Sounds bad. Watching a movie is also quite expensive over here in Germany, but the prices you mention are just horrible. For this money I'd rather buy a book. Lasts longer...

yikes. I can get by with paying about $8 for a movie (5.50 for matinee)and $4 for a super large drink. There are usually about 3 or 4 commercials before the trailers. But with the ticket prices that much lower than yours (and it's a major chain theater)i don't mind the commercials.

There is no excuse for selling your attention this way.

Theaters pay nothing for film prints. They share ticket revenues, on average, 50/50 with the studio. They keep 100% of the revenue from concessions, which obviously have an extremely high profit margin (cost of a $4 bucket of popcorn, including labor, is probably well under $0.25).

The desire to sell your eyeballs to the highest bidder is motivated by greed, pure and simple. As you point out, you get absolutely nothing from the transaction except frustration.

Possible actions:

1. Boycott products. As you suggest, a boycott may work. However, boycotts tend to work mainly when publicized. Coverage in Hollywood and exhibitors' trade magazines could be very effective. To get that, a publicity stunt might be more effective than simply spreading the word.

2. Boycott movies. There is one studio, Disney, that forbids the showing of commericals before its films. Disney did its own research and discovered--surprise!--that moviegoers don't like commercials. So to get a Disney film exhibitors must agree not to show commercials (other than trailers) before it. Other studios would likely follow suit if there were enough pressure.

3. Radical action. PETA's tactic of spray-painting fur coats randomly did wonders to scare the shit out of fur-wearers. It's unkown how many times this vandalism actually happened--still, the myth is extremely powerful and has no doubt cut down on the number of public fur-wearers. Movie screens are extremely expensive, and once partially damaged they usually need to be completely replaced. If exhibitors thought that a certain rogue band of moviegoers was going around spray-painting any screen that showed commercials, they'd be terrorized into performing a crude cost/benefit calculation: Screen-replacement or security costs vs. revenue from advertisers.

I highly recommend consulting with an attorney before attempting tactic #3. It may be illegal in your area.

However, do NOT expect this problem to get better on its own. Theaters are right now contemplating even MORE ways to advertise to you. Many are already implementing the strategy of backing up the start time of movies earlier and earlier to accommodate more advertising. And the advent of digital cinema projection is expected to make things even worse--basically, theaters will run commercials ALL THE TIME, so you'll never go into a cinema and simply listen to music before a movie starts.

>>I highly recommend consulting with an attorney before attempting tactic #3. It may be illegal in your area.

May be illegal?! Hahaha. I love understatements...

peace.

I paid $1.50 for a prime time Saturday showing of Bringing Down the House about three weeks ago. It's second run, obviously, but all that means was waiting maybe 2-3 months after the original release. Unless it's something I'm particularly overwhelmingly anticipating, I might not get around to seeing a movie for a couple of months anyway.

$14 for a ticket? At that price, they'd better be providing free hookers.

Also, while I was watching those annoying commercials, I'd be drinking a 50 cent can of soda brought from home.

In all fairness I should point out that I live in Canada, and therefore my $14 ticket would roughly work out to be about $10 US. Just thought I should throw that in.

But Al's idea of free hookers works too.

US $14 is the top ticket price at the Arclight Theater in Los Angeles on Fri and Sat nights.

This particular theater does not have commercials however. In fact, an usher actually stands center stage and introduces the film, telling you who is in it and asking you to turn off your cellphone.

I know this is off point, but 8.75 for a matinee, where do you guys live? I have to make sure I dont move there.

I frequent the movies and I use the term frequent wrong, because I live at the movies. 3.75 for the early bird show, 4.50 for the matinee and 6.50 after 6 during the week, 6.75 after 6pm Friday and Saturday.

Whereever you all stay (and I'm sure its the 'big city') as much as I go to the movies I'd have to take out a loan.

Back on point: I feel like advertisement has gone too far. From the Dr. Pepper in Wolverines hands, to Cadillac infesting the Matrix Reloaded, which I am really peeved about because now I love that frikkin car and I dont want too. We could always just not support the marketing ploys, but that would mean not supporting the movies themselves, which would mean giving up the experience, and lets be honest, 60% of the reason we go is for the experience.

Wow, Brian (#7), that makes a stunt Jimmy Kimmel pulled last week of taking his entire studio audience (around 300 people) to see Gigli that much more impressive. It was only a Wednesday (IIRC), but still, ouch!

I live in a "big city" and I don't even see movies on Friday or Saturday night because it costs $8 then. I get stadium seating, a new theater, and so on, and so forth, for $7.50 or less. Even that's higher than it was recently, but it's a very nice theater.

Other very decent theaters in the area don't charge even that much, though the attached Imax screen is $8.75.

Cinemark shows either one or two commercials before each movie, plus a "Be a nice person" spot. The trailers follow that, though, so they get the commercials out of the way right up front. I guess I've gotten used to it. How sad.

I should clarify that Kimmel took them to the Arclight. He took the place of the normal announcer for that showing. And he said the movie wasn't so bad, though primarily that was based on an extended yoga scene in which J-Lo was braless, apparently.