Christopher Campbell's The Moviegoer - Lower Prices Now!

December 15, 2008


There was a time when I found Mike Leigh's films, as much as I love them, worth waiting for. With few exceptions, they're perfectly fine for watching on DVD or on television far after their theatrical debut. But recently I caught Happy-Go-Lucky (seen above) in theaters, partly to see for myself if Sally Hawkins' performance is really as Oscar worthy as everyone is saying, and partly because it only cost me $6.50. That's little more than half the price that movie tickets are usually going for in most of New York City these days, so it's a total bargain. And I'd honestly go to see just about any film for so little if I could.

Wouldn't you? Think of all the movies that you avoid because tickets are so expensive. Now that we're officially in a recession, there's even more of a reason to limit your moviegoing to only the most spectacular blockbusters - those that are completely necessary to see on a big screen - as long as you still have to shell out up to $12 a piece. That $6.50 price wasn't even for a matinee - the theater showing Happy-Go-Lucky always features this discount on Tuesday and Thursday nights (with some exceptions depending on studio-dictated stipulations). I've known some chain-run multiplexes, including my old employer, that occasionally offer similar deals on certain weekdays, but typically such bargains are only available during the slow times of the year, like early fall and late winter, before Hollywood releases its next blockbuster.

How great would it be if Hollywood just ended discounting on its costly blockbusters and allowed the other, smaller films to continue at a lower ticket price? Why should a great film like Happy-Go-Lucky, which clearly didn't cost much to make, have to compete equally against a big budget movie like The Day the Earth Stood Still? Moviegoers are already asked to pay a premium for 3-D (and, as Alex discussed last week, that premium is probably going to increase anyway), so it wouldn't be that ridiculous to charge differentially depending on a film's size and budget. Of course, ticket buyers have passed around this concept for a long time, and the studios and distributors haven't seemed to acknowledge such an idea, let alone consider it. Why would they? So Happy-Go-Lucky can gross even less than its current domestic take of $3 million? That seems unfair and insulting to the worth of great low-budget indie films.

If you had the option, though, to pay either $6.50 for Happy-Go-Lucky (or any other foreign, independent or specialty film) or $12 for The Day the Earth Stood Still (or any other Hollywood sci-fi disaster [flick]), wouldn't you consider the cheaper movie? Certainly a large percentage of moviegoers would still pick the more expensive title, because Americans often think higher prices equal higher quality. However, I believe many people would take the chance on the less-expensive movie simply because it's less expensive. Even if it turns out to be a disappointment to them, they've still saved almost enough to check out another cheap flick, too - perhaps, for example, Let the Right One In, which should be priced less than Twilight, even though it is the better vampire-human love story.

Here's another dream idea that Hollywood would never go for, even though it would solve a lot of issues regarding the quality of studio product: inspired by institutions like New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art, cinemas could have a pay-what-you-can policy. Instead of being a way for low-income families to see more movies, though, it would be a sort of large scale rating system, in which box office grosses are based on satisfaction. Exiting moviegoers would pay for the movie they've just watched, and they'd be allowed to choose what that movie deserved. In this fantastical scenario, Fox would probably be less likely to release a less-than-amazing remake like The Day the Earth Stood Still. Maybe the studios would actually try harder to make better movies rather than greater profits.

Although I realize, for such an idea to work, we'd all have to be wired up to polygraph machines and be made to give our honest evaluation of each movie. Otherwise, even some of the biggest fans of a quality blockbuster like The Dark Knight would attempt to get away with paying as little as possible. So the only fair and realistic thing for Hollywood to do right now is to cut ticket prices for all movies, as they're doing in Thailand and India already, in order to ensure that attendance will continue through the recession.

Unfortunately, attendance has actually been quite strong in America in the last month, encouraging the presumption that moviegoing is a recession-proof pastime, and big chains like Regal are celebrating very profitable quarters in spite of the economy. So maybe it's up to us to stop going to the movies for a while, especially to less-than-stellar studio releases like Four Christmases and The Day the Earth Stood Still. If only I thought such a widespread boycott would actually convince Hollywood to give us a bargain…

Find more posts: Discuss, Editorial, Opinions



Although I don't have anything particularly intelligent to add to is, I have to comment WOW those are really expensive movies. Here in the Midwest it's still $7 to see anything. $5 Sundays at my local theater! IMAX is still expensive, though. $16 for a ticket, but I'm sure it's still way cheaper than NYC.

Kate on Dec 15, 2008


Well, it's exceptionally expensive in NYC because there are so few movie theatres; it's cheaper and more profitable to run a stage than a screen there. Most places in the LA Metro area charge about $10, and IMAX usually runs about $13. I'm hoping to take advantage of winter break to catch matinees on weekdays, which are only about $6 or $7. Of course, since movies aren't really that cheap at all, I have a tendency to only shell out for movies I know I want to see; even big event movies can wait for DVD if it doesn't look like they'll be all that great.

Lady Aerin on Dec 15, 2008


Well here in missouri, unless you see a movie on a special screen like the Mega Screen in Chesterfield then almost all tickets are between $6.50 and $8 and some theaters are cheaper still. But they rarely charge more for a specific movie.

Alexander on Dec 15, 2008


In Fargo here we have a discount theater amongst the other more expensive ones that are around 7-9. You might have to wait an extra month or two for a movie to reach the discount theater, but it'll only cost you around 2-4 dollars depending on the day of the week

Reece on Dec 15, 2008


One of the Pittsburgh theaters had $5 tickets on mondays, with free popcorn. and i believe that is true all seasons (i went to one during the summer). and that would be quite cool for a movie to be at a reasonable price of $7. in NJ the theater I go to only has matinee till 2pm. IE, the very first kids movie is cheaper... but not much. what happened to a matinee being until 4 or 5pm?

dave13 on Dec 15, 2008


Mmm. I pay like $6 bucks on new released movies here in Seattle. I just go up to the Alderwood mall and see the movie at bargain price which is any movie before noon. it's sweet. Stadium seating, I can walk right in with my starbucks coffee or Jambaa Juice all for $6 dollars. That's how I save my money! You guys should see if your theaters have bargain deals.

The_Phantom on Dec 15, 2008


In the UK, you can expect to pay £5-6 (more if you're in a big city); similarly, it's pretty rare to find matinee prices. Thankfully, we have a popular feature for people on the Orange mobile phone network that allows you to get two-for-one tickets on Wednesdays. Unless it's for something like The Dark Knight that I know I'm going to go and see even at the higher rate, that's about the only way I could afford to catch all the movies I want to watch.

Ellinikos on Dec 15, 2008


well most people judge a movie by its trailer- Alex thought this looked light and breezy, so he avoided it because he'd rather see Dark Knight again. Happy-Go-Lucky is also one of the best of the year. there's an audience for big hollywood boffo and there's an audience for art house- people will pay the difference for the movie they really want to see. If you took a "Twilight" audience and tried to make them sit through "Let The Right One In" you'd have a bunch of teenage girls texting and complaining about subtitles and how boring it was. "I already read the book, now I have to read it again!" They're idiots, but idiots have a preference. I don't think a price difference would matter.

martymcfly on Dec 15, 2008

New comments are no longer allowed on this post.



Subscribe to our feed -or- daily newsletter:
Follow Alex's main account on twitter:
For the latest posts only - follow this one:

Add our updates to your Feedly - click here

Get the latest posts sent in Telegram Telegram