On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Ed Dravecky <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bob in Jersey <[email protected]> wrote: > > Short version: Most movies will go straight to video, theaters will be > > limited to big blockbusters and have to charge closer-to-live-sports > > prices... > > Lucas: "Going to the movies is going to cost you 50 bucks, maybe 100. > Maybe 150." > > Uh, no. There hasn't been a movie made that I would pay $50 in > first-run, never mind $150. Oh good, I was looking for an excuse to stop grading papers... A quick historical perspective, based on data from Dave Manuel at whatdiditcost.com (I do not know how reliable this source is, but it was convenient) In Inflation-adjusted 2013 dollars, movie ticket prices were fairly unstable for the first 25 years or so. In 1910, the first year data is available, a ticket was $1.71, and prices decreased, as I guess they tend to do as new technology comes online, for the next 10-13 years. In 1923 the price was 96 cents. Prices skyrocketed in 1924 to $3.42 (I don't know why), and stayed around there for 5 years, then steadily and dramatically rose starting in 1929 over the next 5 years, reaching a high of $6.25 in 1933 (note the Jazz Singer came out in 1927, and the Depression began in 1929; I assume this period of increase was due to putting in sound, and then the increased popularity of films during this time). So a ticket went from 96 centers to $6.25 in the decade from 1923 to 1933. Prices were fairly stable from 1934 to 1960, with an average ticket price over those 27 years of $4.18. They did increase rapidly from $3.68 in 1947 to $5.26 in 1953; I am assuming this bump is due to the initial reaction to the popularity of television - I guess theaters tried to make up lost revenue from people staying home by raising prices. But in 1954 prices went back down to $3.91 and pretty much stayed there till the end of the decade. The real explosion in movie ticket prices came in the 1960s (maybe they figured they really did have to raise prices to get back lost revenue from television) When old people talk about how cheap movie tickets were when they were a kid, that is accurate for anyone who went to the movies before 1964. After that, any sense that movie tickets were particularly cheap in the past is a function of the distortions of inflation. From 1960 ($4.02) to 1971 ($9.54), ticket prices more than doubled. Prices declined in the 1970s, from that $9.54 in 1971 to $7.15 in 1981. Note that this is the period of the first "blockbusters" (Jaws came out in 1975. Star Wars 1977, Empire 1980), so at least the beginning of the Blockbuster period was associated with a price decrease, not increase. Since 1981, the price of a movie ticket has been relatively stable, fluctuating between $7.15 and $8.46 ($7.92 for so far in 2013). To simply this even more, movie tickets cost around $4.00 (give or take a buck) from around 1930 to 1960, then cost around $7.50 (give or take a buck) from 1961 to 2013. It seems to me that the two biggest influences historically have been the introduction of sound in the 1920s (and maybe color?) and the rise of popular television in the 1950s. Spielberg and Lucas are predicting an unprecedented impact on ticket prices from a technological/social development. They don't give a time frame, but if movie ticket prices went up to $100 over the next 10 years, that would be a 12 fold increase in a decade; the largest single decade increase in the past was 6 fold, from 1923 to 1933. So basically they are saying the impact of online video streaming + a focus on a Blockbuster financial model will have twice the impact on the movie industry as the advent of sound and color. Maybe they are right, but I am skeptical. The Blockbuster model, even if an accurate description of the movie business (and I am not sure it is - in some ways the last 10 years have seen a unique explosion in small, independent films) is flexible. Why is the inevitable response to six $250 million dollar films all flopping in the same year to build bigger movie palaces and charge $100/ticket? It would be just as easy (easier?) for the industry to decide to invest less money up front, taking less risk and even lowering ticket prices to compete with at home viewing options. Back to grading papers... -- -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
