If You Think Movie Tickets are Pricey Now...
Filed under: Exhibition, Newsstand
My New Yorker friends take every opportunity to complain about the ticket prices that Manhattan movie theaters charge every hour of the day -- I think it's now up to $11.50. Here in Philadelphia the standard seems to be $9 or $10, though one "luxury" theater -- the obnoxiously named "The Bridge: Cinema de Lux," which "offers" assigned seating at peak times, ice cream at the concession stand, and an in-house (though not in-theater) bar and restaurant -- has gone up to $12. The disappointing thing about The Bridge is that projection and sound are about as spotty as anywhere else, and the college crowds on Friday and Saturday nights flush away any claim it may have had to "luxury".Well, today's Variety has an article about a company that plans to turn "movie theater luxury" into Movie Theater Luxury. A taste will cost you $35 a pop. For that price, Village Roadshow Gold Class Cinemas will offer "theaters featuring 40 reclining armchair seats with footrests, digital projection and the capability to screen 2-D and 3-D movies, as well as a lounge and bar serving cocktails and appetizers, a concierge service and valet parking." In addition, moviegoers will be able to order food right from their theater seats by pushing a button. The chain plans to amass 50 U.S. locations over the next 5 years, starting in suburban Seattle and Chicago and expanding from there.
But wait a second. Most multiplexes already offer digital projection in at least a few houses. A great deal are also capable of showing 3-D movies, as evidenced by Beowulf opening on some 1000 3-D screens last November. You have to pay extra for perks like drinks, appetizers, valet parking and in-theater food; the all-around-wonderful Alamo Drafthouse theater chain already offers at-your-seat service without charging anywhere close to thirty-five bucks for a ticket. So what do you get for your money? Looks like the only thing left is "reclining armchair seats with footrests" and "concierge service," which somehow doesn't sound like enough -- though I suppose the smaller theater size and the promise of fewer annoying high-school crowds may draw some wealthier folks looking for a civil moviegoing experience.
Is that worth $35 to you?









Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
3-26-2008 @ 10:48AM
The Pepto Pimp said...
I'm sorry to hear that your Bridge theatre experiences aren't worth the price of admission. Here in West Los Angeles, we have a Bridge: Cinema de Lux, and I have to say it's one of the best movie theatres in the area. Actually, being a hotbed of moviemaking (but not necessarily filmmaking ;P), there are a lot of nice theatres here to compete with The Bridge. Nevertheless, it's a nice place, even better that Mark Cuban's new flagship Multiplex.
Getting back to your article's point: I think it's interesting to examine the future of the cinema experience. Historically and socio-economically, cinema has been a art form of the middle class. Here in the US the middle class is disappearing very, very quickly. What will happen to cinema? Will it go the way of the live theatre? Will you have "Broadway-style" high-end theatres for the wealthy and "off-off-Broadway" venues for the poor?
Hmmm, I better stop, I'm starting to paint a bleak picture...
Reply
3-26-2008 @ 11:54AM
Gene Novikov said...
I should have been clearer -- The Bridge is still one of the best places to see a movie in Philly (which is a terrible town for movie theaters, all told). I just don't think it lives up to the "luxury" label.
You make an interesting point about the dwindling middle class. I wonder if there's any chance of a resurgence of second-run theaters.
3-26-2008 @ 10:51AM
Kevin said...
Not a chance in hell. I like the theater experience enough that I'm willing to pay 10 bucks a ticket. Thats pretty much as high as I'm willing to go. You're telling me that they expect me to pay more to see a movie once than it would cost to buy the DVD on Blu-Ray and watch it as many times as I want? Hmm, I think I'll get the blu-ray version and watch it at home on my very own "reclining armchair seats with footrests".
Reply
3-26-2008 @ 11:12AM
isuki said...
So essentially you're paying $35 for the same ammenities of home, except you get to surround yourself with teens on cellphones, crying babies and other delightful strangers
Reply
3-26-2008 @ 11:55AM
Gene Novikov said...
Well, I think the hope is that the teens with cell phones would be priced out. Don't know about the "delightful strangers."
3-26-2008 @ 11:12AM
Seattle Yonkers said...
I don't complain all that much about movie ticket prices. I've always loved the entire experience of going to a movie, the previews, the film, looking for easter eggs after the credits. It's worth $10 to me. I even buy the super-expensive popcorn AND candy. So, $35 isn't all that bad considering what you get. It won't - by any stretch of the imagination - become my main theater. I'll be there for the big movies, Batman, Indiana Jones, Star Wars. Those movies are worth the price of admission. Glad to know that Chicago will be getting this first. That makes me happy.
Reply
3-26-2008 @ 11:59AM
Gene Novikov said...
But what do you get, exactly? You'll still have to pay extra for the supersize popcorn. (Will they even offer popcorn? Will the sushi come in small, medium and large? And will they try to upsell it? "You can get an Alaska roll for only a dollar more"?) If your current moviegoing excursions climb to $35 because of the extras, a trip to Gold Class Cinemas will cost you considerably more.
3-26-2008 @ 11:35AM
Jonesy said...
Small screens? Digital projection? Fancy food? They aren't offering ANYTHING you can't get in a home theater!
-
If you want to get people out of the house, how about building 80' screens again? Give us something we'll never have at home. While you're at it, screen some classic blockbusters when the current releases suck and do away with the ads & disruptive talking.
-
Jonesy
-
www.OnTheBigScreen.net
Reply
3-26-2008 @ 12:01PM
Gene Novikov said...
Yeah. Too bad repertory film is dead: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/02/11/MNVVURG40.DTL
3-26-2008 @ 11:40AM
DAVID F said...
I've been to some of these theatres and they're nice once and a while but ONLY for movies I've already seen. I recently viewed a screening of "Animal House" and it wa perfect for this setting. It was a movie that the audience had seen dozens of times and you could just enjoy it despite all the commotion. So, the servers walking around would be kinda distracting if it was a film I hadn't seen before.
Overall, I'll go see a movie to see a movie. I'll go somewhere else for food.
Reply
3-26-2008 @ 11:57AM
Ryan Kelly said...
So I'm supposed to pay 35 dollars for something projected digitally? In other words, more then I would pay for a hi-definition version of a movie, to go see it in virtually the same presentation. I can not abide digital projection, it is not worth even 10 dollars to go see a movie on an overblown television set.
Reply
3-26-2008 @ 2:12PM
The Pepto Pimp said...
I have to agree with you there Ryan. So far, I haven't seen a digital projection that I thought was worth the price of admission. When my gf and I go to the multiplex, we always ask for the screen WITHOUT digital projection.
3-26-2008 @ 2:00PM
Court said...
I'd never pay 35 a ticket. the 12.00 I pay no is almost too much considering: the goddamn ads, the goddamn crying babies, the annoying ass people, and the stupid-christ-can-you-go-1-minute-without-texting-someone-people who dont realize that in a stadium seating arrangement when you pull out that neon blue screen of yours EVERYONE can see it like a horrible strobe.
I'd pay 35 bucks for a movie with a small food combo (bottle of water and popcorn) banned cell phones and no ads.
Reply
3-26-2008 @ 2:05PM
rex said...
The Seattle suburban area already has "The Big Picture" if they want a more upscale viewing session. The prices are a bit more reasonable then these proposed theaters and The Big Picture offers a similar experience. I don't think the niche is big enough to support many outlets.
Besides, if you can afford to spend $35 on just the ticket, you probably can afford a pretty decent home theater.
Reply
3-26-2008 @ 3:11PM
Gene Novikov said...
On the other hand, folks who can afford $35 a ticket AND a nice home theater might well splurge on both.
3-26-2008 @ 3:20PM
ProgGrrl said...
Sorry to hear that this Roadshow luxe idea is going so high-cost. I think Austin's Drafthouse, and Los Angeles's Arclight Cinema, are already doing a great job of giving you a better live experience, without the extra costs. I am NOT paying $35 (plus parking and refreshments) for a movie.
Drafthouse is in fact the best example, especially their drive in events and all those studio promotional themed nights they have. They even invite folks out for in theater screenings of cult tv shows like BATTLESTAR GALACTICA and LOST. That's the kind of stuff that gets little middle-class me off my couch and into a theater.
I happened to also LOVE assigned seating, a la the Arclight. It's so great to buy your tickets during the day at work, show up early for a beer in their bar...and mosey into the theater 5 mins before showtime knowing you have a great seat waiting.
Sweeeet.
Reply
3-26-2008 @ 3:39PM
Don K said...
Someone on another message board responded to this story by basically saying that if theatres want to jack up prices, they can do away with the fancy food, etc. and simply hire ushers/security to enforce basic rules of conduct. I would say that the rudeness of contemporary audiences is the single biggest factor in preventing people from going to theatres. My lady and I used to think it was just the multiplexes on weekend nights, but now the talking, texting and so forth has infected our local art house on a Sunday afternoon.
I am able to attend press screenings from time to time and long for those -- not because of the often cushy seats and small audiences in the studio screening rooms (although they're fine) but because I know I can watch the movie in silence. The last thing I want is a waiter serving me food in the middle of a crucial scene -- that makes no sense whatsoever. So what would entice me to pay $35 aside from the digital image and comfy chairs? As the person who wanted the ushers said, if the theatre could guarantee than every subhuman who talked or used their personal electronic insecurity blanket would be thrown out the door on their ass, I'd consider it.
Reply
3-26-2008 @ 7:09PM
Christopher said...
Here in Phoenix, Arizona if you go to an AMC Theater FRI, SAT, SUN & Holidays..any showing before 12 Noon is only $5.00 incld new releases!! This is how I manage to see at least 3 films over the weekend!!
Reply
3-26-2008 @ 11:14PM
Jose Nunez said...
Why attack theatre chains that are trying to provide the movie-going audience with a "close to" or "better than" home experience. Ultimately, movie going is a social experience. You can recreate comfort, darkness, silence, sound and picture at home (though not on a large screen) but NOTHING beats watching a GREAT movie with an audience. Before anyone states that the American movie-going experience is officially dead, buried and forgotten, remember to do your part. Sit down, be quiet, and turn off your cell phone. Enjoy the show!!
See you at the movies!!
Reply
3-27-2008 @ 2:25AM
Armchaircritic95 said...
This concept has been running successfully in Australia for about 10 years now. It is not designed to be an 'everyday movie experience', rather it is a movie experience for the special occasions, the date night, the movie you wanted to see for ages, etc. The chairs are amazing (more like beds) and the food/drink is terrific. I do this maybe twice a year and it is always fantastic. It's a little cheaper here at A$25 per ticket (about (US$22) but that shouldn't matter much. You should try it out before slagging it off.
Reply