<hr/>**评论：**<br/><br/>Philinhere: <pre><p>Star Wars: Episode 8</p>
<p>Only $44.99!</p></pre>PointOfFingers: <pre><p>But you get $5 off if you have a ticket stub for Episode 1.</p></pre>ChefLev: <pre><p>Talk about an appreciating asset. </p></pre>cryp7: <pre><p>A surprise, to be sure.</p></pre>SierraDeltaNovember: <pre><p>But a welcome one</p></pre>redw04: <pre><p>I AM the ticket holder</p></pre>Instantcretin: <pre><p>Its savings then</p></pre>quantumturnip: <pre><p>I'll buy popcorn, that's a good snack</p></pre>myhf: <pre><p>I hate popcorn. It's coarse and rough and it gets everywhere.</p></pre>Simbuk: <pre><p>From my point of view, the concession stand is evil!</p></pre>itskieran: <pre><p>Now <em>this</em> is VOD pricing!</p></pre>hammerfaust: <pre><p>What about the debit attack on the wallets? </p></pre>FlashFlood_29: <pre><p>Nobodybappreciates that movie.</p></pre>Dirkinator: <pre><p>I watched it last night with my five year old nephew. He bappreciated it but what does he know star wars isn't for kids</p></pre>infernophil: <pre><p>I still have mine! 6th grade Phil thought Jar Jar was hilarious </p></pre>ShitsStandingUp: <pre><p>So did first grade Shit</p></pre>asusoverclocked: <pre><p>Well 6th grade Phil was wrong </p></pre>Corporal_Yorper: <pre><p>One-quarter ration. </p></pre>zelman: <pre><p>*portion</p></pre>SkollFenrirson: <pre><p>Yippee!</p></pre>iwasnotarobot: <pre><p>You get $44 off with a ticket stub from episode IV. </p></pre>dayoldhansolo: <pre><p>Yea that's the issue with this sort of pricing</p></pre>redrobot5050: <pre><p>Yup. If a consumer can see a movie sucks by a price signal, they will just outright avoid it. </p></pre>Traiklin: <pre><p>And if a movie is doing great and they're charging $60 they will outright avoid it and try the cheaper movie</p></pre>chocolatesandwiches: <pre><p>Well it might become a luxury experience that people will pay more for like a Broadway musical vs an off Broadway musical.</p></pre>Jingr: <pre><p>I'd rather go to a luxury theater with food, recliners and beer before going to the AMC and paying $200 for 2 people to see Pirates of the Caribbean.</p></pre>lilnomad: <pre><p>Well I don't know about everyone else but I would definitely be more like to spend $3 to go see a movie I may hate </p></pre>sumoboi: <pre><p>would you really though? do you watch movies on netflix that you think you might hate? Even a free movie isnt really free, especially if you drive all the way to a theatre. </p></pre>lilnomad: <pre><p>Definitely. And I do not because they're older movies and do not offer a theater experience. I wish I could think of the last time I saw a complete turd in a theater. I'm too selective as it is. If it changed I would be inclined to take a gamble on some movies. Worst case scenario I pay $3.50 for a great nap! (as long as the chairs are comfy)</p></pre>bostonfaninPA: <pre><p>There are several movie theaters near me that do second showings of new movies and also old classics as well. Prices are very cheap. You just have to wait until after the initial production run at the big movie theaters. You did check your area to see if you have any near you.</p></pre>sonofseriousinjury: <pre><p>The problem is a lot of those theaters are going/have gone out of business. Barely any distributors release movies on reels and that's what a large majority of those theaters use. Digital projection is much more expensive, not just because of the projectors, but because of the security involved in digital copies of movies.</p></pre>learnyouahaskell: <pre><p>What issue? The price will stabilize at whatever level people are willing to see it and probably will still sell out the theater, assuming they have some intelligent pricing formula.</p>
<p>But yeah, as someone below pointed out, if the movie is bad enough, people may not come to see it, and there is some floor where the theaters won't break even. But really, this is good. Far fewer dollars wasted on worthless overproduced, underdeveloped movies, and the people responsible for them will quickly be out of business.</p></pre>caitlinreid: <pre><p>If you already paid to show a movie the theater is better off giving out free seats than letting them play for 4 people. </p></pre>j0em4n: <pre><p>Especially since the money is made on $10 buckets of popcorn</p></pre>Kolima25: <pre><p>I dont want to pay money to see a bad movie.</p></pre>Traiklin: <pre><p>I don't want to pay a fortune to see a good movie</p></pre>learnyouahaskell: <pre><p>Exactly, so the people who write them, etc. will quickly be out of inflated work</p></pre>Maugabvag: <pre><p>If I'm paying $44.99 to see the movie I better get a copy of it when I leave the theatre </p></pre>theskymoves: <pre><p>A voucher to download the movie when it comes out on DVD. I would go back to buying cds or even start collecting records if they all came with a bandcamp style download (pick your format and Bitrate, download as often as you want.)</p></pre>fieldnut: <pre><p>If you could buy movies on a bandcamp style website where you'd get to pick the format and redownload whenever you'd want I'd never pirate movies again. </p></pre>xaronax: <pre><p>Shit I didn't see this.</p>
<p>Gonna leave it. Oh well. </p></pre>Chxo: <pre><p>Honestly if i really wanted to see a movie id pay 45 bucks a seat for opening night ( maybe weekend) no line, center seats more than 10 rows from the top/bottom. Optionally either let me bring my own refreshments or have a waiter them to me. Oh and no kids, or at least give them one warning then kick them out if they make audible noises or ask questions like "where is jar jar?".</p>
<p>Any time there is a huge line to get in, there should be an almost empty line of people willing to pay to skip the first one.</p>
<p>I mean its a good year for film if there's a movie i feel i have to watch as soon as it comes out.</p></pre>FlashFlood_29: <pre><p>Have you heard of cinetopia. Nice lounge style chairs, waiters, actual entrees/desserts, and not a bad seat in the house.</p></pre>chx_: <pre><p>You just described Cineplex VIP. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>VIP Cinemas offers guests aged 19 years and older the option to watch films from auditoriums with stadium seating, luxurious oversized high-back leather seats that recline, plentiful leg room, side tables at each seat, reserved seating to reduce the hassle of purchasing tickets, and seat delivery food service by servers.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And yes, they <em>do</em> card you at the entrance of the entire wing, no kids in there. (They don't card me any more that's probably because I am over 40, balding and getting slightly corpulent.)</p>
<p>7-10 CAD surcharge over the normal price. Totally worth it. To compare, I watched Zootopia months after it came out on a Wednesday night to avoid kids. I can't stand the disturbance and so the cheap non-adult cinema is worse than a waste of money.</p></pre>treebee69: <pre><p>Lol i'm glad movies are going out of style for the kids these days. I show up at either of my local theaters, pick any seat in the house and enjoy my private screening lol</p></pre>zdza: <pre><p>Movies are all about timing here, afternoon screening and you'll be stuck in a theatre of highschool kids, 6-8pm screenings are kid saturated no-go zones and anythin past that is gold.</p></pre>Traiklin: <pre><p>I think someone did that when Force Awakens came out.</p>
<p>Went and bought every ticket for it so no one would bother him during the movie</p></pre>JackingOffToTragedy: <pre><p>That gives me an idea. If I wanted to do a poor man's version of that and be a dick, I could buy a few tickets to give myself some space and rightly claim that the seats are taken.</p>
<p>I'll never do this, but it's an interesting thought.</p></pre>GetOutTheWayBanana: <pre><p>We have a place like this! It's called the Warren Theater, and I have no idea if it's a chain or a local theater. They card you, seats are booked an eternity in advance for opening nights etc, you can order food and adult beverages. It's a fun occasional experience. </p></pre>freeze69IceMan: <pre><p>Not even double regular Australia cinema prices. I'd still pay that without much fuss. </p></pre>SammieData: <pre><p>As an Australian, that's pretty much what I paid...</p></pre>MrDanger: <pre><p>Just gotta have a cap. This idea really makes sense. The theaters and studios would profit.</p></pre>_cortex: <pre><p>Don't need a cap, if someone wants to pay 50$ to see it on opening night then let them. After a week or two the price will go down eventually and you'll be able to see it for cheap then. </p></pre>squishytattas: <pre><p>No, this doesn't work. See how games deal with it and you can see the problem. </p></pre>Ayrane: <pre><p>They did try to do that (probably decades ago). Then people started associating how good the movie is based on the price. Some movies even when they were good, were not famous and advertised properly couldn't make it to higher price and couldn't make the money they deserved. Then theatres didn't want to play the movies which were priced low as the profits were low.....etc etc... Then various groups (I think movie makers, theaters etc.) came together and decided to fix the price.</p></pre>Squadeep: <pre><p>The internet surely changes the entire equation. Having instant information about ticket sales country wide allows you to competitively price like gasoline. Being a non-essential commodity just means your range of prices can be wider. </p>
<p>IMAX opening weekend tickets will be prohibitively expensive, sure, but in general pricing will be far more fair for the average consumer. Seeing Moana 8 weeks late because planning around every person is difficult? $15 for the entire family. Going to laugh at how bad "that" movie really is with your friend? $8. </p>
<p>Sure this wouldn't work with old format movies, but with most theater money being made off concessions now anyways I'm sure it's more profitable to get more people in.</p></pre>georgekillslenny2650: <pre><p>Yeah but most of the time movie theaters aren't right next door to each other to have competing prices. And not many people are going to go out of there way to save a dollar when doing so would cost them more(specifically gas money and time). </p>
<p>Like in your example gas stations price competitively but only within around a 2 mile radius. That's why gas prices can vary so much even with the same city. </p>
<p>Anecdotally from my experience once I've decided to see a movie I'm going to go see it no matter the price. I would be swayed to wait a few weeks for a discount, but at that point it's probably more cost efficient to just show a new movie at the base price. </p></pre>Gileshenderson: <pre><p>Richard Branson kind of tried something similar with EasyCinema. Prices weren't really based on the quality of the movie but time instead. But the cinema was basically 24/7 and they would just show the movies with the highest demand price per seat would also vary based on demand (e.g. watching a movie in Tuesday morning was less than a pound). But they had to close.</p></pre>DaracMarjal: <pre><p>Richard Branson's brand is Virgin. The easy brand is owed by Stelios Haji-ioannou. (And, yes, the cinemas were easyCinemas) </p></pre>KingSmizzy: <pre><p>A lot of bad movie recoup their losses by not telling people how bad the movie is before they go in. Like suicide squad (which i thought was okay), had huge sales on opening weekend and made the majority of their money before anyone knew the movie was bad.</p>
<p>if ticket prices drop, they'll lose on that only source of income. not just the movie makers but the theatres too.</p></pre>zcgk: <pre><p>True - when the studios are aware of the suckiness, they limit pre-screens and reviews prior to opening day. But when studios do this, people get the hint. But usually not enough to dissuade opening weekend sales on something that's highly anticipated (like SS). </p></pre>KingSmizzy: <pre><p>Yeah, a lot of movie goers aren't always following the hollywood scene enough to pick up on the undercurrents like which movies aren't doing premiers or pre-screenings. A lot of my friends dont even look at reviews if the trailer was good. I just think, walking into a theatre and seeing the ticket price is $2 would make anyone rethink it. </p></pre>Shtruntz: <pre><p>I'd be ok wasting $2 on a shitty movie if I had already planned on going to the movies, as opposed to $15+ on the same shitty movie.</p>
<p>It would actually cause me to take more chances on movies rather than read reviews or just wait for them to come out on DVD later</p></pre>dynamicnerd: <pre><p>I've worked in theaters for half a decade and it would be nice to see people take more risks. However, films like Arrival which are great movies with smaller turnout opening weekend would suffer. Particularly for that film, it seemed like a flop based on turn out but word of mouth kept a consistent amount of people watching it until its very last showing.</p>
<p>Of it made only a fraction of its actual profit over the longer course, studios would pump out more SS and Adam Sandler movies which will always make their money back opening weekend</p></pre>birthday_machine: <pre><p>You're talking about a bad movie that sold well, presumably the ticket price would be maxed out that opening weekend regardless of quality. </p>
<p>I wouldn't tie my enjoyment of a movie to the popularity of it. Shit, I'd probably prefer paying $2 for a movie I liked, and get all smug about how cool and non - mainstream my tastes are. </p></pre>rbcornhole: <pre><p>This should be a thing. Cheap theaters with shit movies and cheap beer. </p>
<p>One of my favorite movie experiences ever was getting blasted and watching shitty sci-fi movies with a bunch of friends. </p></pre>Prime_was_taken: <pre><p>Growing up there was a second-run movie theater by my house. $5 would get you a ticket, a medium popcorn, and either a medium soda or a can of beer. Typically the movies were 6-8 weeks old, but this was in the 90s before the existence of the Internet hype machine. You could smoke (the chairs had ashtrays), extra beers were $1. </p>
<p>Edit: It was always double features too. I remember seeing Terminator 2 and Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey after school with some friends passing joints around. </p></pre>TheOleRedditAsshole: <pre><p>We had one of those. They served food too, like concession stand type food (hamburgers, hot dogs and such), and had servers to bring the food to you. The front half of the theater was a normal theater, and the back half had tables with chairs. The tickets were dirt cheap, only 2 bucks or so. I believe they made their money on serving food. I remember seeing some good movies there: Big Lebowski, Fight Club, Half Baked, that movie with Warren Beatty where he's a politician who falls in love with a girl from the hood, and decides to become a rapper (or something like that) off the top of my head. </p></pre>dubbya: <pre><p>My favorite thing to do in high school was going to the dollar theater with as many friends as I could round up, smoking a joint in the parking lot, and watching B movies all day on a Saturday. </p>
<p>15 bucks each plus weed and we had fun every weekend. </p></pre>bossbozo: <pre><p>In Malta, we have a cinema that does something similar to this, however rather than shit movies it used to be shit "resolution" and quiet old. </p>
<p>Basically we had one film distributor called KRS, so they'd first show the film at the most expensive cinema, followed by secondary cinemas in reasonable time (say you get a summer movie showing for a month at the main cinema at launch, then a month each in two successive cinemas while it's still summer). The film quality would be deteriorating all the time. If it's a kid's/family movie it might be shown in some tiny kids/family cinemas that would usually show a different movie once a week. At the very end of the film's lifetime it would be shown at this cheap ass cinemas, where you pay €4 and the price includes admittance, parking and a small pop and small popcorn. However you'll be looking at a movie that would be constantly jumping, having burned out patches, possibly distorted sound, that kind of thing. It's more like buying the pop and corn and getting free parking and admittance.</p></pre>KKlear: <pre><p>That's a thing in Prague. Well, the movies are not that shitty. Tromeo and Juliet was a masterpiece.</p></pre>iagox86: <pre><p>It just has to be real-time. Tickets aren't selling? Price goes down. Tickets selling out? Price goes up. People who go on opening night are taking a chance that the movie might stink (which they are anyways) and get cheaper, but the movie might also be awesome and get more expensive!</p></pre>Zephs: <pre><p>But could this have the unintended consequence of middle-of-the-road movies getting ignored until the price goes down, whereas if you know the price is going to stay the same, you just go when you feel like it? Big movies would probably be unaffected, and small movies would probably benefit, but the ones in the middle would be hurt the most.</p></pre>vaipandotcom: <pre><p>You're right. Lots of this thread belongs in <a href="/r/badeconomics">r/badeconomics</a> territory.</p></pre>sneakpeekbot: <pre><p><strong>Here's a sneak peek of <a href="https://np.reddit.com/r/badeconomics" rel="nofollow">/r/badeconomics</a> using the <a href="https://np.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/top/?sort=top&t=year" rel="nofollow">top posts</a> of the year!</strong></p>
<p>#1: <a href="https://np.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/4rusnw/socalled_free_trade_policies_hurt_us_workers/" rel="nofollow">"So-called 'free trade' policies hurt US workers every time we pass them. America’s trade agreements benefit large multinational corporations and Wall Street, but are a disaster for working families."</a><br/>
#2: <a href="https://np.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/5bzuij/donald_trump_is_the_president_elect/" rel="nofollow">Donald Trump is the President Elect.</a><br/>
#3: <a href="https://np.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/5c4wdy/trumps_100day_plan_trade/" rel="nofollow">Trump's 100-day plan: trade</a></p>
<hr/>
<p><sup><sup>I'm</sup></sup> <sup><sup>a</sup></sup> <sup><sup>bot,</sup></sup> <sup><sup>beep</sup></sup> <sup><sup>boop</sup></sup> <sup><sup>|</sup></sup> <sup><sup>Downvote</sup></sup> <sup><sup>to</sup></sup> <sup><sup>remove</sup></sup> <sup><sup>|</sup></sup> <a href="https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot" rel="nofollow"><sup><sup>Contact</sup></sup> <sup><sup>me</sup></sup></a> <sup><sup>|</sup></sup> <a href="https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/" rel="nofollow"><sup><sup>Info</sup></sup></a> <sup><sup>|</sup></sup> <a href="https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/5lveo6/blacklist/" rel="nofollow"><sup><sup>Opt-out</sup></sup></a></p></pre>iagox86: <pre><p>Well, they should pick an extreme. Being average sucks anyways. :)</p></pre>_cortex: <pre><p>But then the price goes down, more people go to see it => the price goes up again? I don't see the issue here. A cheaper price might convince more people to see the movie, like I'm not going to go see the new Pirates of the Caribbean for the ~20$ it is right now but if it was 5$ I might. I'll probably only want to see it once, so as it is right now I'd rather wait until it becomes available to stream/rent and that's about what I would have to pay to see it then. </p>
<p>Also the price at the concessions stand stays the same, so more people going to the movies makes them more money there. </p></pre>caitlinreid: <pre><p>It would even itself out and there will always be people that want to see that middling movie <strong>right now</strong> anyhow.</p></pre>stevenglansbergalone: <pre><p>The opening night (and weekend) for a movie is when demand is highest. You would expect to pay more for the opening week under this model, not less.</p></pre>iagox86: <pre><p>My thought was, it starts at a neutral value, and then increases or decreases from there.</p>
<p>I'm not saying this is a good plan.. we're in <a href="/r/crazyideas">/r/crazyideas</a> after all. :)</p></pre>BaconPit: <pre><p>I think theaters would actually benefit from it. The money from ticket sales goes to the studios for the first month or two of screening. Decreased ticket costs would attract more customers who may buy concessions, where theaters make the bulk of their money.</p></pre>c3534l: <pre><p>But what about Batman v. Superman which everyone knew was horrible, but still made a shitload of money?</p></pre>ThorBreakBeatGod: <pre><p>It wasn't horrible, it just wasn't "great".</p>
<p>That said, the extended version does solve a shit ton of the pacing and story issues that we had in the theatrical release. Still doesn't really forgive the martha shit, though.</p></pre>gamerguyal: <pre><p>If you need to watch the extended edition of an already 3 hour movie for it to make sense, maybe there some pretty serious problems with the script.</p></pre>KingSmizzy: <pre><p>I waited and watched the directors cut extended edition without having seen any of the original and I'll say that the movie was a bit ambitious, very sprawling, complicated. But I liked it. Too many movies try to be clean cut beginning-middle-end-done but this was a beautiful mess. </p>
<p>The only scene that I didn't like was his dream scene where he imagines a world controlled by dictator superman, that one was confusing as f*** (i thought it was real at first). But everything else was exactly what people watch superhero movies for. Clever villains, ridiculous plots, symbolic imagery, and badass fight scenes. </p></pre>Infiltrator92: <pre><p>That dream scene wasn't a dream, it was a vision of a future the Flash came back in time to try and warn Bruce of to try and prevent. </p></pre>andrew991116: <pre><p>No matter what people thought about the movie we gotta give it props for its ambition</p></pre>CPTMuggle: <pre><p>Lol no, it was horrible. You can't say that it's fine if I watch the mega extended version. It deserved all the hate it got. It was a convoluted piece of trash. It's hilarious that people try to defend it as some ambitious movie. </p></pre>wubX6: <pre><p>Speaking as a huge Batman fan, it really was pretty bad. </p></pre>HolyThunderPunch: <pre><p>Both BvS and Civil War's mommy issues kinda pissed me off.</p></pre>SoldierHawk: <pre><p>Yeah, was only their moms getting murdered in front of them. If they were real heroes they would just get over it.</p></pre>Infiltrator92: <pre><p>Ya.. I legitimately felt for Tony Stark when he saw the footage of his mom being murdered. That was brutal...</p></pre>SoldierHawk: <pre><p>Yep.</p>
<p>I was right there in that moment wanting to murder Bucky and anyone between him and me.</p>
<p>"I don't care. He killed my mom."</p>
<p>Fuck yeah he did Tony. Kick his ass.</p></pre>HolyThunderPunch: <pre><p>If they didn't do it in such a choppy and lazy way when there was already motivation and ways to start/end the conflicts within the movies... I mean, it's one of the cheapest and laziest things I've seen, from either movie, in a long time.</p>
<p>I mean, if they really wanted to go "my mom died bc of him", it isnt like Iron man didnt have multiple movies to deal with that plot line... No, they just throw it out there randomly while other shit is going down. In BvS, I get what they wanted to do in the humanizing supes in the eyes of Batman but damn, they could have done it a million ways better.</p></pre>cyrilspaceman: <pre><p>Didn't they do that with Battlefield Earth? I remember reading somehow that they intentionally did zero marketing to hide it from people. You can't even see a trailer without realizing how awful it is.</p></pre>stevenglansbergalone: <pre><p>SS made its money back because it was a tentpole movie with a bunch of popular characters no one has seen on screen before.</p>
<p>Some movies, like the Resident evil series, know the movie won't be good but enjoy them for their own reasons, like Pro Wrestling. No one thinks that is as good as Breaking Bad, but it still has a lot of adult fans.</p>
<p>Critical appreciation has no correlation to box office returns. Suicide Squad didn't make its money because most people were unaware it was bad movie (it is one of the top 50 box office movies ever). It made money because good or bad it was a big summer movie that people would be talking about.</p></pre>plsnotChristian: <pre><p>Suicide squad was such a let down. My movie theater experience in Thailand ruined </p></pre>Wedge09: <pre><p>That and if they were just going to drop the price I know I would just wait a month to see a movie. Especially if the price went from $15 to $3</p></pre>stevema1991: <pre><p>I think this would be best implemented in the following weeks, not opening week</p></pre>KingSmizzy: <pre><p>definitely, on opening day there would be way too much confusion. maybe best used to squeeze out extra bucks near the end of its showing.</p></pre>YetiGuy: <pre><p>Opening day ticket price (movie IPO) should always be same (or similar) for all movies. It's after first week the price adjusts.</p></pre>Mectrid: <pre><p>That was everyone's fault. That film looked god awful and the trailers had no substance outside of quirky characters. If it made anyone want to go and see it they deserve to have wasted their money.</p></pre>pduncpdunc: <pre><p>Fucking righteous idea</p></pre>xaronax: <pre><p>Star Wars Episode VIII is now $89.99.</p></pre>lt7991: <pre><p>More like $150 </p></pre>xaronax: <pre><p>Mandatory popcorn is $59.99, so yeah.</p>
<p>And it's extra salty, too.</p>
<p>(Small drink is $49.99).</p>
<p><sup>(Plus</sup> <sup>tax)</sup></p></pre>Buckwheat469: <pre><p>So, normal price then?</p></pre>xaronax: <pre><p>It's more if you don't have your Disney<sup>®</sup> Lucasarts<sup>®</sup> MoviePass<sup>®.</sup></p>
<p>Only $299.99 per year. Includes access to the "movie vault" so you can buy old movies they've intentionally removed from sale to create demand.</p>
<p>Edit: I meant Lucasfilm. Oops. </p></pre>TeachAManToFishMelbs: <pre><p>Don't. Give. Them. Ideas.</p></pre>xaronax: <pre><p>lol the vault is already a very real thing. </p></pre>ptgkbgte: <pre><p>Yo Ho Yo Ho.......</p></pre>pmoney757: <pre><p>Baywatch is free. </p></pre>KarmaThanMost: <pre><p>Only at first. Then when the rich people are bored with it the price would fall.</p>
<p>Basically it would be a way to put a price on how soon you get to see it.</p></pre>k0mbine: <pre><p>Fucking horrible idea </p></pre>ShetlandJames: <pre><p>Good! My Facebook feed would be filled with less annoying fans rattling on and on about it</p></pre>Meriadocc: <pre><p>I liked King Arthur. Was looking forward to it ever since I finished SoA.</p></pre>abraksis747: <pre><p>Or just release it to streaming </p></pre>caitlinreid: <pre><p>Right, because companies love making $47,000 on something they'd make $14 million on the other way.</p></pre>whiskey4breakfast: <pre><p>Yeah man, I wanted to go see king Arthur last night but it's not playing within 30 miles of me. I would for sure buy it digital. Instead, I saw alien and it was fucking dog shit. </p></pre>genryaku: <pre><p>I don't know how dog shit Alien was, but it could not have been more dog shit than King Arthur.</p></pre>ConvertsToMetric: <pre><p><a href="http://fiddle.jshell.net/ConvertsToMetric/xhk4y5h5/show/light/?30%20miles%20=%2048.3%20km%0A" title="30 miles = 48.3 km
Post feedback in /r/ToMetric"><sup><strong>Mouseover</strong> or <strong>click</strong> to view the metric conversion for this comment</sup></a></p></pre>arcadiaware: <pre><p>You know? I honestly didn't think about miles when I saw the bot respond, and thought it was going to convert dog shit to metric.</p></pre>magical_midget: <pre><p>There is a planet money episode about this.
The gist of it is that studios do not like the idea, and they have a lot of power on what gets shown and when it gets shown. </p>
<p>If a theatre wants to show star wars or guardians of the galaxy (because they print money). Well Disney will let you do that, but you have to give pirates of the Caribbean the same treatment even if it is not going to get the same numbers, or if it is a crappy movie. So people go to the movies and Pirates is being shown every hour, while other movies from smaller studios get push, and people settle for Pirates.</p>
<p>King Arthur is a WB film, and if you want to ever show a harry potter film again (because fantastics beast is going to get a sequel) then you will show King Arthur and charge what the studio wants. </p>
<p>The episode is here
<a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/07/11/330680385/episode-552-blockbusters-bombs-and-the-price-of-a-ticket">http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/07/11/330680385/episode-552-blockbusters-bombs-and-the-price-of-a-ticket</a></p></pre>ToastyKen: <pre><p>Thank you. Scrolled down to find a post like this. OBVIOUSLY movie theaters have considered this, and I just wanted to know why we still have our system today. Thanks for the sourced explanation! :)</p></pre>zcgk: <pre><p>Just to refine the original idea further maybe - poorly performing movies should have their price reduced. Instead of, say, being pulled early. Kinda like video game prices. </p></pre>bearsaysbueno: <pre><p>The theaters would defintiely like that to get more customers, especially with assigned seating now making it harder to sneak into other(more expensive) movies. The studios probably don't let them though.</p></pre>Ser-Squibs: <pre><p>Would you be willing to pay $80 to see the movie that everyone is loving and shit? No </p></pre>BitchesGetStitches: <pre><p>Right, which is why the distributor wouldn't charge $80. They would consider how much people are willing to pay to see the movie, and set the price accordingly. The price would likely decrease over time, so by the 4th week after release, you could see a movie for substantially less than on opening night. You might pay $20 to see a movie on opening night, but $5 later. It's not that crazy of an idea. </p></pre>Nundercover: <pre><p>That is a much more reasonable approach I think. The movie's value depreciates over time in the box office, so why not reflect that in the pricing?</p></pre>jumbotron9000: <pre><p>Is this the Memorial Day coked up Econ grad, waiting for an Uber, "I could reinvent movies as my career" thread? </p>
<p>If so, you are all WRONG! </p>
<p>$6 shitty theaters for all screenings. That's what Netflix charges for a month. </p></pre>thesithman: <pre><p>Yes, this adjustable price should be based on opening weekend sales. A lot of people in this thread are using suicide squad as an example. I was hesitant and didn't see it opening weekend but I definitely would have seen it week 2-3 for $5. </p></pre>spongish: <pre><p>That'd just be at the time it comes out though. If they're still playing it a month later and getting theatres that are half full they could drop the price to reflect that</p></pre>Szos: <pre><p>That's going to work against us, you know that!</p>
<p>Instead of lowering the price for under performing movies, they'll just jack up the price of popular movies. <em>Oh, the next Avengers movie is almost sold out? Better price the tickets to $40 / ticket.</em></p></pre>zcgk: <pre><p>Very true. </p>
<p>With the under preforming movies though, it seems like lowering the price would be the merciful thing to do to help increase the foot traffic. The movie still plays for all the showings. Why not try to juice up the audience. Every seat unfilled is lost revenue. Kinda like an airline flight. </p></pre>Tolham: <pre><p>And budget. Movies with $20 million budgets have the same ticket price as movies with $200 million budgets.</p></pre>bumblebritches57: <pre><p>and the $20 million movies are generally better.</p></pre>cooper12: <pre><p>The whole point of financing low-budget films is because they're assumed to be riskier financially. That doesn't mean they're necessarily bad, just that the studios don't expect them to make much money. If they were priced lower though, they wouldn't be able to recoup the smaller budget and then studios would only be willing to finance sure hits and blockbusters. That's be a surefire way to kill off any indie films or ones that break the mold.</p></pre>thereally: <pre><p>Makes enough sense. The bulk of their money comes from concessions anyway. Whatever it takes to get butts in the seats.</p>
<p>Possible side effect, people may stake out the theater waiting for prices to drop instead of buying advance tickets.</p></pre>Nundercover: <pre><p>The question is how would the studios feel about that arrangement?</p></pre>AnEpiphanyTooLate: <pre><p>Congratulations. You just described how the Internet will be once Net Neutrality is dead. </p></pre>throwtowardaccount: <pre><p>Aw man. I really enjoyed King Arthur :(</p></pre>JungleJesus: <pre><p>I live in China. This is how it's done here.</p>
<p>It doesn't solve the problem. Fixed prices, plus $5 Tuesday, are way better for making plans. Here, tomorrow's price could be double today's listing for no reason.</p></pre>AwkwardBug: <pre><p>King Arthur was awesome.. I thought it was worth the money.. but I agree with it being cheaper to see lame movies.. like that new amy schumer movie.. ugh even then 2.99 is still expensive for that</p></pre>I_love_coke_a_cola: <pre><p>Agreed, just saw it and loved it and I'm seeing a lot of user reviews that say the same. I think guy Ritchie had said they couldn't release it last year cuz it was the same date as Star Wars and he was nervous about the release because it was close to guardians of the galaxy 2</p></pre>AwkwardBug: <pre><p>Yeah that's what he was talking about during his interview on the Joe rogan podcast.. awesome intellectual guy who knows what he's talking about! Glad to know more people are liking it and not just listening to the reviews.</p></pre>kithkatul: <pre><p>Yeah, King Arthur was great. Don't understand the negative reviews. </p>
<p>It is wholly unconcerned with the Arthurian legend, so I guess if that's a deal breaker for people...</p></pre>Bourbone: <pre><p>Whoooo boy was King Arthur dogshit. Wow. </p></pre>MultiPass21: <pre><p>There's a bar in Eugene, Oregon that sells beer on this system. Can't recall the bar's name off-hand, but spent some time there during college. </p></pre>Prime_was_taken: <pre><p>There's a few bars that do this now. </p></pre>immissemily: <pre><p>My boyfriend and I rate movies we want to see by what theater we go to. Huge blockbuster coming out that will be amazing? Bring on the dine-in theater with the reclining heated seats. Kinda cool looking movie but could possibly be shit? Average movie theater it is with stadium seating..semi-newer/nice seats. Meh movie but we're bored and might as well go see a movie? In-town small theater that should really have been updated years ago but the tickets are cheap, so why not? It works out perfectly everytime.</p></pre>Dank_Meme_Son: <pre><p>King Arthur is flopping? That movie was great.</p></pre>Dumble07: <pre><p>There is a Bar in Barcelona called Dow Jones where the drinks are all listed like stocks on these big screens. People buy drinks and the price goes up, people stop buying and the market crashes with flashing lights everywhere and everyone runs to the bar. It's a good system.</p></pre>l_raredon: <pre><p>Well the whole thing come down to rent. All theaters rent their movies hence why the cost of the movie tends to be so high. They rent it from the studios, hence why the concession costs are so high</p></pre>darknecross: <pre><p>Theaters also already regulate based on how well
movies are expected/currently performing in their theater allocations. There's a reason why Star Wars has 6 screens for a month while shit movies go down to one screen after a couple weeks. </p></pre>defiantPossum: <pre><p>Then you'll have people short-selling tickets. </p></pre>Ryvit: <pre><p>Is King Arthur actually flopping or were you just using that as an example because it's one of the most recent movies to come out? </p></pre>Curtman101: <pre><p>I feel like theatres would just take advantage of the opportunity to inflate prices of good movies even more instead of deflating those that are underperforming. Great intentions in this idea, but I don't see it happening. </p></pre>SlashStar: <pre><p>King Arthur was fine, it just had places to be. Didn't have time to stick around any one scene for more than 20 seconds.</p></pre>coastal_potato: <pre><p>So make pricing more like airline seats? Fuck that.</p></pre>AlexanderHamilton04: <pre><p>Movie theaters. They're overpriced and I hate them, but with new movies there's no other option, other than watching a shitty cam version. I went and saw San Andreas a few months ago. It was the first movie I'd seen in a theater in years, and, I gotta say, that whole "theater experience" really sucks. The screen didn't look at all better than my own TV, the chairs were uncomfortable, and the floor was sticky and littered with garbage. I had to wait in line for 15 minutes just to watch that crappy movie in that disgusting theater, and the worst part about it was that my dad beat me down with jumper cables in the parking lot. I wish they'd just allow me to stream the movie at home, where I can pause it without missing an important scene and I'm not sitting next to 75 strangers who whisper and chew their food loudly. <a href="/u/rogersimon10" rel="nofollow">/u/rogersimon10</a></p></pre>PortonDownSyndrome: <pre><p>By the time theatres know a film is bad, they'll prepare to drop it and play something else. Which is a better idea for everyone than showing worse films for less.</p></pre>Papalockratin: <pre><p>I think they would need to pay me to go see that shit</p></pre>FairInLoveAndWar: <pre><p>This would automatically happen if copyright did not exist.</p></pre>ThorBreakBeatGod: <pre><p>maybe start all movies at something like 2.99, then increase the price as ticket sales go up?</p></pre>otterom: <pre><p>They are. When movies are horrible, they cost you nothing (you don't see it).</p>
<p>When they're good, you're charged full price. </p></pre>_reddit_sucks_ass_: <pre><p>Alternative Crazy Idea: How about I download the movie for free and watch it to decide if it's worth supporting by paying to see it in the theater?</p></pre>lawsandsonny: <pre><p>I think the longer they're out the cheaper they should be. The theaters moves them to smaller theaters anyways, at least where I go, why should I pay the same amount for a smaller screen, I might as well wait until I can rent it.</p></pre>coswell: <pre><p>Interesting discussion of this idea in, I think Tim Harford's book "why does popcorn cost so much at the movies." The gist of the argument for why theaters do NOT do this is that they make all their profits from concessions, not from sales of the tickets. So, basically they just want to keep things simple and get as many people in the theater as they can. They don't want to mess with a complicated system of changing prices for the tickets.</p></pre>WhiteOrca: <pre><p>In my town, All I have is 1 average movie theater and 1 small movie house.</p></pre>karma3000: <pre><p>I think it would backfire. People's time is more limited than their wallet. Eg "what should I do this Saturday? , spend $10 on a movie that looks good, or $3 on this one that must be shit since they are discounting the tickets" </p></pre>110011001100: <pre><p>A lot of states in India have this. ticket prices vary between INR 75 and INR 1600 depending on the demand for the movie, show timings,etc</p>
<p>Some states have govt imposed price caps, so they stay constant and dont even discount low demand shows</p></pre>Nundercover: <pre><p>Who or how is the quality determined? </p>
<p>Or just based on attendance / box office $?</p></pre>5t33: <pre><p>That is how plays are...</p></pre>bluesteel117: <pre><p>They tried this is counter strike source and it didn't go too well. </p></pre>Myotherdumbname: <pre><p>They already do that, the movies leave the theaters faster and head to "dollar theaters"</p></pre>allenrjr: <pre><p>Spiderman homecoming is going to end up being $49.99</p></pre>marshull: <pre><p>I have always thought about something along the lines of this. It is weird to pay the same price regardless of quality or cost to produce. I really can't think of anything else we purchase that has the same price regardless. I expect to pay more for a burger at Stuft or Smashburger than at McDonald's. It is weird to pay the same price to see El Mariachi ($7,000 budget) as it is to see the latest Starwars ($300 million budget). Although I did enjoy El Mariachi more. </p></pre>Troglodytarum_Facies: <pre><p>If a restaurant offered me 75% off for "food that's not that good", I'd probably pass.</p></pre>spectreiwnl: <pre><p><a href="/r/geniusideas" rel="nofollow">r/geniusideas</a> </p></pre>GhostSheSends: <pre><p>We have a cheap theater in town that shows movies not long after they leave the main theaters. It is a really nice place. They upgraded all their seats not long ago. Tickets are only 1.50 or 2.50 after 4pm. They also got 1.50 drinks and popcorn. It is beside a pretty sweet arcade as well. </p>
<p>A few towns over they have a similar discount theater except they charge 5.49 for a small drink and I didn't bother looking to see how much the popcorn cost. On top of that the room we were in was uncomfortably warm. Probably over 80 degrees. The movie was okay though. We saw The Great Wall. They play drums with nunchucks in it which was funny. </p></pre>Awfulcopter: <pre><p>The movie theatre can change the supply of the movie (by showing it on only one screen once a day) and therefore can manage to maintain enough demand for a bad movie without having to change the price.</p></pre>stevenglansbergalone: <pre><p>Most theaters do something like this already.</p>
<p>Demand for movies are highest on the weekends, they charge more. On a Wednesday not as many people are going, 2 for 1 deals. Yeah, it is not movie specific, but it still happens to a degree.</p></pre>T_Peg: <pre><p>That would just cause them to flop harder</p></pre>unknownchild: <pre><p>its out already? not where i live</p></pre>Matzaburgaz: <pre><p>Would this hurt the theatres more than the production studios I wonder? It's not the theatres fault if the movie turns out to be shit</p></pre>ArrrGaming: <pre><p>This would be bad because then you'd only be able to find the absolutely most popular movies in theaters. </p>
<p>Oh there's some movie that you can't wait to see that you think is going to be awesome but isn't a mega-blockbuster hit? Fuck you, wait for Netflix. </p>
<p>No thanks.</p></pre>ktchong: <pre><p>Alternatively, a new industry of independent cinema will arise to cater to that particular niche. </p></pre>NoPlayTime: <pre><p>They used to do this with drinks at one of the bars I used to go to... I never drank so much shit whisky on my life.</p></pre>damiankw: <pre><p>A couple in Australia have done something similar to this, and are rolling it out to small cinemas.</p>
<p>The app is called <a href="https://www.choovie.com.au/" rel="nofollow">Choovie</a>, you can find cheaper tickets to specific cinemas, based on how many people are going. For example, if you want to see a 10am movie, during the day on a Wednesday when most people are at work, the tickets are going to be a lot cheaper, because they're not in high demand. If you want a ticket on Friday night to a blockbuster, it's going to be more expensive because it will be booked out already.</p></pre>fr3tus: <pre><p>Planet money did a good podcast on this.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/07/11/330680385/episode-552-blockbusters-bombs-and-the-price-of-a-ticket" rel="nofollow">http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/07/11/330680385/episode-552-blockbusters-bombs-and-the-price-of-a-ticket</a></p></pre>David_Tosk: <pre><p>I'm not sure cinemas is a very price sensitive market. I would think that wasting two hours on Pirates of the Caribbean is seen as a bigger burden than the cost of the movie. </p></pre>ktchong: <pre><p>T-Mobile Tuesday app is offering Wonder Woman tickets for $4 each. </p>
<p>The last times T-Mobile sold heavily discounted movie tickets were for Batman v Superman and then Warcraft, and those two movies sucked. </p></pre>ostiniatoze: <pre><p>Wouldn't this be another incentive to milk successful franchises to death?</p></pre>ahaddad321: <pre><p>I hope people in this thread realize, the movie theatres themselves get little to no profit off of the movies, they made 99.9% of their money on concessions. I don't understand why the theatres would have a problem doing that, as they don't lose any money.</p></pre>OhhScrewwwwYou: <pre><p>Guardians of the galaxy 2! Now only $199.99 FUCKKK</p></pre>
