14 Jan 2004 | Michel said...

Unbelievable.. approximately 25 times as many people to make LOTR than Casablanca.. gives you something to think about, don't it?

14 Jan 2004 | Isaack Rasmussen said...

harhar! That's a good point, though I paid $20 for my LOTR seat :(
Just days before the Matrix opening, they increased the price with more than 10%.

Just in time for Kill Bill and LOTR, the three big ones.

14 Jan 2004 | Brad Hurley said...

Hmmm, I just saw LOTR for $7 Canadian here in Montreal. When I lived in the States I always went to the second-run movie houses. I saw Titanic for $2.00 (about what it was worth, actually) in Bellows Falls, Vermont at the New Falls Cinema. Films there were regularly $3.00, and Tuesday was cheap night, when they marked the ticket price down to $2!

14 Jan 2004 | Zelnox said...

Now, imagine if all those elves, humans, and orcs were really human actors instead of intelligent agents. ^_^

14 Jan 2004 | asdf said...

It's almost as tall as the Empire State building! Theatres could just speed up the film at the end, easel mount the credits on art board near the exit or hand out printed credits to everyone as they exit the theatre. Probably cheaper than the time/energy/rent that's being wasted to run them.

14 Jan 2004 | Benjy said...

On a related point, why is it that all movies cost the same to see at the theater? They have their student, senior, matinee discounts, etc. but why is it that whether one goes to see "Lord of the Rings" or "Gigli" it costs the same $9.00? There's no difference based on quality of the movie, production costs, length... That'd be like going into a Toyota dealer and paying the same for a car whether it's a Corolla or a Land Cruiser.

It seems that a few "big" movies make a ton of money and so many others lose money, but maybe a more variable pricing scheme would allow all movies to make money. Maybe I'm willing to pay $20 to see "LOTR" because it's supposed to be so great, is long, and cost a lot to produce. On the other hand, maybe if I could see "Dude, Where's my Car" for $2.50 I'd pay rather than waiting for it to hit a second run theater or rent it on DVD.

14 Jan 2004 | Matthew Oliphant said...

Unbelievable.. approximately 25 times as many people to make LOTR than Casablanca.. gives you something to think about, don't it?

There the people that make the film and the people that get public credit for it. Back when Casablanca was made, my guess is that there were many more pople involved in the making of it than were credited.

And I paid 5.50$ US for my seat. And I had a great seat. Course I waited a for a month after it came out and went to a matinee. After seeing LOTR #2, I didn't want to waste my money again.

(The last sentence is not an attempt to start an opinion war on the quality of any of the films.:)

14 Jan 2004 | Anonymous Coward said...

My guess is that the black-listed commies didn't make the final credits...

14 Jan 2004 | Don Schenck said...

We usually attend matinees at $5.50 a clip. Not too bad, figuring $11.00 for two hours of entertainment. That's cheap.

(though I'd rather spend the $5.50 on a Padron 3000 and a Diet Coke (tm))

14 Jan 2004 | Michel said...

"There the people that make the film and the people that get public credit for it. Back when Casablanca was made, my guess is that there were many more pople involved in the making of it than were credited"

Of course there are. But I don't think that has changed that drastically over the years. Also a lot of new aspects (3d scenarios etc) has evolved the industry, and those things also enlarges the group behind.

14 Jan 2004 | dayvin said...

The NYT article that spawned this infographic will answer many of your questions about "credit creep." For the record, The Return of the King's credits are 9 minutes, 33 seconds.

14 Jan 2004 | lisa said...

i believe in the LOTR credits, he also credits members of the fan club. there are a lot.

14 Jan 2004 | One of several Steves said...

Unbelievable.. approximately 25 times as many people to make LOTR than Casablanca.. gives you something to think about, don't it?

Except, that's not accurate. In earlier eras, only the cast and major crew - director, camera, producer, maybe a couple designers - were listed. Even much of the cast wasn't listed. Now, everything is. It's not strictly a function of more people working on films.

And, anyway, comparing LOTR to Casablanca is comparing apples to station wagons. Casablanca had no special effects, no stunts, minimal costume design, minimal makeup, no need for fight coaches, etc. LOTR is a special effects extravaganza with elaborate costuming and makeup. Other than the fact that they're both films, they have no similarities at all. Of course the LOTR crew is going to be significantly bigger.

14 Jan 2004 | Silus Grok said...

I echo the sentiments above: the comparisons are unfair because of differing genres (I imagine there would be similar differences comparing LOTR and Chasing Liberty), and because of differences between expectations (modern movie crews _expect_ credit).

What I'd like to see, though, is a comparison in 2004 dollars of movie ticket prices (for a given metropolis -- as prices in NYC are higher than prices in Provo, UT) over the ages. I'm guessing that the prices have remained fairly even... but that's only a guess.

14 Jan 2004 | sandor said...

Complaints about rising movie prices always surprise me. Spending ten dollars for two hours of entertainment (in the city) seems like a bargain to me. Compared to theatre, or concerts, or even sitting at a bar for two hours, even at $10 you're going to get more for your money at the movies.

On a related point, why is it that all movies cost the same to see at the theater?

Probably because it costs the theater the same price to lease a bad movie as it does a good one (... as it does a short one as it does a long one). It's not a bad idea, though. Theaters don't really make much money at the box office anyway. If they could make admission prices for bad movies a loss leader with the expectation of recouping it at the concession stand, they might attract enough additional patrons to make it work.

14 Jan 2004 | One of several Steves said...

If they could make admission prices for bad movies a loss leader with the expectation of recouping it at the concession stand, they might attract enough additional patrons to make it work.

They are in effect doing that already. Theatres make very, very little from ticket sales. The huge majority of that goes to studios and distributors. Theatres make their money on concessions. Which is why a Coke costs you $4.

14 Jan 2004 | Benjy said...

Probably because it costs the theater the same price to lease a bad movie as it does a good one (... as it does a short one as it does a long one)

There seem to be problems with the financials of the movie theater industry top to bottom. Why wouldn't a theater charge more to lease an expensive, highly anticipated film than they would some low budget unknown film?

And once a theater has leased the film (sunk cost), wouldn't they do better to charge less for the movie to get more people in since there is little variable cost to having more movie goers see a film and there is the upside both at the concession stand and in that the marginal utility may result in twice as many people seeing the movie if they cut the price by 1/3, resulting in more total revenue.

14 Jan 2004 | One of several Steves said...

There seem to be problems with the financials of the movie theater industry top to bottom. Why wouldn't a theater charge more to lease an expensive, highly anticipated film than they would some low budget unknown film?

With a flat pricing strucutre, the studios are actually better-prepared to have some films' profits cover the losses on other films. Since forecasting is so imprecise and unpredictable in the film business - "Gigli", anyone? - if they attemped demand pricing it would likely be a disaster for all involved.

And once a theater has leased the film (sunk cost), wouldn't they do better to charge less for the movie to get more people in since there is little variable cost to having more movie goers see a film and there is the upside both at the concession stand and in that the marginal utility may result in twice as many people seeing the movie if they cut the price by 1/3, resulting in more total revenue.

No. It's not a sunk cost. It is a variable cost. The theatres do not lease a movie. They pay a percentage of the gross. They do not pay a flat price, which makes the whole point of that model moot.

Movie theatres, at the end of the day, are not in the business of showing movies. They are in the business of selling high-margin soda and food, and they use movies as the hook to bring customers in. Just as McDonald's is not a hamburger chain, but in reality a giant Coke and fries retailer (sandwiches are break-even, fries and beverages are enormous profit centers).

14 Jan 2004 | Monkey said...

Easycinema.com in the UK are bravely trying to shake up the industry by charging from 0.75-1.90 for the current showings (about $1-3)

- No box office (on site machine or internet booking only)
- No food or drink sales
- Discounts for off peak visits and less popular or older films

Only one cinema so far but I think they are planning on franchising

14 Jan 2004 | Darrel said...

Went to see Big Fish the other night. $15 for us to both get in. $9 for a combo snack (big, stale popcorn + 1 big drink). Then we sat through 30 minutes of pepsi commercials and previews to watch what appears to be a very pretty movie with incredibly expensive set design and a-list actors.

It sucked.

Back to the $2 theater with $1 popcorn. No matter how old/bad the movie, one can never complain.

14 Jan 2004 | Joshua Kaufman said...

Movies are pushing $10.00 a seat because too many people are stupid enough to pay that much.

14 Jan 2004 | MrBlank said...

With home theatres becoming more affordable, especially digital projectors, I dont see myself going to the movies anymore. Ill just wait till Netflicks has it.

Pay $9 to sit through 10-15 minutes of ads and a segment by the movie industry bitching at me to not pirate films? No thanks. I like my movies on my couch with an intermission so I can take a leak without having to walk over people. Movie theatres arent special anymore. They arent comfortable, they arent cheap and they arent convenient. I look forward to a time when movies go straight to DVD.

Although, with a home theatre, you still have to deal with that whole operation prohibited by disk bull on DVD players when you try to skip or fast-forward through FBI warnings and movie company logos. >:( I need to find one that lets me disable that.

14 Jan 2004 | Benjy said...

Pay $9 to sit through 10-15 minutes of ads and a segment by the movie industry bitching at me to not pirate films? No thanks. I like my movies on my couch with an intermission so I can take a leak without having to walk over people. Movie theatres arent special anymore.

But then you don't get to listen to other audience members talking the whole time, cell phones ringing, people chomping loudly on their popcorn...

15 Jan 2004 | Cade Roux said...

If you get the films off steal-o-vision (Kazaa, USENET, etc), you won't get problems like Bruce Almighty DVD where you have to watch all the previews.

Personally, I use a lot of different sources.

I go to the cinema and have AMC Moviewatcher card (which gives no service charge on Internet bookings and extra coupons with every visit and free popcorn on Wednesdays).

I use Netflix (I was up to 8 at a time, but right now I'm at 3 at a time).

I have Blockbuster Rewards (free non-new release Sunday through Thursday with new release rental, plus coupons).

I get steal-o-vision from other people (I don't have time to d/l, but I get the CDs from other people when they've got something good).

Out of all the experiences, Netflix on the home theatre is the easiest - no trip to the store, no expensive concessions, and has the least number of gimmicky perks, but it's simply better (except for when you get discs with stupid DVD tricks).

15 Jan 2004 | Cade Roux said...

Another thing - we used to have the New Orleans Original Daiquiris in the Elmwood theatre. Then before the big AMC Palace Elmwood 20, they closed it down, and the daiquiris at the AMC are not the same quality and there's no beer or mixed drinks. So we got stadium seating but we had to give up the higher quality concessions. Our tickets are starting to creep up in price too, now that AMC pretty much has a monopoly in the New Orleans area. It used to be $6, but now it's over $7. After the first Palace opened and before the other Palace theaters opened, the Palace 20 was impossible to get tickets, because at least six other cinemas closed before or after the Palace 20 opened, and the other Palace theaters were slow to follow.

What I'm saying is that the overall movie experience at cinemas is declining badly - we're getting stadium seating and all sorts of better technical improvements, but poorer overall experience.

15 Jan 2004 | monkeyinabox said...

More amazing that ticket prices are increasing as much as the amount of TV COMMERCIALS you get to watch BEFORE the previews.

15 Jan 2004 | Bill Brown said...

I would have liked to see a comparison between films of the past and a more representative sample of current films. Take a special effects extravaganza with an incredible budget and you're going to find a lot more people working on it. Why not include a few comedies or non-action dramas? It might not be as dramatic, I guess.

15 Jan 2004 | Don Schenck said...

I remember (I'm old) when we got to watch cartoons before the movie. *sigh*

Benjy, you talked about hearing people munch on their popcorn. That's stale popcorn, bub! :-)

15 Jan 2004 | Single in NY said...

As a single Dad, I tell my kids they can go see any movie they want. They just have to wait til it gets to the budget theater. 4 bucks for movie, popcorn, and a soda. All movies get there if a few weeks. They deal with it.

16 Jan 2004 | Darrel said...

The best movie deal in the upper midwest:

In the midst of the growth debate, the heart of River Falls remains small-town, perhaps best reflected by its movie theater: The vintage downtown attraction shows new movies, but admission is only $2 for adults ($1 for children 12 and under). A large soda is 75 cents, while popcorn costs from 50 cents to $1.50.

16 Jan 2004 | Darrel said...

The best movie deal in my neighborhood:

In the midst of the growth debate, the heart of River Falls remains small-town, perhaps best reflected by its movie theater: The vintage downtown attraction shows new movies, but admission is only $2 for adults ($1 for children 12 and under). A large soda is 75 cents, while popcorn costs from 50 cents to $1.50.

16 Jan 2004 | Bill Brown said...

The movie theaters must really be really trim in their margins to have to resort to saving electricity by lowering the wattage of their projectors (last Q&A).

20 Jan 2004 | Zef said...

Firstly, I think the LOTR credits are a cultural thing - NZer's tend to acknowledge as many people as possible because it's a small country. Even then, hundreds (and possibly thousands) were left off the credits list.

Secondly - a full-price movie in NZ costs USD$6 - cheaper deals are available depending on the day of tht week and the theatre.

25 Jan 2004 | Jason said...

no beer or mixed drinks