Movie ticket prices reach new milestone

 
 
If you thought it was getting more expensive to go the movies, your hunch was right. The average ticket price at theaters in the U.S. last year rose to an all-time annual high of $7.89,  up 5% from $7.50 in 2009, according to the National Assn. of Theatre Owners. In the fourth quarter, the average price was $8.01, up 5% from the year-ago period.

That may seem unusually low to people in L.A., where ticket prices are typically much higher, but the figure represents a national average of theaters in big cities and small towns alike, and includes lower-priced matinees and children's prices.

NATO spokesman Patrick Corcoran attributed the increase primarily to the increase in 3-D screenings, which can add $2.50 to $4 to the ticket price. Hollywood is expected to release about 35 3-D films this year, and theater owners are rushing to add 3-D screens to handle the growth. Just this week, Regal Entertainment, the nation's largest theater operator, announced that it would double its number of RealD 3-D screens.

All of which means ticket prices are likely to continue to rise. One AMC Theatres location in New York last summer raised eyebrows when it was selling $20 tickets for Imax 3-D screenings of the DreamWorks Animation movie "Shrek Forever After."

The rise in ticket prices came in a year when box office was virtually flat with the prior year, reaching $10.6 billion in revenue, while attendance dropped 5.3% compared with 2009.

Still, Corcoran downplayed the effect of ticket inflation on attendance, noting that the 2010 increase is “not way out of line” with those of the last five years and that prices are still below what they were in 1970 when inflation is factored in. Then, the average ticket price was $1.55, or $8.71 when adjusted for inflation.

Corcoran attributed the drop in attendance to fewer movies being released and to fewer hits in the latter part of the year. 

"People aren't staying away because of ticket prices,'' Corcoran said, "they are staying away because of the movies."

-- Richard Verrier

Photo: Moviegoers crowd at the AMC Burbank 16 theater on a Friday night. Photo credit: Ringo H.W. Chiu / For the Los Angeles Times

 RELATED:

Average movie ticket price jumps 8%

Watching 3-D in Imax: It will cost you

Regal to double its number of RealD 3-D screens

 

 

Comments

[DrD01]

While Verrier is right about the quality of the products. This is ALL attributed to ticket prices. If I am paying $20 to see a movie in LA, I will see it ONCE. That being said, I would rather buy the blu ray, or If I am taking a girl on a date, ditching the entire trip to the movies and spending that $60 (including concessions) and going out to dinner, only to come home and watch a movie. It is RIDICULOUS how expensive they have made ticket prices, and it is the SAME thing with Video Games, Prices are TOO high, wages are stagnant, and there is NO incentive to spend my hard earned money on inflated prices!

[Adreana Langston]

The industry thinks 3D is the answer because 3D can't be bootleged. I put my complete faith in the East Indian and Chinese hackerpreneurs to come up with a way to pirate 3D movies while keeping the 3D aspect. The industry will ride the wave of 3D higher ticket prices now but that wave will crash. Not only that but the growth of alternate forms of distribution, making for a lower threshhold to get independently produced films widely distributed, will continue.

[B]

If you continue to raise prices , who can afford to see a movie anymore.

[esb]

Netflix, Netflix, Netflix !

[James Breen]

I hate to come into this discussion on the aggressive side but Mr. Corcoran is about as clueless as NATO has always been. Saying that people are staying away because of the movies is pushing the blame on studios(as always) and not taking responsibility for being part of that drop off. The plain fact is that the movie theater has always been a cheaper alternative to live concerts and other forms of entertainment. In my case, my fiance and I have films that we want to see at the theater, but hold off for the DVD or second run theaters because the cost of a movie ticket in Hollywood is between $14.00 and $16.00 dollars without 3-D . All I can say is that you are cutting your own throats. Truly. Keep on raising the prices and you'll find your customer base that used to come see that film on opening weekend is probably going to find a cheaper alternative and wait for the DVD.....and you'll continue to make the theater experience more and more irrelevant in age when I can just watch the film on my computer.

Morons.

[Trent L. Maclay]

How can anyone bare to watch, much less pay for, the schlock Hollywood churns out these days?

[BarnacleBob]

Movie Ticket prices reach new "milestone." Yeah, that wasn't delicately worded.

[Steve]

I would go to the movies all the time if it weren't so much, but at around $15/person here in LA, you really have to stop and think twice before doing it. When you add parking, concessions and maybe a stop at dinner or coffee, you've hit about $40-$50/person. That's not what I call affordable.

[Larry]

""People aren't staying away because of ticket prices,'' Corcoran said, "they are staying away because of the movies." Yeah, um....guess again. This is one guy who is *definitely* staying away because of the prices. Maybe that isn't the case for everyone, but to just brush it under the carpet as a non-issue involves some serious head-in-the-sand thinking.

[victor]

Not going to lie, I'm still going to the movies.

[trust no one]

Well, considering movies are going to be downloadable within months after theatrical release, and many people have home theaters, why pay this kind of money for a movie theater experience for a romantic comedy/drama/indie movie? I'll go for a GREAT movie or a sci fi or one that really begs to be seen in a theater, but other than that... why?

I've been to the movie theater twice in the last 4 months, but have NetFlix, internet, music available wherever, whenever. Movie theaters are going from a normal part of going out to a luxury.

You heard it here first!

[Bebe]

There are a lot of quality movies being made these days. But seriously, why pay an extra $30-$40 to see a movie on opening weekend when you can get it through Netflix in 10 weeks for a buck or two? I used to go to the movies every week when the cost of a movie was significantly less than the hourly minimum wage. These days I only go once or twice a year, and only if there is something very special that lends itself to a theatrical presentation.

[steve]

What idiots, just force more consumers to stay at home with their 52 flat screen and rip new movies on the internet.

[Amy Alkon]

We're staying home to watch the entire seven seasons of "The Shield." Brilliant show. The entire set is $109 at Amazon, new -- the price of four movie visits for two at Landmark -- and it's consistently great.

[Chillipepper]

I have not been to any movies for the last 8 years. I rather go to redbox to pick up a movie and watch it with the family and friends at home with all the good food around.

[dean]

Corcoran attributed the drop in attendance to fewer movies being released and to fewer hits in the latter part of the year. " What? That's when nearly all of the nominated movies hit the theaters. I guess they aren't what he likes, preferring, no doubt super hero flicks and all those teenagers with the smart phones. I have given up on theaters, though I believe that's really the only way to see a movie. NATO is measurably the reason for my and other folks decision to stay away.

[michael]

3 reasons not to go to the movies anymore,too expensive even for a family of 3,not that many great movies anymore,you can find any movie on the internet for free.most people now days can't afford it,it's a luxary,paying rent and putting food on the table is more important.netflix is a good choice.and all these movies in 3d suck.we go about once every 2,3 months and only to mattinees.and we bring our own snacks,5 dollars for a soda i don't think so.

[Chris]

I've spent the last 15 years of my life working in the film industry in some capacity. Projectionist, Writer, Animator, Assistant DP, and Film Extra.
I know how much it costs for one of these movies to be made. And that's sad.

Spielberg made Jaws for far less money than Transformers. Jaws wasn't a waste of money to make, nor a waste of money to spend watching in the cinema. I can't say the same for the bots o' plenty. Go back, even a decade and a half ago, everyone on set still went home with a decent paycheck. Box office paid off and everyone was happy. Who cares about 3D if the movie is crap? And why should the public be forced to pay for some self-indulgent director's experiments? There ARE good movies made. Even cinemas can add to the positive social dynamic of a community when they are not viewed as greedy.

The creative types have been brushed aside for the business types in Hollywood, and the public is now subjected to it on screen and feeling it in their wallets. We could talk about editing films and censorship and unions and watchdogs and re-releasing and technology sputtering here at this moment but I digress. It's not as important...

I've just heard that there is discussion over internet services; billing them like electricity or hydro bills. The more movies online you watch, the higher your bill. Netflix is bound to get more expensive if this happens. I doubt any Chinese hackers will be able to do anything about that. If I worked at YouTube right now, I'd be scared for my job.

This is what happens when a small group of people can't see they've got it better than most already, and desire even more. And the public desire for more content is greater than ever before. As wonderful as movies and television and video games and stage plays and operas and music concerts are for allowing one to experience culture at large in a fixed time frame, it is NOT essential to life. Nor is it worth the fee.

And I'm telling you this as one who works for and is paid by the film industry. I would rather earn less and create better and show it more often to more people than to participate in what is happening now. Not everyone who works in film is an ogre. Many of my co-workers agree.

[Sophie]

I'm sorry, Mr. Corcoran, but it's not (only) because of the movies. There are multiple ways to view films nowadays, and many people are willing to forego the movie theatre experience. I know I am. Although there are certain types of "blockbusters" that people probably want to see in the theatres, the prices along with films themselves are really not worth it.

[Dennis]

I love movies. I use to go to movie theaters all of the time. But that has changed due to the ever increasing price of a ticket and quality of films being released by the studios. I'm not going to spend top dollar to see a remake (unless it's special like "True Grit") or a lackluster sequel. Period. I'll wait for HBO. And theater owners are guilty too. I'm not paying top dollar to see a movie on a small or mid size screen. And I can't tell you how many theaters I have been to where the movie is projected with incorrect aperture plates resulting in some of the film frame missing. Example: tops of heads cut off. This is extremely annoying. I have a nice big screen television and a blu-ray DVD player and I find myself enjoying more and more films in the comfort of my home. And the films look better on my television than in a few of the movie theaters I have been to. I'll make an exception and go out to a movie only after I have thoroughly researched it and deem it worth my money and effort. 3-D will be a passing trend. I enjoyed "Avatar" in 3-D. But I certainly don't want to see every movie in 3-D or even a 3-D film projected normally on a 2-D screen. Other issues with me are washed out color, herky-jerky hand held shakey camera work and annoying close ups. People go to the movies to see brilliant vibrant colors. I miss Technicolor. Hand a video camera to a 5 year old and you'll get all the shakey photography you'd want. I don't want to see it on a movie theater screen. It's a shame so many of the "Old Masters", directors, photographers, lighting directors, etc have passed away. They knew how to frame and photograph a movie...even black and white movies...the tones, shadows, etc. Thank you for allowing me to give my opinion. I really do like movies!

[Andrew]

Im lucky if I get to a theater once a year. Ive stopped going because its too expensive. Hollywood needs to realize that I have rent and bills to pay, and only so much left over for entertainment.

[downtown vibe]

To add insult to injury, a large popcorn will set you back $9 at Regal Cinemas in downtown LA.....

So $16 for a 3-d movie ticket, $9 popcorn, two soft drinks at $5.50 ea...... I don't know who they think their market is.

People just aren't that stupid... not even in LA.

[hijk]

I wouldn't mind paying more for movies if someone could get rid of the screaming babies, couples making out, groups having loud conversations and multitudes of people using their phones and ipods.
Anyway I don't go more than once or twice a year anymore. Unless there is showing of rocky horror or some other classic movie.

[Algonquin J. Calhoun]

10 years ago I went to the cinema (okay, I went to the multiplex and such) once a week. I haven't been to a theater since. People talking to the film. The glow of people on their cellphone. Teenagers chatting. I don't think I shall ever go to a cinema again. Ever. And I am less than 40 years old.

[Native Angeleno]

The pricetag is not the best reason to stay away from quality, or spending several hundred dollars to fly to Europe wouldn't be worth it. The price of a movie ticket is certainly not going to keep me from experiencing a new film of quality with better sound on a bigger screen.

I remember reading how Broadway Melody cost the breathtaking sum of $2 when it came out in 1929. King Kong was a bit higher, in the pit of the original Depression. Were they worth going to see? Apparently so, mobs in at least as dire straits as today went.

It's just a matter of priorities. If you deem it too much, you value the cost over the experience. And that's OK! It merely means you're not an aficionado of the art, but one more casual than committed. Others of us will have to enjoy the film without you. Wish you were there!