Miscellaneous Movie Musings the Sequel

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

No, not at all. If they want to offer something extra, then let them charge extra for it. A larger auditorium is not extra - they are only now pretending it's so.

No, they're just no longer pretending it's not so. It's not about # of seats, it's about screen size and sound quality. And the fact is that up until now, by charging the same price for all showings in all auditoriums, they've been subsidizing their higher quality screens via their lower quality screens.

I'm perfectly okay with a tiered system where you pay for what you get. Less popular movie in crappier theater? Week 15 of the big summer blockbuster showing on the last screen on your left? Yeah, I'm okay with those costing less.

Just because you're acclimated to the subsidy model doesn't mean a different model is invalid.

[innerSpaceman]

I'm clearly coming at this from a legal perspective. And if they now, after 30+ years, start charging more for an auditorium that conveniently holds more higher-priced seats, I will be bringing a class-action lawsuit.



btw ... I asked the AMC manager what I was paying extra for. His response was the state-of-the-art sound system. He had nothing but stammering in reply to my follow-up question of, "Then I'm paying for poor quality sound with my regular admission ticket?"

Get my drift?

State-of-the-art is NOT extra. It's what I'm paying for when I attend a first-run theater. And the last time I experienced a movie in a first run-theater that did not have bitchin', quality, and ultra-loud sound was in 1976, before Star Wars changed all that forever.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

State-of-the-art is NOT extra. It's what I'm paying for when I attend a first-run theater. And the last time I experienced a movie in a first run-theater that did not have bitchin', quality, and ultra-loud sound was in 1976, before Star Wars changed all that forever.

It's extra over what's in a non-first-run theater. And in fact you have NOT been paying for it, at least not in full. You've been paying for a PORTION of it, the rest being subsidized by the fact that a ticket for the non-first-run auditoriums, which offer a lower quality experience, are the same price. Purely from a standpoint of paying for what you're getting, you "should" have been paying more for that ticket all along, but for marketing reasons that hasn't been happening.

Again, simply because you've acclimated to how it's been done for 30 years doesn't mean they can't change it. For a long time, if you signed a contract, nearly all cell phones were free or some nominal amount significantly less than their retail price. But once there was more differentiation between phones, and premium phones like the iPhone came to be, that changed. Yeah, you still get the premium phones at a subsidize discount below retail, but not anywhere near the deep discount that was standard before. On top of that, there's greater range in pricing and fewer and fewer phones are free anymore. Yeah, it sucked as a consumer that you could not longer get a pretty good phone for free, or a really good phone for slightly more than free. But that doesn't mean the carriers weren't within their rights to alter the price structure in response to new market forces.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

And the last time I experienced a movie in a first run-theater that did not have bitchin', quality, and ultra-loud sound was in 1976, before Star Wars changed all that forever.

Also, significant improvements in sound began before Star Wars; remember Sensurround? Lucas did make significant improvements, but credit also goes to companies like Cerwin Vega, BGW, and others.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

remember Sensurround?

Yes, but I enjoyed Feelaround better.

[Alex]

Since they disclose upfront that you're paying more, regardless of whether you think that something is provided to justify them charging more, what exactly would be your tort?

[innerSpaceman]

Well, I'm free to find that underhanded, cynical, and poor-customer service and, as a result, refuse to patronize such an establishment. That's my market response.

If AMC finds enough rubes to pay this week for a bigger theater than they paid for the same theater last week, bravo for them. My only option as a consumer is to be one of the suckers born every minute or one of the curmudgeons born every ten.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Well, I'm free to find that underhanded, cynical, and poor-customer service and, as a result, refuse to patronize such an establishment. That's my market response.

Market response is one thing; a class action lawsuit is another. I encourage the former, but think the latter is just silly.

[CoasterMatt]

Screw that, my living room is more comfy anyway.

[flippyshark]

Already this same issue has reared its head at live theater as well. Some theaters are encouraging patrons to text and tweet during the show, presumably by way of interacting with and commenting on the performance. This is happening at the Broadway revival of Godspell, for instance, and the textors are seated in one specific area. i'll be seeing this in a few weeks, so I can comment then as to how distracting this ends up being. (The theater is in the round, so I can't help but think that the text-section will be noticeable from just about anywhere.)

There just might be some way of creating meaningful and engaging theater pieces that include live social networking, but if an audience is simply texting away during a traditional musical, it would be hard for the performers not to feel like their audience is bored and distracted. We actors usually want to weave a spell. Texting and tweeting feel to me like awfully mundane activities, inimical to surrendering to the spirit of a performance. But then, I'm instructed by the media to feel more out of touch and useless every day. (Maybe I'll write an interactive multi-media show about it.)