Watching movies in the Cinema: Does movie theatres have their days numbered?

[M Most]

If theatres want to put more butts in seats they should be lowering their prices, offering dinners, selling booze, and/or using any other tricks to make it a value-added experience. On the studio side, realistically, the only thing they can do is make better movies... (which is less likely than offering booze and cheaper tickets, and is easier said than done.)

Having done a reasonable amount of work researching the viability of an independent theater operation, I can honestly say that there is no financial way to make that work. Theaters are the way they are in part because they have to be. The economics of operating the building, maintaining the projection equipment, handling ticket sales, keeping the theater clean and sanitary, manning the concessions, advertising, and permits required do not work without the larger pictures to attract moviegoers, and they certainly do not work when you start giving things away. Combining a restaurant with a theater operation sounds good, but it really only works if each business can operate independently and be self sustaining, benefiting from the combination but not dependent on it.

 

[Mike P.]

Having done a reasonable amount of work researching the viability of an independent theater operation, I can honestly say that there is no financial way to make that work. Theaters are the way they are in part because they have to be. The economics of operating the building, maintaining the projection equipment, handling ticket sales, keeping the theater clean and sanitary, manning the concessions, advertising, and permits required do not work without the larger pictures to attract moviegoers, and they certainly do not work when you start giving things away. Combining a restaurant with a theater operation sounds good, but it really only works if each business can operate independently and be self sustaining, benefiting from the combination but not dependent on it.

I understand the need for big blockbusters and I totally get the added difficulties of having a restaurant-theatre (that was more of an exaggerated/extraordinary example), but what I can't see is how theatres plan on getting more people to go to the movies without lowering prices as the incentive. Again, whether you look at it as a consumer or business man, over the last couple of years it appears that most people are not willing to pay the current prices (for tickets or food or 3D or IMAX premiums, etc.) Any way you cut it, at least the way it looks now, ticket sales are getting lower... You're not going to get more people to watch movies in theatres by charging the going-rate (as that hasn't been working) or by increasing the price (that doesn't even make sense).

So the alternatives I see are a slow-grind to ruin, or lowering prices to encourage more people to go (potentially getting subsidization/reimbursement from studios to offset the lower ticket prices)... Either way, the theatres can't raise prices and staying the same apparently isn't working.

I'm guessing after doing the research you didn't start an independent theatre because it would have been too risky or not profitable?

 

[paulherrin]

I have the idea that there are a few theaters that are 'special places' - places that are a destination in and of themselves, that provide a social experience of interested and mature audience, and that provide a beautiful and technically profound screening.

love that idea.

my point of reference for 'social experience' is historical theatre. people gather, anticipation builds until the curtain opens, there is a humble and mutual respect between audience and art, there is an intermission, the play crescendos, and then everybody hangs out and visits with the cast. everything that was good about this has been completely lost and left behind. i'm not advocating nostalgia or backtracking, simply pointing to something that worked in its time. now, we're in a new time - waiting for the artist and entrepreneur to take back what is ours. it starts with the content and, if successful, never ends by simply being displayed. intimacy, humility, community.

news (it's not news): if you don't care about the work you're doing, nobody else will. economic strategy via corporate america does not have the ability to solve these issues, it will not happen. the structure is flawed at its very core. foolish is he who watches the parade come and go. move out of town before it comes, preferably in the opposite direction - smile and wave as you pass by. if you're in this for the money, it's time to step down - you have your reward. arrogance and pride will ruin the prodigal 'leaders' who think they can muscle it out. it is too late for the big boys to play like they used to. the wise and humble will make progressive and drastic changes. this is bigger than the 'industry' - this is a global ideal already in flux - and it will not be reversed, only fulfilled.

art (storytelling) is deeply ingrained in our unconscious psyche - it does not go away. so too, is our need for community and our struggle to grow (change). these are the sound principles upon which to build a new foundation. as soon as we become more interested in effecting and fostering an environment for positive growth than we are in it's fleeting and temporary risks and rewards, we will stabilize in the security of purpose and contentment. it is time for artists, myself included, to shoulder the weight of responsibility and accept the call and challenge to lead the forward effort. jim is leading an inspired legacy as we speak, and yet he is a puzzle piece (and one that will be remembered) - if you think he has it easy, ask him. there are so many imaginative, progressive, and creative thinkers even congregated right here that are much more experienced and gifted than i, but they are standing by in the shadows of the ranks. you do not want to fight, much less lead, and you may not think you can. it's time to get past that and push ahead, fulfill your purpose. we have been born warriors, not of sword or stone, and yet destined for battle just the same. you will be caught in the struggle and you will fight either way, so thus i urge you to choose it purposefully. some are already trying to step forward, but desperately need support. this is an amazing community, i believe in us, i believe in the human spirit, and i believe in something greater - which is all of us together, approaching singularity. you each have my full and loving support, with the labors of my hands and heart.

 

[Tom Lowe]

... regardless of how you feel, no business intentionally pisses off their customers.

If the studios are not aware that charging extra for 3D is pissing people off, they are clueless.

BTW, I am not arguing against tentpole pictures. I think the new Mission Impossible film is a great example of a tentpole picture working well for the studio, and for audiences. My suggestion is not to bet the entire farm on these big FX films. Diversify a bit. If they are currently putting 15% of the studio's overall budget into smaller films, try putting 25% into those films.

 

[M Most]

Quot

Quot

get more people to watch movies in theatres by charging the going-rate (as that hasn't been working) or by increasing the price (that doesn't even make sense).

So the alternatives I see are a slow-grind to ruin, or lowering prices to encourage more people to go (potentially getting subsidization/reimbursement from studios to offset the lower ticket prices)... Either way, the theatres can't raise prices and staying the same apparently isn't working.

Maybe not, but the other approach - one that is working, BTW - is to take the high road and offer a noticeably higher level experience AND charging for it. Thats the IMAX model, and it happens to be working very well at the moment. Its also the model for some specialty chains like Pacific's Arclight theaters and some of the Rave complexes. Outside of the large markets, this approach might be a bit questionable, but in the big cities it's working.,

I'm guessing after doing the research you didn't start an independent theatre because it would have been too risky or not profitable?

Yes, and yes. I had what I thought was a very interesting model combining the theater with another business to get more utilization, but the numbers didn't work for that, either - primarily due to the physical plant costs. I might revisit it at some point, if some of the factors change.

 

[M Most]

If the studios are not aware that charging extra for 3D is pissing people off, they are clueless.

I'm sure they're aware of it. That doesn't mean they can do much about it if there are additional costs involved - which there are. The studios and the organizations that support them do market research all the time, especially regarding things like the price vs. audience equation. The last research I read largely showed that a lower price for a 3D ticket wouldn't really do much to increase audience, that the audience has to a great extent already decided whether they like 3D presentations or not. Those that like it aren't as deterred by the ticket pricing as you might think. Those that don't aren't interested in attending 3D presentations regardless of the price. Of course one can skew research to support many conclusions....

BTW, I am not arguing against tentpole pictures. I think the new Mission Impossible film is a great example of a tentpole picture working well for the studio, and for audiences. My suggestion is not to bet the entire farm on these big FX films.

I agree with that, especially the Mission Impossible example (totally preposterous, plot holes the size of the Burj Khalifa, and no character development anywhere in sight - and yet I really enjoyed it). I would also say, though, that if you look at the complete release slates for the major studios, you might find they're already doing what you're suggesting to a larger extent than you might think.

 

[paulherrin]

Maybe not, but the other approach - one that is working, BTW - is to take the high road and offer a noticeably higher level experience AND charging for it. Thats the IMAX model, and it happens to be working very well at the moment. Its also the model for some specialty chains like Pacific's Arclight theaters and some of the Rave complexes. Outside of the large markets, this approach might be a bit questionable, but in the big cities it's working.

I do like the IMAX, I'd like to see more screens (original ones moreso than the converted theaters) pop up... Maybe there's a lot to the point about atmosphere. Most of the regular theaters kind of just feel like they've been vacuumed over too many times and there's probably a permanent layer of coca-cola covering the tile floor. Not the most welcoming places... big, cheap box with smaller boxes inside. :/

So, if I may ask... what is the current situation with studios, indies, distribution companies/deals, and theater chains/independents? How does that all currently fit together and is there any type of effective circumnavigation within the system?

By the way, Mike - I really do like your reasonable and straightforward approach. This is obviously a complex 'problem' with a lot of variables and unknowns, so it is difficult to judge what the first steps need to be... any ideas? Not so much what I've been talking about as what I think should be done or what's going to happen, but along of the lines of measurable progress that we can make and encourage ourselves.

 

[Sergio Perez]

I have to thank all for such an inteligent and interesting debate. This sharing of ideas has really opened up my perspective in many areas, so thanks to all posters, again

I find the suggestion of adding independent films/shorts on the opening of films to be an excellent idea. It would involve the local community with the theatre, not only the local creative community but the "neighborhood" . I don't know if you've seen Michel Grondry's Be Kind Rewind- it showed in an interesting way the sense of belonging a movie can add to a community. It's important that the local audience identifies with "their" cinema. Local Short films could well help this creation of "belonging" to the community. How this is implemented, however, is key: length of shorts, selection criteria, "quality" requirements, also how much should the shorts be paid are going to reflect on the audience's reception of the concept.

I'm a frequent reader of forums such as dvxuser and they have an interesting, community building activity that is the dvxuser festivals. They offer a good platform for enthusiasts and filmmakers to do their fun projects and some prizes are regularly awarded, mostly simbolic filmmaking gear . This could be a model applicable to theatres? It somehow integrates well on the notion i talked about of targeting specific audiences. In this case, local communities and neighborhoods...

 

[Nick Morrison]

There will always be a need to watch films AT the cinema. The trend may be leaning towards streaming over the internet, or watching at home, but nothing replaces the experience of watching an amazing, challenging movie in the theater.

Personally, I have to come to realize that watching movies at home is always a compromise. If its slow or emotionally challenging, I find myself getting up, getting something to eat, going to the bathroom. I can't help it. But at the cinema, I never have these urges. I sink into the seat, the darkness envelopes me, and I get lost in the film (unless someone answers their phone or decides to write a text...).

Clearly, 3D is an attempt by Hollywood to make cinema's "unique" again. To enlarge the difference between the home and theater experience. And clearly, the home experience will catch up (again). And then all theater's will begin to broadcast in 4K, or in Imax, and the war will continue.

But no one can argue where the trend is going: to the internet, to the laptop, to the home. Just like TV is migrating away from broadcast and spreading out more evenly across the cable dial, film is having a similar expansion. Film is being watched on multiple platforms.

But at least as an ART HOUSE phenomena, I don't think the cinema will ever die. Because it is still more special to go to the cinema. You still leave the house, it's still an event. For me, nothing beats seeing a film in NY at BAM, the film forum, the sunshine, or at Walter Reade. The crowds are fantastic, and help me enjoy the films in ways I never imagined (by helping me find the humor where i didn't see it, etc).

Much like I make a choice to go to expensive coffee shops to get GREAT COFFEE, going to the cinema may simply become an expensive niche experience that I'm willing to pay extra for. It may just be a niche phenomena in 20 years. But I think it will always exist. Because of the magic and uniqueness of the experience. Something that watching at home will all the kids and distraction can never replicate.

 

[M Most]

This is obviously a complex 'problem' with a lot of variables and unknowns, so it is difficult to judge what the first steps need to be... any ideas? Not so much what I've been talking about as what I think should be done or what's going to happen, but along of the lines of measurable progress that we can make and encourage ourselves.

Well, one fairly obvious thing is that since the large majority of theaters will be equipped with digital projection in the very near future (many are already, but with the studio decrees you can be pretty assured that by the end of the year there will be far fewer film projection venues) the economics of producing an element that can be screened at reasonable quality in any of those theaters have been significantly changed. Not long ago if you wanted to screen something in a theater you needed to get a 35mm print made, a rather costly step and one which a lot of "indies" could not even begin to afford. The only alternative was screening from an HD tape, BluRay disc, or even a DVD, none of which would provide quite the same experience. Today, you can supply a DCP, which you can usually get made for a reasonable price, far less than a film print and with fewer things to go wrong. Or, in some cases, you can make one using open source or relatively inexpensive commercial software. In any case, it's far cheaper and easier today to create a high quality screening element and show it in a theater than it used to be. I would think that certainly counts as "measurable progress" for many people here, and if it doesn't, it should.

 

[Elsie N]

Something else to consider in regard to movie prices, especially for 3D.

While we are technically not in an inflationary period, I've had a subscription for WASA light rye bread from Amazon dating back to early 2010. Each time the 6 month subscription comes due, the price has risen and one time the price rose while the package got smaller. I eat less and less of those now. On the grocer's shelves I've watched items like Campbell's chicken noodle soup go from .50 a can to more than .70 now... cans of pinto beans have increased and pork and beans have really gone up. (I am very familiar with the cost of these items 'cause I've got cameras to pay for.) I've compensated by buying dry beans, cooking them all-at-once, then freezing them to be thawed and eaten later.

So, maybe things like 3D is just niche inflation that is disguised as value-added. And there is no agreement when you buy a ticket to buy popcorn or sodas at the theater, so cutting those (extremely unhealthy) snacks out should more than cover the added cost. Price points are just that. A point where you decide to pay the price or not.

Anyone who has been on Reduser for any length of time should fully expect things to change... adjust to your circumstance.

 

[Michael Lindberg]

I have to say that for me, price is a huge factor. I love going to the cinema but multiplex pricing just isn't worth it. After snacks, I don't want to end up spending fifty bucks to see a movie. I have patience, so I will generally watch movies second run where they are much much cheaper. For instance, I live in Portland. I just finally saw Hugo last week with my daughter at the Baghdad. It's a McMenamin's theater where we could have a pizza, and I could drink a beer while we enjoy a very nice father-daughter night out at an admission price of $2.00 each.

If the multiplex theaters would bring their prices down, I personally think they would actually make the money up in volume. But they are pricing themselves out of existence.

 

[Michael Lindberg]

Having done a reasonable amount of work researching the viability of an independent theater operation, I can honestly say that there is no financial way to make that work. Theaters are the way they are in part because they have to be. The economics of operating the building, maintaining the projection equipment, handling ticket sales, keeping the theater clean and sanitary, manning the concessions, advertising, and permits required do not work without the larger pictures to attract moviegoers, and they certainly do not work when you start giving things away. Combining a restaurant with a theater operation sounds good, but it really only works if each business can operate independently and be self sustaining, benefiting from the combination but not dependent on it.

There are several business in Portland that are doing just that. They may be running movies during the second run, but they are doing quite well.

 

[Tom Lowe]

One thing that annoyed me when I saw "Hunger Games" recently... i was surrounded by like 20 people munching popcorn for the first 30 minutes of the movie. Incredibly annoying.

/End Grumpy Rant :gun: :emote_popcorn:

 

[Rob Ruffo]

I'm not a huge fan of the theater business in its current state. Most out here are practically run by apathetic teenagers and chain owners who are in it for the profit. If those theaters don't change and die? I won't be too sad.

That's because you don't understand or see the connection between theatrical success, Hollywood making money, and thus Hollywood being willing to take a risk on teh kind fo freaky stuff we love. They are all connected. Besides, your thinking that theaters should not be for-profit ventures is a tad ludicrous. Of course they want to make money. What's wrong with that?

 

[Rob Ruffo]

I have to say that for me, price is a huge factor. I love going to the cinema but multiplex pricing just isn't worth it. After snacks, I don't want to end up spending fifty bucks to see a movie. I have patience, so I will generally watch movies second run where they are much much cheaper. For instance, I live in Portland. I just finally saw Hugo last week with my daughter at the Baghdad. It's a McMenamin's theater where we could have a pizza, and I could drink a beer while we enjoy a very nice father-daughter night out at an admission price of $2.00 each.

If the multiplex theaters would bring their prices down, I personally think they would actually make the money up in volume. But they are pricing themselves out of existence.

So, don't buy snacks...

 

[PatrickFaith]

One thing that annoyed me when I saw "Hunger Games" recently... i was surrounded by like 20 people munching popcorn for the first 30 minutes of the movie. Incredibly annoying.
/End Grumpy Rant :gun: :emote_popcorn:

Theaters near my house "stink" with that rotten butter popcorn smell ... they need to steam clean that place more ... i don't know ... are theaters (even high end ones) ... seeming more dingy ?

 

[Ketch Rossi]

I dislike most of the Cinemas with all my heart they are simply a disgrace to the Cinema Experience!!

They are dirty, out of focus, not maintained, poor lighting situation, either too dark out of the Projector, and or not aimed in off lights in the Cinema it self, the list goes on, its ridiculous how this cinemas stay in business, so yea, good thing some of them are closing, as they don't deserve to stay in business.


Wait as we open our first Twin 4K Cinemas under our Studios conglomerate, I'll show many how a Cinema experience should be, and prices will be done to trash the competition in such a way, that I already know I'll get in trouble.

A new Movie Theater experience is coming, and it is BIGGER AND BETTER THEN IMAX!!


Can't say more for now...

 

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Prices are too high.

They more then doubled in Belgium in 10 years. And that's WITHOUT the 3D-extra charge, and the risen prices of the food and drinks.

Kinepolis in Ghent, which often does have good technical installations (although I don't like a lot of their 3D projections - but could be because I'm not a 3D fan either) has done some days here where you could go to the movies for 3 euros, and 5 euros for a 3D movie. Like one weekend a year, for a promotion.
It was all packed with people.

The system that they also do in England in some places, and in Holland where you pay 20-26 euros for a kind of subscription that let's you go unlimited times to the cinema, is also one I find very interesting, but no theatre in my neighborhood has that.

And to answer on the original post: when the lights go out and you are in a big dark room which such a giant screen and sound around you, and you feel the same reactions of all the people in the cinema - given that you don't have noise 13-year olds there - is magic. Then you realize it's the best way to view movies.
Although the sound of many home installations (especially sound-wise) can often compete with the sound of a big theater, I feel.

 

[Evan Starkey]

At the moment cinema is going the way of the arcade yes its there but why would you ? seems to only serve the impatient or those that dont know about torrents. For a modest price your own acoustically treated sweet spot + Blu-Ray at home with a beer √
All tho i like the sound of what Ketch is hinting at