Rendered at 01:31:01 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
fishywang 9 hours ago [-]
A lot of years ago, while living in Beijing, I once bought ticket to a morning (9:30 or so) show in a theatre. Then came that day, it rained unexpectedly, so I ended up getting there 10min late. When I get into the theatre, I found out that it's completely dark. I asked a staff, they told me that they only sold that one ticket and since I didn't show up within 5min, they cancelled the show and returned the film. They refunded me in the end.
blintz 20 hours ago [-]
This is cool. Something about dropping everything to go see a movie in an empty theater is sort of tempting.
mizzao 10 hours ago [-]
I thought this was the case, but then I went to a full movie theater and really enjoyed being a part of an audience that was all experiencing the same thing. You could feel the emotion and that is a different sense than having the theater all to you to, but potentially just as rewarding.
lostapathy 9 hours ago [-]
I think this varies with the type of film. If it's a film with real fans and excitement is thick, a packed theater is amazing. OTOH, films where the audience isn't engaged, or dare I say invested, having a crowd can often just be annoying because of the chatter or people moving around.
dtgriscom 7 hours ago [-]
I saw the first Star Wars movie on the day it opened in Boston, in an enormous, packed theater. I will never forget the roar that went up when Han Solo came out of the sun to save Luke.
bullfightonmars 9 hours ago [-]
yes! I want the opposite. Packed screenings. There are some movies, especially summer blockbusters, that I want to see in a full room.
tracker1 8 hours ago [-]
I went to a pretty packed showing of Spiderman No Way Home... the reaction to Matt Murdock catching the brick was pretty awesome. It's definitely a better experience watching movies with fans of the movies themselves.
That said, it's also nice sometimes catching a mostly empty 2pm showing of something and getting the perfect seat without distractions... Especially considering if I turn up the volume to get the appropriate experience at home I get yelled at.
WorldMaker 9 hours ago [-]
Hah, yeah, my local AMC is a ghost town as people moved to newer and/or better maintained theaters. (Not entirely AMC's fault, they bought a decades old theater that was sort of on its last legs after four other companies controlled it in as many decades.) Most of the screenings I attend are empty or nearly so. I almost need an app to find the full AMC screenings. (I know it is at least as much a factor of which nights of the week I attend. I could attend busier nights. But even then this theater's busiest nights now are not what they were way back when I was in school.) I do sometimes miss seeing something with a large audience.
tracker1 8 hours ago [-]
There was a Harkin's location a few blocks from me kind of like that... it was old, but still really busy... the only difference is the land became so valuable they wound up selling anyways. The next nearest Harkins and AMC have much worse parking, even if newer/larger theaters, because they're sharing in strip-malls.
WorldMaker 7 hours ago [-]
Yeah, the dynamics and shifts in trends of where the newer theaters get built and which theaters become the busiest theaters is fascinating to me, and especially how much nostalgia influences which theater I want to spend the most time at.
I lost my favorite theater in the early 2020s and then its sibling, and last locally-owned and operated theater, to a landlord screwing with rents to try to attract an inner-city Publix. (A deal which still may not actually happen.)
That leaves the AMC as the last regularly attended theater of my high school and college days still standing.
A newer, more popular Cinemark is in the city's biggest mall. I still remember when mall theaters were the worst/cheapest/smallest places. This has flipped now that most of what's left of the malls are the new theater/Dave & Busters at the one mall or the Top Golf/Puttshack at the other mall with the rest of the malls seeming now just weird appendixes to the new attractions. Meanwhile, I don't want to deal with Mall Traffic, which is still a thing in these flipped malls, I don't entirely know why.
Most of the rest of the most popular theaters all wound up in the Exurbs, two beltways away from the city's downtown, presumably due to cheaper land, and I don't want to commute that far to regularly watch movies.
tracker1 7 hours ago [-]
Haven't even considered the theater from when I was a kid... I was in a smaller town, and until I was about 13yo, there was a single theater with two screens. I remember waiting about 3 hours in line across two showings to see Return of The Jedi opening weekend. Aside, I also remember when you could get the movie, a small popcorn and a small drink for $5, and not being able to convince my dad to fork over the extra when the theater raised its prices... that's when my friends and I would stop at Walgreens on the way and buy candy there instead of at the theater.
Yeah, mall theaters are just kind of hellish... mostly because of the parking/organization... I know why they're laid out how they are, just really wish they'd switch it up to make the theater easier to access if that's all you want.
WorldMaker 4 hours ago [-]
The new mall one is facing the parking lot like a classic "anchor" department store and doesn't even have a door connecting to the mall, you have to leave the theater to visit the mall. It leaves for me a lot of questions about what the point of having built it attached to the mall was. (Same thing with the Top Golf at the other mall. At least the Putt Shack has a window wall inside that mall. I don't remember if it has a door, though.)
zem 6 hours ago [-]
sadly, covid has killed that :( now i would just be scared sitting in a closed space that crowded.
ubermonkey 6 hours ago [-]
This is appealing for some films, but may not matter for others.
I'm glad I was in a full house for Avengers: Endgame, for example. I don't know how much it mattered, OTOH, for Oppenheimer, or Hail Mary.
hgoel 58 minutes ago [-]
I think whether or not it's worth it really depends on the kind and quality of movie.
When I went to see Project Hail Mary, I enjoyed the full theater, when I went to watch the new Jurassic World movie in an empty theater I was bored out of my mind, on the other hand I've seen many anime movies in empty theaters where I absolutely loved having a quiet theater entirely to myself.
zerocrates 19 hours ago [-]
One of the joys of having Moviepass in that brief period where it was very cheap but still worked was going to random late-night showings of stuff I'd have never otherwise seen, sometimes being the only person there.
Of course you can still do that with the surviving "all you can eat" plans, but they're way more expensive and aren't quite as generous.
echelon 13 hours ago [-]
MoviePass was one of the most absurd ideas for a company ever. I don't know what they were thinking.
Unlimited movies and they ate the entire cost? They didn't arrange any special deals or anything - they just paid the full price of the movie. It was insane.
bombcar 11 hours ago [-]
The idea was they'd bootstrap it by giving you a credit card that could buy one ticket (which is all it was, a weird debit/credit card with a $15-20 authorization limit and a limited number of merchants accepted) - and then get the theaters onboard so that the theaters would be paying for it.
So (in theory) it's a "win win" if they get everyone onboard - the theater gets to sell popcorn, the movie studio gets a buck or two instead of nothing, and movie pass collects the subscription.
However, it needs them all to agree that the $15 ticket for "the empty theater" is really only worth $1 - which would go to the movie studio. That part never happened.
WorldMaker 9 hours ago [-]
AMC was one of the theater chains that did figure it out, but was also smart enough to realize that they didn't need the middle man and had a large enough chain to leverage. AMC A-List still exists. (Up to 4 movies per week at $23-35/month.)
tracker1 8 hours ago [-]
This is the one I was thinking of... I didn't know of a separate "MoviePass" than what AMC and a few other theaters did that was similar.
WorldMaker 7 hours ago [-]
Yeah, "MoviePass" was its own SV startup that tried to be the generic version of this pass and apply to "all" theaters. It burnt through a bunch of VC funds just to fail and it shouldn't have been a huge surprise that big chains like AMC decided to do their own similar passes on their own without a middleman.
RankingMember 11 hours ago [-]
There were also people abusing it to simply earn loyalty rewards at the theaters, e.g. people that lived close enough to theaters just going there, buying tickets, and not even seeing the movie just to pile up rewards points for free food/drink when they did actually go to see movies.
bananamogul 8 hours ago [-]
Actually, there was the kernel of a sound business idea.
The plan was that as you went to movies, you probably also went out to eat at a nearby restaurant, maybe stopped and had a drink, took transit to get there, etc. If they could hoover up all of that location- and merchant-tagged data, they could build a valuable profile for marketing.
Also, they believed that after you subscribed and gorged yourself on tons of movies for a couple months, the novelty would wear off and you'd revert to a more typical couple movies a month.
So if they could break even or make a small profit on the subscription, the data is where all the gold would be.
The problem was that they did not have the technology to gather all this info, not to mention the privacy/regulatory restrictions around essentially tracking your every movement and spend through a phone app.
There were a lot of other sketchy things about the company as well. Wall Street Millennial (a wonderfully entertaining channel) did a video on them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4vmCKIXOyw
9 hours ago [-]
tracker1 8 hours ago [-]
See the site for TFA... most screenings are at least half empty at most theaters and have been for decades. You have 18 screens showing 7-10 movies throughout the day, but most days people are working, or at school... most evenings are mostly empty too.
Not only that, but the bulk of the ticket charge goes to the distributer. Why NOT offer MoviePass screenings with the option to see a couple movies a week... it's the concessions that make you the money.. more butts in seats, more concessions.
Of course, many now have pretty acceptable home theater experiences... though I'd say more have large screens and sub-par audio. That changes the dynamics a lot with streaming options what they are. I don't know what the future of movie theaters is... luxury/dinner theaters are a pretty nice option, but when food costs in general are going through the roof it becomes something you just don't do as much. I mean, how much is a large popcorn and two drinks at this point? Let alone a mid-level pub meal at theater upcharge.
1 movie per day I believe FWIW. I had it briefly as well. But they kept making changes it’s hard to remember exactly what the first iteration was.
tracker1 8 hours ago [-]
I am mostly only familiar with the AMC version of this (A-List) which I had pre-covid, but since there haven't been multiple movies I'd want to see most months at all.
benoau 11 hours ago [-]
They watched Silicon Valley and really liked Slice Line's business model lol...
benoau 11 hours ago [-]
It is luxurious seeing a movie in an empty theater.
2ndorderthought 15 hours ago [-]
People used to buy out theaters to have that privilege on blockbuster opening nights.
dsr_ 11 hours ago [-]
It's usually quite possible. Movie theaters make their money on food and drink, so arranging an extra screening for the cost of 50% of the seats in a given room is nicely profitable.
Depending on the theater's manager, they'll either want someone to guarantee a minimum or to have a single fee paid up front.
There's nothing quite like knowing that everyone in the theater is a friend.
bombcar 11 hours ago [-]
Opening night most if not all of the ticket price goes to the studio anyway, but it's the ticket price not the per-showing price - so if they have a theater empty anyway (and I've not seen a blockbuster fill all theaters at a given multiplex for decades, and even then it was only small 4plex) they might as well make you a deal.
cjkaminski 7 hours ago [-]
The split on ticket price between studio and theater operators is usually around 50% for the opening period. The window scales towards the theater's benefit over time, usually going to about 75% in favor of the operator.
That said, you're 100% right about making an offer. Most theaters have underutilized screening rooms, and managers have the ability to rent for private events. I've done this a few times. The rental rate tends to be about 10-15x the price of a single ticket (in my experience).
vlachen 6 hours ago [-]
I saw IT Chapter II in a completely empty theater, late at night. It was delightfully creepy. However, if I had been an employee there, I think I would have do do something with a red helium balloon to anyone watching that movie alone.
alsetmusic 10 hours ago [-]
I was going to the 10am or 11am screenings for years to avoid crowds and drunks who'd talk or otherwise distract from the show. I have a 4k projector so the only movies since the pan have been the Spiderverse sequel on IMAX, the Avatar sequel (regular screening), and Everything Everywhere All At Once in a small theatre with sofas and pizza and beer.
Either it's big enough to warrant a massive video and sound system (because I have pretty great ones at home already, so it has to be extravagant), or it has to be something I've heard about and want to see so much that we don't really care about the best, we just want to go. Otherwise, why mess around with high prices and rude people?
I hate to say it, but I think most theaters are gonna die.
HerbManic 20 hours ago [-]
The only film I saw in an empty theater was 'The Death of Stalin'. That was kind of odd but a decent film regardless.
tclancy 12 hours ago [-]
Did you arrive late? Could be you actually survived a purge.
nebula8804 19 hours ago [-]
On the one hand Its fun to watch movies alone on a big screen. My area of NJ apparently could care less about movies like Knock Down The House(Biography of AOC and other house candidates), Navalny (Movie about the murdered politician opposing Putin), The Imitation Machine: Movie about Alan Turing or Last Night in Soho (A wonderful Edgar Wright thriller)
On the other hand, I feel sad that no one in my region seems to care enough about these topics. Instead the latest superhero movie is next door packed to the brim and is so loud it rattles the walls to the room playing my quiet documentary with only me sitting inside watching it. :/
jonners00 14 hours ago [-]
This is a bit off topic, but I occasionally used to sleep on the sofa in our first floor office in an old Georgian building in Fitzrovia. One occasion when I did that, I woke up at about 3.30 am with intense red light flooding through all the rear windows and the sound of loads of people chattering in the street out front, which seemed as busy as it normally would be in the daytime. I rushed to the front windows and looked down onto a street full of people, but all in 60s get up. I was still half asleep and panicked by the red light and it was totally disorientating to see a busy street of retro Londoners. I actually felt briefly nauseous but I went to the back windows and shaded my eyes, from the crazy glare from two arrays of red spotlights, which it turned out Edgar Wright was using to bounce light off our building, onto the cobbles below ...and began to understand what was going on. Was a relief to get a full explanation, for what had briefly felt like a weird time leap, when I went downstairs and chatted to the extras hanging around out front. The few seconds of woozy, confusion I spent in 1960s london seemed particularly appropriate when I saw Last Night in Soho a year or so later.
nebula8804 4 hours ago [-]
That is such a wonderful story! Thank you for sharing!
I was able to experience the movie in a very special way. In New York BAM Rose Cinemas was running a special 35mm press of the film one week before its official debut. Edgar Wright did a red eye run debuting the film in London and then getting on a plane to rush to New York where he arrived just in time for the credits. Having him walk down the steps and sitting right in front of me for Q&A was a amazing experience. Its really a shame the movie flopped even with the extra slack it was given due to debuting during COVID. His most recent film did pretty bad as well. I'm bummed as he is my favorite director. :/
rashkov 11 hours ago [-]
it's like a microcosm of the movie itself! super cool
GJim 12 hours ago [-]
> My area of NJ apparently could care less
Surely you mean "couldn't care less"?
bombcar 11 hours ago [-]
People couldn't care less about being careless with could care less.
ssl-3 5 hours ago [-]
I'm people, and I could care less about that word usement.
mikestew 10 hours ago [-]
That, my friend, is a decades-old battle I’ve given up on, even if it literally makes my brain explode.
nebula8804 4 hours ago [-]
Sure, im fine with either and at 3AM I'll write one or the other.
lotsofpulp 16 hours ago [-]
I have seen too many video projects that were supposed to be non fictional either have fictional material or a misleading slant such that I would not consider it a good use of my time.
embedding-shape 15 hours ago [-]
Yeah, kind of defeats the purpose when you have to spend hours double-checking if every "fact" you just got "taught" was actually true or not afterwards...
Forgeties79 13 hours ago [-]
There has to be some latitude given here. They can’t possibly, for instance, know exactly what was said or who interacted with who and when with any reasonable certainty. It’s usually “John met with Ted and I think Sally too, he told them to fuck off because it was a bad idea.” Now make that a scene and stay accurate.
Rarely are these things documented in the moment and human memory is fickle even when we think we recall something accurately. It may seem like I’m taking y’all too literally or being nitpicky but I’m just illustrating one component. These kinds of situations happen across every “fact” of the story, which is almost always a movie based on a written account that came after, often written by someone who wasn’t even involved in the subject matter. Degrees of separation, lack of information, some or all people involved may be dead, etc.
lotsofpulp 12 hours ago [-]
Which is why it should be assumed to all be fiction. Video presents the problem that you are receiving lots of extra data which are fictional, and pretending that you are getting a sufficiently accurate representation when you have no idea how much of the representation is accurate is a detriment.
Take it as entertainment, and nothing more. For example, Remember the Titans, we were shown it in school over and over. There was no racial component in real life. The Blind Side is egregious in its portrayals. Pursuit of Happyness also.
bombcar 10 hours ago [-]
It's inherent to video that you "have to make up data" - if I tell you the barebones of something that happened in real life (we went to a doctor's appointment but discovered it had been scheduled earlier than we thought) - you may supply details that aren't "true" because you have to supply something to flesh it out - but you know you're supplying them!
If instead we make a video that conveys the same information; it has to "make up" details (we have to cast the actors, which will be of a certain age, sex, race, etc; we have to give them lines, etc; and so on) that may colour the implications - and you, as a viewer, have no easy way to determine what is essential and what is accidental.
Forgeties79 10 hours ago [-]
I’m a little confused, I think pretty much all audiences know there is a degree of fiction to any of these works and that you have to take various work with different sized grains of salt.
Are you saying that no movies should be allowed to claim they are trying to tell a true story, and that documentaries aren’t neutral/accurate enough and are therefore invalid? I’m just trying to figure out the scope of your claim and implications here so I get that could be off base.
Might be simpler to ask: What would you consider a good documentary? What would you consider a movie that is based on a true story and does an accurate-enough job? What do consider or use as a metric when deciding these works are good or accurate?
lotsofpulp 9 hours ago [-]
>Are you saying that no movies should be allowed to claim they are trying to tell a true story,
No. Freedom of speech and all that, unless it was a libel/slander thing.
>and that documentaries aren’t neutral/accurate enough and are therefore invalid?
Sufficient documentaries have been sufficiently inaccurate such that it behooves me to consider them all fictional.
>What would you consider a good documentary? What would you consider a movie that is based on a true story and does an accurate-enough job? What do consider or use as a metric when deciding these works are good or accurate?
I don't know off the top of my head, I would have to do research. But that's the point, if I am doing research, I might as well read books/journals/websites/articles with source information.
>I think pretty much all audiences know there is a degree of fiction to any of these works and that you have to take various work with different sized grains of salt.
I don't know about that. For example, Carol Haskins received a large amount of hate and death threats from the way Tiger King was edited. And people like to "know" things, anything that confirms their biases or makes them feel like they are smarter, they are going to latch onto.
I think the rule of thumb should be videos should be assumed to be fictional unless rigorously vetted, or at least that is what serves my purpose for having the most accurate model of the events. The objective is not to educate the viewer, it is to entertain the viewer.
Forgeties79 8 hours ago [-]
You can’t name a single movie that meets your requirements? Not even one documentary that felt more or less “accurate”?
I guess I’ll ask this then: what would a documentary have to do to be considered accurate enough for you that it can be used to educate? I just don’t really know where the lines are for you it all feels rather vague. If we’re demanding objectivity and accuracy, then there needs to be some clear metric(s) otherwise no one can say they are or aren’t.
lotsofpulp 8 hours ago [-]
I guess what I mean is if education is the goal, then a written medium is far better than a video. Real life has too much nuance to be able to accurately re-create, plus the more expensive the production, the more it needs to earn a return incentivizing the entertainment aspect over the education aspect.
Obviously written works do not present more information, but they can provide only the known information (which I guess a documentary composed of the actual recordings and interviews of the events can provide). And obviously written stuff can also be fabricated and blah blah, but assuming all of that, I just presume the fidelity of a video re-creation of an event is less than that of a written one.
One example I just thought of that led me to this assumption of discounting all videos is the way Captain Phillips is portrayed. The recent movie Blackberry is also highly fictional.
I know these aren't documentaries per se, but they all require digging to get to the truth v fiction parts, so why bother digging? If I want to be entertained, I watch the video. If I want to be educated, I look up written sources I think might be credible.
Forgeties79 5 hours ago [-]
I don’t know how one can assume that the written word is somehow more reliable or accurate than a video. What difference does it make if you interview me and show me talking on camera vs. using the stuff you wrote down as text? One could even argue that it’s inferior in that regard, because you remove all tone and body language as well as put someone between me and the person presenting the information. And as you said you are just capable of editing and text as you are with video, so it doesn’t protect you from that sort of manipulation either.
I still don’t understand what the bar is or what you consider necessary for something to be deemed “accurate.” Writing as a medium has all of the same pitfalls that video does and then some. This feels very vibes-based.
What’s an example of a written text that you would say is accurate in a way that a documentary can’t be? Do you consider any media of any kind to be factual or accurate in any way? I’m just not sure how one can go about life considering all forms of media inherently deceptive to the point where nothing can be treated as anything more than mere entertainment.
lotsofpulp 5 hours ago [-]
>What difference does it make if you interview me and show me talking on camera vs. using the stuff you wrote down as text? One could even argue that it’s inferior in that regard, because you remove all tone and body language as well as put someone between me and the person presenting the information.
It isn't, which is why I specified:
>(which I guess a documentary composed of the actual recordings and interviews of the events can provide)
>I still don’t understand what the bar is or what you consider necessary for something to be deemed “accurate.”
The bar is lack of dramatization. I gave multitudes of examples of videos based on various real life happenings, but they don't do a good job representing actual happenings. The "based on" is strictly a marketing term, but no one should be under the impression they are getting any actual data from watching it, hence it is entertainment.
A documentary with various interviews, actual footage, blah blah is of course better, but many documentaries include dramatizations, and are edited to have "twists and turns" in the story to captivate the viewer. A documentary that sticks only to the known facts is probably pretty dry and boring (although I am sure they exist). There are myriad "true" crime documentaries (including podcasts) that leave out key details about the case because including them would make the story boring.
However, I am sure there are far more accurate documentaries, and I have heard this is one of them:
But back to the point, broadly speaking, probability wise, if I sit down and some video media says it is "based on" or it is a "documentary", I would be wise to be skeptical, and I guess that goes for the written word these days too.
Forgeties79 4 hours ago [-]
> A documentary that sticks only to the known facts is probably pretty dry and boring (although I am sure they exist)
My point is that they don’t and can’t, objectivity is a myth. You and I (and everyone) are literally incapable of being truly objective. So the only conclusion i see is you don’t think any media is able to inform or educate. If you do, then you need an actual bar beyond “must be objective.”
“Dramatization” is just one tool some documentaries, not all, lean on and isn’t well defined. Are you talking about dramatic reenactments? Or introducing any drama of any kind? Isn’t drama sometimes just inherent to the subject?
nebula8804 4 hours ago [-]
I can understand this for Nvalny given I think CNN help with the production...but Knock Down the House was an indie producer and just happened to choose AOC as one of four candidates she was covering. When it was filmed I don't think the producer would anticipate her explosive popularity after the election so its hard to concede that it was a puff piece. The premise of the film was the massive wave of females deciding to run for office in 2018 after Trump's win in 2016. There was the collective awakening that despite females making up 50% of the population they in no way had anywhere near the representation that they should have. Due to AOC's popularity the film took on a new meaning as a historical record of her campaign.
If you apply your logic to all political documentaries then you're just going to end up not watching anything.
bell-cot 15 hours ago [-]
That I've seen, the problem is worse than that. A movie merely says it's "based on a true story". If you're a lawyer or literature professor, that "based on" might be correct usage - since 40-ish percent of what the movie told was true. The other 60-ish percent was utter fiction.
Meanwhile, people who saw the movie and found it decently engaging are busy convincing themselves that it was 99% true. And 99% of 'em will never bother to check.
genghisjahn 14 hours ago [-]
There is no data to support your last paragraph. But it is fun to talk about how dumb the “other” people are.
bell-cot 13 hours ago [-]
I coulda added another "That I've seen" disclaimer to my second para. My dataset is just friends & family who I've seen "based on a true story" movies with, where I happened to know the history.
The term to describe my "99%" isn't "dumb". It's "don't care".
bombcar 10 hours ago [-]
It's all variations of Gell-Mann Amnesia. Any portrayal is a betrayal.
Of course, if I'm going to talk about something I know deeply, I'm almost certainly going to begin with "this is all incorrect in the details, but correct in general" or similar.
bell-cot 7 hours ago [-]
> Any portrayal is a betrayal.
For those sufficiently pedantic, true. OTOH, there's a rather wide spectrum in how well (say) Mitchell's Gone With the Wind, Ken Burns's The Civil War, and McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom portray the U.S. Civil War.
nkrisc 12 hours ago [-]
Actually 99% do understand it’s not all factual and do bother to check.
13 hours ago [-]
imzadi 12 hours ago [-]
A few years ago we decided to go see the movie Thanksgiving for my friend's birthday. We were the only ones in the theater (about 8 of us). It was such a blast. We occasionally talk about renting out a theater so we can have the same experience again.
aaron695 14 hours ago [-]
[dead]
kleiba2 19 hours ago [-]
When I lived in Germany, I had an apartment in the vicinity of three tiny arthouse theaters. I used to go there all the time by myself because you could basically walk to all three of them. Saw a lot of movies I would have never seen otherwise, most of which I don't remember at all.
The theaters were never full. So it was basically just like watching a movie in your own living room. Yeah, except maybe for the handful of strangers that were there to watch with you.
menno-sh 18 hours ago [-]
Here in Amsterdam (and the rest of the Netherlands) all the arthouse theaters have joined forces with the Cineville subscription [0], which gives you unlimited access for I think 25 euros a month. I get a subscription for a few months sometimes and you wind up seeing so many cool films
Cineville is just great. It’s available in some Belgian and German cities as well.
It sometimes feels wrong to only pay €25 after watching so many movies. So I make up for it by buying things from the cinemas.
hypendev 16 hours ago [-]
Is this maybe in Hamburg? :)
Back in the heyday, I used to work in a startup devoted to the cinema world, where with one app you could buy tickets for all cinemas - even those that did not "officially" support it.
Among them were arthouse theaters in Hamburg, which I often used for testing, as most of the time reserving a few seats would not matter as they would be empty, at least during the day. Some of them had projections of old movies, and I was like "if I lived there, I'd go every day".
Ironically, now I live between 2 art cinemas in my city and rarely go to any of them :)
malthaus 16 hours ago [-]
yorck unlimited made living in berlin 10x as exciting
but you could always be sure that the old lady loudly crunching on every.single.crisp. was there in the showing as well
jojobas 19 hours ago [-]
Pros: get to watch movies alone.
Cons: have to watch arthouse.
soco 18 hours ago [-]
Arthouse is the only thing worth watching nowadays as the others seem to only rechew the same crud. Change my mind.
no_wizard 12 hours ago [-]
Not everyone is an avant garde movie enthusiast. Some still enjoy the fun and spectacle of action films, superhero films, Star Wars.
I am among them. I make no attempt to say they’re high concept or anything, but I leave feeling good for awhile and that’s enough for me
bombcar 10 hours ago [-]
It's like eating a burger - they're basically all the same, but there are variations. And a burger isn't anything amazing (even if you find a pretentious one, it's still a burger), but it's still nice to go out and get one now and then.
So maybe I want to watch some capeshit today, but I don't want it to be exactly the same as the ones I've watched before. Many people feel this way, and the market provides.
ragazzina 17 hours ago [-]
Cinemas around here have started showing old films and I have rediscovered the joy of going to the movies, whether it's Some Like It Hot or Suicide Club.
4ggr0 15 hours ago [-]
same! in the last couple of years i've seen these movies in a cinema: The Big Lebowski, Fargo, La Heine, Apocalypse Now, HEAT. and i already bought tickets for Run Lola Run, Clerks and Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas.
it's especially cool as someone who's young and wasn't even born when some of these movies initially came to cinemas.
at the same time it's unbelievably sad that in recent years about 70% of the movies i saw at a cinema were multiple decades old.
ragazzina 15 hours ago [-]
I love Lola rennt so much. Really a one-of-a-kind movie.
When you grow up it's not only nostalgia, but the feeling that most of the ideas are really not new. I remember watching 'You Were Never Really Here', that had a huge hype behind it, and thinking "I have seen this same exact movie a hundred of times".
4ggr0 14 hours ago [-]
> I love Lola rennt so much. Really a one-of-a-kind movie.
+1, yes! watched it for the first time a couple of years ago after hearing about it and deciding to ethically download it, since then i've watched it a couple of times and at the start of this year even bought a Blu-Ray Player and a 4k Ultra HD copy* just because I wanted a physical copy to put on a shelf and watch it in an optimal quality. and as mentioned i'll go watch it in a cinema in a couple of months.
i also created a letterboxd account this year to log every movie i've ever seen. what's weird is that i've logged over 400 movies, but if i look at a graph of the years they were realeased in it's almost a perfect bell curve with the top being between 2006 - 2010.
*in these last couple months i started buying used blu-rays and DVDs and now got about 70 movies. guess this is my form of nostalgia. others got vynils, i got movies. physical media just feels different than downloaded movies. cover art, bonus material, DVD menues with soundtracks. love it...
funimpoded 13 hours ago [-]
> at the same time it's unbelievably sad that in recent years about 70% of the movies i saw at a cinema were multiple decades old.
There are literally thousands of good movies released between ~1890 and last year.
It’s improbable more than a hundred or so will come out this year that’re worth your time, and they’ll be harder to sort from the junk this close to release.
If anything, it’s amazing new movies have as large an audience as they do.
4ggr0 13 hours ago [-]
good point i guess, time allows for the good stuff to be remembered and stay relevant.
kind of how some movies like The Big Lebowski were considered flops but nowadays are cherished cult classics.
bombcar 10 hours ago [-]
MST3K is definitive proof that "not all the old movies were good" - there were some stinkers, and they only picked out the ones that were "so bad they're good" - there's much worse.
Most movies are decently budgeted and so at least meet some minimum bar for quality - so cult classics can arise time and time again. There are movies in theaters right now that will be the cult classics of the 2050s.
zarzavat 18 hours ago [-]
This is the issue I have with the big screen, there's just nothing I want to watch.
Meanwhile if I watch at home then there's half a century of classics that I haven't gotten around to watching yet.
hawkice 17 hours ago [-]
Cud, I think, is the thing that gets rechewed.
drcongo 16 hours ago [-]
I've seen Marvel movies and I think "crud" was the better word choice.
caymanjim 21 hours ago [-]
Do enough people buy tickets in advance now that this really indicates anything of value? I'm old and have never pre-purchased a movie ticket in my life. I assume a lot of people do, but the few times I've been to the movies lately, it seems people are buying tickets at the theater.
kelnos 19 hours ago [-]
I'm "old" (mid-40s) and cannot remember the last time I didn't pre-purchase a movie ticket. The movie theater I go to the most (Alamo Drafthouse in San Francisco) rarely has anyone in line at the box office when I walk through there. That box office is usually only staffed by one person, which should tell us something about how many people need in-person service.
m463 20 hours ago [-]
I'm finding that more and more, when I impulsively go to the theater and try to buy tickets at the door... I always find the only tickets available are horrible, like in the front row to the side. You want like F-6 and F-7 and get A-2 and B-2.
And if I even accept this, the people in the choice seats invariably show up right when all the trailers are wrapping up.
so - people buy tickets ahead of time, and it might be the only way to watch it from a reasonable seat.
This probably doesn't apply to off-hours like tuesday afternoon or whatever.
sbrother 20 hours ago [-]
wait... I don't think I've ever experienced assigned seats in a movie theatre. Is that a thing?
linsomniac 20 hours ago [-]
Yes, it's been a thing for at least a decade, I imagine it helps with pre-sales online, though it may just be offered as a convenience. It really does help keep the movie from unexpectedly being a lousy experience; if you're stuck in a crappy seat, or your family can't sit together, it's because you picked those seats. As someone else mentioned, it also allows them to bring you dinner and provide that upsell as well.
Even our small independent theater in town has reserved seats, some of which are couches.
sbrother 10 hours ago [-]
That actually sounds... really nice. Like they've borrowed some of the things from traditional theatre that make the experience not awful.
My reference point for movie theatres is the late 90s/early 2000s so maybe I'll have to give them another try.
bombcar 10 hours ago [-]
The oldest theaters might still be the way they always were, but most have gone to offering direct ticketing (to cut Fandango and friends out) and they need something to offer you to make you buy ahead - being able to select the seat is the carrot.
LordDragonfang 19 hours ago [-]
> it's been a thing for at least a decade
Maybe in fancy theaters, but in most places it started during covid (and just never stopped)
bsimpson 6 hours ago [-]
When I was in college in the 00s, there was a Hollywood theater that was renowned for having assigned seats and charging close to $20 per ticket.
Neither of those is remarkable now, but they were both unheard-of then.
Lindby 20 hours ago [-]
I've never been to a theater without assigned seats. Maybe it's a regional difference?
Jailbird 14 hours ago [-]
Adding on and being specific: AMC in the GSP mall in Paramus, NJ. Assigned seating for sure.
voidfunc 20 hours ago [-]
Regional where...? Never seen this in the Northeast.
jb1991 20 hours ago [-]
Outside North America just about every country I’ve ever lived in or visited had assigned movie ticket seats.
pjmlp 17 hours ago [-]
As European, I can tell that it depends on the kind of cinema, and country.
My experience, being discussed in another thread, is that only big commercial multiplex do it, many small cinemas with more alternative content, usually don't do assigned seats, only ticket reservations.
nottorp 19 hours ago [-]
And in some places there are so few movie theaters that, at least on weekends, you have to buy days in advance or you might as well stay home.
disillusioned 20 hours ago [-]
It's shifted a lot in the past few years: AMC has assigned seating in most (all?) theaters, for instance. Our regional theater, Harkins, same.
Personally, I like being able to select the exact seats and pre-order popcorn and soda and just have it show up to me right as the trailers end.
k4rli 20 hours ago [-]
I'm also in the northeast (Europe). It is quite normal to have assigned seats.
ravenstine 20 hours ago [-]
When I grew up in LA 20+ years ago, seating was way more casual. Now everywhere seems to want assigned seating. I think this is in part because so many theater chains now offer a "premium" dining experience. It's yet another reason I rarely go to theaters anymore, on top of most of the film offerings being crap.
jb1991 20 hours ago [-]
It’s the only way I’ve ever seen movie tickets sold outside of North America anywhere.
vasco 20 hours ago [-]
You can find both kinds, in europe especially the cut is very clear, commercial cinemas ALWAYS have assigned sitting. The kind you see at malls and have the Hollywood rotation of marvel shit movies.
Then you have smaller cinemas with indie movies, european movie festival rotation, etc, and many of those in at least 4 or 5 countries in Europe I can confirm do NOT have assigned sitting.
tdeck 20 hours ago [-]
I feel like the newer (e.g. post 2010s) theaters with more "premium" comfortable seats tend to assign seats these days. Probably differs by chain.
20 hours ago [-]
duped 10 hours ago [-]
I live in a major metro area, basically every theater has assigned seats now.
IncreasePosts 20 hours ago [-]
Yes for higher end theaters like imax and the kind where everyone had a recliner chair
jb1991 20 hours ago [-]
Or just about any movie theater of any kind outside of North America.
ButlerianJihad 19 hours ago [-]
If you go up to the box office and ask for "Alt-F4" they will act surprised and confused, but just tell them to type it into their computer
dewey 21 hours ago [-]
I don’t remember the last time I bought a ticket at the cinema. I like picking my own seats online.
pjmlp 20 hours ago [-]
In most European countries you only get reserved seats at big multiplex cinemas, stuff like Cinestar, NOS and so on.
On the European Cinema network [0], reserved seats is a long gone concept.
So not always a given that seats can be reserved online for cinema, depends on ones location.
Here in Oslo, Norway I only know of the local cinematheque which doesn't do reserved seats. All commercial theaters have reserved seats, even for the small screens with just a dozen or so seats. Been so as long as I can remember, so several decades.
So yea, location dependent.
sixhobbits 20 hours ago [-]
I've been to several European Network cinemas and always gotten reserved seats
arrrg 17 hours ago [-]
Dresden is truly blessed with cinemas and has four European Network cinemas. Three of those have assigned seating, though none do price discrimination based on where you sit. Culturally the assigned seating isn’t taken very seriously in those four cinemas, though, to the point where staff in one cinema sometimes tells visitors that they can sit somewhere else if they want to. In practice we still try to get seats where we want to sit and stick to them (front/middle, away from other people), though if people come in and sit right behind us we might change rows.
With new ticketing systems and online booking being introduced I think there has been a shift towards assigned seating. I remember the first time I was in a Dresden European Network cinema (Schauburg in 2015, that’s the oldest cinema in Dresden, 1927) and there either being no assigned seating or a seat printed on the ticket that no one cared about. We also weren’t asked where we wanted to sit. That has changed with a new ticketing system and now we are always asked about where we want to sit.
I think these ticketing systems come with assigned seating and that’s also a factor in assigned seating being introduced.
Notably, the one cinema that doesn’t have assigned seating also doesn’t offer online booking or reservations at all.
The four big multiplex cinemas in the city have assigned seating and do price discrimination based on where you sit – so it’s taken somewhat more seriously there.
So, yeah, my guess would be that the role online ticketing and the respective software/service/devices those cinemas use for that do all play a role in what role assigned seating plays and those can also trigger a cultural shift from sit where you want to assigned seating. (I have vivid childhood memories of my hometown long before online booking with price discrimination sections but no assigned seating in cinemas.)
pjmlp 20 hours ago [-]
I can assert that none of those I usually go have reserved seats, what they do have is reserved tickets.
I guess it depends then.
dewey 20 hours ago [-]
That's not true, I frequently reserve seats at the "Yorck" cinema chain in Berlin which is part of Europa Cinemas and has seat reservation.
delusional 20 hours ago [-]
I don't recall having been to any cinema in denmark ever that did not do assigned seats. They won't check if nobody complains, but is is printed on the ticket.
kuboble 20 hours ago [-]
In Switzerland it's a mix. The theater we use most frequently doesn't have assigned seats.
hombre_fatal 20 hours ago [-]
Yeah, whether I go hinges on the seats available.
JoshGlazebrook 20 hours ago [-]
Do people really just show up and hope for the best anymore?
The "box office" is not even really a thing anymore at most theaters. And the single person you talk to inside that is the "box office" just uses the same system you can reserve seats yourself on your own time?
Pretty much every theater is reserved seating these days. Why would I risk showing up last minute on a whim and end up in a horrible seat near the front of the screen?
myself248 9 hours ago [-]
This is surreal. I've never pre-purchased a movie ticket in my life. I show up, buy a ticket and a box of Milk Duds, wander down the dark hall, find a seat, turn off my phone, and the lights go dark.
Exactly the same as it's always been, and it works beautifully. I can't imagine a reason to mess with it.
robinsonb5 18 hours ago [-]
In the small town where I live we have a small cinema with three screens. They always start the movie at the advertised time - no adverts, just a few trailers in the preceding 10 minutes. You can book online, but I usually just walk in and buy a ticket at the desk. The seats aren't assigned, so you can pick whichever you like.
Occasionally I have a "private screening" where I'm the only one in the auditorium. The most recent example was "The Mummy". I hadn't fully thought throught the implications of watching a horror movie alone in the middle of a darkened 65-seat auditorium!
There's another town a few miles away where a similar cinema has both assigned seating and 20 minutes of adverts before the movie.
MattGaiser 20 hours ago [-]
Mostly because unless it is a really desirable movie, hoping for the best has an expected outcome close to the best.I am a planner in most things, but for movies, it often simply does not matter.
linsomniac 19 hours ago [-]
Curious... Unless it's a really desirable movie, I typically won't go to the theater to see it. ;-)
stingraycharles 20 hours ago [-]
> I'm old and have never pre-purchased a movie ticket in my life.
I’m old and have always pre-purchased tickets, even in the 90s, as that’s the way to get better seats.
WillPostForFood 20 hours ago [-]
You sure about the 90s? Not saying it was impossible, but must have been extremely rare. Arclight was one of the first theaters to do assigned seats in 2002. AMC only started trialing in 2008, but didn't start rolling it out until 2016 in NYC.
magicalhippo 19 hours ago [-]
In the US perhaps. Seat reservation has been the norm here in Norway since at least the 80s.
stingraycharles 19 hours ago [-]
Totally possible, was through a central phone number in The Netherlands called "BelBios" ("CallCinema"). You were guided through the different movies and showtimes, pressed the numbers, and got a booking code. You then went to the cinema, provided your booking code and paid.
sschueller 18 hours ago [-]
Last time I was in a US theater the tickets where not numbered and you could sit anywhere. There was no point in pre purchasing a ticket because if you wanted a good seat you needed to show up early either way.
In Switzerland the seats have always been numbered and even if the cinema is empty people wouldn't dare move into another seat. People do show up right before the film starts and try to avoid the ads. Some also hang in the lobby until the film actually starts.
pjmlp 17 hours ago [-]
My experience in Geneva and Lausanne was certainly a bit more flexible regarding moving around the seats, unless this changed in the last 20 years.
sschueller 10 hours ago [-]
I guess I should have been more specific. I was talking about Zürich.
SwellJoe 21 hours ago [-]
I'm the same way, as I'm terrible at scheduling and often don't arrive on time for things I book in advance. So, I'll tend to show up at the theater and see whatever looks good that's coming up soon. But, I get the impression a lot of people do buy in advance these days.
But, I love the idea of a theater almost entirely to myself.
redwall_hp 11 hours ago [-]
I never do it in person. Alamo Season Pass -> select the reserved seats -> go sit down when you get to the theater. You have to reserve tickets for classic films or big releases because they often sell out, anyway.
fg137 13 hours ago [-]
For theaters with reserved seats, if you don't buy early, you only end up with the worst seat.
That said, for "general admission" theaters, if you want to get good seats, you'd have to show up early and waste time watching all those trailers.
lisp2240 20 hours ago [-]
I assume everyone is using something like MoviePass because it’s way cheaper than paying full price. And they don’t allow you to pre-purchase tickets.
pjmlp 20 hours ago [-]
Same here, gen-x, in what concerns cinema, sometimes I do reserve if it is in high demand, but that is about it.
dnnddidiej 16 hours ago [-]
A mix. Prebuying is useful for your Barbie or Oppenheimer. Also good idea for kids birthday parties.
JoshTriplett 20 hours ago [-]
I exclusively buy tickets online, and whatever seats show up as empty online are empty when we show up.
vidarh 20 hours ago [-]
Yeah, unless it's just me, and on a whim, which doesn't happen often, I'd always reserve online.
yieldcrv 20 hours ago [-]
I haven’t bought a seat at the theater in over a decade
And the online process shows you which seats are already filled and I base my decision on that when there is assigned seating. One thing peculiar is that the theatres are not often as filled as the seat map shows, makes me think that an even newer generation of the movie ticket subscribers (AMC A-List) are reserving seats and changing plans
BikiniPrince 20 hours ago [-]
Quite a bit in the early showing for good movies. Project Heil Mary has continued to sell all the good seats out and I’m bad at planning ahead for entertainment. It usually isn’t obvious because most of the movies have been atrocious in the last several years.
dec0dedab0de 11 hours ago [-]
This is not just an awesome concept, but blazingly fast. Well done! I would love to see an article about the tech stack.
pchristensen 10 hours ago [-]
The Fandango app has an option to check the seats at all the showings at a theater, so I assume AMC has something like that. There are ~600 AMC theaters in the US. Throw in some caching and you can maintain a fast, fairly fresh copy of their seating numbers. Clever!
dec0dedab0de 9 hours ago [-]
Yeah, I assumed something similar. Still, it is refreshing to see a website work so well.
wodenokoto 20 hours ago [-]
I remember I went to a small showing once as a kid. It was just our group and 1 lady in the theater.
We got to small talk and the lady mentioned she had once been the only customer for a showing and told the projectionist that she didn’t want to be a bother and could come back and another day.
The projectionist had apparently replied that it was no bother - they would roll the movie even if no one showed up!
compounding_it 20 hours ago [-]
Im assuming (though rare) it’s the same with flights. They keep the schedule for movies in case someone joins half hour late. Plenty of people visit my the cinema for all kinds of reasons other than the content (like sleeping in the AC among other things that come to your mind). Keeping the movie going rather than waiting for someone to show up and make it awkward would probably be better for customer service too.
qq66 20 hours ago [-]
Well it's very different for flights, they need the plane at the destination so they have to fly it. With movies it's probably just simpler to start the movie than to try to manage the logistics of not starting it, just to save 2 hours on the projection bulb.
c0_0p_ 20 hours ago [-]
These days that's probably true, but when a projectionist needed to roll the film and babysit the equipment I doubt it would be worthwhile.
Not to mention that film rolls do wear out overtime.
fho 18 hours ago [-]
One of my student jobs was to transport film spools to theaters. They would arrive at my door in a box, I would walk them to the cinema on a small trolley and spend 2-3 hours in the projection rooms. The reels were spliced on site by a technician, projected, cut again and I transported them back home where they would be picked up again.
The job was less to transport the spools, but to supervise that there was no copying happening.
This was late 200x-ish, before digital protection became widespread iirc.
dnnddidiej 16 hours ago [-]
Wow. Was there any premier viewings on the spools you moved?
thrownthatway 18 hours ago [-]
> different for flights
Maybe. Depends.
I’m sure I’ve heard of the low cost carriers cancelling flights that are under-sold at the last minute.
Would make sense if the destination has fewer tickets sold from there.
jmalicki 18 hours ago [-]
During COVID a lot of empty flights flew because otherwise the airline could lose the gate slots.
technothrasher 16 hours ago [-]
I once flew on a flight from ORD to ROC where I was the only passenger. It was very, very weird to be in a big empty cabin all by myself. The flight attendant just came and did the safety briefing sitting next to me. I asked her why they didn't just cancel the flight, and she said the plane had to be in ROC for the next morning anyway. This was in the 1990s though. I've never encountered anything like that since.
PaulHoule 14 hours ago [-]
It is still like that. The airline’s operations all depend on the flight crew being in the right place at the end of the flight, which is a higher priority than getting a passenger there.
I had a similar experience. Christmas Day from CRW to CLT. Just me and the stewardesses.
They tried to sit near me and be friendly, but I was too depressed to engage. Missed opportunity.
bombcar 10 hours ago [-]
[dead]
danillonunes 20 hours ago [-]
This makes sense if someone bought a ticket and didn't showed up, but what if none was sold? They could just stop selling after a certain time and be sure nobody will be there late.
kombookcha 19 hours ago [-]
When I worked at a small cinema we would set up the movie to run regardless, because sometimes you would get late-showers buying tickets at the front desk and it's much more trouble to have to speed-start a movie for the projectionist than to be able to do it at the regular schedule. If you start it too late without manually remembering to forward past ads and trailers, you can also risk spilling into the next timeslot causing a pileup of delays. It's far simpler to just start the movie for an empty hall, and let customers join after it's started if they want to.
I'm unsure exactly how the deals with local businesses running ads before the movies are set up, but I could imagine that you're supposed to be running the ads an agreed upon number of times, regardless of ticket sales.
Sometimes in the daytime we would get retirees who would watch a movie and basically loiter around, and occasionally ask if they could catch the end of a different movie running in an empty hall. You'd sometimes let a regular crash an empty screening like this if they bought an extra snack or coffee for it or something.
nebula8804 20 hours ago [-]
Studio contracts: The movies are delivered digitally on encrypted hard disks and when playing there is a ton of telemetry sent back to the studios. They are watching the theaters like its 1984. Studios have contracts indicating the play will play X times no more and probably no less(else studios might hold back the good movies). AMC keeps it simple. Play the movie even if no one shows up. AMC in particular uses laser projectors now so who cares. They ain't burning out any projector bulb.
yoz-y 20 hours ago [-]
When I was a kid I wanted to go see The Avengers (the o.g. one, from 1998).
I had to go to the cinema 3 times, because they would not do a projection for less than 5 people.
patwolf 8 hours ago [-]
I unfortunately saw it in the theater too. It doesn't surprise me that so few showed up to see it.
yoz-y 5 hours ago [-]
I was young. My experience of it is much more positive than any other Avengers movie since :)
bdcravens 10 hours ago [-]
Film projectors (at least when I did the job in the mid-90s) can't rewind or fast forward, so if for any reason someone buys a late ticket and walks in, the movie has to be running already in order to be on time for the next showing.
bigstrat2003 19 hours ago [-]
That must vary by theater, or perhaps practices change from time to time. My brother worked at a movie theater in high school (20 years ago), and the theater he worked would not play movies if nobody had bought a ticket. He told me they would occasionally catch people trying to sneak free movies that way - the projectionist would notice someone in the theater for a time which was going to be canceled, call the box office to confirm if they had sold a ticket, and if not they would get a manager to escort the person out.
globular-toast 15 hours ago [-]
Nowadays there are no projectionists in most cinemas. It would actually be more effort for them to not play the film than just let it play on schedule.
vlovich123 17 hours ago [-]
To me this suggests that theater’s are at least partially incorrectly pricing things which explains why they are struggling.
Frieren 15 hours ago [-]
> To me this suggests that theater’s are at least partially incorrectly pricing things which explains why they are struggling.
Theaters are struggling because they need the working class to attend, and the working class has no money. This is true for any non-essential business that depends on 90% of the people.
To find new ways of extract money may help a little, but in the end the basic economics do not add up.
jonners00 13 hours ago [-]
A couple of years ago Odeon turned our nearest theatre into a 'luxe' theatre (adult tickets £20), and the next nearest theatre was left as it was, but all tickets £5 each (tickets at both theatres where about £14 previously). I think it was an experiment to see which model was most economic: major investment in tech and comfort/£100+ for a family of four to watch a film with snacks and beverages/fewer tickets sold as a result OR minimal capex/far more affordable to attend/loads more tickets sold. The £5 tickets for all showings have stopped, but you can still get them a lot of the time (they have surge pricing for blockbuster releases,and some upgraded premium seating now). I think they've found a way to be affordable to the masses and fill seats, but still extract max revenue from better off families, by having half their theatres follow one model and half follow the other.
vlovich123 11 hours ago [-]
For all tickets is similarly insane. It needs to be demand driven - sold out show? Prices too low. Can’t get butts in seats? prices too high.
You want prices set such that it’s almost but not quite at capacity. This gives you slack to accept stragglers while optimizing your profit on the price demand curve.
bombcar 10 hours ago [-]
The problem is that if you take this too far, nobody knows what it costs to go to the movies, so everyone will just stick the "high cost" in their mind, and not go.
This is why they always gravitate to "$5 before noon/4pm" or "$5 Tuesdays" or similar things that are easy to remember.
I'm waiting for them to have the best seats in the house be the large armchairs for $20, and the rest of the shitseats be normal stadium seating for $5.
zem 6 hours ago [-]
that is psychologically a really bad customer experience; no one wants to feel like they are being "value extracted" to the greatest extent the company can get away with. airlines do this sort of continuously varying pricing and people hate it, but they don't have much choice in the matter. if that sort of negative perception gets attached to going to the movies the public simply won't.
BloondAndDoom 12 hours ago [-]
This might be and not an objective data, 2 more things seem relevant :
1. New releases get on stream within weeks to couple of months.
2. Lots of new movies are supposed to be a TV movie and not a theater release (subjective)
I go to the movies way more than needed and I stopped blindly going to the movies and started to check reviews before because so many movies were really bad which is something I very rarely have experienced in the past (even when I had unlimited passes and seeing more than 1 movies per week)
zem 6 hours ago [-]
I've heard anecdotally that cellphones had a measurable impact on opening weekend ticket sales, because people who saw an early showing and thought it sucked would text their friends and warn them not to bother. previously movies could at least rely on a couple of days before the bad reviews spread.
vlovich123 11 hours ago [-]
That may be, but people are still paying to go to theaters. Prices are simultaneously too low off peak and too high during peak. This used to be ok when it averaged out but the marketplace has a lot less slack due to baby reasons including the ones you mentioned
cm2012 11 hours ago [-]
At least in America the working class has the highest inflation adjusted income in history. The bottom quartile of incomes went up 30% in the last 5 years. Its one reason why services have gotten more expensive
osiris970 13 hours ago [-]
Theater attendance is down every year since 2001(I believe) the "working class" has much more disposable income than back then adjusted for inflation. Movies are hilariously cheap, people just prefer streaming and TikTok. It's sad but i have accepted this fate.
Aboutplants 13 hours ago [-]
I gotta dig up an old college economics paper I wrote on movie theatre ticket pricing. Movies are priced wrong but that’s complicated by the way the major studios want things run. It’s a whole mess
macintux 14 hours ago [-]
I was the only person in the theater when I saw Phenomenon, 30 years ago. I’m sure the movie business isn’t a healthy ecosystem right now, but the existence of empty showings isn’t new.
bombcar 10 hours ago [-]
You don't even have to pay for a projectionist anymore, so you might as well digitally project to an empty theater than risk missing out on a ticket sale.
I wonder if they even bother turning the projector on if they sold no tickets? How much energy does the bulb use compared to ticket price?
rebeccaskinner 11 hours ago [-]
I don’t think pricing is the only problem with theaters. Especially over the last 15 years or so they’ve been increasingly competing with alternative ways of watching movies, and for a lot of people watching at home wins at any price.
Fancier theaters like the Alamo draft house seem to be trying to complete with watching at home in some ways, but for the most part theaters seem to just be doubling down on the parts if the experience that were already decisive- namely getting louder and adding bigger screens. That might tempt the people who already like what theaters have to offer into going slightly more often, but I think it’s made even more people stop going at all.
ap99 16 hours ago [-]
But aren't they pricing based on how much it costs to show the film?
Which in turn is how much the studios and distributors pay to make/market the film?
Which is in turn driven by costs...
Which are basically large bets on if a piece of art will have mass appeal.
specproc 14 hours ago [-]
I used to work at a VUE, my flatmate was a manager. I always complained about the awful, awful films we showed with no one watching them. Surely it'd be better to show some classics that would sell?
Apparently the deal back then was that theatres had to buy films in packages. If you wanted the latest blockbuster, you had to buy a bunch of terrible dross, and commit to showing it X times.
It makes no sense from a classical economics perspective to keep the theater empty. Even if no one is buying at the break-even price, it can make sense to sell below cost just to recoup some of the investment - and adjust the investment in the future, of course.
Now, in reality there are second-hand effects, of course - like people getting adjusted to the below-cost ticket prices and being even less incentivized to buy at the normal price.
Lerc 15 hours ago [-]
I guess it depends on who gets paid for the movie being shown, and who gets paid when a ticket is sold.
If it is free to show the movie then there is no penalty to running extra sessions. If it isn't free, someone is being paid. If that is a different someone to where ticket money goes they care more about sessions than viewings.
chrisss395 13 hours ago [-]
Seems the same as a hotel - empty rooms benefit no one.
philovivero 12 hours ago [-]
I don't know about theatres, but I do know about hotel rooms.
If you lower the price too much, you get a different sort of clientele. The sort of person who wrecks the place and annoys all the other patrons nearby.
Then the cleanup costs a lot. Often more than the amount of revenue collected on the room.
It absolutely makes more sense to keep the hotel room empty than to lower the price to keep it fully occupied.
gblargg 15 hours ago [-]
They should price to get the most profit (or least loss). If people would buy tickets regardless of price, they could set them at $1 million each.
14 hours ago [-]
dec0dedab0de 10 hours ago [-]
They are also showing movies people don't want to see because they have contracts with the studios who are doing nonsense with the numbers to move money around on their books.
Madame web was a great example, it was in theaters for months, and being heavily advertised, and no one was going. At the time I thought it was Sony trying to ruin Marvel's reputation, but it makes more sense that they needed a loss on the books, and most of the money they spent went to companies they had a piece of.
Meanwhile, you have movies that are in and out in a single weekend that go on to become cult classics because they never had a chance.
osiris970 13 hours ago [-]
Movie theaters are insanely cheap. People just prefer to sit at home and scroll on their phones.
Amc a list is 20$, that's 16 movies a month. Cheaper than 4k Netflix. Amc is already bleeding money. Sadly consumer choices just changed to second screen bullshit
cbeach 14 hours ago [-]
I think Hollywood has been churning out derivative content for a while, and catering for "modern audiences" (as opposed to the silent majority) too much.
One or two exceptions - Project Hail Mary, for example.
But the decline of Marvel, Star Trek and Star Wars franchises has been stark.
* massive TVs are cheap now
* people behave disrespectfully in cinemas
* cinema tickets are now unaffordable for the low end of the market
* the experience hasn't modernised and become luxy enough to retain the high end of the market
* streaming services have high budgets now
osiris970 13 hours ago [-]
"cinema tickets are unaffordable" they are actually cheaper than before. Amc charges you like 7$ on Tuesday it's basically free
DaSHacka 13 hours ago [-]
Never expected to see the Critical Drinker mentioned on HN. I find myself agreeing with the majority of points he brings up in his videos, but I suspect the majority on HN would disagree with him.
I'll be curious to see if others chime in.
This was my first thought upon seeing the OP as well. I haven't been to a theater in years, and part of the problem is I don't know what I'd go there to watch.
I've been pretty explicitly told that Hollywood does not want to sell to me or my demographic by this point, and it's also pretty evident in the media that is being produced.
And the media I do consume, I don't really feel a need to see in theaters.
I feel bad, because I have many fond memories of going to the theater as a kid with my parents. With the way things are going, they may be long gone before I ever get a chance to replicate that experience for a family of my own.
philovivero 12 hours ago [-]
Yeah. HN is a bubble. Hollywood has an axe to grind, and it's not a good one, but HN ideology is in-line with Hollywood ideology.
cbeach 12 hours ago [-]
> Never expected to see the Critical Drinker mentioned on HN. I find myself agreeing with the majority of points he brings up in his videos, but I suspect the majority on HN would disagree with him.
Sadly you're right. At times like this I wish Silicon Valley was in Texas or Florida rather than one of the most leftwing / collectivist states in America.
BrannonKing 13 hours ago [-]
AMC should start showing Chinese and Korean dramas. That would help them a lot. I'm sure that they could work a deal with those studios that would let AMC set the ticket price. There hasn't been an American-made movie since Lord of the Rings that has compelled me to go see it in the theater. The movie studios seem to be pushing more extremes on immorality, violence, gore, etc, being completely disconnected from the average American's values. And then Disney and others make musicals with actors that can't sing -- mind-boggling. Hence, my wife and I watch Chinese dramas instead, a few episodes per week being my complete TV/Movie intake. They're paced better, develop characters, include a few kung fu moves, have nice visuals, aren't afraid of religious topics, etc.
Rebelgecko 4 hours ago [-]
AMC by me shows a surprisingly high number of Indian movies relative to the demographics. I wonder if they have some distribution deal to encourage that... I imagine they would do better with K-dramas.
dgacmu 12 hours ago [-]
I go to the theater rarely, but recently watched Project Hail Mary in-theater and quite recommend it. There _have_ been some great films made in the last while, among a sea of derivatives.
(E.g., you may find the new Dune films too violent, but they were great. And the moral is not very subtle in them. :)
12 hours ago [-]
fg137 13 hours ago [-]
Makes me wonder -- does it make any economic sense for a theater to have screenings before 2pm on a Tuesday? I get that some people can afford the leisure, but I'm almost certain the theater loses money on that
Tangurena2 13 hours ago [-]
For the first few weeks of a film's release, all of the ticket sales goes to the studio. Pretty much the only revenue for the theatre is popcorn, candy and soda.
Since most theatres have gone full digital, the "projector" won't show the film if there have been no tickets sold. That eliminated the game of buying one ticket and then sneaking in to see a few more movies.
doctorhandshake 11 hours ago [-]
Why do you have projector in scare quotes? And what makes you think they don't screen the movie? Exhibitors have a contractual obligation to show movies a certain number of times a week, and the media players that run them show receipts to the studios ... it would be surprising if they didn't actually do that simply because nobody bought a ticket.
bdcravens 10 hours ago [-]
Probably just showing that it's not a film projector, but in actuality, it is still a projector. It may be assumed that digital movies are shown on a giant display, but that's cost prohibitive at that size; it's still a blank screen with light projected onto it.
izzydata 11 hours ago [-]
How much extra does it cost to show an extra movie that nobody shows up to? It seems like the majority of the cost is rent of the building and salary. If employees are already working to operate the few movies that are expected to have people and the building is already being paid for then they may as well use up all their theaters just in case since the extra cost would be low.
bombcar 10 hours ago [-]
Especially since you may have someone walk-up and willing to buy-in to the movie even though it started ten minutes ago, so I think I've answered my question above - they just show everything no matter what the sales look like.
cryptozeus 19 hours ago [-]
May be I am in minority but I would hate to be alone in entire theater. I enjoy some vibe and people around
jader201 18 hours ago [-]
There are times I would agree with you, and times I wouldn't.
If the theater is full of people talking during the movie or lighting the place up while they’re on their phone (in either case ignoring the movie), then I’d rather be alone.
It seems like more times than not, this is the case.
flomo 19 hours ago [-]
In a previous life, I would go to a lot of art movies, often matinees or monday or etc. Sometimes there was one guy who was working the box-office, the snackbar, and the projection. I was glad he had a job.
badgersnake 19 hours ago [-]
Are you American? US cinema culture seems very different to the UK (the only other place I’ve been). In the US it seems much more the norm to react to the film, in the UK generally folks sit in silence.
falsemyrmidon 19 hours ago [-]
[dead]
MrBuddyCasino 19 hours ago [-]
Yes this is what people get wrong about "home theater". Its not just the tech, its the experience of watching something with others, amplifying the emotions.
bitwize 19 hours ago [-]
Man, seeing The Avengers (2012) in a PACKED theater full of excited Marvel fans was something else. The deafening roar completely drowned out the Hulk's line "puny god".
protocolture 19 hours ago [-]
I used to frequent the brisbane regent cinema precisely because it was reliably empty. The franchise kept it running because having a really nice prestige theatre was good for their brand, but compared to their other sites it was revenue neutral at best.
dkenyser 9 hours ago [-]
Interestingly some zip codes just don't seem to work, but this appears to be an issue on AMC's side as I tested the same zip codes on their "find a theater" page and got the same results.
Very cool idea nonetheless.
nebula8804 20 hours ago [-]
I have been quite a heavy patron of AMC theaters these past few years since COVID ended. I have seen A LOT of movies play to empty theaters. I used to actually peek at many of the rooms when I left my movie and so many were downright empty.
Its the norm and its probably why their stock is trading at $1.45 as of this writing.
Its a dead (not dying, dead) entertainment option. When you are competing for the same 24 hrs in a day with TV, Youtube, Gaming, Streaming, TikTok, Instagram and many others the theater is bottom of the barrel for young people today.
And don't tell me its because people are disrespectful or the commercials are too long. These are a problem but Alamo Drafthouse tried to tackle this and they ended up in bankruptcy. AMC would also be bankrupt today but it's saving grace was the meme stock frenzy they had a few years back. Probably bought them a few more years but that ride might be coming to an end.
Currently they fill the rooms for the pop movies like old established franchises but that only comes along every couple weeks at the most and the rest of the time the place is not really busy. This is a bit different in the big cities but AMC has overextended themselves with too many locations in the rural and suburban US.
...Also this app is not displaying accurate data (I assume they are pulling from AMC's API). My local theater is listing no results and I cross checked and there are movies currently listed that have 0 seats booked so the app is counting incorrectly for at least one theater.
EDIT: After I wrote this, the site auto updated with new data. Now I see some screenings but it is still inaccurate because it is still missing movies from that theater...maybe they are scraping instead of using the API? This is a simple problem if using the API (I wrote my own home cooked app): just iterate through all theater ids, find the ones with 0 bookings and display that list.
snailmailman 19 hours ago [-]
I want to enjoy the movie theater experience. It should be a better screen than the one in my home. It should be a better audio setup, with full surround sound. It should be great, a premium experience.
The last few movies I’ve seen in theaters have not been that. Two of the last 3 movies I’ve seen had audio mixing problems, and dialogue was inaudible in some scenes. (I heard this got fixed later for one of the movies) In all of them, I could hear bass from the adjacent theaters in some scenes. In the last two movies I went to see, both had someone in the audience bring an intermittently crying baby to the movie.
Im done with watching movies in theaters. It’s a better experience to watch at home, with headphones, a blanket, and the ability to pause for bathroom breaks.
nebula8804 19 hours ago [-]
Sounds like you should be visiting Alamo Drafthouse. They take these things extremely seriously and are for the real fans. Here is their ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L3eeC2lJZs
Unfortunately since they already filed for bankruptcy a few years back they have had to cut costs and so their system for ordering food replaced (from pen and paper collected and an usher quietly brings you your food to QR code with...a cellphone) people are recently concerned that this has reduced their legendary quality. They still take audio and picture quality very seriously in my experience.
Also where are you located? LA and NYC have legendary theaters that are truly a special treat. Its harder to replicate that in various states but there are still some states trying (ex. NJ being the actual birthplace of the American film industry has a few excellent theaters scattered throughout that dont tolerate poor quality/talkers)
If your story is from AMC theaters just know that you are visiting the Mcdonalds of movie theaters.
bigstrat2003 19 hours ago [-]
Besides the ordering experience, I also feel like the food at the Alamo has gone downhill. It's not bad or anything, but it used to be legit good. Now it's just alright.
pcthrowaway 14 hours ago [-]
I don't even care about movie theaters, I just miss drive-ins. The last drive-in within 450 km of me closed during covid
locallost 20 hours ago [-]
It's not the ads, but they're not helping. I still like to go to theaters, but am thinking if not going anymore because I can't really take it. I don't go to AMC since not in the US, but where I go you can't even skip them because you never know how long it will be. I sat once for literally 40 minutes. It's also crazy expensive. So they need to do these things to stay afloat, but they're driving away the last people that still want to go.
It's just dead in its current form, you're right about that. To make it work they need to reinvent themselves. But it's hard.
nebula8804 20 hours ago [-]
I don't disagree with you at all. Ads suck. But that ship sailed a long time ago. Just to provide some more context to AMC.
They are a US national chain and they don't run "commercials" just lots of trailers. They have recently announced that they have extended the trailer runtime from 20-25 mins to 35-40 mins. While this is frustrating they always indicate in the app which movies have the trailers (most do) and the approx length. As a result, patron who want to skip the trailers use the app for guidance and just arrive +35 mins after the showtime. Example: https://i.imgur.com/bsVf6AE.png
Given this system, I dont think AMC has really lost patrons because of the ads since everyone who hates them know exactly how long to delay their entrance to the movie room. It really is the other factor I mentioned (they are not compelling enough most of the time vs other entertainment).
One more aspect I forgot to mention is concession prices. Small popcorn is ~10$, small drink is ~7$ so ~17$ for basic concessions and that does not include ticket price ranging between 5$ on Tuesday special deals for standard definition all the way to $27.99+ for premium screen. If you are going to the movies you might as well watch it on their best screen. It gets expensive if you are bringing family. The reason for this pricing is the studio. They actually take a majority of the ticket revenue and they refuse to lower their percentage of ticket prices on the marquee titles (and also require 2 week minimum contracts in the premium screens even if the movie is a stinker)
The theaters are essentially just popcorn/soda vendors who just happen to show movies on the side.
zerocrates 19 hours ago [-]
They do also run actual commercials if you're crazy enough to show up before the showtime.
AMC is also interesting because even in the "real" trailer period they have a long ad for AMC itself but also for Coke, then another for themselves telling you to sign up for the loyalty programs, then another for themselves with Nicole Kidman in the theater with her suit with the silver pinstripes. A little thing for the theater is normal but they're going way overboard with it and it's hard to believe it's really effective.
jrumbut 19 hours ago [-]
It really seems like a great use case for dynamic pricing.
For $27.99 I can usually get MLB tickets people are dumping last minute (face value starts a few dollars higher) and can always get AAA baseball tickets for less than that.
That dynamism to the pricing helps a lot of people get into the door to those events and I'm sure it helps them milk additional profit out of very interesting games.
I know you say it's the studios setting the price. Why do they seem indifferent to the impending bankruptcy of theaters?
nebula8804 19 hours ago [-]
Well $27.99 is for IMAX/Dolby/other premium format. Thats the hook I guess. People do shell out but only for the big blockbuster. The other movies are like the stuff you can watch using your Netflix account so a lot of non franchise movies have shifted direct to Netflix.
>I know you say it's the studios setting the price. Why do they seem indifferent to the impending bankruptcy of theaters?
They are pushing their streaming platforms and using the content as just a hook for other more lucrative sources of revenue(ie. Disney and theme parks). Do they really need the theaters now that people are hooked on streaming?
locallost 19 hours ago [-]
Yes, that's what I meant with crazy expensive, mostly the concessions. The tickets I am ok with, I am in th end going there for the big screen and experience, not to eat crappy food. I go with my kids, and it's just painful. We watched Mario 2 recently, and because my youngest didn't watch the first one, we watched that one at home first. 3.99 to rent 4k and 2.50 for popcorn and drinks for three kids. Puts things in perspective.
Hard_Space 15 hours ago [-]
In the UK in the 1980s (and with more difficulty in the 90s) I would phone the theater and ask when the film actually starts, even though it was almost always 20 minutes after the advertised programme time. Now there are no humans to ask, and my wife wants to see the entire programme anyway.
BikiniPrince 20 hours ago [-]
It’s guaranteed to start 20 minutes or more after the listed start time. I get my seat and I don’t even show up early.
zerocrates 19 hours ago [-]
AMC have taken to just saying outright that everything will start 25-30 minutes after the posted time. Which is interesting, I guess they're trying to blunt the negative effect of the long trailers but I'm sure the advertisers don't like it.
14 hours ago [-]
donohoe 15 hours ago [-]
I have an alternative in this for Alamo Drafthouse. It sends me alerts as soon as new movies are listed, typically before promoted or announced online.
It’s meant I can jump on re-runs etc I really care about (just saw Fight Club last week) - and get the specific seat location I prefer.
(If you want alerts just contact me with your email and location - info in bio)
woodydesign 14 hours ago [-]
Love this concept.
- If it could give me a near to showtime notifications to help me decide if it's a true empty screenings. That would be great.
- If it connect with my Google Calendar for schedule, it would be amazing.
tacodestroyer 6 hours ago [-]
There is nothing better than seeing a movie in the theaters by yourself.
6 hours ago [-]
aurareturn 19 hours ago [-]
There is always that one person who eats popcorn so loud for most of the movie and ruins the experience for me.
ndr42 18 hours ago [-]
Well, my experience is that people start eating when the lights go out but are nearly finished with the popcorn when the ads and trailers end and the movie starts.
aurareturn 18 hours ago [-]
Most people. There's always that one person near you who eats for most of the movie.
Anyways, the point is that with the advent of big home TVs, streaming, I've virtually stopped going to movie theaters. The experience is always subpar every time I go due to eating noise and talking.
p0w3n3d 16 hours ago [-]
I remember walking in late to a movie with my wife and noticing that there was nobody there except us. We bought the tickets on site, so the show must have started before we went in, despite no tickets having been sold.
mzelling 18 hours ago [-]
This site will probably defeat its purpose. You discover an empty showing and are excited to have your own "private theater", but thanks to this site, somebody else will have the same idea and you'll both have to share your private theater.
ButlerianJihad 18 hours ago [-]
AMC will revoke or modify their API, and break this app’s functionality every 2 weeks on Thursdays at midnight
bookofjoe 9 hours ago [-]
FWIW I just checked and AMC Theaters are not connected to the streaming network AMC+.
dawnerd 19 hours ago [-]
I’ve been to a few showings by myself back in the moviepass days. It was really nice, I’d wait until a movie was basically at the very end of its run and watch whatever was playing. I can’t stand others making noise, too distracting.
stringfood 19 hours ago [-]
you can also go on your phone if you'd like and yawn loudly and flatulate
da02 10 hours ago [-]
How does AMC stay in business after all these years?
maxglute 19 hours ago [-]
On flip side had switch gyms to be among strangers becomes turning on gym socialization really tanked my training.
brailsafe 17 hours ago [-]
> On flip side had switch gyms to be among strangers becomes turning on gym socialization really tanked my training.
Just put your head phones in, no one will bother you.
orliesaurus 20 hours ago [-]
Damn, people really love going to the movies here in Austin, Texas.
RagnarD 19 hours ago [-]
Where does it get the realtime data for this?
gsky 18 hours ago [-]
i watched 2 movies all alone. one of the best experiences i have ever had since i hate being around people
tomcam 13 hours ago [-]
Delightful! Thank you.
m3kw9 11 hours ago [-]
I can tell Super mario movie is a massive flop.
jdwithit 10 hours ago [-]
Maybe I'm just missing the joke, but Wikipedia says otherwise
"As of May 3, 2026, The Super Mario Galaxy Movie has grossed $403 million in the United States and Canada, and $495 million in other territories, for a worldwide total of $897 million. Produced on a budget of $110 million, the film is currently the highest-grossing film of 2026 and the highest-grossing animated film of the year. The film also set the record for the biggest global opening at the box office in 2026, the only animated film franchise with two films opening to over $350 million globally, the fifth-biggest global opening for an animated film of all time, the second-biggest global opening for an Illumination film, the second-biggest opening for a film based on a video game, and the fourth-biggest Easter three-day opening of all time."
Almost $900 million gross against a cost of $110 million seems pretty good
goda90 11 hours ago [-]
Aren't most spring breaks over for schools in the US? So kids are less free to go see a movie targeting kids.
k2xl 12 hours ago [-]
I wonder if movie theaters ever thought to have "Free" movie tickets before a certain time on certain days. They would probably make money just on the popcorn sales since most of these theaters are empty during the day.
pimlottc 11 hours ago [-]
Matinees are normally cheaper. I could see potential abuse if it was truly free
cm2012 11 hours ago [-]
Great example of vibe coding
Balgair 13 hours ago [-]
Holy shit, how are my local theaters staying in business?! Like, all the screenings are just empty!
ButlerianJihad 19 hours ago [-]
Movie theaters are reinventing themselves in various ways, and I’m unsure if it’s working, but some of it is creative.
Around here, films from Bollywood show in Telugu, Hindi, Gujarati languages. There are family films in Spanish (those aren’t bad dubs, but parallel scripts and A-list voice actors.) Want to watch a Studio Ghibli film? Here’s the timetable for dubbed; here’s a timetable for subtitles!
There are live video-game tournaments. There are premieres for live operas and symphony orchestra performances that are simulcast around a region.
There are Christian groups who go in to support a film, and they can turn those into fundraisers and evangelization activity.
The auditoriums can be rented out for special events. Big birthday, Kindergarten graduation, Quinceañeras, etc. They will support teleconferencing and businesses can hold seminars or all-hands meetings there.
I suppose that all of these schemes were harmed by the pandemic and lockdowns, but the advertising is still there, and the Hindus are still showing up on public transit.
nebula8804 19 hours ago [-]
I think you are seeing a slice of the full picture. This app is not accurately showing all empty screens. While all of those are ideas that are increasing viewership there is still so much dead weight. Whether these things offset the dead weight I dont know. All I know is AMC is trading at $1.45 today so it does not look great.
Michael666 11 hours ago [-]
[dead]
LarsDu88 20 hours ago [-]
Would be a wonderful site for people to find places to have private movie sex, but then I remembered that this is HackerNews
That said, it's also nice sometimes catching a mostly empty 2pm showing of something and getting the perfect seat without distractions... Especially considering if I turn up the volume to get the appropriate experience at home I get yelled at.
I lost my favorite theater in the early 2020s and then its sibling, and last locally-owned and operated theater, to a landlord screwing with rents to try to attract an inner-city Publix. (A deal which still may not actually happen.)
That leaves the AMC as the last regularly attended theater of my high school and college days still standing.
A newer, more popular Cinemark is in the city's biggest mall. I still remember when mall theaters were the worst/cheapest/smallest places. This has flipped now that most of what's left of the malls are the new theater/Dave & Busters at the one mall or the Top Golf/Puttshack at the other mall with the rest of the malls seeming now just weird appendixes to the new attractions. Meanwhile, I don't want to deal with Mall Traffic, which is still a thing in these flipped malls, I don't entirely know why.
Most of the rest of the most popular theaters all wound up in the Exurbs, two beltways away from the city's downtown, presumably due to cheaper land, and I don't want to commute that far to regularly watch movies.
Yeah, mall theaters are just kind of hellish... mostly because of the parking/organization... I know why they're laid out how they are, just really wish they'd switch it up to make the theater easier to access if that's all you want.
I'm glad I was in a full house for Avengers: Endgame, for example. I don't know how much it mattered, OTOH, for Oppenheimer, or Hail Mary.
When I went to see Project Hail Mary, I enjoyed the full theater, when I went to watch the new Jurassic World movie in an empty theater I was bored out of my mind, on the other hand I've seen many anime movies in empty theaters where I absolutely loved having a quiet theater entirely to myself.
Of course you can still do that with the surviving "all you can eat" plans, but they're way more expensive and aren't quite as generous.
Unlimited movies and they ate the entire cost? They didn't arrange any special deals or anything - they just paid the full price of the movie. It was insane.
So (in theory) it's a "win win" if they get everyone onboard - the theater gets to sell popcorn, the movie studio gets a buck or two instead of nothing, and movie pass collects the subscription.
However, it needs them all to agree that the $15 ticket for "the empty theater" is really only worth $1 - which would go to the movie studio. That part never happened.
The plan was that as you went to movies, you probably also went out to eat at a nearby restaurant, maybe stopped and had a drink, took transit to get there, etc. If they could hoover up all of that location- and merchant-tagged data, they could build a valuable profile for marketing.
Also, they believed that after you subscribed and gorged yourself on tons of movies for a couple months, the novelty would wear off and you'd revert to a more typical couple movies a month.
So if they could break even or make a small profit on the subscription, the data is where all the gold would be.
The problem was that they did not have the technology to gather all this info, not to mention the privacy/regulatory restrictions around essentially tracking your every movement and spend through a phone app.
There were a lot of other sketchy things about the company as well. Wall Street Millennial (a wonderfully entertaining channel) did a video on them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4vmCKIXOyw
Not only that, but the bulk of the ticket charge goes to the distributer. Why NOT offer MoviePass screenings with the option to see a couple movies a week... it's the concessions that make you the money.. more butts in seats, more concessions.
Of course, many now have pretty acceptable home theater experiences... though I'd say more have large screens and sub-par audio. That changes the dynamics a lot with streaming options what they are. I don't know what the future of movie theaters is... luxury/dinner theaters are a pretty nice option, but when food costs in general are going through the roof it becomes something you just don't do as much. I mean, how much is a large popcorn and two drinks at this point? Let alone a mid-level pub meal at theater upcharge.
Depending on the theater's manager, they'll either want someone to guarantee a minimum or to have a single fee paid up front.
There's nothing quite like knowing that everyone in the theater is a friend.
That said, you're 100% right about making an offer. Most theaters have underutilized screening rooms, and managers have the ability to rent for private events. I've done this a few times. The rental rate tends to be about 10-15x the price of a single ticket (in my experience).
Either it's big enough to warrant a massive video and sound system (because I have pretty great ones at home already, so it has to be extravagant), or it has to be something I've heard about and want to see so much that we don't really care about the best, we just want to go. Otherwise, why mess around with high prices and rude people?
I hate to say it, but I think most theaters are gonna die.
On the other hand, I feel sad that no one in my region seems to care enough about these topics. Instead the latest superhero movie is next door packed to the brim and is so loud it rattles the walls to the room playing my quiet documentary with only me sitting inside watching it. :/
I was able to experience the movie in a very special way. In New York BAM Rose Cinemas was running a special 35mm press of the film one week before its official debut. Edgar Wright did a red eye run debuting the film in London and then getting on a plane to rush to New York where he arrived just in time for the credits. Having him walk down the steps and sitting right in front of me for Q&A was a amazing experience. Its really a shame the movie flopped even with the extra slack it was given due to debuting during COVID. His most recent film did pretty bad as well. I'm bummed as he is my favorite director. :/
Surely you mean "couldn't care less"?
Rarely are these things documented in the moment and human memory is fickle even when we think we recall something accurately. It may seem like I’m taking y’all too literally or being nitpicky but I’m just illustrating one component. These kinds of situations happen across every “fact” of the story, which is almost always a movie based on a written account that came after, often written by someone who wasn’t even involved in the subject matter. Degrees of separation, lack of information, some or all people involved may be dead, etc.
Take it as entertainment, and nothing more. For example, Remember the Titans, we were shown it in school over and over. There was no racial component in real life. The Blind Side is egregious in its portrayals. Pursuit of Happyness also.
If instead we make a video that conveys the same information; it has to "make up" details (we have to cast the actors, which will be of a certain age, sex, race, etc; we have to give them lines, etc; and so on) that may colour the implications - and you, as a viewer, have no easy way to determine what is essential and what is accidental.
Are you saying that no movies should be allowed to claim they are trying to tell a true story, and that documentaries aren’t neutral/accurate enough and are therefore invalid? I’m just trying to figure out the scope of your claim and implications here so I get that could be off base.
Might be simpler to ask: What would you consider a good documentary? What would you consider a movie that is based on a true story and does an accurate-enough job? What do consider or use as a metric when deciding these works are good or accurate?
No. Freedom of speech and all that, unless it was a libel/slander thing.
>and that documentaries aren’t neutral/accurate enough and are therefore invalid?
Sufficient documentaries have been sufficiently inaccurate such that it behooves me to consider them all fictional.
>What would you consider a good documentary? What would you consider a movie that is based on a true story and does an accurate-enough job? What do consider or use as a metric when deciding these works are good or accurate?
I don't know off the top of my head, I would have to do research. But that's the point, if I am doing research, I might as well read books/journals/websites/articles with source information.
>I think pretty much all audiences know there is a degree of fiction to any of these works and that you have to take various work with different sized grains of salt.
I don't know about that. For example, Carol Haskins received a large amount of hate and death threats from the way Tiger King was edited. And people like to "know" things, anything that confirms their biases or makes them feel like they are smarter, they are going to latch onto.
I think the rule of thumb should be videos should be assumed to be fictional unless rigorously vetted, or at least that is what serves my purpose for having the most accurate model of the events. The objective is not to educate the viewer, it is to entertain the viewer.
I guess I’ll ask this then: what would a documentary have to do to be considered accurate enough for you that it can be used to educate? I just don’t really know where the lines are for you it all feels rather vague. If we’re demanding objectivity and accuracy, then there needs to be some clear metric(s) otherwise no one can say they are or aren’t.
Obviously written works do not present more information, but they can provide only the known information (which I guess a documentary composed of the actual recordings and interviews of the events can provide). And obviously written stuff can also be fabricated and blah blah, but assuming all of that, I just presume the fidelity of a video re-creation of an event is less than that of a written one.
One example I just thought of that led me to this assumption of discounting all videos is the way Captain Phillips is portrayed. The recent movie Blackberry is also highly fictional.
https://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/blackberry/
I know these aren't documentaries per se, but they all require digging to get to the truth v fiction parts, so why bother digging? If I want to be entertained, I watch the video. If I want to be educated, I look up written sources I think might be credible.
I still don’t understand what the bar is or what you consider necessary for something to be deemed “accurate.” Writing as a medium has all of the same pitfalls that video does and then some. This feels very vibes-based.
What’s an example of a written text that you would say is accurate in a way that a documentary can’t be? Do you consider any media of any kind to be factual or accurate in any way? I’m just not sure how one can go about life considering all forms of media inherently deceptive to the point where nothing can be treated as anything more than mere entertainment.
It isn't, which is why I specified:
>(which I guess a documentary composed of the actual recordings and interviews of the events can provide)
>I still don’t understand what the bar is or what you consider necessary for something to be deemed “accurate.”
The bar is lack of dramatization. I gave multitudes of examples of videos based on various real life happenings, but they don't do a good job representing actual happenings. The "based on" is strictly a marketing term, but no one should be under the impression they are getting any actual data from watching it, hence it is entertainment.
A documentary with various interviews, actual footage, blah blah is of course better, but many documentaries include dramatizations, and are edited to have "twists and turns" in the story to captivate the viewer. A documentary that sticks only to the known facts is probably pretty dry and boring (although I am sure they exist). There are myriad "true" crime documentaries (including podcasts) that leave out key details about the case because including them would make the story boring.
However, I am sure there are far more accurate documentaries, and I have heard this is one of them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dear_Zachary:_A_Letter_to_a_So...
But back to the point, broadly speaking, probability wise, if I sit down and some video media says it is "based on" or it is a "documentary", I would be wise to be skeptical, and I guess that goes for the written word these days too.
My point is that they don’t and can’t, objectivity is a myth. You and I (and everyone) are literally incapable of being truly objective. So the only conclusion i see is you don’t think any media is able to inform or educate. If you do, then you need an actual bar beyond “must be objective.”
“Dramatization” is just one tool some documentaries, not all, lean on and isn’t well defined. Are you talking about dramatic reenactments? Or introducing any drama of any kind? Isn’t drama sometimes just inherent to the subject?
If you apply your logic to all political documentaries then you're just going to end up not watching anything.
Meanwhile, people who saw the movie and found it decently engaging are busy convincing themselves that it was 99% true. And 99% of 'em will never bother to check.
The term to describe my "99%" isn't "dumb". It's "don't care".
Of course, if I'm going to talk about something I know deeply, I'm almost certainly going to begin with "this is all incorrect in the details, but correct in general" or similar.
For those sufficiently pedantic, true. OTOH, there's a rather wide spectrum in how well (say) Mitchell's Gone With the Wind, Ken Burns's The Civil War, and McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom portray the U.S. Civil War.
The theaters were never full. So it was basically just like watching a movie in your own living room. Yeah, except maybe for the handful of strangers that were there to watch with you.
[0] https://cineville.nl
It sometimes feels wrong to only pay €25 after watching so many movies. So I make up for it by buying things from the cinemas.
Back in the heyday, I used to work in a startup devoted to the cinema world, where with one app you could buy tickets for all cinemas - even those that did not "officially" support it.
Among them were arthouse theaters in Hamburg, which I often used for testing, as most of the time reserving a few seats would not matter as they would be empty, at least during the day. Some of them had projections of old movies, and I was like "if I lived there, I'd go every day".
Ironically, now I live between 2 art cinemas in my city and rarely go to any of them :)
but you could always be sure that the old lady loudly crunching on every.single.crisp. was there in the showing as well
Cons: have to watch arthouse.
I am among them. I make no attempt to say they’re high concept or anything, but I leave feeling good for awhile and that’s enough for me
So maybe I want to watch some capeshit today, but I don't want it to be exactly the same as the ones I've watched before. Many people feel this way, and the market provides.
it's especially cool as someone who's young and wasn't even born when some of these movies initially came to cinemas.
at the same time it's unbelievably sad that in recent years about 70% of the movies i saw at a cinema were multiple decades old.
When you grow up it's not only nostalgia, but the feeling that most of the ideas are really not new. I remember watching 'You Were Never Really Here', that had a huge hype behind it, and thinking "I have seen this same exact movie a hundred of times".
+1, yes! watched it for the first time a couple of years ago after hearing about it and deciding to ethically download it, since then i've watched it a couple of times and at the start of this year even bought a Blu-Ray Player and a 4k Ultra HD copy* just because I wanted a physical copy to put on a shelf and watch it in an optimal quality. and as mentioned i'll go watch it in a cinema in a couple of months.
i also created a letterboxd account this year to log every movie i've ever seen. what's weird is that i've logged over 400 movies, but if i look at a graph of the years they were realeased in it's almost a perfect bell curve with the top being between 2006 - 2010.
*in these last couple months i started buying used blu-rays and DVDs and now got about 70 movies. guess this is my form of nostalgia. others got vynils, i got movies. physical media just feels different than downloaded movies. cover art, bonus material, DVD menues with soundtracks. love it...
There are literally thousands of good movies released between ~1890 and last year.
It’s improbable more than a hundred or so will come out this year that’re worth your time, and they’ll be harder to sort from the junk this close to release.
If anything, it’s amazing new movies have as large an audience as they do.
kind of how some movies like The Big Lebowski were considered flops but nowadays are cherished cult classics.
Most movies are decently budgeted and so at least meet some minimum bar for quality - so cult classics can arise time and time again. There are movies in theaters right now that will be the cult classics of the 2050s.
Meanwhile if I watch at home then there's half a century of classics that I haven't gotten around to watching yet.
And if I even accept this, the people in the choice seats invariably show up right when all the trailers are wrapping up.
so - people buy tickets ahead of time, and it might be the only way to watch it from a reasonable seat.
This probably doesn't apply to off-hours like tuesday afternoon or whatever.
Even our small independent theater in town has reserved seats, some of which are couches.
My reference point for movie theatres is the late 90s/early 2000s so maybe I'll have to give them another try.
Maybe in fancy theaters, but in most places it started during covid (and just never stopped)
Neither of those is remarkable now, but they were both unheard-of then.
My experience, being discussed in another thread, is that only big commercial multiplex do it, many small cinemas with more alternative content, usually don't do assigned seats, only ticket reservations.
Personally, I like being able to select the exact seats and pre-order popcorn and soda and just have it show up to me right as the trailers end.
Then you have smaller cinemas with indie movies, european movie festival rotation, etc, and many of those in at least 4 or 5 countries in Europe I can confirm do NOT have assigned sitting.
On the European Cinema network [0], reserved seats is a long gone concept.
So not always a given that seats can be reserved online for cinema, depends on ones location.
[0] - https://www.europa-cinemas.org
So yea, location dependent.
With new ticketing systems and online booking being introduced I think there has been a shift towards assigned seating. I remember the first time I was in a Dresden European Network cinema (Schauburg in 2015, that’s the oldest cinema in Dresden, 1927) and there either being no assigned seating or a seat printed on the ticket that no one cared about. We also weren’t asked where we wanted to sit. That has changed with a new ticketing system and now we are always asked about where we want to sit.
I think these ticketing systems come with assigned seating and that’s also a factor in assigned seating being introduced.
Notably, the one cinema that doesn’t have assigned seating also doesn’t offer online booking or reservations at all.
The four big multiplex cinemas in the city have assigned seating and do price discrimination based on where you sit – so it’s taken somewhat more seriously there.
So, yeah, my guess would be that the role online ticketing and the respective software/service/devices those cinemas use for that do all play a role in what role assigned seating plays and those can also trigger a cultural shift from sit where you want to assigned seating. (I have vivid childhood memories of my hometown long before online booking with price discrimination sections but no assigned seating in cinemas.)
I guess it depends then.
The "box office" is not even really a thing anymore at most theaters. And the single person you talk to inside that is the "box office" just uses the same system you can reserve seats yourself on your own time?
Pretty much every theater is reserved seating these days. Why would I risk showing up last minute on a whim and end up in a horrible seat near the front of the screen?
Exactly the same as it's always been, and it works beautifully. I can't imagine a reason to mess with it.
Occasionally I have a "private screening" where I'm the only one in the auditorium. The most recent example was "The Mummy". I hadn't fully thought throught the implications of watching a horror movie alone in the middle of a darkened 65-seat auditorium!
There's another town a few miles away where a similar cinema has both assigned seating and 20 minutes of adverts before the movie.
I’m old and have always pre-purchased tickets, even in the 90s, as that’s the way to get better seats.
In Switzerland the seats have always been numbered and even if the cinema is empty people wouldn't dare move into another seat. People do show up right before the film starts and try to avoid the ads. Some also hang in the lobby until the film actually starts.
But, I love the idea of a theater almost entirely to myself.
That said, for "general admission" theaters, if you want to get good seats, you'd have to show up early and waste time watching all those trailers.
And the online process shows you which seats are already filled and I base my decision on that when there is assigned seating. One thing peculiar is that the theatres are not often as filled as the seat map shows, makes me think that an even newer generation of the movie ticket subscribers (AMC A-List) are reserving seats and changing plans
We got to small talk and the lady mentioned she had once been the only customer for a showing and told the projectionist that she didn’t want to be a bother and could come back and another day.
The projectionist had apparently replied that it was no bother - they would roll the movie even if no one showed up!
Not to mention that film rolls do wear out overtime.
The job was less to transport the spools, but to supervise that there was no copying happening.
This was late 200x-ish, before digital protection became widespread iirc.
Maybe. Depends.
I’m sure I’ve heard of the low cost carriers cancelling flights that are under-sold at the last minute.
Would make sense if the destination has fewer tickets sold from there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Express_passenger_...
They tried to sit near me and be friendly, but I was too depressed to engage. Missed opportunity.
I'm unsure exactly how the deals with local businesses running ads before the movies are set up, but I could imagine that you're supposed to be running the ads an agreed upon number of times, regardless of ticket sales.
Sometimes in the daytime we would get retirees who would watch a movie and basically loiter around, and occasionally ask if they could catch the end of a different movie running in an empty hall. You'd sometimes let a regular crash an empty screening like this if they bought an extra snack or coffee for it or something.
I had to go to the cinema 3 times, because they would not do a projection for less than 5 people.
Theaters are struggling because they need the working class to attend, and the working class has no money. This is true for any non-essential business that depends on 90% of the people.
To find new ways of extract money may help a little, but in the end the basic economics do not add up.
You want prices set such that it’s almost but not quite at capacity. This gives you slack to accept stragglers while optimizing your profit on the price demand curve.
This is why they always gravitate to "$5 before noon/4pm" or "$5 Tuesdays" or similar things that are easy to remember.
I'm waiting for them to have the best seats in the house be the large armchairs for $20, and the rest of the shitseats be normal stadium seating for $5.
1. New releases get on stream within weeks to couple of months. 2. Lots of new movies are supposed to be a TV movie and not a theater release (subjective)
I go to the movies way more than needed and I stopped blindly going to the movies and started to check reviews before because so many movies were really bad which is something I very rarely have experienced in the past (even when I had unlimited passes and seeing more than 1 movies per week)
I wonder if they even bother turning the projector on if they sold no tickets? How much energy does the bulb use compared to ticket price?
Fancier theaters like the Alamo draft house seem to be trying to complete with watching at home in some ways, but for the most part theaters seem to just be doubling down on the parts if the experience that were already decisive- namely getting louder and adding bigger screens. That might tempt the people who already like what theaters have to offer into going slightly more often, but I think it’s made even more people stop going at all.
Which in turn is how much the studios and distributors pay to make/market the film?
Which is in turn driven by costs...
Which are basically large bets on if a piece of art will have mass appeal.
Apparently the deal back then was that theatres had to buy films in packages. If you wanted the latest blockbuster, you had to buy a bunch of terrible dross, and commit to showing it X times.
Now, in reality there are second-hand effects, of course - like people getting adjusted to the below-cost ticket prices and being even less incentivized to buy at the normal price.
If it is free to show the movie then there is no penalty to running extra sessions. If it isn't free, someone is being paid. If that is a different someone to where ticket money goes they care more about sessions than viewings.
If you lower the price too much, you get a different sort of clientele. The sort of person who wrecks the place and annoys all the other patrons nearby.
Then the cleanup costs a lot. Often more than the amount of revenue collected on the room.
It absolutely makes more sense to keep the hotel room empty than to lower the price to keep it fully occupied.
Madame web was a great example, it was in theaters for months, and being heavily advertised, and no one was going. At the time I thought it was Sony trying to ruin Marvel's reputation, but it makes more sense that they needed a loss on the books, and most of the money they spent went to companies they had a piece of.
Meanwhile, you have movies that are in and out in a single weekend that go on to become cult classics because they never had a chance.
One or two exceptions - Project Hail Mary, for example.
But the decline of Marvel, Star Trek and Star Wars franchises has been stark.
https://www.youtube.com/@TheCriticalDrinker has some great commentary on the problem.
Also, a number of other factors:
I'll be curious to see if others chime in.
This was my first thought upon seeing the OP as well. I haven't been to a theater in years, and part of the problem is I don't know what I'd go there to watch.
I've been pretty explicitly told that Hollywood does not want to sell to me or my demographic by this point, and it's also pretty evident in the media that is being produced.
And the media I do consume, I don't really feel a need to see in theaters.
I feel bad, because I have many fond memories of going to the theater as a kid with my parents. With the way things are going, they may be long gone before I ever get a chance to replicate that experience for a family of my own.
Sadly you're right. At times like this I wish Silicon Valley was in Texas or Florida rather than one of the most leftwing / collectivist states in America.
(E.g., you may find the new Dune films too violent, but they were great. And the moral is not very subtle in them. :)
Since most theatres have gone full digital, the "projector" won't show the film if there have been no tickets sold. That eliminated the game of buying one ticket and then sneaking in to see a few more movies.
If the theater is full of people talking during the movie or lighting the place up while they’re on their phone (in either case ignoring the movie), then I’d rather be alone.
It seems like more times than not, this is the case.
Very cool idea nonetheless.
Its the norm and its probably why their stock is trading at $1.45 as of this writing.
Its a dead (not dying, dead) entertainment option. When you are competing for the same 24 hrs in a day with TV, Youtube, Gaming, Streaming, TikTok, Instagram and many others the theater is bottom of the barrel for young people today.
And don't tell me its because people are disrespectful or the commercials are too long. These are a problem but Alamo Drafthouse tried to tackle this and they ended up in bankruptcy. AMC would also be bankrupt today but it's saving grace was the meme stock frenzy they had a few years back. Probably bought them a few more years but that ride might be coming to an end.
Currently they fill the rooms for the pop movies like old established franchises but that only comes along every couple weeks at the most and the rest of the time the place is not really busy. This is a bit different in the big cities but AMC has overextended themselves with too many locations in the rural and suburban US.
...Also this app is not displaying accurate data (I assume they are pulling from AMC's API). My local theater is listing no results and I cross checked and there are movies currently listed that have 0 seats booked so the app is counting incorrectly for at least one theater.
EDIT: After I wrote this, the site auto updated with new data. Now I see some screenings but it is still inaccurate because it is still missing movies from that theater...maybe they are scraping instead of using the API? This is a simple problem if using the API (I wrote my own home cooked app): just iterate through all theater ids, find the ones with 0 bookings and display that list.
The last few movies I’ve seen in theaters have not been that. Two of the last 3 movies I’ve seen had audio mixing problems, and dialogue was inaudible in some scenes. (I heard this got fixed later for one of the movies) In all of them, I could hear bass from the adjacent theaters in some scenes. In the last two movies I went to see, both had someone in the audience bring an intermittently crying baby to the movie.
Im done with watching movies in theaters. It’s a better experience to watch at home, with headphones, a blanket, and the ability to pause for bathroom breaks.
Unfortunately since they already filed for bankruptcy a few years back they have had to cut costs and so their system for ordering food replaced (from pen and paper collected and an usher quietly brings you your food to QR code with...a cellphone) people are recently concerned that this has reduced their legendary quality. They still take audio and picture quality very seriously in my experience.
Also where are you located? LA and NYC have legendary theaters that are truly a special treat. Its harder to replicate that in various states but there are still some states trying (ex. NJ being the actual birthplace of the American film industry has a few excellent theaters scattered throughout that dont tolerate poor quality/talkers)
If your story is from AMC theaters just know that you are visiting the Mcdonalds of movie theaters.
It's just dead in its current form, you're right about that. To make it work they need to reinvent themselves. But it's hard.
They are a US national chain and they don't run "commercials" just lots of trailers. They have recently announced that they have extended the trailer runtime from 20-25 mins to 35-40 mins. While this is frustrating they always indicate in the app which movies have the trailers (most do) and the approx length. As a result, patron who want to skip the trailers use the app for guidance and just arrive +35 mins after the showtime. Example: https://i.imgur.com/bsVf6AE.png
Given this system, I dont think AMC has really lost patrons because of the ads since everyone who hates them know exactly how long to delay their entrance to the movie room. It really is the other factor I mentioned (they are not compelling enough most of the time vs other entertainment).
One more aspect I forgot to mention is concession prices. Small popcorn is ~10$, small drink is ~7$ so ~17$ for basic concessions and that does not include ticket price ranging between 5$ on Tuesday special deals for standard definition all the way to $27.99+ for premium screen. If you are going to the movies you might as well watch it on their best screen. It gets expensive if you are bringing family. The reason for this pricing is the studio. They actually take a majority of the ticket revenue and they refuse to lower their percentage of ticket prices on the marquee titles (and also require 2 week minimum contracts in the premium screens even if the movie is a stinker)
The theaters are essentially just popcorn/soda vendors who just happen to show movies on the side.
AMC is also interesting because even in the "real" trailer period they have a long ad for AMC itself but also for Coke, then another for themselves telling you to sign up for the loyalty programs, then another for themselves with Nicole Kidman in the theater with her suit with the silver pinstripes. A little thing for the theater is normal but they're going way overboard with it and it's hard to believe it's really effective.
For $27.99 I can usually get MLB tickets people are dumping last minute (face value starts a few dollars higher) and can always get AAA baseball tickets for less than that.
That dynamism to the pricing helps a lot of people get into the door to those events and I'm sure it helps them milk additional profit out of very interesting games.
I know you say it's the studios setting the price. Why do they seem indifferent to the impending bankruptcy of theaters?
This is partly explained by Matt Damon here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gF6K2IxC9O8
>I know you say it's the studios setting the price. Why do they seem indifferent to the impending bankruptcy of theaters?
They are pushing their streaming platforms and using the content as just a hook for other more lucrative sources of revenue(ie. Disney and theme parks). Do they really need the theaters now that people are hooked on streaming?
It’s meant I can jump on re-runs etc I really care about (just saw Fight Club last week) - and get the specific seat location I prefer.
(If you want alerts just contact me with your email and location - info in bio)
Anyways, the point is that with the advent of big home TVs, streaming, I've virtually stopped going to movie theaters. The experience is always subpar every time I go due to eating noise and talking.
I think you're in the wrong "actually I prefer to be alone in social spaces" thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48007438
"As of May 3, 2026, The Super Mario Galaxy Movie has grossed $403 million in the United States and Canada, and $495 million in other territories, for a worldwide total of $897 million. Produced on a budget of $110 million, the film is currently the highest-grossing film of 2026 and the highest-grossing animated film of the year. The film also set the record for the biggest global opening at the box office in 2026, the only animated film franchise with two films opening to over $350 million globally, the fifth-biggest global opening for an animated film of all time, the second-biggest global opening for an Illumination film, the second-biggest opening for a film based on a video game, and the fourth-biggest Easter three-day opening of all time."
Almost $900 million gross against a cost of $110 million seems pretty good
Around here, films from Bollywood show in Telugu, Hindi, Gujarati languages. There are family films in Spanish (those aren’t bad dubs, but parallel scripts and A-list voice actors.) Want to watch a Studio Ghibli film? Here’s the timetable for dubbed; here’s a timetable for subtitles!
There are live video-game tournaments. There are premieres for live operas and symphony orchestra performances that are simulcast around a region.
There are Christian groups who go in to support a film, and they can turn those into fundraisers and evangelization activity.
The auditoriums can be rented out for special events. Big birthday, Kindergarten graduation, Quinceañeras, etc. They will support teleconferencing and businesses can hold seminars or all-hands meetings there.
I suppose that all of these schemes were harmed by the pandemic and lockdowns, but the advertising is still there, and the Hindus are still showing up on public transit.