http://money.msn.com/now/blog--lucas-spi...ie-tickets

Lucas and Spielberg predict that after a series of big budget films flop, the movie market place will change. We will see fewer films and the ones we get will mostly be big budget events with a ticket that will cost $50 to $150 per ticket and run for weeks, months or even years at a deluxe theatre with more amnenities.

World War Z did a semi-test of this before going into general release. For a $50 ticket you got a small popcorn, collectible 3D glasses, a poster, and a download of the movie when it is released to DVD.

It's not a big leap to see a school like Alabama telling the SEC to not include them in the next TV deal. They are going to cut their own and milk $100 a game or so out of viewers.

(06-24-2013 04:45 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  http://money.msn.com/now/blog--lucas-spi...ie-tickets

Lucas and Spielberg predict that after a series of big budget films flop, the movie market place will change. We will see fewer films and the ones we get will mostly be big budget events with a ticket that will cost $50 to $150 per ticket and run for weeks, months or even years at a deluxe theatre with more amnenities.

World War Z did a semi-test of this before going into general release. For a $50 ticket you got a small popcorn, collectible 3D glasses, a poster, and a download of the movie when it is released to DVD.

It's not a big leap to see a school like Alabama telling the SEC to not include them in the next TV deal. They are going to cut their own and milk $100 a game or so out of viewers.

Obesity crisis solved!

sports is a poor analogy.

People want to see sporting events live (either in person or on a screen as it's happening). Movies? There are enough alternative viewing options that there is little urgency to see movies in a theater.

This is why ad rev for sporting events is starting to leave everything else in the dust. You can't fast forward through the ads on live tv and sponsors know it.

(06-24-2013 05:09 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  sports is a poor analogy.

People want to see sporting events live (either in person or on a screen as it's happening). Movies? There are enough alternative viewing options that there is little urgency to see movies in a theater.

This is why ad rev for sporting events is starting to leave everything else in the dust. You can't fast forward through the ads on live tv and sponsors know it.

But of course that only matters unless Madison Avenue fails to find a suitable replacement for the 30 second TV ad. They've not yet but never say never.

(06-24-2013 04:45 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  http://money.msn.com/now/blog--lucas-spi...ie-tickets

Lucas and Spielberg predict that after a series of big budget films flop, the movie market place will change. We will see fewer films and the ones we get will mostly be big budget events with a ticket that will cost $50 to $150 per ticket and run for weeks, months or even years at a deluxe theatre with more amnenities.

World War Z did a semi-test of this before going into general release. For a $50 ticket you got a small popcorn, collectible 3D glasses, a poster, and a download of the movie when it is released to DVD.

It's not a big leap to see a school like Alabama telling the SEC to not include them in the next TV deal. They are going to cut their own and milk $100 a game or so out of viewers.

there have been movie flops as long as movies have been made

remember Cleopatra back in the 60s? Waterworld back in the 80s, or maybe 90s

I can't imagine anyone ponying up $50 to see a movie no matter what extras you get with the ticket

and I'm not sure Alabama could opt out of the next SEC TV deal without Alabama being in violation of some sort of contract they have with the SEC since they're a member of the conference

I can't imagine Alabama going independent like Notre Dame. They're a national power but do they have any fans willing to spend money to watch them on TV outside of the southeast?

arkstfan - It's an interesting premise, but the actions seem to be trending in the opposite direction where schools are trying to pool their resources to minimize downside risk. Just look at the new SEC Network deal - Alabama, Florida and Georgia actually did the exact opposite of what you had suggested by assigning the third tier rights that they owned individually for decades (and were making plenty off of that they didn't have to share with the rest of the conference) to the conference in order to create the new network. Even a powerhouse like Alabama still needs access to those households in Georgia and Florida (just as Michigan and Ohio State need the Chicago households), so I don't think we're reverting back to a world with more individual deals. Even if people think that we're going to move away from basic cable, people have very little tolerance for PPV platforms. Netflix, for instance, is still an aggregator of a lot of different types of content at an all-you-can-eat price. It's the same thing with Hulu. In fact, the way that Netflix killed off Blockbuster was by offering a flat "use as much as you can" price for DVD rentals as opposed to paying for them individually. We all still want all-you-can-eat buffets for content. I don't think that will ever change. It's just that we want it cheaper (which is the main dilemma for TV networks and movie studios).

(06-24-2013 06:05 PM)Theodoresdaddy Wrote:  

(06-24-2013 04:45 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  http://money.msn.com/now/blog--lucas-spi...ie-tickets

Lucas and Spielberg predict that after a series of big budget films flop, the movie market place will change. We will see fewer films and the ones we get will mostly be big budget events with a ticket that will cost $50 to $150 per ticket and run for weeks, months or even years at a deluxe theatre with more amnenities.

World War Z did a semi-test of this before going into general release. For a $50 ticket you got a small popcorn, collectible 3D glasses, a poster, and a download of the movie when it is released to DVD.

It's not a big leap to see a school like Alabama telling the SEC to not include them in the next TV deal. They are going to cut their own and milk $100 a game or so out of viewers.

there have been movie flops as long as movies have been made

remember Cleopatra back in the 60s? Waterworld back in the 80s, or maybe 90s

I can't imagine anyone ponying up $50 to see a movie no matter what extras you get with the ticket

and I'm not sure Alabama could opt out of the next SEC TV deal without Alabama being in violation of some sort of contract they have with the SEC since they're a member of the conference

I can't imagine Alabama going independent like Notre Dame. They're a national power but do they have any fans willing to spend money to watch them on TV outside of the southeast?

Waterworld was 90's. I distinctly remember when it came out. I was amped out of my mind for that movie and it was the biggest letdown since I discovered that they stopped marking Godfather movies after Godfather: Part II. Godfather Part III is going to be GREAT when it comes out!

However, I refuse to pay $50 for a movie ticket any time in the foreseeable future, and Alabama will never leave the SEC. You're right about that. However, the SEC might have a different media deal setup after the next round of negotiations, where the school could do it, but they would have to share it with the conference and would only get an equal cut of the money. That said, I think that it's unlikely because they would lose their shirts doing it.

What you will see is the rise of Indy Films and the mega producers will only appeal to the rich, much like operas and orchestras. Really a silly economic decision by these guys if you asked me.

If Alabama tries to do something like that, wouldn't many of their conference foes (the likes of Mississippi State, Ole Miss, Arkansas) just say "Fine, we won't come to PLAY you unless you cut us in on some of your $."


Alabama still needs opponents in order to change big $ for a football game.


I don't see any way that works unless (a) a school goes independent, or (b) they're part of some small group that breaks off to form their own "super-conference."

Hate to tell you this, but Pro Games often have tickets in the $100 + range. Depending on you want to spend Athletic Booster Club donations you could argue $100+ / seat is in college too.

Lucas and Spielberg are out of their f-in minds. The future of movies is in tapping the burgeoning overseas markets.

Already 60% of Hollywood's revenue is coming from outside of America, and that number is increasing every year. The only real obstacles are competition from foreign movie makers (out of Bollywood, Hong Kong, etc.), pirating, and increased home theater quality in 3rd world countries. All of those obstacles get bigger if you try to set ticket prices at $50. Even Americans will flock to bootlegged Chinese versions if you set ticket prices that high.

Ticket prices for Live events like sporting events and concerts have skyrocketed in recent years, benefiting from the exclusive nature of the performance and strong fan loyalty. While I'm sure movie ticket prices will continue to creep up, I can't imagine $100 in 2013 dollars. In particular, large screen TVs mean that in a few months you can enjoy the exact same movie on you big screen TV. 60 inch screens have become standard fare, and screens up to 90 inches are available today, with even bigger UHD screens coming soon.

For $100 ticket price, a movie would have to be an incredibly compelling title, probably in IMAX 3D, with substantially improved seating, amenities, and perks, potentially requiring a new generation of theaters. Even then, it would probably only be sustainable on an opening weekend.

Regardless of the future of movies, expect upward pressure on sport ticket prices. The name of the game is no longer more seats, it's better seats with more amenities at higher prices. Ticket prices for NBA and NFL games are pushing $100 on average. Colleges that want to compete financially need to follow suit and Fans that want their teams to be competitive will need to ante up.

Visited Alabama. Maybe 0.5% of the population could afford that.

I already pay $62.50 to see Arkansas State with my required minimum donation and $92 per game with my actual donation.

UFC is charging $55 per event on PPV. Those seem to run every few weeks in addition to the free tv events.

It's not crazy to think that top events like USC-Notre Dame, Michigan-Ohio State, Alabama-Auburn might be PPV for $75 with ESPN and Fox Sports 1 carrying a stead diet of USC-Washington State, Michigan-Indiana, and Alabama-Ole Miss.

The principles behind Regents vs. NCAA apply to Alabama vs. SEC.

What did the Rolling Stones charge for the current tickets, something like $400 ea. Five years ago I could catch a Miami Heat game for $25. During game 7 of the playoff, tickets went for $500 for 300 level to $50K courtside. Its crazy what is happening to live tickets. But I can't see $50 for movies. There is a big difference between seeing something live and watching something you just rewind to play. It could happen to sports and is happening now, $10k to see the Masters and $5k to see the Super Bowl are just some of the crazy prices people ask.

I bought two tickets for an MLS game this weekend at Kansas City featuring the #4 team in the east vs. #6. I paid $68 a ticket on the secondary market a month ago. Today a ticket four rows behind me starts at $110. My nephew is a Texas Rangers season ticket holder. He went to the first game of the World Series and sold the rest of the games and made nearly enough to cover the cost of his season tickets.

Week before last we saw Wicked on Broadway and it was $165 ticket. At intermission, three mixed drinks and one coke was over $50.

(06-24-2013 10:58 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I bought two tickets for an MLS game this weekend at Kansas City featuring the #4 team in the east vs. #6. I paid $68 a ticket on the secondary market a month ago. Today a ticket four rows behind me starts at $110. My nephew is a Texas Rangers season ticket holder. He went to the first game of the World Series and sold the rest of the games and made nearly enough to cover the cost of his season tickets.

Week before last we saw Wicked on Broadway and it was $165 ticket. At intermission, three mixed drinks and one coke was over $50.

Broadway ticket prices are insane but you have productions like Wicked costing millions of dollars to put on and they have to recoup the costs somehow. But them still charging $165 per ticket when they've made back their costs and a whole lot of profit is criminal.

I would never go see a Broadway production. I saw 3 touring companies when I lived in the SF bay area. I can't imagine that the Broadway productions were any better. I saw The Producers in London and I can't imagine the guy playing the Matthew Broderick role being any worse than Broderick himself.

(06-24-2013 06:23 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  arkstfan - It's an interesting premise, but the actions seem to be trending in the opposite direction where schools are trying to pool their resources to minimize downside risk. Just look at the new SEC Network deal - Alabama, Florida and Georgia actually did the exact opposite of what you had suggested by assigning the third tier rights that they owned individually for decades (and were making plenty off of that they didn't have to share with the rest of the conference) to the conference in order to create the new network. Even a powerhouse like Alabama still needs access to those households in Georgia and Florida (just as Michigan and Ohio State need the Chicago households), so I don't think we're reverting back to a world with more individual deals. Even if people think that we're going to move away from basic cable, people have very little tolerance for PPV platforms. Netflix, for instance, is still an aggregator of a lot of different types of content at an all-you-can-eat price. It's the same thing with Hulu. In fact, the way that Netflix killed off Blockbuster was by offering a flat "use as much as you can" price for DVD rentals as opposed to paying for them individually. We all still want all-you-can-eat buffets for content. I don't think that will ever change. It's just that we want it cheaper (which is the main dilemma for TV networks and movie studios).

The adjustment is already happening. Cord cutters are already at it. I have two family members that have already done it, I would like to do it but not there yet. My wife and I watch shows on a couple of dozen channels but we pay for hundreds and it costs me about a car payment per month.

(06-24-2013 11:16 PM)Theodoresdaddy Wrote:  

(06-24-2013 10:58 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I bought two tickets for an MLS game this weekend at Kansas City featuring the #4 team in the east vs. #6. I paid $68 a ticket on the secondary market a month ago. Today a ticket four rows behind me starts at $110. My nephew is a Texas Rangers season ticket holder. He went to the first game of the World Series and sold the rest of the games and made nearly enough to cover the cost of his season tickets.

Week before last we saw Wicked on Broadway and it was $165 ticket. At intermission, three mixed drinks and one coke was over $50.

Broadway ticket prices are insane but you have productions like Wicked costing millions of dollars to put on and they have to recoup the costs somehow. But them still charging $165 per ticket when they've made back their costs and a whole lot of profit is criminal.

I would never go see a Broadway production. I saw 3 touring companies when I lived in the SF bay area. I can't imagine that the Broadway productions were any better. I saw The Producers in London and I can't imagine the guy playing the Matthew Broderick role being any worse than Broderick himself.

Criminal? When did trying to make a buck become criminal? They are for profit enterprises, their goal is to make as much money as possible. Anyway, they don't set the price of the ticket, the market (end user) does. If the market value is $165, and the production/theatre sell them for $80, some hardworking and smart guy will buy them for $80 and sell them for $165.

Sellers don't control price. Ask any farmer.

As far as George and Steve and their hundred dollar movie tickets, they don't understand economics. The market is a bell curve, the vast majority of the opportunity for money from the movie going public is in the middle 80%. The theaters have set the optimized ticket price at about 10 bucks. If they could make more by raising the price, they would. If they could make more by lowering the price, they would. At the current time they generate the most revenue by charging about 10 bucks.

George and Steve need to stick to making movies.

Interesting topic.

I don't think their theories are that outlandish. As someone living overseas, I'm shocked every time I come back to the U.S. and find that movies have gone up a dollar each visit. When I took the kids to see their first 3D movie, I was shocked at the nearly $80 price tag!!! That makes me not want to go to theaters any more.

Then, on the other end, I go to redbox and get a great movie for the whole family for $1.29. I have a decent TV screen at home...and microwave popcorn and sodas cost less than $5.

Um...yeah, I think the industry is likely to change.