Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   Movie analyst urges studios to join real world, stop charging same ticket price for every movie, whether it's sparkly vampire crapfest, brainless action crapfest, or sensitive Oscar-bait crapfest   (latimesblogs.latimes.com) divider line 95
    More: Obvious, excess capacity, airline ticket, tickets, studios, Bernstein Research  
•       •       •

3623 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 14 Apr 2012 at 11:46 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



95 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-14 09:28:51 PM  
You know, I don't think I want to let market forces dictate how much I have to pay to see the new Batman movie.
 
2012-04-14 09:36:43 PM  
So movies that might be "sleeper" hits are branded as losers right out of the gate.
 
2012-04-14 10:18:45 PM  
If Hollywood wants to make money, they need to hire me and listen.

1. The Old Ways are DEAD. Time to try some new policies.

2. Name your movie properly. John Carpenter is the shiattiest name possible for what was a great action flick. You could call it John Carpenter of Mars, The Martian Civil War, Mu'adib 2 Electric Boogaloo, ANYTHING but what it was. Contrast it with The Hunger Games which delivers what it promises.

3. Give the theaters more control. Instead of taking 99% or so of ticket revenue, take a flat fee for the movie and let the theaters decide what to do with it and when.

4. Kill 3D. Kill it dead. Hugo works just fine in 2D except for the opening shot which was bullshiat pandering anyway. No need for anyone to film in 3D.
 
2012-04-14 10:22:03 PM  

Shostie: You know, I don't think I want to let market forces dictate how much I have to pay to see the new Batman movie.


Yeah - I really don't want studios to know how much I'd be willing to pay to see that. Lets just say itd be a huge number.
 
2012-04-14 10:27:03 PM  

DamnYankees: Shostie: You know, I don't think I want to let market forces dictate how much I have to pay to see the new Batman movie.

Yeah - I really don't want studios to know how much I'd be willing to pay to see that. Lets just say itd be a huge number.


Thanks for proving the article's point.

This, by the way, is a terrible idea. If you want to kill theaters even faster, however, it will totally do it.
 
2012-04-14 10:28:35 PM  

GAT_00: Thanks for proving the article's point.


Well, the article has a point. When you go into a restaurant, you don't just pay a flat feee for one portion of 'food' - you pay differently based on what you order.

GAT_00: This, by the way, is a terrible idea. If you want to kill theaters even faster, however, it will totally do it.


I don't disagree with this.
 
2012-04-14 10:30:54 PM  

DamnYankees: Well, the article has a point. When you go into a restaurant, you don't just pay a flat feee for one portion of 'food' - you pay differently based on what you order.


Yeah, but you get a totally different product out of it. Movies are the same when it comes to execution - sit in a chair and stare at the screen. A better way to judge pricing is have the price reflect the play time.
 
2012-04-14 10:32:43 PM  

GAT_00: DamnYankees: Well, the article has a point. When you go into a restaurant, you don't just pay a flat feee for one portion of 'food' - you pay differently based on what you order.

Yeah, but you get a totally different product out of it. Movies are the same when it comes to execution - sit in a chair and stare at the screen. A better way to judge pricing is have the price reflect the play time.


I don't understand this at all. This isn't how markets work - you set prices based on demand and supply, nothing else. The length of a film isn't relevant - all that matters is your desire to see it. Same with food - makes no difference how long it takes you to eat the thing.
 
2012-04-14 10:47:00 PM  

DamnYankees: GAT_00: DamnYankees: Well, the article has a point. When you go into a restaurant, you don't just pay a flat feee for one portion of 'food' - you pay differently based on what you order.

Yeah, but you get a totally different product out of it. Movies are the same when it comes to execution - sit in a chair and stare at the screen. A better way to judge pricing is have the price reflect the play time.

I don't understand this at all. This isn't how markets work - you set prices based on demand and supply, nothing else. The length of a film isn't relevant - all that matters is your desire to see it. Same with food - makes no difference how long it takes you to eat the thing.


Ah, but a longer movie has more supply, does it not?
 
2012-04-14 10:48:55 PM  

GAT_00: DamnYankees: GAT_00: DamnYankees: Well, the article has a point. When you go into a restaurant, you don't just pay a flat feee for one portion of 'food' - you pay differently based on what you order.

Yeah, but you get a totally different product out of it. Movies are the same when it comes to execution - sit in a chair and stare at the screen. A better way to judge pricing is have the price reflect the play time.

I don't understand this at all. This isn't how markets work - you set prices based on demand and supply, nothing else. The length of a film isn't relevant - all that matters is your desire to see it. Same with food - makes no difference how long it takes you to eat the thing.

Ah, but a longer movie has more supply, does it not?


Well, it has more supply of time. But people don't pay for 'time' when they do to the movies, any more than they pay for 'length of meal' when they buy food.
 
2012-04-14 10:49:02 PM  

GAT_00: DamnYankees: Well, the article has a point. When you go into a restaurant, you don't just pay a flat feee for one portion of 'food' - you pay differently based on what you order.

Yeah, but you get a totally different product out of it. Movies are the same when it comes to execution - sit in a chair and stare at the screen. A better way to judge pricing is have the price reflect the play time.


"Play time" as in what time it is shown during the day, or "play time" as in the runtime of the movie?

Because IIRC, movies are already cheaper if you go at noon on a Monday as opposed to after 6 or 7 PM.

Now, charging differently based on runtime? Eh, I could see that. Why should an 80 minute animated flick be priced the same as a two-and-a-half hour movie?
 
2012-04-14 10:51:25 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: Why should an 80 minute animated flick be priced the same as a two-and-a-half hour movie?


Because it's better?
 
2012-04-14 10:51:45 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: the runtime of the movie?


That one.

DamnYankees: Well, it has more supply of time. But people don't pay for 'time' when they do to the movies, any more than they pay for 'length of meal' when they buy food.


I think it makes more sense than charging different amounts because it's a bigger hit or not.
 
2012-04-14 10:55:08 PM  

doglover: If Hollywood wants to make money, they need to hire me and listen.

1. The Old Ways are DEAD. Time to try some new policies.

2. Name your movie properly. John Carpenter is the shiattiest name possible for what was a great action flick. You could call it John Carpenter of Mars, The Martian Civil War, Mu'adib 2 Electric Boogaloo, ANYTHING but what it was. Contrast it with The Hunger Games which delivers what it promises.

3. Give the theaters more control. Instead of taking 99% or so of ticket revenue, take a flat fee for the movie and let the theaters decide what to do with it and when.

4. Kill 3D. Kill it dead. Hugo works just fine in 2D except for the opening shot which was bullshiat pandering anyway. No need for anyone to film in 3D.


John Carter, perhaps?
 
2012-04-14 10:55:19 PM  

GAT_00: I think it makes more sense than charging different amounts because it's a bigger hit or not.


Well, that would be impossible for them to do, since you only know if something is a hit after the fact. The way they need to do it is simply to price based on how well they think the movie is going to do - the more in demand the movie is, the more they should charge. There's no single variable which goes in to determining that, but I think 'time' is a really bad one. I think budget makes a little more sense if you have to choose a single measure. I don't think it would be that hard to do holistically, though - you could just break out movies into three groups - high demand, average, low demand - and price accordingly. I would bet without laying out any explicit guidelines, you and I would agree on 80 percent of those categorizations, for example.
 
2012-04-14 10:55:49 PM  

toddalmighty: doglover: If Hollywood wants to make money, they need to hire me and listen.

1. The Old Ways are DEAD. Time to try some new policies.

2. Name your movie properly. John Carpenter is the shiattiest name possible for what was a great action flick. You could call it John Carpenter of Mars, The Martian Civil War, Mu'adib 2 Electric Boogaloo, ANYTHING but what it was. Contrast it with The Hunger Games which delivers what it promises.

3. Give the theaters more control. Instead of taking 99% or so of ticket revenue, take a flat fee for the movie and let the theaters decide what to do with it and when.

4. Kill 3D. Kill it dead. Hugo works just fine in 2D except for the opening shot which was bullshiat pandering anyway. No need for anyone to film in 3D.

John Carter, perhaps?


John Carpenter's John Carter, by Tyler Perry?
 
2012-04-14 10:56:18 PM  

GAT_00: I think it makes more sense than charging different amounts because it's a bigger hit or not.


I've been trying to figure out how this could work. Would they start with a flat rate for every money and adjust it based on ticket sales? How often would they make the adjustment? Daily? Weekly? Hourly? In real time?

The latter would be f*cked up, as you could conceivably stand in line and watch the price escalate before your eyes.
 
2012-04-14 11:08:55 PM  

Shostie: GAT_00: I think it makes more sense than charging different amounts because it's a bigger hit or not.

I've been trying to figure out how this could work. Would they start with a flat rate for every money and adjust it based on ticket sales? How often would they make the adjustment? Daily? Weekly? Hourly? In real time?

The latter would be f*cked up, as you could conceivably stand in line and watch the price escalate before your eyes.


It would probably adjust on Sunday night, and be based on the predicted sales the first week.

DamnYankees: you could just break out movies into three groups - high demand, average, low demand - and price accordingly.


But there isn't a single reason to do it. So limited release movies don't count? They don't make full national release because they aren't expected to do well everywhere, so they can't have high demand. But they have targeted releases that tend to do good, so they have high demand.

Which one is it? None of this makes sense.
 
2012-04-14 11:10:36 PM  

GAT_00: So limited release movies don't count?


Why woulnd't they count? I'm confused. Limited release movies can be categorized just as easily based on the markets you are releasing them to.
 
2012-04-14 11:12:19 PM  

DamnYankees: GAT_00: So limited release movies don't count?

Why woulnd't they count? I'm confused. Limited release movies can be categorized just as easily based on the markets you are releasing them to.


Yes, but do you define them as high demand, or low? Those usually don't make nationwide release because they aren't expected to do well everywhere. That makes them low demand. But many do well in limited release, meaning high demand.

How do you define demand? Local or national?
 
2012-04-14 11:14:37 PM  

GAT_00: Yes, but do you define them as high demand, or low?


Depends what the movie is.

GAT_00: How do you define demand? Local or national?


I'm confused by your confusion here. You look at a movie, anticipate what the market will bear in terms of price, and set the price. This is how all other forms of commerce work.
 
2012-04-14 11:40:24 PM  

DamnYankees: GAT_00: I think it makes more sense than charging different amounts because it's a bigger hit or not.

Well, that would be impossible for them to do, since you only know if something is a hit after the fact. The way they need to do it is simply to price based on how well they think the movie is going to do - the more in demand the movie is, the more they should charge. There's no single variable which goes in to determining that, but I think 'time' is a really bad one. I think budget makes a little more sense if you have to choose a single measure. I don't think it would be that hard to do holistically, though - you could just break out movies into three groups - high demand, average, low demand - and price accordingly. I would bet without laying out any explicit guidelines, you and I would agree on 80 percent of those categorizations, for example.


I'd still wait for the DVD. Or watch it online
 
2012-04-14 11:45:43 PM  

DamnYankees: GAT_00: Yes, but do you define them as high demand, or low?

Depends what the movie is. GAT_00: How do you define demand? Local or national?

I'm confused by your confusion here. You look at a movie, anticipate what the market will bear in terms of price, and set the price. This is how all other forms of commerce work.


every day airlines competitively price seats to their planes for varying times and routes, doing everything they can to fill seats and maximize revenues on a regularly expiring product. there is no reason movie theaters can't do the same thing.
 
2012-04-14 11:50:16 PM  
Adam Sandler movies would be a nickel a pop!
 
2012-04-14 11:55:36 PM  
Our little hometown theater shows current movies every Friday and Saturday for $6 a seat ($3 if you're under 12).

It's pretty spiffy.
 
2012-04-15 12:04:17 AM  

FirstNationalBastard: toddalmighty: doglover: If Hollywood wants to make money, they need to hire me and listen.

1. The Old Ways are DEAD. Time to try some new policies.

2. Name your movie properly. John Carpenter is the shiattiest name possible for what was a great action flick. You could call it John Carpenter of Mars, The Martian Civil War, Mu'adib 2 Electric Boogaloo, ANYTHING but what it was. Contrast it with The Hunger Games which delivers what it promises.

3. Give the theaters more control. Instead of taking 99% or so of ticket revenue, take a flat fee for the movie and let the theaters decide what to do with it and when.

4. Kill 3D. Kill it dead. Hugo works just fine in 2D except for the opening shot which was bullshiat pandering anyway. No need for anyone to film in 3D.

John Carter, perhaps?

John Carpenter's John Carter, by Tyler Perry?


Quentin Tarantio presents: John Carpenter's John Carter, by Tyler Perry
 
2012-04-15 12:05:52 AM  

DamnYankees: GAT_00: DamnYankees: GAT_00: DamnYankees: Well, the article has a point. When you go into a restaurant, you don't just pay a flat feee for one portion of 'food' - you pay differently based on what you order.

Yeah, but you get a totally different product out of it. Movies are the same when it comes to execution - sit in a chair and stare at the screen. A better way to judge pricing is have the price reflect the play time.

I don't understand this at all. This isn't how markets work - you set prices based on demand and supply, nothing else. The length of a film isn't relevant - all that matters is your desire to see it. Same with food - makes no difference how long it takes you to eat the thing.

Ah, but a longer movie has more supply, does it not?

Well, it has more supply of time. But people don't pay for 'time' when they do to the movies, any more than they pay for 'length of meal' when they buy food.


Both of you are misinterpreting the food analogy. If one were to model movie pricing after how restaurants price food, the price of the movie ticket would be commensurate with the budget of the film.
 
2012-04-15 12:06:46 AM  

Ryker's Peninsula: FirstNationalBastard: toddalmighty: doglover: If Hollywood wants to make money, they need to hire me and listen.

1. The Old Ways are DEAD. Time to try some new policies.

2. Name your movie properly. John Carpenter is the shiattiest name possible for what was a great action flick. You could call it John Carpenter of Mars, The Martian Civil War, Mu'adib 2 Electric Boogaloo, ANYTHING but what it was. Contrast it with The Hunger Games which delivers what it promises.

3. Give the theaters more control. Instead of taking 99% or so of ticket revenue, take a flat fee for the movie and let the theaters decide what to do with it and when.

4. Kill 3D. Kill it dead. Hugo works just fine in 2D except for the opening shot which was bullshiat pandering anyway. No need for anyone to film in 3D.

John Carter, perhaps?

John Carpenter's John Carter, by Tyler Perry?

Quentin Tarantio presents: John Carpenter's John Carter, by Tyler Perry


Quentin Tarantino presents: John Carpenter's John Carter, by Tyler Perry: a Spike Lee Joint.
 
2012-04-15 12:07:49 AM  

GAT_00: DamnYankees: GAT_00: DamnYankees: Well, the article has a point. When you go into a restaurant, you don't just pay a flat feee for one portion of 'food' - you pay differently based on what you order.

Yeah, but you get a totally different product out of it. Movies are the same when it comes to execution - sit in a chair and stare at the screen. A better way to judge pricing is have the price reflect the play time.

I don't understand this at all. This isn't how markets work - you set prices based on demand and supply, nothing else. The length of a film isn't relevant - all that matters is your desire to see it. Same with food - makes no difference how long it takes you to eat the thing.

Ah, but a longer movie has more supply, does it not?


You have that backwards. A longer movie can be shown fewer times in a day, and given a set number of screens and seats per screen, fewer tickets available overall.

Not that it really matters outside of opening weekend nights for mega-movies, given the excess capacity quote in TFA.
 
2012-04-15 12:08:36 AM  

turbidum: Both of you are misinterpreting the food analogy. If one were to model movie pricing after how restaurants price food, the price of the movie ticket would be commensurate with the budget of the film.


That's not how food pricing works.
 
2012-04-15 12:12:13 AM  

FirstNationalBastard: Quentin Tarantino presents: John Carpenter's John Carter, by Tyler Perry: a Spike Lee Joint


The non-ending to that movie (which would itself be a homage to other non-endings in past movies) would point out the fact that there is still a racial divide, despite every character being played by Tyler Perry. That could be great.
 
2012-04-15 12:14:23 AM  

FirstNationalBastard: Ryker's Peninsula: FirstNationalBastard: toddalmighty: doglover: If Hollywood wants to make money, they need to hire me and listen.

1. The Old Ways are DEAD. Time to try some new policies.

2. Name your movie properly. John Carpenter is the shiattiest name possible for what was a great action flick. You could call it John Carpenter of Mars, The Martian Civil War, Mu'adib 2 Electric Boogaloo, ANYTHING but what it was. Contrast it with The Hunger Games which delivers what it promises.

3. Give the theaters more control. Instead of taking 99% or so of ticket revenue, take a flat fee for the movie and let the theaters decide what to do with it and when.

4. Kill 3D. Kill it dead. Hugo works just fine in 2D except for the opening shot which was bullshiat pandering anyway. No need for anyone to film in 3D.

John Carter, perhaps?

John Carpenter's John Carter, by Tyler Perry?

Quentin Tarantio presents: John Carpenter's John Carter, by Tyler Perry

Quentin Tarantino presents: John Carpenter's John Carter, by Tyler Perry: a Spike Lee Joint.


From the mind of M. Night Shyamalan: Quentin Tarantino presents: John Carpenter's John Carter, by Tyler Perry: a Spike Lee Joint.
 
2012-04-15 12:25:13 AM  

LeroyBourne: Adam Sandler movies would be a nickel a pop!


fark that, they need to pay me $50 to sit through one of his turds they call a movie. And they better toss in the popcorn and drink.
 
2012-04-15 12:25:34 AM  
If they did this, couldn't you cheat the system by buying tickets to a cheaper movie and then sneaking into the Avengers? Once you get past the person who takes your tickets they don't really enforce if you walk into the right theater because they don't have the staff.
 
2012-04-15 12:28:13 AM  

DamnYankees: GAT_00: Thanks for proving the article's point.

Well, the article has a point. When you go into a restaurant, you don't just pay a flat feee for one portion of 'food' - you pay differently based on what you order.


My local Chinese buffet disagrees with you.
 
2012-04-15 12:28:23 AM  

Mad_Radhu: If they did this, couldn't you cheat the system by buying tickets to a cheaper movie and then sneaking into the Avengers? Once you get past the person who takes your tickets they don't really enforce if you walk into the right theater because they don't have the staff.


They'll start having people outside of the theater checking tickets to make sure you don't do that. I've had that happen to me with certain R-rated movies.
 
2012-04-15 12:32:37 AM  

rynthetyn: Mad_Radhu: If they did this, couldn't you cheat the system by buying tickets to a cheaper movie and then sneaking into the Avengers? Once you get past the person who takes your tickets they don't really enforce if you walk into the right theater because they don't have the staff.

They'll start having people outside of the theater checking tickets to make sure you don't do that. I've had that happen to me with certain R-rated movies.


They'll be raising ticket prices to cover the additional employment costs.
 
2012-04-15 12:42:47 AM  

Mildot: LeroyBourne: Adam Sandler movies would be a nickel a pop!

fark that, they need to pay me $50 to sit through one of his turds they call a movie. And they better toss in the popcorn and drink.


Good point. I'd do it $20. I like afternoon naps.
 
2012-04-15 12:45:36 AM  

DamnYankees: The way they need to do it is simply to price based on how well they think the movie is going to do - the more in demand the movie is, the more they should charge.


I think the problem with this is that it is extremely hard to predict how well a movie will do.

Case in point:

John Carter - pre-opening expectations $200 million
The Hunger Games - pre-opening expectations $70 million
(as a note, grosses are predicted when the movies are scheduled, 1-2 years in advance)
By this way of ticket pricing, John Carter, would be priced higher than The Hunger Games.

Additional points, Titanic was without a distributor a month before release because no one thought the movie would do well. James Cameron had to forgo his directors pay to finish Avatar because no one in the studio thought the movie would come close to making back its estimated $450 million dollar budget(it of course, became the first movie to gross over $2 billion).
 
2012-04-15 12:47:47 AM  

DamnYankees: turbidum: Both of you are misinterpreting the food analogy. If one were to model movie pricing after how restaurants price food, the price of the movie ticket would be commensurate with the budget of the film.

That's not how food pricing works.


Really? Relatively more expensive food in a restaurant is not priced higher than other items because of the labor required and/or because they are made with more expensive ingredients? Chicken is not pretty much always cheaper than beef or seafood? A bowl of soup isn't cheaper than most other appetizers?
 
2012-04-15 12:54:08 AM  
Interesting idea, but frankly, I only see this working well with "family" films. Parents feed their kids so much Disney/Nick programming that they really don't have a choice but to haul their snowflakes down to the multplex to watch whatever has been extruded into the theater, then buy the DVD the moment it comes out. it wouldn't work on me, mainly because ticket cost = expected entertainment value.

For example: The Hunger Game. I doubt I'd watch it when it finally lands on broadcast TV, so there's no chance I'd pay an inflated ticket price just because the Twilight/Potter demographic don't have anything else to watch.

However, jacking prices would cause me to AVOID films I otherwise would see at a theater, such as Prometheus, or Looper. Studios will put them out on DVD eventually, so I'll just Redbox them for a buck. And if they suck, I'm that much less invested in them.
 
2012-04-15 01:25:51 AM  
But if they did that, the DOJ might accuse them of collusion.

(No. Really. That's *exactly* what happened in the E-Books market.)
 
2012-04-15 01:26:45 AM  
A large part of the reason movies experienced a 'golden age' throughout the freaking Great Depression was the fact that tickets were dirt-cheap (yes -- even adjusted for inflation). Certainly, there were fewer entertainment 'options', then .. but the fact remains that (with the possible exception of radio shows) movies were among the cheapest available.

Cheap entertainment = butts in seats, on a regular basis.

A family of four spending upwards of $100 for a 'night out' is not cheap entertainment.

As the common man or woman becomes less able to afford it, s/he is going to purchase less of your product.

/durrr
 
2012-04-15 01:43:58 AM  

born_yesterday: FirstNationalBastard: Ryker's Peninsula: FirstNationalBastard: toddalmighty: doglover: If Hollywood wants to make money, they need to hire me and listen.

1. The Old Ways are DEAD. Time to try some new policies.

2. Name your movie properly. John Carpenter is the shiattiest name possible for what was a great action flick. You could call it John Carpenter of Mars, The Martian Civil War, Mu'adib 2 Electric Boogaloo, ANYTHING but what it was. Contrast it with The Hunger Games which delivers what it promises.

3. Give the theaters more control. Instead of taking 99% or so of ticket revenue, take a flat fee for the movie and let the theaters decide what to do with it and when.

4. Kill 3D. Kill it dead. Hugo works just fine in 2D except for the opening shot which was bullshiat pandering anyway. No need for anyone to film in 3D.

John Carter, perhaps?

John Carpenter's John Carter, by Tyler Perry?

Quentin Tarantio presents: John Carpenter's John Carter, by Tyler Perry

Quentin Tarantino presents: John Carpenter's John Carter, by Tyler Perry: a Spike Lee Joint.

From the mind of M. Night Shyamalan: Quentin Tarantino presents: John Carpenter's John Carter, by Tyler Perry: a Spike Lee Joint.


From the mind of M. Night Shyamalan: Quentin Tarantino presents: John Carpenter's John Carter, by Tyler Perry: a Spike Lee Joint. Sponsored by Pepsi.
 
2012-04-15 01:53:43 AM  
What the headline says: "Charge more for hits, less for flops".

What the studios hear: "Charge more for hits"
 
2012-04-15 01:58:02 AM  

Knight of the Woeful Countenance: John Carter, perhaps?

John Carpenter's John Carter, by Tyler Perry?

Quentin Tarantio presents: John Carpenter's John Carter, by Tyler Perry

Quentin Tarantino presents: John Carpenter's John Carter, by Tyler Perry: a Spike Lee Joint.

From the mind of M. Night Shyamalan: Quentin Tarantino presents: John Carpenter's John Carter, by Tyler Perry: a Spike Lee Joint.

From the mind of M. Night Shyamalan: Quentin Tarantino presents: John Carpenter's John Carter, by Tyler Perry: a Spike Lee Joint. Sponsored by Pepsi.


Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire
 
2012-04-15 01:59:52 AM  

LeroyBourne: Adam Sandler movies would be a nickel a pop!


No. They're going to have to pay me a whole lot more than a nickel to watch one of his movies.
 
2012-04-15 02:31:45 AM  

turbidum: DamnYankees: turbidum: Both of you are misinterpreting the food analogy. If one were to model movie pricing after how restaurants price food, the price of the movie ticket would be commensurate with the budget of the film.

That's not how food pricing works.

Really? Relatively more expensive food in a restaurant is not priced higher than other items because of the labor required and/or because they are made with more expensive ingredients? Chicken is not pretty much always cheaper than beef or seafood? A bowl of soup isn't cheaper than most other appetizers?


I have to second the confusion here. If you're not paying more for more expensive ingredients (Kobe beef, for example) then what are you paying for?

Fancy service? Expensive cutlery? Ambiance? Of course that only explains the difference from restaurant to restaurant, not variations on prices in the same place.
 
2012-04-15 02:32:14 AM  
Here's a better idea to raise revenue:

1: Make movies that don't suck so hard.

2: Release in the summer and around holidays old movies to be seen on the big screen. No 3D or enhancements needed.
 
2012-04-15 02:36:52 AM  
Who the fark isn't a movie analyst?
 
Displayed 50 of 95 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report