One Price Fits <i> Us</i> Just Fine

Regarding “One Price Doesn’t Fit All,” in which producer Robert W. Cort suggests variable pricing of movie tickets (July 25):

I can’t imagine any studio or producer agreeing to their films being shown for 1 cent less than the top ticket price when they open. Would Mel Brooks and 20th Century Fox (“Robin Hood: Men in Tights”) agree to a lesser ticket price than charged for Philip Kaufman and 20th’s “Rising Sun”? Not! Would Cort have accepted a $7.50 ticket price for “Three Men and a Baby” but $4 for “Cocktail”? Again, not!

Yes, people will pay a higher price for an NBA playoff ticket or to see “The Phantom of the Opera,” but that might be because they are offered in a single venue--the Forum or the Shubert--and not the 2,000 to 3,000 screens that the major films now open in nationally.

As to adjusting prices after opening, it is conceivable that the public might pay more for a “Jurassic Park” or “The Firm,” but would Columbia agree to reduce its ticket prices for “Last Action Hero” because it wasn’t performing to expectations? Again, not!

A bad movie is a bad movie. I made a film titled “The Howling II,” probably one of the Top 50 worst films in history. Believe me, I don’t think a lower ticket price would have increased the “must-see” crowd. Same number of people, just less income.

Lastly, Cort’s whole premise is based on cooperation between producers, distributors and exhibitors that could never happen.

At the end of the day, if the public likes it, whether it costs $3 million or $100 million, they go.

STEVEN LANE

Lane & Pringle Productions

Chatsworth

*

Cort’s concept of pricing movies differently according to “value” is both innovative and challenging. Several good arguments are presented “pro” his idea.

The “con,” which was overlooked, is the distinct possibility that exhibitors with a hit will hike prices into the stratosphere or that scalpers, the bane of sports and theater marketing, would enter the picture.

At the risk of appearing old-fashioned, I like to know what the price of the movie “meal” is before I order it. Market forces are already at work in second-run theaters, senior citizen discounts, ticket books and so on.

FRANK FILOSA

Beverly Hills

*

Cort’s price scheme smacks of censorship. Someone telling me what movie I can or can’t--what I should or shouldn’t--see, based on the price, is a kind of censorship by economics.

The only way I have of telling the “industry” what I want to see, will see and want to see more of is by going to the movies and buying my ticket. I determine whether I can afford to go, based on personal choice. If Cort’s scheme were implemented, only the opinions of people with enough money to see all movies would be heard. Those who could afford to see only the “lesser,” less-expensive-ticket films would send a skewed message.

The moviegoing public is not concerned with how much it costs to make a film, only that the film entertain, amuse or amaze us in some way. To set ticket prices according to the cost, or on the basis of some industry committee whose taste I may or may not agree with, is idiotic.

Cort should stick to making movies and allow the moviegoing public to determine their popularity and box-office success.

ELINOR M. BECKMAN

North Hollywood

*

Cort’s article is a trial balloon to see if a scheme to wring yet more money out of the movie-going public by jacking up prices is at least marginally palatable. Some things to bear in mind while considering such a plan:

* The fact that the movie business is holding its own three years running is reason to celebrate, given the continuing explosion of cable and new high-resolution technologies such as laser discs.

* Higher ticket prices, even for such “must-see” movies as “Jurassic Park,” will cause a lot of people to wait for the prices to drop before trekking to the theater.

* Blockbuster movies rely on repeat business to reach their astronomical domestic grosses. A variable-price ticket strategy would discourage the repeat viewers the industry needs most: the teens who are their summer bread and butter.

* The consumer already discriminates, by deciding sometimes to wait for a film to come out on video or on cable.

Cort is right in asserting that the consumer is price sensitive. If the industry wants to find out just how price-sensitive we really are, just try pulling this one on us.

MICHAEL HEISTER

Redlands

*

Twelve dollars to see “Jurassic Park”? Ten dollars to see “The Firm”?

The real problem with Cort’s proposal is that ticket prices for big-budget hits would inevitably creep higher and higher, as marketers labored to convince the public of a new film’s unprecedented level of accomplishment and worth. Eventually Cort’s “re-educated” consumer could be trained to consider $12 admissions dirt cheap, right?

Imagine scalpers’ ads a few years down the road: “Call us for the hottest tickets! We’ve got Andrew Lloyd Webber’s ‘Silent Spring--the Musical!’ We’ve got U2’s triumphant comeback and return to overt religious imagery, the Resurrection Tour! Deposits now being accepted for ‘Crying Game 3: The Final Irony.’ ”

Thanks, but no thanks.

R. M. NELSON

West Hollywood

*

Cort has a little too much free time on his hands. If he wants to raise movie ticket prices, he should just say so.

There already are different price points. If you want to see a 70-millimeter THX movie in a nice environment on opening night, not only do you have to stand in line and pay up to $5 for parking, but you might also pay a credit-card surcharge to get that reserved ticket. That works out to about $14 for the first ticket.

On the other hand, if you don’t have those requirements, you can wait until the next morning (about 16 hours) and go to the mall; it’ll probably be THX, and it’s about $3.75.

There’s your supply and demand at work, Mr. Cort.

MICHAEL SHERIDAN

Signal Hill

*

Flexible ticket prices for movies may be a good idea, but how about adjusting the price based on screen size? Part of the pleasure of going to a movie is to experience it on a large screen. Why should we pay top dollar for a first-run movie shown on a small screen?

I’m particularly galled by theaters that show the same movie on two screens--one large, the other small--and get away with charging the same price for both.

JANE BRUCKEL

Sherman Oaks

*

Cort’s comments on lowering admission prices for certain types of films or on certain days reflect opinions I’ve voiced for years. However, his suggestion about raising prices would lead to the end of the theatrical motion picture business.

Despite price rises in the ‘80s, theatrical filmgoing is still the cheapest form of non-athletic entertainment available to most people. The “regular” audience the industry depends upon attends a movie anywhere from once a week to once a month; attendance at the higher-price events Cort mentioned is far less frequent and cannot be compared to moviegoing habits.

While the annual price rises of the mid-’80s did indeed drive a considerable segment of the audience to video, audiences have gotten used to the steady prices of the last few years and can plan for them. I seriously doubt that “Jurassic Park” would have done such business had admission prices been raised, especially to $12.

Since 1912, moviegoers have been willing to pay extra for presentations of a “special” nature--the roadshows presented in big movie palaces, especially between 1953 and 1970, when such exhibitions were in 70-millimeter on big, wide screens, creating a theatrical experience that could not be duplicated in the neighborhood bijou, much less on the tube. A contemporary audience would not pay extra for something that would look as impressive on TV as it does in today’s multiplex shoe boxes, no matter who stars in it.

During the Depression, the movies were one of the few sources of relief and entertainment most people could afford. Given today’s economics, the cheaper competition available from video and the need for first-run theatrical revenues to recover the ridiculously enormous costs of some of today’s films, the industry would be ill advised to price itself out of the reach of the audience it still has.

RICK MITCHELL

Los Angeles

*

Since when does a movie industry insider get free editorial space to propose to his greedy colleagues new and improved ways to rip off the moviegoing public?

Is Calendar an industry trade paper? When movie tickets are priced like plays and concerts, I will attend movies as frequently as I do those other overpriced events: that is, seldom or never.

MICHAEL GLIONA

Los Angeles