• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Official thread about the movie you just saw

Sure but there’s a path to profitability because you’re getting people to pay you for something they do all the time like go somewhere or listen to music. For a MoviePass to be profitable, you need more people to go to the movies more often.
 
PhDeac said:
Sure but there’s a path to profitability because you’re getting people to pay you for something they do all the time like go somewhere or listen to music. For a MoviePass to be profitable, you need more people to go to the movies more often.
Click to expand...
Thats one of the main points of a subscription, is that it would theoretically compel people to go to the theater more often.

What you and RSF dont seem to understand is that investors have already dumped hundreds of millions into this idea. There is plenty of money and trust behind the idea. The problem isnt the popularity of the concept, it's the execution.

Uber and other successful "disrupters" lose money at the margins. They drive enough income to remain stable. Moviepass wasnt just losing at the margins, they were basically giving away free movie tickets, to the tune of a 25 million dollar loss per month.
 
ITT MDMH teaches capitalism.

But seriously, I disagree with a few of your main points.

First, your first premise would be fine if the main thing keeping people from seeing movies in the theater was the cost. That was the reason people didn’t rent dozens of movies a weekend from Blockbuster and Netflix seized on it.

People don’t see movies on a daily basis because of a range of factors MoviePass can’t change. People live too far from a theater. The movies in theaters don’t fit their interests. The movies in theaters aren’t that good. Movies play at a specific time. They can watch the same film on their own time in a few months on a subscription service. They can’t take their kids to see most films. Even with MoviePass they’d need to pay $40 for a babysitter.

All those issues leave a very narrow consumer base of single people or DINKs in cities unless you drive the price point so low that it’s worth it for people who see a handful of films a year.

Second, just because some rich people like an idea doesn’t make it “popular” or a good idea for the masses. Most people probably don’t even know MoviePass exists.
 
Last edited:
"Understand" was a bad choice of words, but your dismissal of ticket cost being a major deterence is a wrong. There is plenty of survey report research showing that ticket prices are a major deterrent, if not the main deterrent.
https://www-indiewire-com.cdn.amppr...errer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s

"Regardless, 53% of those surveyed said ticket prices are too high, and that’s what’s keeping them out of theaters, and staying home instead. There should maybe also be consideration for whether wages have kept up with the rise in ticket prices over the years."
 
  1. Ticket prices are too high – 53%
  2. Movies are not as interesting as they once were – 41%
  3. Prefer movies “on my own schedule” – 30%
  4. Prefer to spend money on other activities – 29%
  5. Can see movies at home shortly after theatrical release – 24%
  6. Prefer going out to dinner – 19%
  7. Don’t have as much disposable income as a year ago – 18%
  8. Decline in overall theater experience – 16%
  9. Online content is equally entertaining – 13%
  10. Too many people using phones and tablets in theaters – 10%
Click to expand...

OK. But addressing #1 isn't going to fix the problem without addressing the other factors. And there is little MoviePass can do about them. Pretty funny that I nailed four of the top 10 without even trying. I'm guessing the family and schedule issues were bigger problems for respondents with families.

Here's the full write-up from PWC. It's pretty interesting although they really should have looked at factors other than age and moviegoing frequency.
https://www.pwc.com/us/en/industry/...e-series/assets/pwc-cis-box-office-trends.pdf

This is particularly interesting. I think this is closer to the future than MoviePass.

Interest in/willingness to pay extra
for other movie-related ideas
In general, respondents seem interested in both of these
ideas. They seem to like the notion of paying more to watch

a new release at home instead of at the theater better than
watching live events in the movie theater. Younger adults
(18-34 years old) are more interested in both concepts than
their older counterparts. The vast majority are willing to

pay an additional $10-$20 to watch a newly-released film in

their home instead of the theater.



82% would be willing to pay $20 or more to watch a newly released film at home.

Only 62% of frequent moviegoers said they'd definitely buy a subscription for unlimited films for $20 a month. That's not good.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm. So I have one that I prepaid for a year and one that is monthly (gave to wife as a birthday present) and one that I pay monthly (this should not be surprising but I am an idiot and thought one movie ticket was an ok gift, found out I was wrong and she bought another one with a monthly subscription). Wonder if they will both die the same death.
 
Just saw MI: Fallout. That might be the best action movie I’ve ever seen.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
yeah, tom cruise haters are weird
Click to expand...

I don't really get this either. I mean, I think the shit in his personal life is wacky, the talk show episodes are bizarre, and Scientology is just batshit crazy, but that doesn't mean I can't watch a movie with him in it and enjoy it.
 
Tropical Thunder did it for me. He’s hateable but too talented over too long a time to hate. Like Justin Timberlake. Lebron may get there but sports are different.
 
I don't think many people hate Cruise for on-screen stuff, just all the Scientology and wife-controlling reports.

Collateral may be my favorite Cruise film.
 
Right. That’s the point. The talent outweighs the other stuff when it all comes down to it.
 
PhDeac said:
Right. That’s the point. The talent outweighs the other stuff when it all comes down to it.
Click to expand...

Of course. The art-artist tension is nothing new, but it does require some cognitive dissonance in many cases. Where do you draw the line? How much impressive artistic output justifies what amount of shitty behavior? What moral line would he have to cross for him to be able to be hated by you?
 
Cruise is one of the most unlikely action movie stars you could imagine, but he's done it for 20 years out of sheer will. Cruise at 5'8, 180 is a better action hero than the Rock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top