Elijah Wood has had it up to here with this AMC preferred seating nonsense
“The movie theater is and always has been a sacred democratic space for all,” says the ever-correct Mr. Wood
Aux News Elijah Wood
AMC is up their old tricks again. Hot off of Regal Cinemas filing for bankruptcy and shuttering 39 theaters, the only other game in town decided to make the moviegoing experience that much worse: Higher prices for “better” seats. Nothing says “come to the movies” quite like “we’re more outrageously expensive than ever.” Thankfully, one person who disapproves is national treasure and the ring bearer in all our hearts, Elijah Wood, and he has a big platform.
Tweeting on behalf of the theatergoing public, Wood took a Morgul knife to the heart of AMC’s hair-brained scheme.
“The movie theater is and always has been a sacred democratic space for all,” he wrote. “This new initiative by @AMCTheatres would essentially penalize people for lower income and reward for higher income.”
He has a point. AMC plans to launch a program called “AMC Sightline,” breaking the theater down into three sightlines: Value, Standard, and Preferred, reminding audiences that some seats in AMC’s auditorium suck while others are preferred. The company announced the plan to appeal to its investors, which we assume includes people who hate going to movies and Redditors still hanging on to their meme stocks.
“Sightline at AMC more closely aligns AMC’s seat pricing approach to that of many other entertainment venues, offering experienced-based pricing and another way for moviegoers to find value at the movies,” said Eliot Hamlisch, EVP and CMO of AMC Theatres. “While every seat at AMC delivers an amazing moviegoing experience, we know there are some moviegoers who prioritize their specific seat and others who prioritize value moviegoing. Sightline at AMC accommodates both sentiments to help ensure that our guests have more control over their experience, so that every trip to an AMC is a great one.”
It looks like they made a mistake in the press release. Sightline at AMC doesn’t “accommodate” moviegoers who like sitting in the center. It penalizes people who have already paid an exorbitant amount to go to the theater. It wouldn’t be surprising if even more people said, somehow, heartbreak feels just as good at home. As Elijah Wood put it, “Those that can only afford less (or are less willing to pay a premium) will get worse seats than those who can and want to pay more. I’m not sure this benefits anyone, really.” See, Elijah Wood gets it. We don’t know what’s going on with the rest of these weirdos.
85 Comments
Sightline at AMC fucking blows. Having said that, Nothing says “come to the movies” quite like “we’re more outrageously expensive than ever.” It penalizes people who have already paid an exorbitant amount to go to the theater.Meh. Still cheaper than going to a concert, a play, or a professional game.
But shorter also.
Depends on the movie, I’ve been to baseball games that were shorter than Avatar 2. Plus on many occasions the ticket for the ball game was cheaper than a IMAX screening.
Is it? With a half hour of previews/commercials/ads for the theater we’re already sitting in, plus the fact that every movie is three hours now… I dunno. Bands play like an hour and a half, and even if you throw in an opener, you’re still looking at less than three hours.
It’s gone up significantly against inflation, so much so that a family of four (or two parents hiring a babysitter) will have an expensive evening. Movies used to be about the price of coffee, and while coffee has gone up significantly, it hasn’t gone up THAT much. Movies weren’t meant to be a luxury activity, just something you did because you felt like it or you had some spare time to spend with people.
There’s a reason people went NUTS when Moviepass offered them a full pass for $9.99 a month and saw a ton more movies. I certainly did. “Ah, I have the evening open and I have Moviepass – what’s playing?” It was incredible. Their whole business model figured that people wouldn’t significantly increase their moviegoing habits if movies were just cheaper, which they immediately did. Cost has always been the main barrier. I have no idea why Hollywood absolutely refuses to acknowledge it.
I’m not saying it hasn’t gone up. I’m saying it’s still (a lot) cheaper than the other activities I mentioned. If you’re a family of four, going out to do anything ain’t gonna be cheap.I’m a single, childless dude that loves going to the movies, so it’s not really hard for me to go on $5 Tuesdays or matinees on the weekend (when no one’s there anyway). Having time is a luxury in and of itself though, I guess.
As a fellow single, childless male I also can go to the movies whenever I want. Looks like the end game here is boost those A-List subscriptions. Which I have. I go to so many movies that I’d actually be throwing money away if I didn’t subscribe.
Movies were never, ever the price of coffee.
If your local baseball team is terrible, it can be cheaper to get tickets to a game on the resale market! I remember seeing $6 tickets, although that was a few years ago. But perhaps more worth it to see a movie at that point.
Are you also a Mets fan?
Haha, Giants actually. They’ve gone up and down, but it wasn’t too long ago that tickets were dirt cheap. This season might be one of those years.
White Sox were selling some tickets for $5 themselves a few years ago. I don’t even like baseball anymore, but it was a great way to spend an evening.
It’s not the investment itself, but the return on it that is at stake here.
It’s about the same price as a the nosebleeds at an Angels game. It also depends on the time of year. End of the season against a team that they regularly play? Tickets are like sub $5. Food pricing is obviously not the same, as stadiums are the only places that somehow make theater pricing look reasonable.
I mean, seeing a fucking movie better be cheaper than going to see a concert or a play with live performers. What a pointless thing to say.
Not really. Most of the time, people compare the price of a movie ticket with the price of watching a movie at home, despite the fact that everything is cheaper if you stay and do it at home. Going to the movies is a social activity that competes with other things you can go out and do, and it’s a lot cheaper than most other things.
Well, again, it’s inevitably going to be cheaper than seeing a live performance because why wouldn’t it be cheaper. On the other hand, if they continue to raise prices while offering nothing additional to moviegoers then the value of seeing a movie vs. another type of performance goes down. Saying “it’s still cheaper” feels kind of pointless when the thing people are complaining about is “it is becoming considerably less cheap.”
Well, people are complaining about the goddamn stupid premium seat pricing, which I agree is stupid and bad for everyone. The parts I quoted describe movie theaters as not only already “not cheap” but “exorbitantly expensive.” I disagree that it’s exorbitant and compared it to other things people might spend their money on instead of leaving their house to see a movie (things which, for the most part, most people don’t seem to complain about the price of). I get where you’re coming from, but I’m not sure what else I should have compared it to. Bowling?
Okay, you’re right. Sorry.
They could have just raised their prices by like 50 cents. No would have cared and they would probably make more money than with this weird strategy.
They might indeed raise their prices, merely due to inflation. But a simple price increase can cost the most marginal customers, whereas price discrimination can increase profits without losing anybody.
Who the hell wants to sit in the first few rows of a theater when seats are available further back? This scheme forces those people who don’t want to pay more to occupy lousy seats. So, yes, price discrimination CAN “lose anybody” (sorry for the bad grammar to include the quote)…
By “lose anybody”, I mean as a customer/sale. You set the price of the seat by the amount people value it. If people aren’t sitting in the first few rows, then their price is too high. The classic example of monopolies being less efficient than perfect competition typically requires a lack of price discrimination: if they lowered prices to attract a marginal customer (who is willing to pay more than the marginal cost required to serve them), they would lose money in total due to those who would have been willing to pay the higher price now paying a lower one. Add in price discrimination and you no longer have the deadweight loss of those marginal customers not making any purchase.
It’s just factually incorrect though? In the movie palace days the balcony seats were discounted, the downtown premiers were the premium experience. In the multiplex era, until sub-run theaters died within the last 10 years, seats were cheaper later in the run. It’s only very recently that there’s been only one price for whatever you want to see because there’s no option to see it cheaper later. Not a fan of the pricing structure, but it’s really not unprecedented.
Elijah Woods isn’t an historian? I’m shocked. The AV Club told me he “gets it”!
I can see this for Imax movies, 3d, or special screens and theaters but for regular movies it seems like a bad idea
See, AV Club? It was much easier to write an article about this than to put together that video clip on the same topic.
What if it were a slideshow of just pictures of different movie seats? “Now here’s the standard one . . . and this . . . is the PREMIUM!”
If they haven’t sold those seats by the time the trailers are over, just move into those seats.
Then they’re going to have to put up barbed wire and armed guards to keep you proletariat riff-raff out.
I STAND WITH THE HOBBIT!
and my axe!
I already drive past AMC and Regal to the Stone theater just so I don’t have to watch those godawful Nicole Kidman or Danny Trejo ads. Fucking cringe.
What do you hate pinstripes?
Isn’t this already a thing in the US? Most cinemas near me in the UK have premium seating already (Centrally placed, more room, comfier). It’s not a big deal. Unless it’s a sellout showing there’s plenty of standard seats available at the regular price with no real difference in experience.
No, this is the first mainstream theater chain to use this policy here.
That surprises me.
I dunno, all the cinemas I go to in Sheffield have the same price for every seat.
My local Vue and Odeon both do it.
“While every seat at AMC delivers an amazing moviegoing experience, we know there are some moviegoers who prioritize their specific seat and others who prioritize value moviegoing. Sightline at AMC accommodates both sentiments to help ensure that our guests have more control over their experience, so that every trip to an AMC is a great one.”You can do that by just implementing reserved seating without making some seats more expensive than others.Y’know, like movie theaters in the rest of the civilized world.
Every AMC I’ve been to has already implemented reserved seating, which makes this pricing scheme all the more insidious.
Exactly. I can’t remember when it went into effect but the last movie I remember waiting in line for because it was first come first serve on seating was Star Wars: The Force Awakens.
Victory for the small-bladdered end-sitters!And those weirdos who like to sit right at the front I guess. Whatever their deal is!
I, for one, can’t wait to pay extra for a premium seat to better experience from my superior vantage point other people’s conversations, crackling candy wrappers, uncovered sneezes and coughs, inappropriately young children (hey isn’t this R-rated?), cell phones, mid-movie arguments, and occasional snores, all while my feet stick comfortably to the floor and I perfectly angle my reclining seat with a janky toggle switch contaminated with the trace fecal matter of a hundred prior guests. Nicole Kidman was right… this is magic.
“The movie theater is and always has been a sacred democratic space for
all,” he wrote.Did someone forgot to tell him that movie theaters are creations of capitalism, which were long owned by the studios producing the movies until legal intervention broke up that system?
“This new initiative by @AMCTheatres would essentially
penalize people for lower income and reward for higher income.”
Charging people for tickets at all rewards those with higher income and penalizes those with lower incomes. Again, movie theaters are capitalist.
It looks like they made a mistake in the press release. Sightline at AMC
doesn’t “accommodate” moviegoers who like sitting in the center.
A bit like saying movie theaters don’t “accommodate” people who want to watch a 3D movie by charging more for them, or people who want to eat snacks while watching movies by charging more for that. Except that the supply of preferred seats really is more inelastic than that of 3D glasses & popcorn.
As Elijah Wood put it, “Those that can only afford less (or are less
willing to pay a premium) will get worse seats than those who can and
want to pay more. I’m not sure this benefits anyone, really.” See,
Elijah Wood gets it. We don’t know what’s going on with the rest of
these weirdos.
No, he doesn’t get it. As you pointed out above, this announcement was intended to appeal to investors, so the idea is to benefit them. And the way it benefits them is via price discrimination, which is economically efficient and thus increases total utility. People who can afford less, or are less willing to pay a premium, will pay less (that’s the benefit for them) and receive less preferred seats. People who can afford more and are willing to pay premium will get their preferred seats (that’s the benefit for them). Imagine a case in the status quo where a person bought a seat in the center not because they especially value it, but instead just because it was automatically assigned to them when they bought a ticket. Someone else wants a seat in the center, and would have been willing to pay for it, but they can’t because all the center seats were taken. It would be mutually beneficial if that person could pay the indifferent center-sitter to change seats.
I won’t go to a movie theater with this pricing scheme because I wouldn’t be comfortable in the audience knowing I had paid for a better seat than other people.
Easy way around that problem: choose the cheaper option so the audience knows you paid for a worse seat!
You’re a pretty good advertisement for anti-capitalism.
Have you ever gone to a concert, play, opera, ballet, or sporting event? If so, were you uncomfortable in the audience?
All of those things you listed are instrumental tools of optics used to distinguish the upper and lower classes. Everyone who’s ever gone to a sports game has wished they were in the box. Everyone who’s ever gone to an opera has wished they were in a private balcony. Everyone who’s ever gone to a concert has wished they had front-row seats.
Or – and hear me out here – different people value different things in different ways. For instance, while I am financially comfortable, I rarely sit in a luxury box (or even particularly good seats) when I go to a basketball game or a baseball game, since while I enjoy attending, I have little interest in spending significant money for what to me is a relatively unimportant upgrade. Also, having been in a box at several games, it’s an entirely different experience and honestly not one I would necessarily choose over sitting in the bleachers at Yankee Stadium on a Saturday afternoon (and I’m not a Yankees fan). Same with concerts – maybe when I was younger I would have always wanted to be in the front row, but now that seems like a lot of energy when I just want to hang out and listen to music from a comfortable seat.
Yes. Especially at a concert. I think the tiered seat pricing at concerts ruins the concert experience for the fans and the performers alike. It used to be those that loved the band the most were closest to the stage cause they had either made sure they were the first in line to get a ticket or came crazy early to a general admission seating. Now those closest to the performer are those that paid for it. The often times come after the concert starts. The artists never get to even see the people who care about their show the most, thus cutting off the artist from the audience, making for a lesser show.Ugh. I’m sorry you got me started.
Why not? You could even wear a top hat and monocle and scoff at the poors in the groundling seats!
I would almost have to.
“Movie theaters are creations of capitalism”Oh fuck off. There’s nothing inherently capitalist about a place you go to see movies. Under capitalism, you have to pay for literally everything. This narrative that poor people can’t pay for a night out is one born of deep privilege and a lot of assumptions. In fact, middle to low-income folks are FAR more likely to go out for a movie night than the rich, who tend to stay in and watch things on their tricked-out home theater setups.TL;DR: Elijah was right and you are wrong.
AMC Theatres is a publicly listed, for-profit company (which years ago merged with Loews, which until 1959 owned MGM back when production & distribution of movies were combined). Capitalists have been putting on movies in theaters and charging people for admission for as long as movie theaters have existed. Did movie theaters also exist in the Soviet Union, screening Mosfilm productions? Sure, but that’s not particularly relevant to the present day or the US.I decided to look up moviegoing by income and found this:https://www.statista.com/statistics/538276/frequency-going-to-the-movies-family-income-usa/
Since statista sometimes restricts access to paying subscribers, I’ll copy here the data:Frequency of going to see a movie in theaters among adults in the United States as of May 2022, by household income
Under 50k USD: 7% Often, 29% Sometimes, 42% Rarely, 22% Never50-100k USD: 9% Often, 35% Sometimes, 42% Rarely, 14% Never100k USD or more: 11% Often, 42% Sometimes, 38% Rarely, 9% NeverOften & sometimes increase monotonically with income, rarely & never either decrease monotonically or with one repeat (in the case of rarely for under 50 & 50-100).TL;DR, you were wrong but very confident that you were right.
Isn’t going to the movies still pretty much the cheapest “going out” thing you can do. Cheaper than pretty much any form of live music or play, cheaper than any sporting event and cheaper than going out to eat pretty much anywhere that isn’t fast food.Plus no one needs to go to the movies to survive, so saying this penalizes people with low incomes is like saying airlines shouldn’t have a first class section.
It’s not like first class. They are not offering better service and bigger seats. It’s like charging people to sit in the window, center, or aisle seat.
Airlines charge you for picking a window, aisle or middle seat too though.
It depends on where you live and what movie you want to see. A non matinee IMAX in NYC will run you about $25 per ticket. Add drinks and concessions for two people and you’re almost at $100 before the movie even starts. Now say your local MLB team is not doing so great or it’s an afternoon on a weekday if you play it just right you’re in the stadium for $10-$15.
No, see, when you add the cost of buying a ticket for your entire family, plus your babysitter (they like movies too so you invited them along, but you still have to pay them for their time), plus the price of enough popcorn to eliminate world hunger, plus parking, plus the time you took off work to go see the movie because it was the only screening everyone could make it to, add the price of gas, carry the 1, and then pretend opera, sports, live theater, and concerts don’t exist, it really adds up!
Sort of off topic, but it’s kind of a weird “going out” activity though, no? At least with a concert or sporting event, you talk to people during the event, scream, laugh, cry… A movie, you pay 20 bucks to sit in the dark, then go home. So sure, it’s a cheaper activity, but also a worse experience if your goal in going out is to do something different than staying home and watching TV.
“only other game in town”Support Alamo Drafthouse.
The front row seats aren’t all that bad depending on the theater. Our preferred AMC (we live in Central NJ and have about 6-7 movie theaters in a 10 mile radius of our house, four of which are AMCs) is a dine in and in the “Cinema Suites” theaters the seats are set back a little and you can recline back pretty far. Still not ideal, but not the worst experience. That being said, we’ve been avoiding AMC as of late. Since Covid they changed the way they run the Dine In and have yet to go back to the old format. Now, instead of having the servers come take your order at your seat, you have to wait in line outside the theater, put in an order which is then delivered to your seat. And they got rid of half the menu. It was terrible and completely defeated the whole point of the dine in theater. We almost missed our movie as we didn’t know we were going to have to wait in the line. It made sense initially, but there’s no reason they can’t go back to the old format. Since we have to wait in line for concessions no matter what now, we are favoring our local Cinemark, it’s a much nicer theater (heated seats!!) and they have an XD screen.
I’m lucky to live in an area where AMC is not really prevalent (there’s one about 70 miles away, and the rest are a 3.5 hour drive or longer). I do feel bad for those in an area where AMC is their only option, and I feel this will be bad for the chain in general (I could see screenings where the value seats all sell out and people don’t come because they don’t want to pay extra), but it’s frankly what they deserve if they’re gonna trot this out.
Well wait hang on tho? Are the value seats at a discounted price or are they at regular price and the better seats are at a higher price? Cuz if it’s the second one that’s pretty shitty.. and even shittier to relabel the standard admission seats as the “value” seats. This is just inflation trying to pretend not to be inflation.
Lowering the price of the shitty seats or raising the price of the better seats are two different things when done separately.
It’s both. Shitty seats will be cheaper, average seats will remain the same, the good seats will be more expensive.On top of all that in order to get the discount on the shitty seats you have to be a member of their Subs program, albeit at the free-tier, but it means you’re paying with your personal data profile.
I assume this is sarcasm (it’s difficult to tell with the written word), because the only difference between “charge more for premium” and “offer a discount for standard/budget” is marketing spin.Price tiers are price tiers, how you describe them is irrelevant.
I think you’re misunderstanding. The question is asking: If seats were previously $10, is the new pricing structure $8/$10/$12, or is it $10/$12/$14?
Still doesn’t matter. Even if $8 seats exist, they’re guaranteed to the worst seats, and likely a downgrade for the average consumer who would normally sit in the “average’ or better seats.Regardless, it’s almost certainly $10/$12/$14, and even if it isn’t, it likely will be soon.
I can’t wait to see how Nicole Kidman is going to sell all this.
For the Extra-Super-Special-Premium-Premium, she comes in and blows you during the previews.
All movie seats are created equal, but some are more equal than others.
It’s very transparently an effort to get more people to sign up for A-List, which will ignore the Sightline stuff.I honestly don’t know why more people aren’t subscribed, though, the sub is only a few bucks more than a ticket every month.
If you see more than one movie a month at AMC it’s silly not to subscribe.
It’s more like two regular tickets where I am, or the equivalent three matinees/four discount Tuesdays. As an incredibly cheap person, I was perfectly happy just watching 5-15 movies a year at $5 a pop. That said, on a price per hours enjoyment scale, it’s the best “fun” investment for a single adult by miles. Most months I end up paying even less per ticket than the Discount Tuesday price, and I see a lot more movies as a result. It also helps when I see a movie I didn’t like so much, because I didn’t pay for a specific ticket. It’s just like wasting time on a bad Netflix movie.
If AMC didn’t increase their pricing, and instead discounted the other ahem, less desirable seats, I might agree with their plan. I honestly don’t mind sitting to the side if needed, even if it’s not ideal, so saving on a seat like that would be nice. It doesn’t sound like that’s the case though, and the side seats are staying the same price while the more desirable seats are increased.
Good news for streaming services, I guess.I wonder how this will affect their “A-List” program?
I’m fairly certain A-List is unaffected. In fact, I think this is actually a ploy to get more people to subscribe. Because unlike other theater chain memberships their whole thing was all screen formats even ultra premium are included in one price.
Gad to know there’s some non-AMC theaters ear me I can focus on going to. “we know there are some moviegoers who prioritize their specific seat and others who prioritize value moviegoing” is such a cringe bullish line.
I like paying for assigned seating because then I can show up 10 seconds before the first trailer and not have to sit through all the pre-show advertising crap, but still know I’ll have a good seat. But at places near me, afaik, the price is the same for whatever seat you buy. So it really just rewards people who make their plan to go to the movies sooner in the week.
This is all well and good, Elijah, but you haven’t answered the real question: when will you wear wigs?
I mean, don’t movies in general penalize people for lower income? its not like they’re free to watch at the theater
I was astounded by the amount of people defending that shit and siding with AMC
lotta assholes around here