Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Dew, can you explain how it affects that shareholder in the movie? I am really curious. It seems to me that the money is made per *screening* of the film.
If you have a theater with 300 seats, and only sell 150 tickets to the 7:30 showing, does anyone really lose money if 10 people who saw a different movie at 5:00 sit in the empty seats for the 7:30 show? Those seats didn't sell anyway.
I really am curious, here.
And WHAT IF those 10 people bought more popcorn before hopping into the 7:30 show?
Easy answer first: The only person making money on popcorn is the theater owner. (Who, if he sells enough overpriced popcorn, can hire more employees and, hopefully, pay them more than minimum wage.) Studios/Production companies make zilch off snacks.
Box office accounting is such a mess. But what it boils down to (or what it boils down to in theory) is the investor in the movie makes money off of every single ticket sold. Basically, the more people that see a movie * and pay to see that particular movie * the more money the studio/production company makes. If someone sees a movie for "free" the shareholders/studio makes no money.
All of this has been a BIG broo-ha-ha for the past 30 years or so. Major lawsuits. Actors suing because the studio accounting is "off".
It all boils down to: a movie costs XXX to make. The shareholders/producers need to have XXXX dollars come in to make a profit. The only way to make the profit is ticket sales. And, now, video sales.
I'm half laughing to myself because if my explanation makes any sense at all, then Sony Pictures should put me in their accounting department.
One more thing: The more screenings there are, the more chance there is to make money. Which is obvious, I guess. That's why money makers like Harry Potter open with a special midnight showing then screenings through the day. More chances to put paying customers in the seats.
Last edited by DewDropInn; 07-23-2011 at 04:54 PM..
The only person making money on popcorn is the theater owner. (Who, if he sells enough overpriced popcorn, can hire more employees and, hopefully, pay them more than minimum wage.) Studios/Production companies make zilch off snacks.
Umm, the corn farmers in Nebraska and Iowa, etc., are making money on the popcorn too.
Seriously, though, I understand your explanation about the number of tickets sold equals profits.
However, the movie hopping would only seem to affect that if the movie were sold out.
Then, the 20 people who snuck in for free would be depriving 20 different people from paying their $10, and thereby would be depriving the executives of profits.
In the case of a movie not sold out, I guess you could say that the 20 people who are sitting in the otherwise empty seats are depriving the executives of profits IF and ONLY IF those 20 people would have paid a separate $10 to see the movie on another occasion.
Yet, the way I see it, the people who movie hop would not in fact pay an additional $10 to see the second movie at another time. And if so, if they are just occupying an otherwise empty seat, it is not taking money away from anyone.
How about this: If you movie hop to see a movie (that you would otherwise have paid to see) are you going to come back and pay to see it legitimately a second time?
Once you've seen the movie you've seen it. So that movie has been seen and not payed for. Ergo, the more people that see it for free by sneaking in, the less likely it is that they are going to pay to see it - including coming back to the theater, renting it in whatever format, or buying the DVD - and the less money everybody makes.
Expert and professional speaking here. Over 25 years directly in motion picture exhibition. Past usher, projectionist, cashier concesionaire, assistant manager, manager, district manager, acting director of operations, and owner. I know the ropes, know the drill.
First. Movie hopping is illegal, pure and simple. It falls under "theft of services." There is no getting around it, and management CAN (but rarely does) have people arrested. You want to argue, talk to the badge over there.
Second. It can be prevalent at poorly managed multiplexes, and can be allowed as a last ditch effort to increase teen sales to keep a location from going under totally. If it is allowed, the theatre is NOT safe.
Third. Distributors do both blind (theatre never sees the auditor announce himself) and open (auditor presents with a letter from the distributor and asks for opening and closing ticket numbers) checks, where the number of heads in an auditorium are counted and those are matched up against reported attendance and receipts. If they don't match reasonably well, the theatre owner will get charged for what the film distributor feels is an accuate accounting or will be taken "off service" (not allowed to book pictures from that distributor until accounts are settled.)
Fourth. Movie hopping is incredibly rude to other paying customers. People entering mid-film or leaving to see another movie during mid-film are distracting at best. Even more importantly, auditoriums are sold down to the last seats, especially on popular films. The movie hoppers steal the seats of paying patrons, and make paying patrons have to accept far worse seating locations than they would otherwise.
Fifth. I used to ban people caught movie hopping, swap the signs around so that hoppers who went from one show to another ended up in either an empty auditorium or the worst film in the plex, and generally make their lives miserable. In cases where there was an officer on duty, I many times had him hold them while parents were called to come pick up their little darlings.
Sixth. It is your morality, your life. I really don't personally care how you mess it up. Never did. What I did care about was your thieving ways making my work harder when I already had quite enough to do.
What I did care about was your thieving ways making my work harder when I already had quite enough to do.
If you don't want to deal with theft, pilferage, shrinkage, vandalism, etc. you shouldn't be in business at all. It's going to happen, and it's your job to figure out a way to make money in spite of it. Your job is your job, whether you already have enough to do, or not.
If you don't want to deal with theft, pilferage, shrinkage, vandalism, etc. you shouldn't be in business at all. It's going to happen, and it's your job to figure out a way to make money in spite of it. Your job is your job, whether you already have enough to do, or not.
That is an absolutely idiotic response. I don't say that as a personal attack, because I've seen you write some really insightful stuff, and I only am addressing this particular response and how it relates to what was written previously.
I "shouldn't" be in business because I was annoyed with thieves and dealt with them?Really??? Then according to your great knowledge of theatre operations, you have defined yourself as pro-theft and pro turning movie-goers into unthinking mobs. You have also painted every businessman annoyed with thieves as "shouldn't be in business at all". What an asinine over-reaching statement.
Re-read the post. You "shouldn't" respond to posts without reading them and responding to the points in the post. Read especially the part where I dealt with that type of theft. I actually did that job more competently and completely than numerous other peers who had already attempted the task.
I don't need to blow my horn or bore people with what I did and how. Suffice to say, I stopped a serious movie hopper problem (dozens of kids doing it) at one theatre COMPLETELY in two weeks. Somehow, having done that (and much much more) your response comes across as ridiculous and petty.
You said "making my work harder when I already had quite enough to do."
I said that is an inescapable part of every business involving trade with the general public, and nobody should be going into business with the assumption that it is an added burden that can somehow be avoided. It's like saying accounting or inventory or insurance or hiring or security or shipping/receiving or scheduling or safety are "making my work harder when I already had quite enough to do". If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't say that as a personal attack, because I've seen you write some really insightful stuff, and I only am addressing this particular response and how it relates to what was written previously. 
