PDA

View Full Version : Movie Theater Ticket Prices Could Reach $150, Says George Lucas



shrox
06-14-2013, 12:31 PM
http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/movie-theater-ticket-prices-could-reach-150-says-155727572.html

There is no movie I must so urgently see as to pay such amounts. Even now, I just wait for rental.

snsmoore
06-14-2013, 03:07 PM
I saw a similar article, http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/steven-spielberg-and-george-lucas-warn-of-movie-industry-implosion-and-50-tickets-is-this-the-end-of-hollywood-as-we-know-it-8658179.html

This one mentioned another interesting comment, "Lucas described cable television as “much more adventurous” than film. “I think eventually the Lincolns will go away and they’re going to be on television,” he said."

shrox
06-14-2013, 04:28 PM
I would have never seen "Behind the Candelabra". But since it was on TV and my house mate wanted to watch it, I did too and found it pretty good. I had to cover my eyes at certain times, but it was a good movie.

sublimationman
06-15-2013, 12:29 AM
I like movies but if that happens I think I'll stick to watching paint dry.

Dexter2999
06-15-2013, 01:55 AM
I respectfully disagree with Mr. Lucas and Mr. Spielberg about the future of movies. Movies will not cost that much because no one will pay it.
Similarly, the comment Mr. Spielberg made about fewer movies staying in theaters for a year is ridiculous. He tries to reference E.T.'s run as the basis for his point. However, E.T. didn't exist in an era where home theater media was so prevalent much less the age of the internet and piracy.

Unfortunately, this is what happen when we get older. I don't think they fully understand the internet "culture". They get the ideas of email, google (as a search engine), and even as a marketplace. They may even know about Facebook. But I don't think they get the full depth of what the internet is. I doubt they have friends who are only "online". I don't think they participate in or understand the social aspect of the internet. And if they don't understand that, then they can't understand those who are using it. In other words they are out of touch with current society and have no relevant basis for future predictions. Their predictions are based on outdated data and therefor irrelevant.

The "LINCOLN"'s, will indeed be on TV. Spielberg himself said it almost was. The only reason for theatrical release is the possible gain of an Oscar. This raises prestige for the actors, director, and studios even though it maybe a "break even" endeavor, or possibly even a loss. With possible break even coming only in the ancillary markets.

ianr
06-15-2013, 05:44 AM
Quote: I respectfully disagree with Mr. Lucas and Mr. Spielberg about the future of movies.
Movies will not cost that much because no one will pay it. NICE!!

Yehp! A 3d Glasses $ price Bubble I cannnot see being Vaulted Over!

I think that the above Gentleman know what a horror of costings, this Summers big films are!
Their phanlax's of Asssistants do alot of trawling, & if you run the numbers on Budgets that's
where this grunt has originated.
The Times U.K. run a very good article on 'Summer Bloat' listing budgets on Superman,Pacific Rim
Iron Man, Lone Ranger & Yes World War ZEEE!
It seems that the industry has sailed itself into 'Waterworld' latitudes.
Look @ WWZee Make:$240Mill (minimum)+Marketing:$140Mill+ Distributorstake 1/2 ======
BREAKEVEN at 760 million (OUCH!)

Look, its Zombies they say,& Danny Boyles one took Global 80mill! Shudder!

Yes, studios are going to have a Summer at the doctors surgery, methinks.

As elder princes to the studios, the above duo have rolled this one out just
as friendly and exotic, as an hand-grenade rolled under your restaurant table!

rwhunt99
06-15-2013, 09:17 AM
What I saw were two multimillionaires whining about the good old days. They mention about these movie stars getting 10 - 20 million per movie, but they never mentioned how much they made.

What we are witnessing in the music industry is coming to the film industry. The days where the movie moguls sat around and counted their money are pretty much over. Now with the technology today and avenues for attracting start up money based on fan enthusiasm getting more popular, will eventually by pass the big studios altogether.

No one will pay $50 for a movie, in fact people are shying away at $20 per person. There are a glut of expensive movies coming out at once, which is good, but at today's prices, people are having to be very selective about what they go to see.

There are thousands of young artists, writers and directors with far more technology at their fingertips than Spielberg or Lucas could ever have imagined and the avenues in which they can share their visions are wide and varied, so yes the industry is in the midst of huge changes, but the visionaries will always be there.

ianr
06-15-2013, 10:04 AM
Rwhunt99 ,
Look I have worked for visionaries & game changers
What I,am saying is there could be big ructions
because of this summers returns. I know about
a little about film finance & if you got a good &
multi markets distribution deal,Great! If not!
you have 'kickstarted' yourself into chapter11.
Distribution is a Slate's arterial blood always.

As much as I lov'em
ask' IronSky 'boys about that! My point was it's
a put-up job by those svengali's cos of the bloated
Losses after the poor box office returns later this year.

shrox
06-15-2013, 10:55 AM
I don't go to movie theaters anymore, it's reached more than I want pay for an experience that may or not be good.

rwhunt99
06-15-2013, 04:11 PM
I agree with you, ianr, but the whole paradigm is shifting and just because you have an unlimited budget, doesn't mean you will have a blockbuster movie. The more marketing money spent equates to how bad the movie really is. World War Z, is a prime example, just because they have Brad Pitt and good SFX, doesn't mean it is a good movie, no matter how much money they throw at marketing. I wanted to point out that there are many great films made on a shoestring budget that grossed way over what was predicted.

The big honcho's at the studios haven't got a clue what makes a good film, so they simply do remakes of others that have done well because with these huge budgets, they can't take a chance. This in turn hurts their industry in the long run.

With so many avenues of viewing opening up, there will be many more stories told albeit with smaller budgets, hopefully, it will be the story and the telling of it that will come to the forefront in the future. A cautionary note, it will also allow more badly done movies to come out, witness Sci -Fy channel.

Iain
06-15-2013, 05:03 PM
For a while I thought things were changing-there was a good run of excellent low budget films that did very well (Napoleon dynamite, Juno, Little Miss Sunshine, 500 days of summer etc) and big budget films that were just a little edgier than they had been, probably kick-started by the Matrix and culminating in the likes of the Batman trilogy, Avengers etc.
Recently however, I think the lazy quick buck trend has really returned and imagination is all but gone. Having skipped the Spiderman 'reboot', I went to see Man of Steel tonight as it looked like it may be a new take on a story and character I love.
It was turgid. Good cast and commendable approach but the second half was just a succession of humourless super beings crashing through buildings. I came away wondering what the point of it all was and with a new appreciation for Superman Returns.
If I had spent 4 on a DVD rental rather than 40 on tickets, it would be a lot less painful (and there wouldn't have been an idiot kicking my chair resulting in the usual confrontation that you put off for ages and then regret.)

shrox
06-15-2013, 05:31 PM
...If I had spent 4 on a DVD rental rather than 40 on tickets, it would be a lot less painful (and there wouldn't have been an idiot kicking my chair resulting in the usual confrontation that you put off for ages and then regret.)

Part of that experience that may or not be good.

sukardi
06-16-2013, 01:03 AM
I think the movie industry is a microcosm of what is wrong with the world since 2008. This is an era of cheap money and if you can get access to it, the risk profile is just that it is much more profitable and less risky to go big. The bigger the better.

It worked for other industries as well. Do you realise that cars, houses and retail stores (even mobile phones) are getting bigger but looking more alike this days.

Hoping it is an era that will end soon. QE stopped. A reasonable interest enviroment etc-etc...

ianr
06-16-2013, 05:12 AM
Sukardi,
Thank you for a look at the Macro.
I think that Studios could quite easily
be headin' for
'Hollywood's Black Sept Moment'

but it will try it's damndest to hide
first in creative accounting!
What Spec script that'll make!

probiner
06-16-2013, 05:57 AM
I think the movie industry is a microcosm of what is wrong with the world since 2008. This is an era of cheap money and if you can get access to it, the risk profile is just that it is much more profitable and less risky to go big. The bigger the better.

It worked for other industries as well. Do you realise that cars, houses and retail stores (even mobile phones) are getting bigger but looking more alike this days.

Hoping it is an era that will end soon. QE stopped. A reasonable interest enviroment etc-etc...
This... The system is running on cheating with full authority and prestige.

I find strange when the price of things go up, it's always the retailers fault and the monetary policies are never questioned.

Inflation is a tax. Interest are there also to assess risks. Time to end this era of no-risk for some and pay the bills for others.

Cheers

Iain
06-16-2013, 07:09 AM
The risks at the moment are all being taken by the TV people. And more often than not, it pays off.
The quality and class of shows like The Sopranos, Mad Men, Game of Thrones etc is missing from current cinema apart from rare examples like The Artist and Berberian Sound Studio.
You get a load of crap in your TV bundle but there is also some astonishing stuff that is included in a price that would equate to one family cinema trip.

If this continues, people will just stop going to the cinema. Why would you when you can get better at home?

BigHache
06-16-2013, 08:33 AM
I think we're going to see many if not all of the major publishers of entertainment media start to dwindle in size because of three things: one-sided contracts that basically benefit the publishers, technology that puts production in the hands of just about anyone, and publishing avenues that make self-publication actually possible. Doesn't mean we'll necessarily see better media, but I think there will be this deluge of digital media that swarms us and we'll have to search hard for the gems.

Big studios are losing their grip. I see them doing what killed Blockbuster Video. The big fish on top don't want to see ANY less return than they've been making so they squeeze more from the bottom. Eventually an industry changes and that stops working.

The majority is not going to pay twice as much money to go to the theatre than it costs to buy the Blu-Ray. Just not going to happen. I already balk at $10 ticket price. Forget 3D tickets. I've seen a few and not interested now. And the industry spoke of making unilateral ticket prices to compensate for 3D. Ha! If they subsidize 3D tickets with standard tickets I'm out.

I skipped "The Hobbit" entirely because it wasn't offered in the format I wanted: high frame rate and NO 3D. I skipped "Iron Man 3" because it has nothing to offer me. More robots, more biggerer 'splosions do not equal better movie. I watched "Gatsby" (NOT in 3D) and while I think it had good elements, there were shots that were composed SOLELY for 3D which make no sense when not viewed in stereo, so I consider that bad directing and detracting from the story. There's so much MEH in the movies it's laughable.

snsmoore
06-17-2013, 02:48 PM
I skipped "The Hobbit" entirely because it wasn't offered in the format I wanted: high frame rate and NO 3D. I skipped "Iron Man 3" because it has nothing to offer me. More robots, more biggerer 'splosions do not equal better movie. I watched "Gatsby" (NOT in 3D) and while I think it had good elements, there were shots that were composed SOLELY for 3D which make no sense when not viewed in stereo, so I consider that bad directing and detracting from the story. There's so much MEH in the movies it's laughable.


I saw the Hobbit in HFR and 3d, not impressed. In fact the HFR made it feel like home video, but that was least of the movies problems. There was too much different from the book and the movie was drawn out too long. (I especially hated the Radagast scenes - a rabbit sledding wizard, come on, what's next? Jar Jar Binks?) As far as Iron Man 3, didn't see it for the same reasons. I've stopped seeing most movies in the theater, because they are just over the top adrenaline rushes. Each action movie is trying to out do the last one with even more ridiculously unbelievable action scenes.

CourtJester
06-17-2013, 06:08 PM
IMO, this crash that Lucas et al. fear, should have happened 20 years ago, and would have -- except VFX came on scene in a big way. VFX - yeah, remember us? No residuals, no credits (sometimes), no union -- but we carried an ever-increasing share of the burden of making movies worth seeing in a cineplex. The bounty of the new technology and its technical prowess enabled them to continue their unsustainable methods for a while longer.

Then, as VFX began to mature and as there remained fewer and fewer unsolved problems in VFX, it got harder to just pull them in with wizardry. Time to cut costs somewhere, stay profitable. They did it -- on the backs of the bringers of the earlier bounty, of course: VFX. A decade of government subsidies, outsourcing and the influx of cheaper labor gave them another decade.

But now that VFX has pretty much matured, settling into an evolutionary-not-revolutionary mode of development, people are getting jaded, and tired of more-of-the-same, as snsmoore's last line captures. Gravy train's just about over.

If Hollywood were forced to pay every dime of the actual cost of their current working methods -- if subsidies went away, and VFX organized sufficiently to exact better pricing for the value they put in -- then maybe $150 a ticket might actually be their point of profit, given current movie attendance.

You won't pay it? I won't either. The market won't bear that.

What cannot be sustained, won't.

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people.

Matt
06-17-2013, 08:33 PM
$150 to sit in a mucky theatre watching badly done stereo conversions of rehashed franchises / reboots, along with people talking, texting and crinkling bags of sweets? Erm, no thanks Mr. Lucas.

sukardi
06-18-2013, 12:51 AM
Just watched Man of Steel (2D). Makes me wonder how much did VFX houses subsidise the movie. The thing is, I would probably be happier if they cut the explosions by half....

Markc
06-18-2013, 11:59 AM
I have been overdosing on IMAX recently (Oblivion, Iron Man 3, Star Trek, After Earth, Man of Steel).
If ya havn't seen a film in IMAX your missing out, Man of Steel was 2 hours (or whatever length) of seat rumbling.....whoa (full immersion).
The sound system (and projection) is just unbeatable.
Any regular films I see now are a bit mediocre in comparison.

Can't wait for Pacific Rim IMAX 3D :)

shrox
06-18-2013, 01:48 PM
I have been overdosing on IMAX recently (Oblivion, Iron Man 3, Star Trek, After Earth, Man of Steel).
If ya havn't seen a film in IMAX your missing out, Man of Steel was 2 hours (or whatever length) of seat rumbling.....whoa (full immersion).
The sound system (and projection) is just unbeatable.
Any regular films I see now are a bit mediocre in comparison.

Can't wait for Pacific Rim IMAX 3D :)

I saw Fantasia at IMAX, the introduction with a 6 story tall Angela Lansbury in high definition was scary.