I used MoviePass when it was a little younger and just a warning to any considering it, there are a lot of hidden restrictions. I know some things could have changed since a couple years ago when I was using it but you were unable to see new movies and some movies would be restricted for their entire theater run.
They also presented it as a monthly service that you could cancel when you were done, but it was actually an annual service that you paid for on a monthly basis and trying to leave before the year was up would cost you. A lot.
There was also some weird business about having to send new cards (they sent you a card you had to use in person at the theater to pay for your ticket) without warning and until you got the new one you were unable to use the service you were paying for. In addition to that, sometimes the cards would just not work. This happened to me on at least 3 occasions.
Also take into consideration, there are some movies you'll want to see in 3d (maybe) or IMAX (more likely) and these are completely excluded. And if you're like me and you like to buy tickets ahead of time with fandango so you can skip lines and be sure the movie you're going to see isn't sold out, using this service means giving up that convenience.
Granted, this is all a much better deal now that it's $10 instead of $30.
On the relaunched site today it says the restrictions are:
You can see one movie every day.
You can see each movie one time.
You can see only standard 2D screenings.
It even points out you can go on opening night and the T+Cs point out there is a month to month plan now, but it's a bit confusing.
I do think it's a good offer for $10/month. Cineworld in the UK offers something similar for about £20/month (~$25), but also has an annual commitment and is restricted to one chain of cinemas, none of which are close to me.
I think that's likely. The combination of the guaranteed income and the fairly low chance that many subscribers will actually use their pass every day means it isn't a big risk for the theaters.
Well, and the likelihood that the subscriber will bring at least one friend who would pay full price for a ticket makes this less risky. Also, popcorn and other concessions are the real profit drivers for theaters, so losing a bit on tickets isn't as big a deal as it might seem.
I used it in the US for $30 for two years with my wife and we were quite happy with it. We went about 4 times a week, not all theatres were supported, and their mandatory webapp sucked big time, esp. their GPS location tracker. I often had to walk around 100m until the app let me get the ticket.
Other than that a good deal. More people should go to the theatres.
I would pay $10 a month to watch Game of Thrones, House of Cards, or other high production value TV shows on a big screen with other fans each week. I might even pay $20 or $30 a month for just those few months of new episodes for the latest season.
I would even pay $10 a month for a few months to watch an episode of Band of Brothers each week. I really enjoy the movie theater viewing experience. Lately I've only gone to the theatre to see the new Star Wars or Pixar films (only because I am a fan of those two franchises). Nothing else that is being released interests me.
I'm aware that some theatres book corporate trainings or private showings. I don't think it would be unreasonable for them to air new episodes of top television shows on the night of. It would be interesting to see what demand for that would look like.
I've seen some theaters that show Sherlock and other high-production TV, and they seem to do quite well with it. I haven't heard about GoT, though.
As an side - what would the legality be if a group of people "booked" a theater to air a TV show? Would the theater or viewers be liable for holding a commercial screening using a private copy of the thing?
>We’re not open to the general public. Do we still need a license?
>Yes. According to Senate Report No. 94-473, p. 60, “performances in ‘semipublic’ places such as clubs, lodges, factories, summer camps and schools are ‘public performances’ subject to copyright control.”
Movie theaters are familiar with risks in this area, so they might have their own rules about what you can and can't watch when you rent out a theater.
Thanks for the source! Also, wow. I figured "rent a theater with strangers for a viewing" would be over the line, but I didn't realize that showing a DVD at a summer camp is technically illegal.
Back a decade ago I did all the tech setup to host a presidential election debate viewing at the Kobuki Theater in SF. I don't know the legality for sure, but I was lead to believe as long as it was invite only and you didn't charge for attending, it was legal. Again, IANAL, but I think as long as it's truly a private event among friends, I think you should be ok.
What is it about the theater experience you enjoy? It's not too expensive to set up a theater-like setup at home. A home projector and decent screen are around $1k. I've been watching Game of Thrones (and others) on a 110" screen for a few seasons now and couldn't recommend it more.
I don't have a large enough house to have a great theater experience without waking my kids up by enjoying the sound at the volume it should be at. Also, I don't want my three year old repeating the words of Tyrion Lannister.
It's the whole experience. The huge screen. The sound. The seats. The memories of going there as a teenager on a date. Watching a movie together with 200 other people. Zero distractions.
I hate going to a regular movie theatre. They are huge, crowded, you have to get there early to get a good seat, the chairs are uncomfortable, etc.
On the other hand, I love going to higher end movie theatres that aren't large, you get to pick and reserve your seats online, they have reclining chairs and one of the theatres I go to serves food while you watch.
That sounds perfect - I had a feeling I read somewhere that they don't do it because TV companies were charging by the showing (and maintaining interest over a run would wane), rather than a split screening/# tickets basis as for films.
>“People really do want to go more often,” Lowe said. “They just don’t like the transaction.”
It's true. I've been a avid movie goer since I was a young kid. It's the whole experience. I love seeing new movies on big screens, I like the familiarity of movie theaters (pick any theater anywhere and you know exactly how the process will go start to finish), and I like having a reason to leave the house and "do something" without having to make an elaborate plan.
The biggest hurdle preventing me from going multiple times per week is the cost of the ticket + concessions (its part of the experience!).
I hope this works out in the long run, I just signed up and hope the price point will stick.
The biggest hurdle preventing me from going multiple times per week is the cost of the ticket + concessions (its part of the experience!).
We have a 2nd run movie theater near where I live. The cost of tickets is $2.50 USD, and the concessions are about the same as first-run theaters (maybe a bit less). The seats are nice, though not the full electric recliners that some theaters have nearby.
So if I can wait to go see a movie (and I usually can) that's a much less expensive option. Even so, I end up going just a few times per year.
The rise of digital cinema has made second run theaters a real value. I worked at a second run theater in high school and the prints we got where often very worn and drew lots of complaints. Now they are just on hard drives.
Yep. Most of the theaters near me have gone to this model.
I say "model" because it's not just the cushy electric reclining seats: it is also reserved seats. When you buy your ticket, you have to choose a seat, just like a concert.
There are some advantages to this: you can show up 30 seconds before showtime and you know you will have a seat. You can wait in line at the concession stand without fear of having to sit in the front row. (arguably very good for the movie theater, too)
But there are unfortunate side effects: you can't just show up 30 minutes early to a new release and be pretty sure to get a good seat.
"Let's go see a movie tonight" isn't really an option when every good seat is already reserved 2 days in advance for the more popular ones.
You're basically forced into buying the tickets online, which means paying the inevitable convenience fee.
And like others have said, the seats aren't that comfortable. They remind me of airplane seats, where the headrest sticks out too far and makes it impossible to lean backward comfortably.
There has to be a reason to go to the theater, right?
Most of us have 60-70 inch TVs, comfy couches, free snacks, surround sound. If you can't at least MATCH what I have at home, why am I paying $20-$30 to drive to someplace to watch a movie?
Two of the big theaters where I live have installed the new electric recliner seats. They are not as comfortable as the seats they replaced. In fact, in one theater the new seats are so uncomfortable that we've stopped going to that theater altogether.
In agriculture, self-driving has been around and deployed for a decade. John Deere has 80 million acres under automated cultivation, growing at an incredible rate yearly. Want to talk about self-driving, the ag sector is way ahead of the game.
I tried to find a reference to this. Do you mean that John Deere sells/leases automated machinery to farmers who farm 80 million acres collectively, or that John Deere runs equipment on its own farms for testing cost offset by farming revenue?
The world and environment for a self driving tractor is so simple compared to any street in the world though. They can rely heavily on GPS for starters and the environment/fields are practically blank slates with no other vehicles to really contend with. It'd be surprising if they weren't ahead of the game considering all the advantages to navigating a wide open field with excellent GPS availability.
Not quite - a failure in automation for a tractor is measured in inches. If you end up driving over crops instead of between them for a pass, the farmer is likely out thousands of dollars.
On the highway, at least the obstacles are as big as cars and people. In a field, the obstacles can be a planted row that wasn't even sprouted above the ground yet.
Ultimately it's still driving a predetermined static path through a field with static obstacles with positioning provided by a modified GPS system that improved accuracy by providing additional information about the satellites positions. They've done really good work in their own space but very little of it can really be applied to self driving cars.
Further, they have other more complex constraints. "Swath control" means continuously adjusting the implement when crossing over already-treated ground (modulating spray nozzles etc to avoid double-treating).
Also there are many obstacles in a field -waterways, the occasional tree or post, fences etc. All has to be mapped and accounted for.
Completely agree. I used to live in Florida and we had a drive-in movie theater about a mile from my house. Although it didn't have the "comforts" of an indoor movie theater, the biggest selling point was they showed two new release movies for the much less than the price of a regular ticket. The concession prices were fairly priced, but even better was you could arrive early, bring a cooler, set-up a small grill and make your own food. For sound, you tuned your radio to a channel and could listen in your car. The place was always packed. I found myself going to the movies much more. I moved from there 10 years ago and can count on one hand the number of movies I have seen in a theater. Cost definitely plays a key role in my decision to not go.
> The biggest hurdle preventing me from going multiple times per week is the cost of the ticket + concessions
For me, the biggest hurdle is that the nearest theatre is one of the ones that shows absolutely awful ads for 30 minutes straight before the trailers. They have some company that produces an Entertainment Tonight-like show where they talk about upcoming films (possibly relevant, but not usually), and mostly show ads for video games, Coca Cola, and cars. They're super loud, super repetitive, and super annoying. The theater is otherwise nice, but the ads are so obnoxious that I go out of my way to avoid it. Some shows you can get assigned seats, which makes showing up at the last minute feasible, but for some reason, not all of their screenings allow that.
> “People really do want to go more often,” Lowe said. “They just don’t like the transaction.”
The transaction would be fine if the website would fuck right off with their fees. It's bullshit to sell a ticket for $11, but then tack on a $3 "convenience" fee.
Also, the Costcos around me sell tickets to Cinetopia, a local theater chain that does reserved seating so you don't have to get to theater early to get a nice seat, but the tickets can't be used for online purchases.
Oh yeah that'll be fun, now there is no price barrier to entry so the rude idiots that are in theaters now will simply overrun theaters. Ever go see a $1 movie in a low rate theater? That's where this is headed.
Honest to god I would pay $20/ticket to go sit in a quiet theater with respectful people who like to get lost in movies and know how to act.
I used to go to the movies about twice a month, now I go once every 6 months and about 50% of the time someone is talking or on their phone and I find myself in a confrontation. Ever try to settle back down and enjoy the rest of the movie after you confront someone? Forget it.
Unfortunately I'm sure I'm in the minority and this idea will probably work and I'll have to stick to Art House movie theaters or watch movies at home which is fine I guess.
I remember watching Star Wars in the theater in the 70's. Guess what? People were too engrossed to be rude. Part of the fun was getting swept up in the reaction of other moviegoers.
I hope this is figured out soon, I miss going to the theater!
It is very theater-dependent in NYC: I live a few blocks from two different theaters, one is quiet and people are respectful, the other is nearly intolerable for anything other than a nonstop action movie because people are talking and texting the whole time. Interestingly, the quiet theater is a few dollars cheaper per ticket.
In fairness, aren't movie ticket prices in NYC near $20? I haven't tried to see a movie there in >5 years, but at the time going to see one in midtown was ~$16.
Talking during a movie, and ruining everyone's experience IS selfish. It doesn't matter if the ticket was a $1, or free. Everyone else is there to watch a movie, not listen to you act like a jackass. Stop making this a poor vs rich debate. I know plenty of poor, respectful people. Visit India sometime.
I saw Precious in two different theaters in two very different areas around Philly (I know, but both of my dates wanted to see it separately and they were cute enough not to say 'no' to). The first was in a 'white' off the main line. The theater was really silent and the film had a very somber feeling to it. Not a good date movie in the end. The second time was in a 'black' area closer to the city. It was a much better date movie. The audience, mostly black, interacted with the film loudly and actively. The scene where the TV is dropped on Precious' head from a few stories up was not a terrible event of violence, at least not as much, in the 'black' theater. The audience was yelling at Precious to get out, to move, to not just sit there. In the 'black' theater, Precious was not a passive victim, she was responsible for herself and a real person with real action, not a vessel to represent the grinding poverty, obesity, racism, and raping of inner-city America. It was a much better movie with audience interaction, she was real, not a thing. You just have to be comfortable with that kind of theater and you have to try to participate with it too. Life is created by us all together, not 'for' us to consume.
As someone who's seen the Rocky Horror Picture Show in a movie theater many times (with audience participation, of course), that sounds like a lot of fun
I think the parent was being sarcastic as they were replying to a post which was saying that higher ticket prices keeps out the "rude" people. The implication then is that poorer people are rude.
Given a $10 theater and a $20 theater with reasonable geographic similarity, people that choose the $20 one should be more invested in actually seeing the movie and not just goofing off for a few hours.
It's really teenagers that need to be kept out though, in my experience.
People who go to $1 showings of movies often don't really have their attention invested in the movie. The movie theater just becomes a cheap place to hang out with friends, and they start chatting with each other during the movie, ruining it for the people that are there for the actual movie.
Higher prices keep out the riff-raff. Riff-raff of course being assholes, who as you say, live in every tax bracket.
I've been too far more second run showings than full priced films, and I can't say that I noticed much difference in people's behavior between the two.
I've got a home projector that cost me GBP350 about two years ago - cheaper than a big TV. It's 720p, nothing particularly special but more than good enough. For me that's more or less made going to the cinema obsolete.
I think it's economical. The highly regarded BenQ HT2050/W1110 I use isn't more expensive than the TVs I see in many homes. Sure, there's the audio system, but at least in my case and as a music lover that area was covered regardless of the home theater aspect.
What I'm trying to say is that you probably don't need to start with nothing - if you have a large TV and/or decent audio system you can build and improve from there.
Now? You do have to deal with the downsides of a projector system (limited contrast, you have to religiously control the light in the room, etc.) but you can do it now.
That is probably at least two grand if you want something decent, so that is still 100 trips, plus you run into the issue that you can't get new movies anywhere but the theater, even if you were willing to pay the same price.
You can always watch the single camera torrent files of new releases. Makes you feel like you are there with people standing up, talking. The only difference is your floor doesn't have the sticky pop feel
Exactly this happened in France about 15 years ago when movie theaters introduced unlimited subscriptions. They had to restrict entry on Saturday evenings, otherwise people would come only to disrupt the movie for everyone else (sorry, no reference). When the marginal cost of something is 0, people will attach very little value to it.
So the only crazy part of this plan is the $10 a month. Cineworld in the UK have the Unlimited card for years which is effectively the same[1], but costs £17.90 a month (~$23).
Difference is, "any theater in the U.S. that accepts debit cards". If you're unfortunate enough to only have a Vue around, your Cineworld pass won't do much.
Yes, that's a fair point, and they are paying the theatre the full price of the ticket. I wonder if their plan is to control the supply of visitors to the cinema at a loss, then negotiate a profitable way to continue when the cinemas fear losing the revenue.
This is pretty ingenious. Movie theaters don't make money off of the movie, they make it off of the concessions. This lowers the barrier to entry in getting people in the theater. A number of people I know always get popcorn and a drink when they go. They do it every time no matter what time of day. It's just what they do. By lowering the price of admission, they are going to get people to spend more money on concessions by getting them to go to the theater more.
You misunderstand this model - MoviePass does not own nor share a revenue stake with the theaters directly. MoviePass pays the theatres the full price of each ticket, and the theatres don’t provide kickbacks. MoviePass wants to make money off the data they collect.
Maybe it's me, but I don't see this data as all that valuable. Say I go to the movies 8-10x a month. Given that my local theater probably gets about 20 new movies per month, does knowing which half of the movies I see really provide analytical value over aggregate box office numbers?
I wonder if the app is spying on you in more nefarious ways. I guess I could dedicate a retired phone to be my "movies" phone.
The missing piece with box office numbers is connecting individual ticket sales with other individual ticket sales, as well as a host of other factors (since they have your personal information, and credit card or whatever on file, they can correlate your activity with all kinds of other things).
Right, the studio agreements require theaters to hand over ~100% of ticket prices on opening weekend.
But my understanding is that they can't just stop charging for tickets (or cut prices significantly) "since they're not seeing it anyway"; there are uniform ticket prices in those same agreements that prevent such tactics [1].
If they didn't have minimum prices, theaters could game it with a system like:
Movie ticket: $1
No-poke service: $11
"If you buy our no-poke service, a theater employee won't randomly poke you with a stick throughout the movie, as happens with our discounted tickets. ... Hey, Hollywood studios, we only saw $1 in revenue per ticket, but you're welcome to keep it!"
So, any system like the one in the story would have to renegotiate such agreements or work within some loophole.
Edit: Nevermind, this is why you read the article before commenting: apparently they pay the full price to the theater for you, which is a huge loss that they plan to make up by selling the analytics:
>MoviePass will pay theaters the full price of each ticket used by subscribers, excluding 3D or Imax screens.
>MoviePass could lose a lot of money subsidizing people’s movie habits. So the company also raised cash on Tuesday by selling a majority stake to Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc., ...
>Ted Farnsworth, chief executive officer at Helios and Matheson, said the goal is to amass a large base of customers and collect data on viewing behaviors.
> But my understanding is that they can't just stop charging for tickets (or cut prices significantly) "since they're not seeing it anyway"; there are uniform ticket prices in those same agreements that prevent such tactics.
If this move were so ingenious, why wouldn't the movie theaters just lower their prices to get more people in the door? Instead, the trend over the last few years has been to increase prices (according to the article).
Theaters have to pay a nut to the studio doing the distribution. They negotiate how much of a nut based on the perceived popularity of the title. The studios don't give a hoot about per ticket price, they just want XX dollars for a specific time period. The theater can charge $1 or $20 per ticket, they're still paying the studio the nut at then end of the day.
There's no risk to the movie theaters here, I just don't really understand how this business model works for MoviePass. Article says they're paying full price for the tickets and eating the costs.
Okay, but how much do they think that information is worth?
General admission to a regular movie here is $12. If their average user sees even 1.5 movies a month (might be higher - I imagine this kind of subscription would appeal to the type of people that enjoy going to the theater), they're losing $8/mo/user right off the bat.
If they get 100,000 users, figure in some operating/other costs, etc, they're looking at trying to sell 100,000 people's theater watching habits for like $1m/mo. That seems a little wacky to me.
We had this in the UK about 15 years ago, I recall it was a tenner a month, Virgin cinema possibly? with some exclusions, maybe it was friday/saturday and premiere nights, you might get value for first month or two but after that there was only two films a month at best worth seeing which you'd force yourself to do, novelty faded quickly, after that it had the same value for money as a gym membership in February.
>He said the high price of tickets, not competition from Netflix or Amazon.com Inc.’s Prime Video service, is a big part of what’s keeping people away. “People really do want to go more often,” Lowe said. “They just don’t like the transaction.”
Maybe he's right but I'm not convinced. I think kids/teens would love to go the theater more but my personal anecdote is that my friends and I lost interest after age 25. It's just not as exciting to go to a theater when you're not in high school or not part of the dating scene in college. Of course, if you're a parent with young kids, you go because you're the chaperone for the Disney movie.
It seems like declining visits by adults is just a general long term trend. Similar to the decline of drive-in theaters. Used to be fun to to drive the car into the lot but the novelty wore off. Adults also went to theaters in 1930s in high numbers (e.g. Gone With the Wind) because theaters were among the first to have air conditioning which was a big deal. Every house has air conditioning now.
Lastly, the economics of movie theaters have created a feedback loop that results in "big tent pole" films like Disney / Transformers / Star Wars dominating the screens. Adults want serious drama like "House of Cards" -- which is available at home.
One could argue that if ticket prices weren't so high, more adults would have gone to theaters which would then have subsequent effect of HoC, Boardwalk Empire, etc only being released in the theaters. I guess one could go down that rabbit hole of an alternate universe but I'm not convinced by it because I still think adults just eventually get bored of the "theater experience". (Babies crying in the back row, other patrons who don't shut off their cellphone ringers, sticky dirty floors, 15-minutes of ads before the movie starts, etc)
EDIT ADD: some replies seem to misunderstand my comments. I know some people do enjoy going the movies and the barrier to that is the price which MoviePass solves perfectly for them. I'm not arguing the existence of such moviegoers. Instead I interpreted “People really do want to go more often,” as a _macro_ trend and my comment is about reversing the macro trend of declining theater attendance. I'm not convinced MoviePass will actually solve that because fundamentally, the thrill of going to the theater wears off (age, Netflix/HBO at home, other entertainment distractions competing for time, etc). Again, that's a macro prediction. Yes, there are lots of enthusiastic moviegoers but they're outnumbered by the people with apathy for attending theaters.
You hit it on the head. I don't go to the movies because I don't want to pay a minimum of $25 to watch something I could see at home where I wouldn't have to stand in line just to eat the concessions that get more expensive and disgusting every year, sit in a theater that would look less clean than a motel room with the lights on, and be upsold on even more overpriced specialty tickets/scolded for bringing healthier snacks in as if the cost of admission isn't enough.
If these prices really must be raised so high they exceed the value of the experience it's a sign the business model is flawed. In my town there used to be 2 theaters so there was competition, but the same national chain now owns both and provides the same garbage experience. It doesn't help that, as you pointed out, most movies in theaters are sequels or so generically mass market that I'll feel the same seeing them on an airplane as on the big screen. R&M's parody of Guardians last night was dead on in this regard.
The only times I've gone to a theater the past few years was to screenings of old films at the historical theater in town and to the movie tavern 30 minutes out of town, which not only makes an effort to provide a better experience than home but ALSO somehow costs less. Being able to eat wings and drink a beer in a recliner (with too much space between rows for kids to kick the back of my seat) feels closest to an attempt at a better business model.
I'm in my 30s. I enjoy movies but don't often go to the movie theater for a number of reasons, but they're all inherent to the ticket cost.
Prices are often $15-$20 for most shows (and that's just plain old 2D) at the theaters local to me. The theater is fantastic though, great seats and it's always clean, but it's still $20 for 2 hours viewing. I only go if there is a movie I really want to watch. In most cases, I use the "I'll wait until I can buy/rent it on iTunes". With the exception of some blockbusters, many movies are available digitally within around 6 months. I can usually wait.
I like the experience of going to the movies. What I don't like is the near $20 ticket. For $10/month, I would absolutely watch many more movies at the theater using MoviePass.
There's a general assumption ITT that movie theaters are going to be swamped with MoviePass subscribers every single day. People who subscribe to HBO don't necessarily watch it every single day (I bet some people subscribe just for one or two shows, that's what I do). Sure, students and those with the time to do that might, but for many people, it's probably just a pass to go do something at the weekend. I would go to the movie theater far more frequently, but at most it'd be once a week and only if there's a movie I'm interested in. There are plenty of days/weeks/months where no movies appeal to me.
Besides, if you're not paying full price for a ticket, you'll be more tempted by the concession stand and their prices.
Seems like a pretty vast generalization. I love going to the movies, especially for the audio.
That said, experience is a big deal, and some places are improving it. The Metreon in SF has theaters with recliners now that are super pleasant to watch a movie in.
Agreed. After a long break from being in a theater I went to an AMC downtown that had giant electronic recliners and a full bar out front. Still pricey but it was enjoyable!
I guess at 43 I'm not an adult yet because I go to the movies pretty often. I almost always go to the earliest matinee on Friday or Saturday and don't have to put up with a crowd.
I got tired of House of Cards after the 3rd season and you would have to pay me to watch Boardwalk Empire.
And while air conditioning played a part in people going to see movies it was more due to the fact that TV wasn't invented yet. air conditioning raised movie attendance during hot months but people went just as much during other months
> Lastly, the economics of movie theaters have created a feedback loop that results in "big tent pole" films like Disney / Transformers / Star Wars dominating the screens. Adults want serious drama like "House of Cards" -- which is available at home.
To be fair, some movies are big screen movies, and dramas don't tend to be. House of Cards wouldn't work nearly as well as a 2 hour movie, nor would I be willing to go somewhere to watch it.
On the other hand, watching movies like Dunkirk, Doctor Strange, or anything in 3D doesn't feel right at home.
Maybe it's just me, but it feels like the movies that tend to do well in theaters are the same ones in which the home experience would be lacking, unless you have a theater room. Meanwhile, no matter how much I might personally love a given TV show, 90% of the time, it's just not movie appropriate. Of course, I'd definitely pay to have select episodes of Game of Thrones shown on the big screen... YMMV.
The transaction and the price aren't serious problems. What really prevents me from going to movie theaters is lack of reserved seating and child care. My wife and I would go more often if we could buy tickets online for guaranteed good seats, and if they offered a babysitting service on site.
It depends a lot on where you are of course but there's a lot of places opening up recently the provide the reserved seating in the US. It's still mainly in larger cities but they are out there now. I'm not sure theaters will ever want to provide childcare though, it's a huge admin and liability nightmare on top of the costs of setting up the area and staffing it properly.
In my (smallish) city I'm lucky enough to have a theater that plays independent and foreign films, and it's great. Without it, I would almost never go to the movies anymore because the standard hollywood fare is absolute garbage, like you said. But because I can see serious and intelligent films, I go often. Plus, the experience is almost always way better -- no chatty kids, no cellphones, etc. I don't know how it is in other cities but I don't think its inevitable that viewership declines with age.
I'm with you there. I think the last time I paid to go see a movie in theaters was for Hobbit 2 which was what 4 or 5 years ago? That being said I've been to two screenings since then, but I didn't pay for either of those so I won't count them (they also weren't at a normal movie theatre but a studio theatre).
The people objecting that this is not cost effective are missing the point that most people who use this service will simply subscribe, forget, and go to the movies no more frequently than they do now (after a month or so).
It's why places like Planet Fitness are able to offer $10/month unlimited memberships.
Except that the incremental cost of someone using a Gym is almost zero. Once you have enough members to cover the rent & employees, it's almost all upside.
MoviePass will pay about $12 each and every time someone sees a movie -- more than the monthly fee any one member is paying.
So every super movie fan watching 10 movies a month requires more than 11 other members paying the monthly fee and then not using their membership at all. Hard to see that math working out.
> Except that the incremental cost of someone using a Gym is almost zero. Once you have enough members to cover the rent & employees, it's almost all upside.
Huh? What exactly do you think a gym's principal expenses are beyond rent, employee cost and equipment maintenance/replacement? And how long do you think a gym treadmill which is run on for ~6 hours a day will last?
I'm not saying MoviePass automatically makes sense, but the idea that gyms are "all upside" after the initial equipment purchase is badly misinformed.
>It's why places like Planet Fitness are able to offer $10/month unlimited memberships.
That model is far different though
For each Planet Fitness, much of the cost is upfront. That is, they have to buy the property, renovate (or build), and then buy all the machines. Yes there are increased maintenance costs as more people join the gym, but cost per user should decrease with each additional membership.
For MoviePass, for each user they have to pay for the price of each movie ticket they go to. Thus their costs increase proportionally to the number of subscribers. Unless each additional user they sign up goes to the movies less than the average MoviePass user, Cost per user doesn't decrease.
> For each Planet Fitness, much of the cost is upfront. That is, they have to buy the property, renovate (or build), and then buy all the machines.
As said before, this is not remotely accurate. Firstly, nearly all of these franchises rent their building space. Secondly, as with any B&M business, fully loaded employee costs comprise a majority of operating expenses. Thirdly, gym equipment maintenance is a non-trivial ongoing factor. Certainly the initial equipment purchase is a bubble, but the idea that PF is only fiscally viable due to equipment longevity is specious at best.
Note fitness equipment estimates range from $35,930 to $944,800; re-equip costs are estimated at $359,900 to $944,800. (that low estimate on re-equip may be a typo, it is likely re-equip costs are estimated in the same range)
>It's why places like Planet Fitness are able to offer $10/month unlimited memberships
With a $40 annual membership fee, as well, though.
But yeah, they're making money off of me. I went nearly every day until I started full-time work. Now, it's just far more convenient to use my neighborhood gym during the morning, though the equipment is lacking. But I retain the membership on the chance that I might use Planet Fitness's facility instead, because it's only $10!
I would imagine that there is some deal in place that takes the profit from the local movie theater. Theaters already make most of their money from concessions and only get a portion of the ticket price (I think that on opening weekend theaters give most of the money to the film companies and then the rate goes down the longer a movie is out? I don't know if I am remembering that right) So I wouldn't be surprised if part of this deal is that local theaters don't get any of that $10 a month.
If you actually use it, sure. Not unlike a gym membership, you let the aspirational purchasing of some people partially subsidize the cost for the actual user base. I'm not making any ethical stand for or against this practice, but it doesn't seem any different than gym memberships (or frankly an online Netflix membership) to me.
How is this remotely profitable? Movie tickets where I live are pushing $20 a ticket as all the theaters have been re-done as up-scale theaters with padded reclining chairs and/or food service because the standard model of cheap seats packed in as tightly as possible with the smallest screen tolerable doesn't seem to be working anymore. Even the tightly run Arclight theaters are little more than lipstick on a pig at this point. Tolerable, but nothing special.
If I had to bet, I'd say that we're only going to the movies less and it will continue to be rebranded as a premium experience. The cheap seats model isn't any better than my modest living room system and about 10x less convenient. The only difference is I need to wait a couple months before the movie is available in my home. Hollywood could change that overnight is they chose to.
I'm not even going to go into how terrible the standard theater experience is. Smelly floors, beat up seats, loud people, smartphone lights, absurdly priced concessions, unhealthy concession offerings, poor bathroom facilities, paying for parking, 10-20 minutes of trailers, etc.
One interesting thing about the cinema industry is that it's not the theatre chains that set ticket prices, it's the movie companies. I have a friend who manages one, and worked into the contracts that the cinema chains have with the studios, is a certain number of passes they get every month to give to family and friends. They're contractually not allowed to give the passes on opening weekend.
The cinema companies don't really care about some things, like sneaking between movies, sure if they catch you they'll kick you out but they're not looking real hard for you. Other things, like piracy, they care a lot about, films are individually watermarked so whenever a pirated version comes out, they know exactly which theatre it was screened on. That provides a big incentive to catch them.
With a Netflix-type plan for cinema, it's not the cinema companies that Netflix is going to have to negotiate with, it's the studios. Literally all the box office take goes directly to them.
We have an interesting offer in Portugal. If your cable+internet+phone+mobile company is www.nos.pt you get a card that offers you 2 for 1 tickets at their cinemas. If you go alone, you pay full ticket, but you get a popcorn and drink menu for free. Max 1 per day, 8 per month, 52 per year. Each ticket is around 7USD.
When I was younger a cinema chain in the UK used to offer an unlimited subscription for 13 pounds (about $17). The only restriction was you could get cinema tickets for two shows whose start and end times overlapped.
I spent a wonderful summer cycling into town every other day and watching 2 or 3 movies before cycling home again. If a movie turned out to be terrible you could just walk out and you hadn't lost anything.
I love watching movies at the cinema, but a standard ticket where I live now is around $18 US. There are lots of offers but I can't be bothered to time my trips around couples day/ladies day/special movie day. I just wanna watch a film!
One nice thing about the movie theatre is that you're paying a large amount of money (~$5/hr) to be there, so you're more likely to pay attention. I find with netflix, people take shows less seriously and spend time on their phone whilst not paying attention because "its just netflix."
I think if theatres had an "all you can watch" model, people would take it less seriously, and the quality of the experience would degrade.
Carnival Cinemas in India have a similar scheme called Moviecard. All you can watch, Monday through Thursday. It costs around the same as one movie ticket for the entire month. This seems similar.
I always thought the idea was to fill empty theatres with people over weekdays, and of course make money off of refreshments. I mean, they will only fill up seats that are unsold anyway, but with the pass they will at least have shot at selling food.
Simply put: it was not worth it. I tried it when it first came out. I liked the concept, but they do everything to hide every single problem with it. Some of which has already been said in this thread, but the biggest reason I canceled as soon as I could was: I could not share the service with my wife. She had to have her own separate service. Hell, I couldn't use it with myself if I happened to not have the device that was registered with me at the time.
I understand the need to try to get more business, but at the same time, if I'm not using the Movie Pass for that day, why can't my wife use it? Movie Pass locks to a single device (unless they finally did away with that). Also, why can't we use it to see the same movie multiple times if we choose to? I mean I'm paying $10 (or $30 back then) a month for seeing a single movie per day. Are there 30 different movies in the theater in a given month?
While conceptually cool, this was put together in the most completely horrible way for the modern consumer. They will never win back my business unless they take away these ridiculous restrictions.
Those restrictions are to prevent people sharing it. A single ticket is much more expensive than $10 already, without those restrictions, you bet people will share it with their family and friends, event "rent" it out to strangers. How long do you think that will last before the company goes bankrupt.
> MoviePass could lose a lot of money subsidizing people’s movie habits. So the company also raised cash on Tuesday by selling a majority stake to Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc., a small, publicly traded data firm in New York. The companies declined to comment on terms of the financing but said MoviePass intends to hold an initial public offering by March.
I'm sure there's a monetization plan they aren't talking about because it would be horrible. Perhaps commercials between scenes and/or the $10 pass is only good for daytime showings for long released movies and weekend newer releases are still bought like normal.
This is an interesting concept but I have to wonder how this is going to affect movie goers long term who do not have a MoviePass or even those with a MP when it comes to new releases. If MP goers can attend once a day then does it not stand to reason that new releases will be harder to get into as this will increase the number of attendees. I know there are a bunch of teens and college students in our area who go to the movies infrequently because of the price but would gladly buy a MP. Stands to reason that new releases that sell out for days will take infrequent movie attendees even longer to get into or deal with even longer lines (wait times). This could back fire a bit by making infrequent movie attendees even more likely to pass altogether and wait for DVD releases, etc.
Just do not see how they can sustain a $10 a month price point long term. It will be interesting to see how this plays out over time.
Here in the UK various cinema chains have unlimited subscriptions like that. It's a bit more expensive, but if you watch 3 movies a month you've recouped your costs of membership.
I've never noticed a particular problem with number of attendees. I've only ever found 3 people who go to the movies often enough to bother with the subscription.
Do I still have to sit through 10 minutes of advertisements and 20 minutes of trailers before the movie starts? Every time they find one way to improve the experience (recliners) they find another way to make it unbearable (the increasing amount of ads and trailers).
I love this concept! However, when it comes to conventional theaters fetching the most revenue possible, it seems like the problem is what to play in a limited number of theaters, not becessarily as many people as possible.
I could see people liking this idea, however if there's only a movie or tv show you wanted to see a few times a month would it really be worth it? I could also foresee this system could further ruin the fun of the big screen, an example is Alamo Draft House in ATX offering tickets and seat reservations months in advance. This makes it nearly impossible to just see a movie one day on impulse with friends.
This model introduces disincentives to building value since they don't actually want their subscribers USING the service. They just want them paying for it and forgetting about it like a gym membership. Also at $10 a month wouldn't a subscriber have to average <0.7 movies a month to break even? Monetizing with targeted ads doesn't seem like they'll be able to make their money back. Is there something I'm missing here?
If this catches on, you won't really be able to use it weekends or evenings without arriving quite early. Teens and those with more free time will benefit. That leaves weekday matinees available for most of us. Moviepass is probably banking on the fact that few working adults will go to more than one or two weekday matinees in a month.
Like the gym membership, you'll keep paying because you might go, but in most cases you won't actually go.
Concessions is how theaters make money not ticket sales. They get a higher percentage as a movie get's older, but in many showings less than 1% of the seats are filled.
Another consideration is people that go to a lot of movies are likely not be working 9-5 and would avoid the times when theaters are packed.
I hadn't thought about the lowered prices from non-peak times. Thats a good point. It just seems like the people who would want to pay for a subscription to the movies are inherently people who go multiple times a month. Even a $6 matinee would cost more than their subscription. So how many "non-users" of the service do you need to pay for the "super-users"? I'd say at least 4-5x
I joined up about a year ago at $30/month. For 3 months, I averaged about 5 flicks per month, which was a net gain over the cost of the individual tickets.
Then I got a notice that they were increasing my fee to $40/month and I promptly cancelled. Sure, I could have upped my movie frequency a bit to recoup the extra cost, but that was a little too often to be worth it.
MoviePass intends to hold an initial public offering by March. I think they're just dropping the price to show investors how fast they can "grow" before the IPO.
> the goal is to amass a large base of customers and collect data on viewing behaviors. That information could then be used to eventually target advertisements or other marketing materials to subscribers.
I assume that means more (or "better" ads) before the movie. I prefer to pay extra watch movies somewhere that doesn't show ads, but no doubt there's a cohort who would be happy to watch ads if it means a cheaper ticket price.
The idea is nice but I would have expected region based pricing. Yet if it didn't work out a $30 a month then discounting it severely to get customers doesn't seem like there is any payoff other than for the theaters.
Did AMC roll out something higher priced that this for their own system? If they have one surely the other big chains do so this separate service would seem doomed from the get go
I like the idea of this model for open-seating theaters. What about the theaters with only a few big loungers and reserved seating? If you allowed people to schedule/reserve seats, they might not show up. Perhaps if you reserved seats and didn't show up, you'd get charged a penalty ( similar to all-you-can-eat sushi murimoto ).
Yup, Pathe Unlimited Card, named after the chain that operates most (or so it seems to me) cinemas in the Netherlands.
A catch is that when you cancel, you can't join again for a long time (or pay a large fine or something). Also, you pay extra for each 3D ticket (I don't really like '3D' but sometimes that's the only version available).
You need to go (on average) more than 2 times a month to break even, continuously. Which I find difficult, but that probably says more about me than about the product.
Once in a while, there's a deal with 'Postbank Rentepunten' that gives you a card for 3 months for like $40. That works a bit better for me (especially when I time it with the winter holidays, when a lot of new movies come out).
Not to be too snippy but this just seems like a way to light lots of VC money on fire. Maybe they've already got assurances of the value of the data from customers? Sign me up. I'll gladly blow through some of that sweet, sweet VC dough (just like Uber and Lyft).
I don't think my problem is the transaction, it's the movies on offer. I don't care about comic book characters. The "transaction" is fine, the junk food and the soda are fine, seats and sound and picture are fine. The movies aren't.
I think the parent comment is referring to the abundance of comic book derivatives, sequels and uninspired remakes that have become increasingly prevalent of late.
This is a general trend in media as a whole today - sequels, reboots, remakes/remasters, derivatives of other popular media are just as bad in television and video games. The only saving grace of "TV" is Netflix, Amazon and HBO who are more willing to take the risk on new IP.
The last AAA video game I purchased that wasn't based on an existing IP or derivative of a specific formula (see: Ubisoft) was Titanfall. The last movie I saw for myself (and not my daughter) that wasn't based on existing IP I can't even remember, it must have been Grindhouse (Planet Terror / Death Proof). Meanwhile, the last serialized "TV" content I've watched that wasn't a new season of an existing show or a spinoff was Transparent, before that there was Orange is the New Black, House of Cards, etc.
I would love for some fresh ideas in the available content out there, but it seems like executives are especially adverse to risk considering the budget it takes to make "current-gen" visuals in blockbusters or AAA video games - and I wonder if that is why serialized shows are where most of the "fresh" content is considering people expect lower production values out of a 20 episode season of 45 minute episodes.
Personally I find the modern remake/sequel/etc trend appalling. Are people really this adverse to trying new things? Are they not tired of the same formulas? I'm more in tune with gaming than movies but even there all I see is constant adaptations of stories from other media.
I've found more interesting indie games than ever before, there's a Golden Age in television going on, and while I enjoy a good popcorn Marvel movie there's plenty of original thinky stuff like Interstellar to whet my appetite.
Television is good, and the indie game scene is utterly fantastic these days. It just blows my mind how unwilling some of the biggest players in media creation are in terms of being creative.
> Are people really this adverse to trying new things? Are they not tired of the same formulas?
People aren't adverse to trying new things but the movie industry is pretty risk adverse. And as for people being tired of the reboots and remakes the answer is mixed but easy to see in box office returns. Rehashing old ground is fine so long as it's good or is fun to watch. Until these movies start failing en mass industry will keep making them.
I don't see how it can be sustained with them paying full price to the theaters. $10 a month Mon-Thur only and I think it might work for them. And how are you going to keep people from sharing the pass?
It's been in France since the early 2000s (for 20 euros). It's not all theaters but in Paris, the UGC MK2 card covers a few massive cinemas plus most small independent theaters.
I'm not sure why this is being downvoted--I mean, it seems like a relevant comment to me. People who skim credit cards at gas stations obviously try to use them quickly for some easy gain before going out and buying a $5000 tv. Moviepass is clearly popular in certain circles.
They also presented it as a monthly service that you could cancel when you were done, but it was actually an annual service that you paid for on a monthly basis and trying to leave before the year was up would cost you. A lot.
There was also some weird business about having to send new cards (they sent you a card you had to use in person at the theater to pay for your ticket) without warning and until you got the new one you were unable to use the service you were paying for. In addition to that, sometimes the cards would just not work. This happened to me on at least 3 occasions.
Also take into consideration, there are some movies you'll want to see in 3d (maybe) or IMAX (more likely) and these are completely excluded. And if you're like me and you like to buy tickets ahead of time with fandango so you can skip lines and be sure the movie you're going to see isn't sold out, using this service means giving up that convenience.
Granted, this is all a much better deal now that it's $10 instead of $30.