Home > Blogs > Sir Critic on Cinema > Archives > 2008 > March > 26 > Entry
Would you pay $35 for a movie ticket?
Both Variety and The Hollywood Reporter today have reported that a luxury movie theater chain run by the Village Roadshow company is set to open in suburban Chicago, Seattle and other locations.
These theaters will offer deluxe amenities like reclining armchair seats with footrests, digital projection and the capability to screen 2-D and 3-D movies, as well as a lounge and bar serving cocktails and appetizers, a concierge service and valet parking.
Here’s a key graf in the Variety story: “But the circuit will especially push its culinary offerings — made-to-order meals like sushi and other theater-friendly foods from on-site chefs (a service button at each seat calls a waiter). Moviegoers will have to pay extra for any food they order, however.”
So let’s see: You get basically a ritzier version of the same stuff you get at one of the Showcase deLux theaters at the Greene in Beavercreek or the theater in Springdale, and you STILL have to pay extra for their hoity-toity food?
There are no plans to build a complex like this around here, but if Village Roadshow ever ventures out here, I have three words for them:
FOR GET IT.
I know this is supposed to be geared toward sort of an “upper-crust” crowd, but I’m still not convinced of the worth of this idea. I love a great theatrical experience, but I go to a theater to see a movie, not to eat. That’s why we have these things called restaurants.
Speaking of culinary matters, let me go off on a related tangent: When I hear people gripe about how expensive the theater is, I always tell them: Don’t buy the food! I know the tickets themselves are getting pricier all the time, but you have to have those to get in the door. Not so with the food.
I’ve said it before, and I’l say it again. If you pay these theaters $3.25 for a teeny little bag of popcorn, that’s like saying, “Yes, go ahead - gouge me and gorge me at the same time! I agree with your inflated price!”
Neither story addresses the issue of how these chains will deal with talkers, cell phones, etc., but I presume the “rarefied air” will discourage such behavior. Even so, that’s not worth $35 to me. If I want to avoid the incessant chatter, electronic devices and other distractions, the solution is actually pretty simple, and it’s a lot cheaper too. Don’t go on a Friday and Saturday night when the hordes are out. They show the same movies at all the other times.
But that’s just me. Am I missing something here? What would make a $35 ticket worth the price?
Permalink | Comments (9) | Post your comment | Categories: Moviegoing
Comments
By Mariaaa!!!
March 27, 2008 1:29 AM | Link to this
Even if I were able to afford it, there is no way in hell that I would fork over $35 for the right to eat raw fish and wash it down with a diluted cocktail. I’m not that stupid. Unfortunately, plenty of stupid people abound out there in movieland…..wait, a movie is included? Hmmm…..now that’s different. Sound’s sooo exclusive. They would cater to ME! Perhaps I should reconsider. NOT!By Brother Phil
March 26, 2008 11:33 PM | Link to this
As you know by now, I have difficulty forking over $10 for a movie. The only way I would pay $35 would be with dinner (served beforehand) and cocktails included. It would also have to be something I was dying to see. If I want to kick back and watch a movie from a reclining chair, I’ll stay at home and pop something in the DVD player. I wouldn’t even have to get dressed up. You really seem to have hit a nerve with this posting! (Now maybe if you got to see it before everyone else and got a free DVD included in the package, along with the fancy press kit and all the promo goodies…)By Allie D.
March 26, 2008 3:49 PM | Link to this
Good point, SRC. If it were even for a double feature with all of those accouterments, I’d consider it.By Hillary
March 26, 2008 3:16 PM | Link to this
Not a chance. No dining in a movie theatre (which, btw, after about a year -maybe 2- are all grimy and disgusting) is worth that kind of money. Go eat first and THEN go see the movie. Or better yet, netflix it and eat at home with your dvd player.By SRCputt
March 26, 2008 3:02 PM | Link to this
I just realized there is one way a $35 ticket is worth it. When it is Columbus Ohio’s 25th annual 24 hour Science Fiction Marathon at the Drexel East Theatre April 19 and 20. The admission for that event is $35, and I will be there. (So will Eric)By SRCputt
March 26, 2008 2:56 PM | Link to this
What would make a $35 ticket worth the price? If a big name band were playing live, maybe. If the case was performing live, maybe. For a movie, I would consider it maybe if it came with a couple of new free DVDS. Maybe.By Allie D.
March 26, 2008 2:32 PM | Link to this
Movie food should be designed to be eaten with little thought or attention. This is why popcorn and candy is so popular. Can you imagine eating sushi at the movies? lol I like to pay attention to the screen. If I’m going to eat a meal in front of a movie, I’ll do it at home, where I have the luxury of rewinding. For that much money, I’d go eat first and THEN go to the movie. This seems like a big money-waster. “Upper-crust” types either don’t make time to go to the cinema, or they have kick-butt home theater systems.By Roger
March 26, 2008 12:36 PM | Link to this
I’d pay $35 if I got a massage during the movie. Oh yeah.By Pete
March 26, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this
Well, lets see. I haven’t found a movie worth $7.00 (or $10 or whatever it is now) in over a year. So the odds of a movie worth $35 is pretty small, huh? Maybe if they had one of the stars from the movie it would be worth it. Maybe.