# I guess this is the new normal



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Last night my wife and I and 2 other couples went to see Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot. (Better movie than the critics give it credit for).

But the theater apparently not expecting a rush on a Sunday evening was woefully understaffed, out of some concession items and not very clean. Since my brain/mouth filter stops working when I am annoyed (they were out of CF Diet Coke again) I told the manager (that's how understaffed they were as he was working the concession stand) that they need to get their crap together because I just built a HT with a big screen and with movies now hitting PPV less than 3 months after leaving the theater, I was losing reasons to come to the movies very quickly.

But my point here is the new Star Wars will go from release (12/15) to PPV (4/1) and DVD/BR (4/5) in just over 3 months. Why even bother to go to the theater and see it? Between the 6 of us, we dropped over $100 to see this movie. We could wait until June/July, spend $4.99 on PPV and sit in the comfort of my own house watching this movie. With better food.

At a time when the economy is not great, why are theaters not doing everything they can to enhance the experience (think baseball parks) instead of making me wish I had not bothered?


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

The last movie my wife and I saw at a movie theater was "The Bucket List" in 2007. Can't speak for others but we have a much better movie experience using our Home Theater Room rather than attend a viewing at a theater. The movie theater experience hasn't been what it used to be for years.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

My wife and I went to see Star Wars a couple of weeks after release. Two of five people in the theater. The sound was broken during the pre-preview videos (my wife complained and they rebooted the amp for the movie). We do not eat at the theater so all they got was our ticket price.

It was a 14 screen theater so "minimal" staff can keep it running. And we went to the last showing on a Sunday (ending around midnight) so we left with the staff locking up for the night. Three couples per movie would be a "rush" for this theater on a Sunday night.

I do not have a home theater but I still wait for the PPV for most movies. Often I wait for the HBO or other movie channel appearance. I stopped buying DVDs since I found that I was not re-watching them. I am not finding the quality of most films worth going to the theater for. I have seen every Star Wars in a theater so I felt obligated.

The #1 reason to watch at home for me is closed captioning - although I have seen that at the theaters. The ability to add my own bathroom breaks comes in handy as well. Plus rewind - did you see that!

Why go to the theater? Mainly to get out of the house. And it was something we did when we were young ... although sitting in a nearly empty theater doesn't bring back too many fond memories. It is just a reminder of how much has changed since "the good old days".


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

James Long said:


> My wife and I went to see Star Wars a couple of weeks after release. Two of five people in the theater. The sound was broken during the pre-preview videos (my wife complained and they rebooted the amp for the movie). We do not eat at the theater so all they got was our ticket price.
> 
> It was a 14 screen theater so "minimal" staff can keep it running. And we went to the last showing on a Sunday (ending around midnight) so we left with the staff locking up for the night. Three couples per movie would be a "rush" for this theater on a Sunday night.
> 
> ...


In this case change has not been for the better. In my youth movie theaters had humongous screens compared to todays multiplex theaters. Ticket pricing was affordable. The popcorn was made fresh with butter and salt. For the price of a ticket one got previews of coming attractions, cartoons, a co-feature and the main movie. "The good old days" indeed.


----------



## AntAltMike (Nov 21, 2004)

I used to go just for the Pink Panther cartoons.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I see a lot of movies in the theater. Even with a home theater setup. 

But...

I have a local theater that with my regal card (it's free) costs $5.25 a movie all day on Sunday's and Tuesday's. IMAX is extra... They are decently staffed on those days as Sunday night movies is fairly popular anyway. 

AMC in my area is a very nice theater but they don't have as many movies I like to see as the regal. (They show a lot of Asian movies because of where they are located and seem to get less of the mainstream as a % as the regal) However I get tickets at Costco for there so while it's more it's not a lot. 

I rarely ever get any food unless I have gotten a gift card from someone. 

But if it's a really big movie arch light is the way to go if it'll be crowded. It's more but there's no worry about seats silence they are assigned and that theater is always kept spotless and always have plenty of people working there. 

But the regal with their discount days is by far the best deal...

With that said I think the studios are dumb. They shouldn't release things for a year after being in the theater. Or at least close to it. Star Wars should hit the day after Thanks giving for sale and no ppv or rental till January...


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

James Long said:


> My wife and I went to see Star Wars a couple of weeks after release.
> 
> I do not have a home theater but I still wait for the PPV for most movies. Often I wait for the HBO or other movie channel appearance. I stopped buying DVDs since I found that I was not re-watching them. I am not finding the quality of most films worth going to the theater for. I have seen every Star Wars in a theater so I felt obligated.
> 
> The #1 reason to watch at home for me is closed captioning - although I have seen that at the theaters. The ability to add my own bathroom breaks comes in handy as well. Plus rewind - did you see that!


Same here with Star Wars. Even my daughter who is 15 can say she has seen all of them in a theater as she went to a Star Wars fest at a local theater when they replayed the 3 original ones. And we saw all the Hunger Games movies in the theater mainly because of our daughter wanted to see them. Did see Catching Fire in IMAX which was really cool.

The only DVD/BR's we buy are my daughter's movies since she like to take them to her grandma's and watch them with her (worth every penny). Otherwise we were just like you in that we never rewatch them. Plus it is just as easy these days to buy them on iTunes. I don't really need them on a disc anymore.

And yes, being able to rewind is awesome.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I went to a theater to see Star Wars, mainly because I knew I couldn't wait and wanted to see it without spoilers.

However, the theater I went to was brand new, had a Dolby Atmos sound system and electronic reclining seats. I can't compete with that at home.


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

Being that I share a home in a family of 6 (with my oldest son, daughter in-law and three 18 yr.+ grandsons}, agreement on what to watch on the family room HT system is limited. Most of the time, my TV viewing is done in my bedroom, where I have a 42 inch 3D TV and 5.1 surround sound system. I have an abundance of DVD's as yet to be viewed (mostly from Christmas or birthday gifts) in addition to having TiVo and Roku. We have HBO and I have a subscriiption to Netflix and Amazon Prime so I can catch movies when they are available. I've never rented anything from Redbox (the ones near me always seem to be out of new Blu-ray releases).

When I do go to a movie theater (with my Regal card), iit's usually on a Tuesday before schools let out -- cheaper tickets and no crowds. The last 3 movies I saw at a theater are Minions, Spy and MI6.I do want to see the new Star Wars and several other current releases, if not at first run, there's a 10 screen second run theater about 20 minutes from home - about the same travel time as the nearest first run theaters.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> With that said I think the studios are dumb. They shouldn't release things for a year after being in the theater. Or at least close to it. Star Wars should hit the day after Thanks giving for sale and no ppv or rental till January...


They seem to be making money ... perhaps in the theaters from the younger crowd with disposable income (and perhaps no cable/satellite subscription). When the money runs low on first run the movie goes to the dollar theater. When the money runs out in the theaters it is offered for sale and rental (often the same day). The studios have learned how to milk the cow. (PS: We are the cow.)

As long as they are making money I assume they will keep following that pattern.


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

Waiting a year people would lose interest, plus waiting a year they have to reinvest in advertising because people forget.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Movies are still setting attendance records every year, so most of the business isn't dying.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

James Long said:


> They seem to be making money ... perhaps in the theaters from the younger crowd with disposable income (and perhaps no cable/satellite subscription). When the money runs low on first run the movie goes to the dollar theater. When the money runs out in the theaters it is offered for sale and rental (often the same day). The studios have learned how to milk the cow. (PS: We are the cow.)
> 
> As long as they are making money I assume they will keep following that pattern.


IMHO they are losing money. The only reason they have kept making more gross revenue is cost increases not attendance... And someday that will start to crack more and slow their revenue. Truly funny they are pushing faster and faster toward a revenue stream that could easily lower their gross revenue.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> IMHO they are losing money. The only reason they have kept making more gross revenue is cost increases not attendance... And someday that will start to crack more and slow their revenue. Truly funny they are pushing faster and faster toward a revenue stream that could easily lower their gross revenue.


Or some are moving to different experiences. A Carmike (to become AMC) is being built in my neighborhood with full dining. Or that theater I went to with atmos. I know that sound system is also available for the home, but it's not something I can do and I know I'm not in the minority.

Sent from my STV100-2 using Tapatalk


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> IMHO they are losing money. The only reason they have kept making more gross revenue is cost increases not attendance... And someday that will start to crack more and slow their revenue. Truly funny they are pushing faster and faster toward a revenue stream that could easily lower their gross revenue.


But does it lower profit? Given that a theater will cost the studios 40-50% of the box office revenue, is there a model that will lower revenue, but also lower expenses? I think the DirecTV same day model could do that, but they have yet to try it on a blockbuster type film.

For example, the new Divergent movie is coming out in a couple of weeks. My daughter will want to go see it for sure. But I can send her to the theater with $20, of which the studio would get about $5. So for her and 3 friends, the studio would get $20. Or I could buy it under the DirecTV model for $40 and the studio would get maybe $30. (It doesn't cost DirecTV any more to put a new movie on PPV than an old one)

I hope we see something similar in the future, but for now, unless it is a blockbuster (>$500M), then I will be content to wait the 3-4 months to watch it at home.

PS. I have Dolby Atmos available on my AVR, but is there any content that has it encoded?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> IMHO they are losing money. The only reason they have kept making more gross revenue is cost increases not attendance...





Drucifer said:


> Movies are still setting attendance records every year, so most of the business isn't dying.


Perhaps you two should fight it out? 

Theaters are holding their own. Go back 50 years (or 70 years) and today's attendance numbers look lousy - but overall attendance is generally steady (about 10% of the population attending movies each week).

The studios are making money ... and, as noted before, when they are done making money in the theater they make more though PPVs and sales.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Herdfan said:


> But does it lower profit? Given that a theater will cost the studios 40-50% of the box office revenue, is there a model that will lower revenue, but also lower expenses? I think the DirecTV same day model could do that, but they have yet to try it on a blockbuster type film.
> 
> For example, the new Divergent movie is coming out in a couple of weeks. My daughter will want to go see it for sure. But I can send her to the theater with $20, of which the studio would get about $5. So for her and 3 friends, the studio would get $20. Or I could buy it under the DirecTV model for $40 and the studio would get maybe $30. (It doesn't cost DirecTV any more to put a new movie on PPV than an old one)
> 
> ...


As I understand things, typically the studios get nearly 100% of ticket sales the first two weeks, the theatre only gets concessions. After that, the theatre gradually gets more of the ticket sales, I think up to 50% in a first run theatre. I haven't heard any info from the second run theatre managers lately on their economics.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> As I understand things, typically the studios get nearly 100% of ticket sales the first two weeks, the theatre only gets concessions. After that, the theatre gradually gets more of the ticket sales, I think up to 50% in a first run theatre. I haven't heard any info from the second run theatre managers lately on their economics.
> 
> Peace,
> Tom


While just a snapshot of one chain, in the Regal Theater Corp's 10K filing, the overall split is right around 53/47 with the 53% to the studios. But they make about 85% on concessions.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

Herdfan said:


> At a time when the economy is not great, why are theaters not doing everything they can to enhance the experience (think baseball parks) instead of making me wish I had not bothered?


Why is the economy not great?

Low interest rates abound. Gas is cheap. Housing is strong. Stock market still good but did fall a bit. And car dealerships strong sales. Oh unemployment below 5%.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Herdfan said:


> While just a snapshot of one chain, in the Regal Theater Corp's 10K filing, the overall split is right around 53/47 with the 53% to the studios. But they make about 85% on concessions.


I'm presuming that snapshot is averaged over the movie runs whereas I broke down how the monies are allocated over time. So if your daughter goes during the first two weeks, most of her ticket price goes to the studio. If she goes the last week of a 12 week run, the money is split between theatre and studio--I believe 50/50, though that might have changed. Or might depend on the deal brokered.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

NR4P said:


> Why is the economy not great?
> 
> Low interest rates abound. Gas is cheap. Housing is strong. Stock market still good but did fall a bit. And car dealerships strong sales. Oh unemployment below 5%.


Salaries are down. The Market was artificially inflated by the Fed's actions. Now that they aren't pumping money into the market and have raised their rates a bit, the market is finding it's true valuations again. (And will likely overshoot in the fears on the way down.)

Peace,
Tom


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> While just a snapshot of one chain, in the Regal Theater Corp's 10K filing, the overall split is right around 53/47 with the 53% to the studios. But they make about 85% on concessions.


I'd have to really dig into that.... Here's the kicker the huge movies that cost huge amounts to make probably get a much larger share to the studios because of how front loaded they are. The massive ones like Star Wars that are huge for weeks then run that number back some... But those movies are only four or five a year usually. The tiny movies that cost little and require little return to be profitable last a long time and may make those numbers look weird. I also wonder if the loans they provided for all the digital projector upgrades fit into that number...

So really I think it depends on the movie.

But the first few weeks of the biggest movies the lion share goes to the studios.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

There are more people in the theater during the first couple of weeks of release. As long as the deal isn't 100% to the distributor the theater is making something off of a blockbuster.

Unfortunately the power of reputation is also in play. A theater that rejects a low percentage movie (high percentage to the distributor) can be seen by the public as a theater that doesn't have the best movies. So there is pressure to have popular films even if the percentage is low. Plus contracts may require showing more than the movies the theater wants to show.

But somehow they remain in business. Understaffing and not paying a living wage probably helps.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> I'd have to really dig into that.... Here's the kicker the huge movies that cost huge amounts to make probably get a much larger share to the studios because of how front loaded they are. The massive ones like Star Wars that are huge for weeks then run that number back some... But those movies are only four or five a year usually. The tiny movies that cost little and require little return to be profitable last a long time and may make those numbers look weird. I also wonder if the loans they provided for all the digital projector upgrades fit into that number...
> 
> So really I think it depends on the movie.
> 
> But the first few weeks of the biggest movies the lion share goes to the studios.


But Hollywood accounting dictates that pretty much all movies lose money. My Big Fat Greek Wedding cost $6 million, brought in $350 million and lost $20 million.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

An update to this thread. Went to see Rogue One last Sunday evening. Theater was fairly crowded but no one was taking tickets. They were selling them at the counter (the ticket booth hasn't been used in years) and they must assume that everyone will pay. Since I don't like standing in line I went to the self serve kiosk. Bought the 3 tickets and waited on my wife to get drinks/popcorn. While I was waiting I observed a group of teenagers come in and get in line. Then one by one they went to the bathroom. They then came out of the bathroom one by one and walk past the place where the ticket taker would be and into the hall for the theaters. Had to be a group of 6 of them. That was $60 the theater was cheated out of. And that was in the 5 minutes I stood there.

Can they not pay someone $10/hour to take tickets? I think it would pay off for them very quickly on a busy night.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Has there ever been a young brain morals study?

As I seem to remember, all my dumb decisions were made between the ages of 14 to 24. At 25, being able to see ALL the consequences, my decision making became much better.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> An update to this thread. Went to see Rogue One last Sunday evening. Theater was fairly crowded but no one was taking tickets. They were selling them at the counter (the ticket booth hasn't been used in years) and they must assume that everyone will pay. Since I don't like standing in line I went to the self serve kiosk. Bought the 3 tickets and waited on my wife to get drinks/popcorn. While I was waiting I observed a group of teenagers come in and get in line. Then one by one they went to the bathroom. They then came out of the bathroom one by one and walk past the place where the ticket taker would be and into the hall for the theaters. Had to be a group of 6 of them. That was $60 the theater was cheated out of. And that was in the 5 minutes I stood there.
> 
> Can they not pay someone $10/hour to take tickets? I think it would pay off for them very quickly on a busy night.


All the theaters around me check tickets like crazy.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Drucifer said:


> Has there ever been a young brain morals study?
> 
> As I seem to remember, all my dumb decisions were made between the ages of 14 to 24. At 25, being able to see ALL the consequences, my decision making became much better.


There are no age limitations when it comes to making dumb decisions. Our political leaders are a fine example.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> All the theaters around me check tickets like crazy.


Not sure why the image rotated. But you can see the ticket taker's podium. The people are in line for concessions and the bathrooms are to the left (bottom) just out of frame. So they wonder over from the lines to the bathroom and then out and into the movie area.

Took the pic to send to the theater's management group.


----------

