshold of what the market can handle.

If attendence drops, then they might lower again.

[Kerberos]

This is suicide for the theater business. Attendance has already dropped quite a bit. How can they think that raising ticket prices will be a good thing? They aren't content with charging $8 for a bag of ****ing popcorn? **** em...

You do realize that theatres get VERY little of the box office sales money right?

It has always been known that theaters make $ by selling you two drinks and a tub of corn for $20+

So THE biggest reason they are raising ticket prices is because the "Industry" as a whole is asking for more$.

[Dayze]

No, actually attendence is up. I think they are just testing the threshold of what the market can handle.

If attendence drops, then they might lower again.

sort of like when they kicked gas prices up to $4+; only to ratched it back down to $2.40-ish.....the point where everyone was previously freaking out about.

now we're at $2.40ish and everyons is saying "whew...thank god we're not a $4"

:D

[RJ]

We go a few times a year, always a kids' movie that our daughter wants to see. Admittedly, I really enjoy some of them. The 3D Scrooge was great and we'll probably go see the Alice in Wonderland 3D. As seldom as we go, another $1 on the ticket won't bother me.

[Otter]

Do you have to wear special glasses for the new 3D movies at the theater?

Like Avatar?

[KCChiefsMan]

I haven't gone to the movies in years

[Deberg_1990]

Do you have to wear special glasses for the new 3D movies at the theater?

Like Avatar?

Yes

[Big Chief Homer]

My wife and I took our 2 daughters to the Cinemark last sunday.It cost us $55.00 to see alice in wonderland in 3D. The kids liked it but, the glasses gave me a headache.

[bowener]

So is 3D more expensive because the rights to show it are more expensive, or is it because of the fucking glasses? If it is the glasses, I kept mine, so will that make me ticket cheaper?

[T-post Tom]

N-E-T-F-L-I-X

[Hammock Parties]

Star Trek IMAX cost me $14.

Not going to IMAX ever again.

[T-post Tom]

Star Trek IMAX cost me $14.

Not going to IMAX ever again.

What if she's paying?

[Hammock Parties]

What if she's paying?

I don't even like IMAX that much. The screen is too big.

Maybe if it was Star Wars. New way to see it.

[alpha_omega]

No surprise here...this is why we stopped going to the movies years ago....

[Fish]

No, actually attendence is up. I think they are just testing the threshold of what the market can handle.

If attendence drops, then they might lower again.

Interesting. Everything I've read has indicated the opposite. And the comments in this thread seem to follow that.

[jspchief]

Weird. They spend more and more to make movies and they expect consumers to pick up the cost?

[sedated]

Interesting. Everything I've read has indicated the opposite. And the comments in this thread seem to follow that.

notes that with 2010 box office receipts up nearly 10% year-to-date,

.

[CoMoChief]

I paid $10 to see Avatar. fuckin bullshit.

[38yrsfan]

So is 3D more expensive because the rights to show it are more expensive, or is it because of the ****ing glasses? If it is the glasses, I kept mine, so will that make me ticket cheaper?

I asked that question at the theatre ( we had glasses already from friends ) and was told it isn't the glasses but that you are paying a "technology fee" as the costs are more for 3D presentations. Not much I could say and still be polite ....

[Demonpenz]

I love the movies, nickleback, and dane cook

[BWillie]

I paid $13 to watch 3D Avatar and I thought that was insane.

[Dave Lane]

First in with its because of Health Care Reform!

[BryanBusby]

Fuck going to the movies. That's why I got a high speed internet package, an unlimited usenet account and a media server connected to my home theater.

[lazepoo]

The whole YTD thing just means that they've made more money than last year this time, and I bet that a lot of it is tied to Avatar, Alice, and the like... can you even remember anything you saw last Jan/Feb? I might go to one or two movies a year, and this will probably reduce that number by half. As home setups get more advanced and the timeframe between the theater and DVD releases shrinks, the movie theater will watch its market dry up entirely.

[JD10367]

So is 3D more expensive because the rights to show it are more expensive, or is it because of the ****ing glasses? If it is the glasses, I kept mine, so will that make me ticket cheaper?

3D is more expensive because of two reasons: 1) the glasses, and 2) because they figure they can f**k you.

On the first part: for conventional digital (i.e. 35mm-sized theaters with systems like "Real-D" or whatever), they don't re-use the glasses so they're charging you for them. If you drop them back off, I think they just recycle them (i.e. melt them down). So, on the one hand, I can justify that surcharge. What I can't justify is the fact that, if you bring your own glasses back to see another film, they STILL make you pay the surcharge. That's bullshit.

For Imax, there are two types of glasses: plastic, and electronic. The plastic come in various forms but they're all pretty pricey. They buy them in bulk, and people are supposed to return them at the end of the show so they can be re-used (they're all washed in a professional dishwasher). However, some get stolen, some get broken. The electronic ones, which are rare, are hundreds of dollars a pair; you can figure out why they stopped using them.

When it comes to a surcharge, I can see paying it for IMAX... for true IMAX, i.e., the full giant-screen 60'x90' giant-projector "original" IMAX with the 12,000-watt sound system. I can even see paying it for the midsize version (IMAX SR... same film, same reel units, smaller projectors, 50'x70' screens or thereabouts.) I can't see paying it for the smaller IMAX presentations in multiplexes (IMAX MPX, or IMAX Digital... MPX does use the film but the projector's tiny and the image isn't any bigger than a 35, and there's nothing "IMAX" about IMAX Digital in my opinion). I definitely can't see paying a surcharge for 35mm 3D.

Then again, not everyone lives near a true IMAX and has a choice. If a film comes out like "Avatar" or "Alice In Wonderland" or "How To Train Your Dragon" (and, soon, "Shrek 4" and "Toy Story 3" and "Tron Legacy" and the last "Harry Potter" film), seeing it in 3D is half the point of the film, so seeing it in 2D diminishes it.

I guess it depends on the pricing in your area, too. Let's take "Alice" as an example. For my theater, if you want to see "Alice" 2D at a matinee, it's $7.75 (for everyone). In the evening, it's $10.50 adult, $7.75 child/senior. If you want to see it in 35mm 3D, it's $12.25/11.75 for matinee, and $15.00/11.75 in the evening. However, they also charge the same price for IMAX. Would I pay $15 to see "Alice" in a 35mm 3D theater? No frigging way. Would I pay the same $15 to see it in a full-size IMAX? Yeah.

[Psyko Tek]

I used to see movies often
my ex's daughter worked for one of the movie houses, family goes in free if there are seats
but she got her dumbass fired for stealing
last movie I paid to see
zombieland
at the drive in $6.50 for adults $5 over 5

brought my own food, beer and cigarettes

I love the drive ins hope they never close

[bevischief]

We are Fu#$ed... Stay home and watch it...

[Frazod]

Haven't seen a movie in the theater since Avatar. And this is why.

4321 greedy bastards

[Deberg_1990]

If a film comes out like "Avatar" or "Alice In Wonderland" or "How To Train Your Dragon" (and, soon, "Shrek 4" and "Toy Story 3" and "Tron Legacy" and the last "Harry Potter" film), seeing it in 3D is half the point of the film, so seeing it in 2D diminishes it.



Gonna have to disagree with you somewhat here.

Avatar perhaps, because it was the only one intentinally made for the 3D format.

The other ones are just converted for the "gimmick" factor and honestly dont add much to the movie itself other than.....the gimmick.

If the movie is good, like UP for example, nobody cares about if its 3D or not.

[JD10367]

Gonna have to disagree with you somewhat here.

Avatar perhaps, because it was the only one intentinally made for the 3D format.

The other ones are just converted for the "gimmick" factor and honestly dont add much to the movie itself other than.....the gimmick.

If the movie is good, like UP for example, nobody cares about if its 3D or not.

Well, having just watched "How To Train Your Dragon" for the third time, I'll disagree with your disagreement. It was definitely not "converted for the gimmick factor" and the 3D definitely adds to the movie. As for "Up", you don't think that film would've been even better in 3D, with all the flying sequences? I do.

(Again, though, I'm talking 3D giant IMAX here, not 3D regular-sized digital.)

[sedated]

As home setups get more advanced and the timeframe between the theater and DVD releases shrinks, the movie theater will watch its market dry up entirely.

I think the industry is already working on that. They've already made deals to delay new releases on Netflix and such.

[Deberg_1990]

As for "Up", you don't think that film would've been even better in 3D, with all the flying sequences? I do.

(Again, though, I'm talking 3D giant IMAX here, not 3D regular-sized digital.)


nope. If a movie is good like UP, its strong enough to stand on its own in 2D.

[Deberg_1990]

I think the industry is already working on that. They've already made deals to delay new releases on Netflix and such.

Thats something the movie industry is struggling with right now and why they love 3D so much.

1. 3D prints cant be pirated. Doesnt do u much good to watch pirated 3D at home


2. They can charge more $$$....see thread starter

3. They can still continue keeping the theater going experience viable$$.

For awhile there, they liked the short DVD window, but i think they are changing some because the DVD market has leveled off.

[Frazod]

Thats something the movie industry is struggling with right now and why they love 3D so much.

1. 3D prints cant be pirated. Doesnt do u much good to watch pirated 3D at home


2. They can charge more $$$....see thread starter

3. They can still continue keeping the theater going experience viable$$.

For awhile there, they liked the short DVD window, but i think they are changing some because the DVD market has leveled off.

This is something I've wondered about. Why wouldn't the glasses work on your TV the same as they do in the theater? It's not like the screen is different.

[mikeyis4dcats.]

This is something I've wondered about. Why wouldn't the glasses work on your TV the same as they do in the theater? It's not like the screen is different.

no, but the projector is what makes it 3D

[Frazod]

no, but the projector is what makes it 3D

My point is, whether the image originates from a projector or your TV, wouldn't it be the same image? While watching Avatar, I took the glasses off for a minute just to see what the unaltered picture looked it - it just looked like overlapping images with the colors slightly off.

I'm thinking there's probably nothing stopping us from watching this shit on TV with the glasses and they simply don't want us to know it.

[underEJ]

This is something I've wondered about. Why wouldn't the glasses work on your TV the same as they do in the theater? It's not like the screen is different.

Actually, depending on the system, the screen is different as well as the projector. RealD has a silver screen to manage the polarization which is how the glasses separate the left and right images. Way too simple of a description, but you can read the tech specs at the reald website if you are actually interested.

2 things are happening. One, more screens need to be converted, and ticket prices help that, and two, the movie industry has considered tiered pricing for decades and just couldn't come up with a good solution, but the vast difference in production costs, has forced it to be revisited. 3d is sort of a threshold test for that, too. Maybe small movies can get more viewers in theaters with lower prices, while event movies can charge the premium for the expensive production.

And, the 3d in dragon is really good. It was made every step of the way with 3d, from concept art, all the way through production of each shot.

[JD10367]

no, but the projector is what makes it 3D

When you watch a 3D film, you're actually watching two different film prints, a Left Eye and a Right Eye. (In real life, we do this all the time; as an example, hold your hand with your fingers spread, around an inch from your nose, then close first one eye and then the other. You'll notice your hand "moves", with the left eye's view being to the right more and vice versa. Your brain takes these two naturally-occuring images and makes 3D in your mind.) The lenses of the projector have a polarizer in front of them, with one eye being at a 90-degree angle from the other. You wear polarized glasses that are similarly oriented but in the opposite direction. The result is that your left eye can only see the Left Eye image and your right eye can only see the Right Eye image. Your brain then recombines the two images. The next time you're in a 3D theater with a friend, take their glasses and put them in front of yours, and then turn them while keeping a lens overlapped; you'll notice they turn opaque. (A similar effect, if you're old enough to remember, could be seen on 35mm SLR cameras if you had a rotating polarizer on the front of the camera, and looked at it with sunglasses on.)

For IMAX, just like in the old days of red-blue glasses, there are two seperate film prints. For 3D digital, sometimes there are two seperate projections, but more often than not there is only one projector and one lens and an electronic polarizer in front of the lens, and the projector "flashes" from Left Eye image to Right Eye image while the polarizer in front of the lens does the same thing. The effect is the same.

(For those wondering, "Why can't I see the images flickering?", it's done too quickly for your brain to notice. Films are projected at 24 frames per second, but your brain can actually see that, so they install a "flicker shutter" which actually breaks up each film frame, so you're seeing 48 frames per second, which each frame being seen twice. I don't know how the digital projectors work but I assume they're alternating at that 1/48th frame rate.)

[LaChapelle]

Little kids pissed and shit their pants in the fronts rows
the seats in the back are cum stained
I don't want to even now about the middle rows

[|Zach|]

I see 1 or 2 movies a month. I really don't mind it all.

[BigMeatballDave]

I think the whole 3D thing is overrated. I'm sure it looks cool, but I'm just not interested. Hollywood is just adding the 3D to cover up the crap they are releasing. I'll stick to my local theatre that only charges $4 for matinee.
Posted via Mobile Device

[JD10367]

I think the whole 3D thing is overrated. I'm sure it looks cool, but I'm just not interested.

So you've never seen a 3D film, yet you think it's overrated?

Hollywood is just adding the 3D to cover up the crap they are releasing.

So they're making crap but yet they make it in 3D and charge you more? How is that "covering it up"?

Do you talk out your ass like this on every topic? Jesus.

[|Zach|]

I think the whole 3D thing is overrated. I'm sure it looks cool, but I'm just not interested. Hollywood is just adding the 3D to cover up the crap they are releasing. I'll stick to my local theatre that only charges $4 for matinee.
Posted via Mobile Device

More people with opinions without experience. lol

[DJJasonp]

I've cut way back on my movie-going. When I was totally into the industry (student)...I used to see everything....now, not so much.

Not sure if a huge discrepancy still exists (west coast to midwest)...but here in so-cal...you can get charged $11-$12 for a NORMAL (non-3D) film...adult price/non-matinee.

So if my wife and I go to ONE movie....that's more money than what I pay for my monthly netflix bill.

And at home I have blu-ray, 46" sony LCD...good sound....no interruptions...and free food and drink!

[007]

Screw the theaters. Hell, I only go to about 2 movies per year anymore because of the insane pricing. Guess I will be down to one now.

[007]

I think the whole 3D thing is overrated. I'm sure it looks cool, but I'm just not interested. Hollywood is just adding the 3D to cover up the crap they are releasing. I'll stick to my local theatre that only charges $4 for matinee.
Posted via Mobile DeviceI felt the same way. Even though Avatar as a movie truly sucked balls, the 3D was amazing. Still not amazing enough for me to let the theaters rape me though.

[JD10367]

I've cut way back on my movie-going. When I was totally into the industry (student)...I used to see everything....now, not so much.

Not sure if a huge discrepancy still exists (west coast to midwest)...but here in so-cal...you can get charged $11-$12 for a NORMAL (non-3D) film...adult price/non-matinee.

So if my wife and I go to ONE movie....that's more money than what I pay for my monthly netflix bill.

And at home I have blu-ray, 46" sony LCD...good sound....no interruptions...and free food and drink!

I used to go to the movies constantly when younger (1986-1995). It seems, the older I get, the less movies look interesting. So much stuff can wait to be seen on video and not lose much in the telling. The only things really worth seeing are things that need to be seen big and loud (e.g. "Star Trek" in IMAX). Do buddy-cop comedies, chick-flick romances, and goofball comedies really need to be seen on a big screen? IMO, no. And I think Hollywood realizes that, which is why they're only releasing things in IMAX that are sure-fire blockbusters in the sci-fi/fantasy genre (e.g. "Iron Man 2") or family films that might also draw adults ("Toy Story 3", "Shrek 4").

The fact that so many people have high-quality home setups doesn't help Hollywood any. There's a reason Hollywood is moving to digital projection. Yes, it's cheaper in the long run (no film distribution costs). But, frankly, 35mm kinda sucks. The films are quite often fuzzy and shaky (due to both technical limitations and a lack of quality staffing/funding). Why would people pay good money to sit in a theater and watch a piss-poor presentation, surrounded by noisy strangers, when they can stay home and see it better?

Of course, that trend is also eliminating the rare but best asset of movies: taking in a spectacular film in a crowd. There's something visceral and satisfying to the core of our humanity to cheer or feel sorrow in a group. For those of you old enough, do you remember the feeling when the Death Star blew up at the end of the first "Star Wars"? I'd never seen people in a movie theater actually stand up and cheer, or make that much noise. The closest we've come to that feeling is with the "LOTR" films and "Avatar", or with the "gasp" factor of things like "The Sixth Sense" or "The Blair Witch Project". Or hearing people sniffling and sobbing during films like "Schindler's List", "The Passion Of The Christ", "Saving Private Ryan", and even "The Lion King" (when Mufasa buys it). It's a catch-22, because I'd hate to see the day when we all live ensconced in our little houses as solitary viewers of the world, like the agoraphobic people in Isaac Asimov's "The Naked Sun".

[007]

I used to go to the movies constantly when younger (1986-1995). It seems, the older I get, the less movies look interesting. So much stuff can wait to be seen on video and not lose much in the telling. The only things really worth seeing are things that need to be seen big and loud (e.g. "Star Trek" in IMAX). Do buddy-cop comedies, chick-flick romances, and goofball comedies really need to be seen on a big screen? IMO, no. And I think Hollywood realizes that, which is why they're only releasing things in IMAX that are sure-fire blockbusters in the sci-fi/fantasy genre (e.g. "Iron Man 2") or family films that might also draw adults ("Toy Story 3", "Shrek 4").

The fact that so many people have high-quality home setups doesn't help Hollywood any. There's a reason Hollywood is moving to digital projection. Yes, it's cheaper in the long run (no film distribution costs). But, frankly, 35mm kinda sucks. The films are quite often fuzzy and shaky (due to both technical limitations and a lack of quality staffing/funding). Why would people pay good money to sit in a theater and watch a piss-poor presentation, surrounded by noisy strangers, when they can stay home and see it better?

Of course, that trend is also eliminating the rare but best asset of movies: taking in a spectacular film in a crowd. There's something visceral and satisfying to the core of our humanity to cheer or feel sorrow in a group. For those of you old enough, do you remember the feeling when the Death Star blew up at the end of the first "Star Wars"? I'd never seen people in a movie theater actually stand up and cheer, or make that much noise. The closest we've come to that feeling is with the "LOTR" films and "Avatar", or with the "gasp" factor of things like "The Sixth Sense" or "The Blair Witch Project". Or hearing people sniffling and sobbing during films like "Schindler's List", "The Passion Of The Christ", "Saving Private Ryan", and even "The Lion King" (when Mufasa buys it). It's a catch-22, because I'd hate to see the day when we all live ensconced in our little houses as solitary viewers of the world, like the agoraphobic people in Isaac Asimov's "The Naked Sun".Not really. No.

[Frazod]

Not really. No.

Agreed. I hate crowds.

And most people.

:)

[DJJasonp]

There's something visceral and satisfying to the core of our humanity to cheer or feel sorrow in a group. .

I agree - I remember seeing "Sex, Lies, and Videotape" in a theater (in conservative midwest)....and remembering how uncomfortable and quiet the whole theater was).

Soderbergh accomplished exactly what he sought out to do with that film.....and you're not going to get that same feeling sitting on your couch alone (or with your significant other).

and yes....I'll never forget when Han yells out "you're all clear kid, now let's blow this thing and go home"

[Miles]

Not really. No.

IMO, the only time a crowd is a positive is for a good comedy and even that needs a few friends with you with no annoying assholes in the audience.

However, at least for myself, I do think a theater tends to be a little more engaging experience because of the screen size and the fact that you have nothing else to do. When watching something at home I have a tenancy to fuck about on my laptop at times.

[007]

When the eliminate cell phones, electronics and general rude behavior I might enjoy the theater experience again. Doesn't matter though really. They have all but priced me out of the market anyway. I have better things to spend my money on.

[Miles]

When the eliminate cell phones, electronics and general rude behavior I might enjoy the theater experience again. Doesn't matter though really. They have all but priced me out of the market anyway. I have better things to spend my money on.

I usually avoid the times when people when rude people are more likely to be there and usually don't have a problem. Fortunately there are a few more adult targeted theaters in my area which tend to attract a more respectful audience as well. However, I see an average of less than 5 a year at a theater so my sample size is small.

I also agree with pricing me out. The $10 threshold for non 3D is pretty much it for me.

There is one really cool Landmark indy theater up here that has a full bar, nice seats (pleather recliners) and great quality A/V. The price is something like $9 before 6:00 and $12 after which includes unlimited soft drinks and popcorn.

[KurtCobain]

I don't really get into the 3D movies as much. I saw AVATAR in 2D and 3D, and I preferred the 2D version. Now with the prices sneaking higher and higher, I definately won't be seeing any more 3D films.

[RINGLEADER]

There are other long and complicated reasons for this increase that stretch beyond greed. The entire initiative to upgrade theaters was derailed when the hedge fund that was established to retrofit more theater for 3D and digital distribution lost its ability to pull from a credit line composed of future charges to distributors (the cost to create a print of a film is about 10x higher than producing a digital copy and distributors were allowing that difference to fund the receivables that the fund was tied to). That difference is used to offset the equipment costs to convert more theaters, but the credit crisis limited this endeavor. The new plan will require some investment from theater owners which is part (but probably not all) of the reason you're seeing a rise in tickets costs.

Somebody has to pay for the retrofitting of theaters and while the majority of it will still come from the differential between film prints and digital drives not all of it will be offset if the plans go forward in their current form.

[BigMeatballDave]

GFY I like to watch a movie for the plot and the acting. Hollywood has forgotten about that. All they wanna do is re-make old movies. Now they're tossing in the 3D feature. Didn't we go thru this 3D phase in the 80s? I'm sure the technology is tons better now. I will check one out sooner or later. So you've never seen a 3D film, yet you think it's overrated?



So they're making crap but yet they make it in 3D and charge you more? How is that "covering it up"?

Do you talk out your ass like this on every topic? Jesus.
Posted via Mobile Device

[BigMeatballDave]

So they're making crap but yet they make it in 3D and charge you more? How is that "covering it up"?

Do you talk out your ass like this on every topic? Jesus.
If you werent a dumbshit, you would understand the 'covering up' I was talking about is the lack of substance of the film. They add all the CGI and now 3D to make up for the lame storylines and poor acting.
Posted via Mobile Device

[JD10367]

GFY I like to watch a movie for the plot and the acting. Hollywood has forgotten about that. All they wanna do is re-make old movies. Now they're tossing in the 3D feature. Didn't we go thru this 3D phase in the 80s? I'm sure the technology is tons better now. I will check one out sooner or later.
Posted via Mobile Device

Talking out your ass. End of discussion.

[JD10367]

If you werent a dumbshit, you would understand the 'covering up' I was talking about is the lack of substance of the film. They add all the CGI and now 3D to make up for the lame storylines and poor acting.
Posted via Mobile Device

I'M a dumbshit? You continue to talk about something you haven't even seen, you frigging moron. I'm done with you.

[BigMeatballDave]

You're missing the fucking point. I don't care about that extra shit. Like I already mentioned, but you failed to comprehend, is I like an interesting plot and good acting.I'M a dumbshit? You continue to talk about something you haven't even seen, you frigging moron. I'm done with you.
Posted via Mobile Device

[007]

Let's make things simple here.

3D isn't worth it.

[boogblaster]

Movie marketing is too high for most people income nowdays .. don;t know how they can raise and still expect people pay .. hell popcorn is 5 bucks ...

[FAX]

Roses are red
Aliens are greenish
Movies are cool
But 3D makes me squeamish

FAX

[007]

Movie marketing is too high for most people income nowdays .. don;t know how they can raise and still expect people pay .. hell popcorn is 5 bucks ...Unfortunately because too many people are still willing to pay it.

[Deberg_1990]

Unfortunately because too many people are still willing to pay it.

This...

They will keep raising prices until people not longer pay it.

Im amazed how many people buy those gargantuan tubs of popcorn, then only eat about half of it.