Advertising in movie theatres. A RANT. - Page 3

Searyx · 08-14-2002, 08:53 AM

Quote:

where their system's are better

Where their home systems are better than the theater systems/environment? 8)

The rest of your post is made up of personal attacks, which unfortunately are unoriginal standard fare. Keep that shit in the Retard Rickshaw. It's not wanted here.

Quote:

If they are THAT greedy that they need to make profits ON TOP of the profits they already earn..then yes, it's as simple as that.

Capitalism is based on greed, so I guess this means you agree with me.

Eomer · 08-14-2002, 10:31 AM

Capitalism is motivated by greed, not based on it.

Actovus · 08-14-2002, 12:02 PM

Quote:

It's quite a simple choice. Would you rather:

A. Have the ads

B. Not have the ads and pay a higher ticket

It is as simple as that.

This is simply false. I remember ticket prices going up when ads were not a factor at the movies. Ads or not, ticket prices are going to go up. They are 9 dollars at some theatres. Ads being there or not, has nothing to do with ticket prices. The cost of making movies has everything to do with it.

As to talking smack about me liking Reign of Fire. I would rather sit through Reign of Fire (which has some nice CGI shots.) then sit through a commercial. This comparison would of never even been made with a straight face if I woulda said XXX. Kinda sad don't you think Searyx? Considering XXX which stars your boy Vin Unleaded is a much worse movie than Reign of Fire.

The truth of this is Searyx. You are as guilty of the same thing you accused the other guy of in this very thread. You're just too blind to see it. A shame really, considering the topic deserves better argument than you can seem to come up with.

Shamus pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Millie · 08-14-2002, 12:27 PM

Ticket prices do not affect movie theaters directly. Indirectly, they might scare off or attract business. But directly, 100% of the profits from ticket sales go to the studios.

Movie theaters don't make a dime off the movie itself, whether it be Chairman of the Board or Spider-Man. The distributors and producers of the movies see all that revenue. Movie theaters' money is made through selling refreshments. Incidentally, that is why drinks and snacks cost so damn much at theaters these days. It's the only source of income for the particular theater in question.

I'm guessing that these new commercials before the movies are the work of local advertisers. As such, it's added revenue for the theater owners. With the costs of buying reels from distributors rapidly increasing, and sales of refreshments staying pretty much the same, the theaters had to find a new way to make money. Like it or not, this recent in-house advertising trend is only going to get worse.

ShamusChad · 08-14-2002, 01:59 PM

I half knew that... I thought they made more off of ticket sales that 0%...I still think they do, but not much more.

Millie, all we have now is an inability to be angry with the theatre itself. Now we have to go higher up on the food chain to rant...but isn't that how it always is?

Regardless, we still have a situation where someone is to blame for the ads that aren't necessary.

Quote:

Capitalism is based on greed, so I guess this means you agree with me.

Welcome to -High School Dropout- Poli Sci. Rhetoric 101. Searyx will be your teacher this afternoon.

Millie · 08-14-2002, 02:49 PM

There might be a nominal percentage made by the theaters, but it's not much more than 1/2 - 1 percent at best. Basically, it's negligible, and not enough to keep movie theaters in business in and of itself.

Unfortunately, selling snacks isn't covering the increasing costs of running a theater this day in age, either. Hence, the advertisements. They're 'necessary' inasmuch as they're keeping the theaters financially afloat. In this economy, business isn't so much about making exhorbitant profits as it is just staying in business to begin with.

gn0me · 08-14-2002, 05:23 PM

Actovus quit your whining.

As Millie and the others pointed out - the theaters are not trying to make fat profits, but merely stay in business. As the economy and the industry change, the theaters must change with it or end up closing. Don't blame them, there is really nothing that can be done on their part other than raising prices elsewhere.

You, however, have three good options:

1.) Don't go to the theaters, just wait for the DVD / rental.
2.) Go to the theaters 15 minutes late and avoid the commercials.
3.) Endure the commercials.

If you can't live with one of the above, you're probably destined to be an unhappy bastard for life.

sux 2 b u

~~

Szlia · 08-14-2002, 06:39 PM

At some point the studio were both making the movies and owning the theatres but that was vertical integration and not allowable by anti trust laws so the different layers of the movie industry got separated (a bit like what they wanted to do with Microsoft). I am really not sure when it happened btw... let's say somewhere between the 20s and the 50s :P

All that to say that today the studio and the theatres owners are different companies completely, and like Millie pointed out, it's important to understand who is getting money for what. I remember vaguely an article some years ago on that very topic, and I think that indeed the true income for theatres comes from the snacks/drink and ads.

Oh! and about this:

Quote:

It doesn't even matter anymore... it's been happening forever... did anyone even notice the ENORMOUS pepsi ad in Blade Runner? It's been happening forever and it's only going to get worse.

This poster is very right because in a lot of the movies of the Lumière brothers (considered inventor of cinema around here - I think the US favors Edison, but that's another debate entirely :P ) you would see boxes of "Sunlight" soap or ads for it...

EDIT: After a quick search the Lumière brothers made the first movie add ever for the Sunlight soap in 1898, but in switzerland François-Henri Lavanchy-Clarke who was both mandated by the Lumière and importator of the "Sunlight" soap made documentary movies with product placement in them :P I tried to find a still but could not find one :P

Eomer · 08-14-2002, 07:12 PM

I dunno, I think that basically the theatres, production studios yadayada are still more or less owned by the same companies, or the same handful. Viacom owns Famous Players (or is it Cineplex, fuck if I know which), one of the major studios, Blockbuster Video, and a whack of other stuff. They are technically all different companies, but they are owned by one big massive conglomerate.

Although the above could be completely wrong, I just remember hearing talk about stuff like that back when I worked at a Blockbuster in high school.

Millie · 08-14-2002, 07:37 PM

Eomer is right; there is still a considerable amount of vertical integration alive and thriving today. And it's only getting worse.

I worked recently for Paramount Pictures, which happens to be owned by Viacom. Viacom also owns CBS, Blockbuster Video, Nickelodeon, MTV and MTV2, VH1, Showtime, TNN, UPN, BET, and a host of other companies. I'm fairly sure Viacom (like the other major studios) is banned from owning theaters in the United States. But outside the US, major theater chains can be owned by studio conglomerates.

Actovus · 08-14-2002, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Unfortunately, selling snacks isn't covering the increasing costs of running a theater this day in age, either. Hence, the advertisements. They're 'necessary' inasmuch as they're keeping the theaters financially afloat. In this economy, business isn't so much about making exhorbitant profits as it is just staying in business to begin with.

I have to disgree in a small way with this. People are flocking to the movies right now. Spider-man, XXX, Signs ect are all breaking opening day records. I don't see less and less people going to the movies, it's actually the other way around. I havn't seen theatres closing anywhere. I see them expanding all over the place. There are 3 movie theatres within 15 miles of my house and they all do excellent business. The movie business is very healthy atm.

And also, if you're going to troll here from the rickshaw to take a baseless cheap shot, at least come up with a thought of your own instead of repreating somebody else.

Searyx · 08-14-2002, 08:25 PM

Quote:

I have to disgree in a small way with this. People are flocking to the movies right now. Spider-man, XXX, Signs ect are all breaking opening day records. I don't see less and less people going to the movies, it's actually the other way around. I havn't seen theatres closing anywhere. I see them expanding all over the place. There are 3 movie theatres within 15 miles of my house and they all do excellent business. The movie business is very healthy atm.

Who are you disagreeing with? No one has said that theaters were closing, nor did anyone say that theater attendance was slumping.

Quote:

the theatre is supposed to be the place where you pay money NOT TO SIT THROUGH COMMERCIALS

That is incorrect. You pay money to see the movie. Nothing more.

Quote:

And also, if you're going to troll here from the rickshaw to take a baseless cheap shot, at least come up with a thought of your own instead of repreating somebody else.

Next time you take a shot at someone, try to let the rest of us know who you're shooting at

Muuru · 08-14-2002, 08:55 PM

Millie, the point about ticket prices not making the movie theatres anything could just as easily be turned around into saying that the snacks make them nothing, all the snack profits go towards costs of running the place. Or are you saying that the silver city near me has to pay $13 to whichever movie company made a given move per person that sees it, and the theatre on the other end of town only pays $8.50? My point was this: The movie theatres needed/wanted to make more money. There were two ways they could do this. Number one, they could raise their prices either on snacks, or tickets, or BOTH. Number two, they could put ads SOMEWHERE. Sorta like how more and more websites are getting popup windows. Don't like those windows? Start writing checks to the people running the sites, beecause not everyone has the money to just hand out bandwidth.

ShamusChad · 08-14-2002, 09:00 PM

Quote:

That is incorrect. You pay money to see the movie. Nothing more.

So there shouldn't be commercials?

Eomer · 08-14-2002, 09:02 PM

I read a story somewhere saying that actual attendence for individual movies IS down over the past few years. The reason why records are being broken left and right is because the industry uses money as a benchmark, and not actual attendence. With movie tickets 50% more than they were 5 years ago, it's pretty understandable that records are being broken all the time.

And let's also not forget the fact that every big blockbuster that comes out, they create a new record for it to break. Congrats to Whatevergodawfulmovie for grossing the most amount of money of any movie directed by a cripple, released during a lunar eclipse!

08-14-2002, 12:27 PM	#34 (permalink)
Millie Feisty Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 5,709	"Greed" has nothing to do with this. Ticket prices do not affect movie theaters directly. Indirectly, they might scare off or attract business. But directly, 100% of the profits from ticket sales go to the studios. Movie theaters don't make a dime off the movie itself, whether it be Chairman of the Board or Spider-Man. The distributors and producers of the movies see all that revenue. Movie theaters' money is made through selling refreshments. Incidentally, that is why drinks and snacks cost so damn much at theaters these days. It's the only source of income for the particular theater in question. I'm guessing that these new commercials before the movies are the work of local advertisers. As such, it's added revenue for the theater owners. With the costs of buying reels from distributors rapidly increasing, and sales of refreshments staying pretty much the same, the theaters had to find a new way to make money. Like it or not, this recent in-house advertising trend is only going to get worse. __________________ Last edited by Millie : 08-14-2002 at 12:32 PM.

08-14-2002, 02:49 PM	#36 (permalink)
Millie Feisty Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 5,709	There might be a nominal percentage made by the theaters, but it's not much more than 1/2 - 1 percent at best. Basically, it's negligible, and not enough to keep movie theaters in business in and of itself. Unfortunately, selling snacks isn't covering the increasing costs of running a theater this day in age, either. Hence, the advertisements. They're 'necessary' inasmuch as they're keeping the theaters financially afloat. In this economy, business isn't so much about making exhorbitant profits as it is just staying in business to begin with. __________________

08-14-2002, 05:23 PM	#37 (permalink)
gn0me so much h8 Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Portland, Ore. Posts: 730 -4 Internets	Actovus quit your whining. As Millie and the others pointed out - the theaters are not trying to make fat profits, but merely stay in business. As the economy and the industry change, the theaters must change with it or end up closing. Don't blame them, there is really nothing that can be done on their part other than raising prices elsewhere. You, however, have three good options: 1.) Don't go to the theaters, just wait for the DVD / rental. 2.) Go to the theaters 15 minutes late and avoid the commercials. 3.) Endure the commercials. If you can't live with one of the above, you're probably destined to be an unhappy bastard for life. sux 2 b u ~~ __________________ The Gnome of Own

08-14-2002, 07:37 PM	#40 (permalink)
Millie Feisty Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 5,709	Eomer is right; there is still a considerable amount of vertical integration alive and thriving today. And it's only getting worse. I worked recently for Paramount Pictures, which happens to be owned by Viacom. Viacom also owns CBS, Blockbuster Video, Nickelodeon, MTV and MTV2, VH1, Showtime, TNN, UPN, BET, and a host of other companies. I'm fairly sure Viacom (like the other major studios) is banned from owning theaters in the United States. But outside the US, major theater chains can be owned by studio conglomerates. __________________ Last edited by Millie : 08-14-2002 at 07:40 PM.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

08-14-2002, 10:31 AM	#32 (permalink)
Eomer Registered User Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 9,445 +29 Internets	Capitalism is motivated by greed, not based on it.

08-14-2002, 07:12 PM	#39 (permalink)
Eomer Registered User Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 9,445 +29 Internets	I dunno, I think that basically the theatres, production studios yadayada are still more or less owned by the same companies, or the same handful. Viacom owns Famous Players (or is it Cineplex, fuck if I know which), one of the major studios, Blockbuster Video, and a whack of other stuff. They are technically all different companies, but they are owned by one big massive conglomerate. Although the above could be completely wrong, I just remember hearing talk about stuff like that back when I worked at a Blockbuster in high school.

08-14-2002, 08:55 PM	#43 (permalink)
Muuru Registered User Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 134 -1 Internets	Millie, the point about ticket prices not making the movie theatres anything could just as easily be turned around into saying that the snacks make them nothing, all the snack profits go towards costs of running the place. Or are you saying that the silver city near me has to pay $13 to whichever movie company made a given move per person that sees it, and the theatre on the other end of town only pays $8.50? My point was this: The movie theatres needed/wanted to make more money. There were two ways they could do this. Number one, they could raise their prices either on snacks, or tickets, or BOTH. Number two, they could put ads SOMEWHERE. Sorta like how more and more websites are getting popup windows. Don't like those windows? Start writing checks to the people running the sites, beecause not everyone has the money to just hand out bandwidth.

08-14-2002, 09:02 PM	#45 (permalink)
Eomer Registered User Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 9,445 +29 Internets	I read a story somewhere saying that actual attendence for individual movies IS down over the past few years. The reason why records are being broken left and right is because the industry uses money as a benchmark, and not actual attendence. With movie tickets 50% more than they were 5 years ago, it's pretty understandable that records are being broken all the time. And let's also not forget the fact that every big blockbuster that comes out, they create a new record for it to break. Congrats to Whatevergodawfulmovie for grossing the most amount of money of any movie directed by a cripple, released during a lunar eclipse!