Do movies need to cost as much as they do? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 28 Old 10-18-2009, 04:34 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
JediSpork's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 283
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
I enjoy movies and music just like anyone else here but I feel like the people in control of the media are taking advantage of us. Movie prices are ridiculously high because they know we will pay it.

So I'm asking do movies have to cost as much as they do? From my understanding they already make enough at the theater to cover the costs of the movie and get rich also. Some people will pay 50$ or more to take their family to the theater and then have bought the dvd, and again the bluray. I can see how one family could easily put 100$ on a movie.

Video prices seem to be going up by adding discs with extras to convince the consumer they are getting more for their money. A lot of people are happy with a movie only release thats cheaper but these are getting harder to find. I now use online rentals and rarely buy anything because of over pricing.

If this is to much off topic or unacceptable then mods please delete my post.
JediSpork is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 28 Old 10-18-2009, 04:38 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Tulpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 10,026
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by JediSpork View Post

Movie prices are ridiculously high because they know we will pay it.

That's like pretty much everything else, though. Sports tickets are also outrageously high for certain teams, but those same teams sell out every year. Industries of all types charge up to what the market will bear.

Hollywood movie budgets have been overly bloated, though, far in advance of inflation. I think that does hurt the industry. DVD sales and other sales are also plateauing, so it might be coming to a head soon.

Don't believe everything on the Interwebz! A duck's quack DOES echo!
Tulpa is offline  
post #3 of 28 Old 10-18-2009, 05:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dbuudo07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,759
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 110
When I started collecting dvds, I wouldn't spend more than $10 on a movie, except for very rare movies(less than 10 out of the 300+ I own).
Then HD DVD came along and I was willing to pay more for the increase in audio/video quality. However the quantity I purchased decreased to about 1 movie per week vs the minimum of 2 to sometimes 8 dvds per week. I was spending less than I used to on average. If the price was a little lower, I would have spent more, but that wasn't the case.

David Budo
Dbuudo07 is offline  
post #4 of 28 Old 10-18-2009, 05:53 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rdgrimes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nuevo Mexico
Posts: 16,126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 172 Post(s)
Liked: 209
The true cost of a movie release is not in the discs or packaging, but in the cost of producing the transfer, extras/features, distribution, etc. Not to mention the cost of producing the film itself. DVD/BD sales are now part of the financing structure of making a film, or even a TV series. The studios plan for a certain amount of sales revenue when they budget a film.

That's not to say that disc prices are reasonable, but the studios "require" a certain profit margin per film. That's what finances the next film. Of course, it doesn't take $100 million to make a good movie, but the unwashed masses are demanding nonstop explosions and CGI which do cost that much. Plenty of really great films have been made for $1 million or even far less, and they make profits. But those type films don't generate enough to finance a big studio.

So the choice is to keep paying ever increasing prices for big-budget releases, or start buying low budget releases from independent studios.
rdgrimes is offline  
post #5 of 28 Old 10-19-2009, 02:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kram Sacul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 5,257
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdgrimes View Post

So the choice is to keep paying ever increasing prices for big-budget releases, or start buying low budget releases from independent studios.

How about just buying the movies you really really like and renting the rest regardless of how much it cost to make them?
Kram Sacul is offline  
post #6 of 28 Old 10-19-2009, 05:29 AM
Advanced Member
 
RLReady's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 712
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Or DVR the film from a movie channel, and then wait 4-6 months until the DVD/BR comes down in price till it is affordable to you. We are such an instant gratification society. Will the film be that much worse for you if you wait a few months to purchase it?
RLReady is offline  
post #7 of 28 Old 10-19-2009, 05:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Fredrik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,925
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
+1 on rdgrimes post.

What is a bit sad is that most of the overblown movies loose the story along the way. I like action packed movies as anyone else but what is the point if there is no point to the action ?

Though, I've always thought that DVD's and BD's are quite cheap compared to the cost of making the movie etc.
Music CD's however I find quite expensive.
E.g. a movie costing $100m+ goes for about the same prize as a CD.

21:st century Karate Kid......Logon, Logoff, Logon, Logoff..
Fredrik is offline  
post #8 of 28 Old 10-19-2009, 05:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
lcaillo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Gainesville, FL
Posts: 3,459
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The price that a product commands in the market has nothing to do with how much it "needs to cost" any more than your decision to spend that amount depends on your "need" to see the movie in the theater or own the media. The fact that you and others pay the price indicates that the price is reasonable in the market. If it is unreasonable, don't buy it. If you think it is too high, take some of the suggestions made above. One can access movies quite inexpensively without owning the disk or going to the theater and buying $6 popcorn.

This is, indeed, one of those threads that qualifies right from the start as what I have called discussing "how many angels can sit on the head in the pen." Let's not gather any more inmates.

Translation for those who don't get the point...the OP was a silly question.

Yes, calibration is important...every user should be calibrated.

Need electronics repair? A great place to start looking for a shop in your area: http://www.tvrepairpros.com/
lcaillo is offline  
post #9 of 28 Old 10-19-2009, 08:52 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,008
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 230 Post(s)
Liked: 334
Anyone who complains about the price of movies on DVD or Blu-ray obviously wasn't around to collect them on Laserdisc, where the average price of a movie-only disc was $34.99, and "Special Editions" went upwards of $100.

Over the past decade, the trend has been that most movies don't break even until home video. Very few make an actual profit in theaters anymore. In most cases, the theatrical run is really only good for generating publicity and interest in the film, so that people will buy it when it finally hits video.

Movie budgets are soaring. In addition to this, you have to factor in promotional and distribution expenses, the cost of transferring that movie to video, and producing all the bonus features that buyers demand. These things aren't free. They have to get factored in to the price you pay for that disc in your hand.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #10 of 28 Old 10-19-2009, 09:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Shaded Dogfood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Terminus and the Lake of Light
Posts: 4,830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Go in to Target. Take a look on the wall, and you will find a section in which multiple films are bundled together and sold for peanuts. DVDs are not selling very well any more, so studios are trying everything they can to wring out the dollars. Collectors are holding out for high definition, and everybody else is probably too broke to collect movies any more. But apparently the accountants decree that the new format must cost $25-40 per, except for the dogs that have been gathering dust since the format's inception.

I suspect the studios just do not know what to do.

CW Hinkle
Shaded Dogfood is offline  
post #11 of 28 Old 10-19-2009, 09:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mproper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Palmyra, PA
Posts: 7,043
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaded Dogfood View Post

Go in to Target. Take a look on the wall, and you will find a section in which multiple films are bundled together and sold for peanuts. DVDs are not selling very well any more, so studios are trying everything they can to wring out the dollars. Collectors are holding out for high definition, and everybody else is probably too broke to collect movies any more. But apparently the accountants decree that the new format must cost $25-40 per, except for the dogs that have been gathering dust since the format's inception.

I suspect the studios just do not know what to do.

I think there's a lot of truth to this. They've created a market where the next big thing (Blu-Ray) is here, but still too expensive for many collectors. Those same collectors are not buying DVD's, because they are waiting for Blu-Ray prices to come down a bit (probably into the $12-$15 range that DVD was for a long time).

Also possible people jsut got "burnt out" on collecting since so many people went hog wild on DVDs. Sure, some people are replacing their collections, but I doubt very many are replacing all of it, and probably only getting must-own catalog titles.

Anyways, I haven't bought anything for a long time, only because the cost/value wasn't there for me. I was only watching movies one time, so it's not worth buying them. I got caught up in the DVD buying craze and have about 700 DVDs, and I've maybe watched 15-20 of them more than one time (and maybe 5 of those more than twice). With my Netflix plan, a movie ends up costing me (on average) about $1.58 to rent, according to Feedflix.com. Cost of owning a movie is too much for me, regardless of how much they sell them at. I mean, they'd have to be like $1 - $1.50 to make it worthwhile, and that's not going to happen.

And the theater experience long ago went out of my price range of what I was willing to pay. About the time I got an HDTV 5 years ago or so was when I quit going. Now I go maybe 2-3 times a year, usually for a kids' movie that my son is excited about, or something I really have to be interested in: so far I have only been to Up and Transformers 2 this year. In hindsight I wish I wouldn't have gone to either of those.
mproper is offline  
post #12 of 28 Old 10-19-2009, 11:09 AM
Senior Member
 
Raptorsys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 379
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 16
If movies were priced at a ratio of the cost to make them they would be vastly more expensive than CD's for music. If it cost, say $10M to record, mix, master and market a CD and it goes for, say, $15 then how much should they charge for a movie that cost $100M to make? I doubt you'd want to pay $150/movie!

I have no problem with the industry wanting to make money because if they didn't we wouldn't get to see them because they couldn't make them. What does bother me is the double dipping and exclusive deals that encourage double dipping. There are going to be people that buy the new Transformers movie only to find out that unless they bought it from Wal*Mart they will not get the IMAX version and may then have to buy the movie twice in order to get it in IMAX.


Brian
Raptorsys is offline  
post #13 of 28 Old 10-19-2009, 01:18 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
JediSpork's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 283
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Maybe its the actors being over paid that bugs me. I remember reading a article a while back about how some big actor bought a coffee table that costs 300,000 dollars. This is more than most peoples homes cost. I know that some movies could be lowered in price just by paying the actors less. When they have all this money they get bored and make fools of themselves for everyone around the world to see.

When dvd was in its prime I knew a hd format was on its way so I didn't buy much. Now that hd is here I'm waiting to finally start my collecting for better prices. For instance the wizard of oz is 50 bucks. No movie only version yet. Seriously does a 70 year old movie need to cost that much?
I also agree that movies are going more for action and less on story. Day the Earth Stood Still is one of the greatest scifi movies ever made yet the new modern version is barely worth a rental.
JediSpork is offline  
post #14 of 28 Old 10-19-2009, 01:25 PM
Member
 
lilfleck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 160
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Until they drop the prices to reasonable and affordable levels, piracy will continue to strive as hard and strong as it is currently. I am not advocating piracy, but I am against the high prices of movies. I already think its ridiculous that my local movie theater charges $11 per person and then $8 for a small popcorn, another $4 for a bottle of water. I mean. This is just outrageous. Bluray is the creme of the crop in terms of quality, but common, $30+ for a movie? Get out of here, that's BS. I'd rather hit up NetFlix (I will probably subscribe very soon).
lilfleck is offline  
post #15 of 28 Old 10-19-2009, 01:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mproper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Palmyra, PA
Posts: 7,043
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
That's why I don't go anymore. They've priced the movie-going-experience out of my budget. We went to Pixar's Up (in 3D), there were 3 of us, and with drinks and popcorn, it was well over $50. That's just too much (IMO) for ~2 hours of entertainment.

Even without the popcorn and drinks, I think it was $11.50/ticket, so it still would've ran us $34.50 to go. And this was a matinee....of course was more because it was 3D.

It's highway robbery, and I refuse to pay it. Not as bad if you're single or going with a group of friends (so you only have to buy one ticket), but for a family, it's too much...and I'm only a family of 3. God forbid I had a couple more kids, as a movie would start running into the $80 range.

Anyways, I'm more than happy staying at home to watch movies. Cheaper and less annoying.
mproper is offline  
post #16 of 28 Old 10-19-2009, 01:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dbuudo07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,759
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 110
A lot of people think actors are overpaid and I don't understand why.

If you had an invention, and you sold it to a company and they could make $200 million off it, how much would you ask for? I personally wouldn't ask for any less that 10%.

Actors draw audiences that make the production companies money. If an actor stars in movies that consistently gross over $100 million, they're entitled to large salaries. Just think about a movie like Titanic. Leo and Kate didn't get paid very much, but they were the main reason millions of people watched it. Leo earned $2.5 million and Kate earned $2 million. The movie grossed over $1.8 billion world wide and cost $200 million to make plus advertising. Following Titanic, Leo makes $10-$20 million per movie and his films consistently gross well in theaters.

This is not a comment on disc prices, just justifying actor salaries.

David Budo
Dbuudo07 is offline  
post #17 of 28 Old 10-19-2009, 01:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
wizzack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Jersey
Posts: 2,460
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 123
what gets me is the commercials. went to an AMC theater on sunday and it was a freaking disgrace how many commercials were played. and played loud!

I don't usually go to that theater and it will be the last time. it was worse than watching tv. if that's the case then lower my ticket from that insane $11.50 price.

The above post is 100% medically accurate

 

31 Days of Horror:

2013

2012
2011
2010
2009
2008

wizzack is offline  
post #18 of 28 Old 10-19-2009, 01:58 PM
Senior Member
 
Raptorsys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 379
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by JediSpork View Post

Maybe its the actors being over paid that bugs me. I remember reading a article a while back about how some big actor bought a coffee table that costs 300,000 dollars. This is more than most peoples homes cost. I know that some movies could be lowered in price just by paying the actors less. When they have all this money they get bored and make fools of themselves for everyone around the world to see.

When dvd was in its prime I knew a hd format was on its way so I didn't buy much. Now that hd is here I'm waiting to finally start my collecting for better prices. For instance the wizard of oz is 50 bucks. No movie only version yet. Seriously does a 70 year old movie need to cost that much?
I also agree that movies are going more for action and less on story. Day the Earth Stood Still is one of the greatest scifi movies ever made yet the new modern version is barely worth a rental.


Agree with you on several points...

There is a subset of actors that, like Wall Street and DC, have no clue what the lower 80% have and could care less about us. F them!

The original Day the Earth Stood Still is, like Forbidden Planet, a great movie and one hopes that if they ever actually remake Forbidden Planet they do a better (MUCH better) job than last years Day the Earth Stood Still.

In fairness, the larger budget movies today are almost all action movies as that is where the money is. Almost all of us like the movies that make effective use of the subwoofer and you don't tend to see that as often in non-action movies.


Brian
Raptorsys is offline  
post #19 of 28 Old 10-19-2009, 02:06 PM
Senior Member
 
Raptorsys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 379
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilfleck View Post

Until they drop the prices to reasonable and affordable levels, piracy will continue to strive as hard and strong as it is currently. I am not advocating piracy, but I am against the high prices of movies. I already think its ridiculous that my local movie theater charges $11 per person and then $8 for a small popcorn, another $4 for a bottle of water. I mean. This is just outrageous. Bluray is the creme of the crop in terms of quality, but common, $30+ for a movie? Get out of here, that's BS. I'd rather hit up NetFlix (I will probably subscribe very soon).


Although some of the theater chains are tied closely to the studios they theaters themselves are for-profit small businesses and I think they make the majority of there profit from concessions. Face it, they own the room and you are not permitted to bring in outside food so if you NEED to eat/drink while there then you better be prepared to fork over you next three paychecks for popcorn that actually cost them about $0.25 -- including the tub! Save yourself half the price of admission by NOT buying food/drink at the theater...

The argument that higher prices promote piracy is true at one level, of course, but for many folks that download movies illegally they aren't going to stop because the movie price (DVD/BR) was decreased from $25-$30 to $10-$15.


Brian
Raptorsys is offline  
post #20 of 28 Old 10-19-2009, 02:07 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,008
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 230 Post(s)
Liked: 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by JediSpork View Post

Now that hd is here I'm waiting to finally start my collecting for better prices. For instance the wizard of oz is 50 bucks. No movie only version yet.

There's a movie-only Blu-ray edition of The Wizard of Oz available as a Wal-Mart exclusive. It contains just Disc 1 of the 3-disc set.

Target also has an exclusive 3-disc edition without the fancy box set packaging, that retails for less than the full-blown box.

Quote:


Seriously does a 70 year old movie need to cost that much?

The Wizard of Oz was painstakingly restored and cleaned-up for the new transfer. The box set also contains hours upon hours of worthwhile supplements.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #21 of 28 Old 10-19-2009, 02:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kram Sacul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 5,257
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbuudo07 View Post

Actors draw audiences that make the production companies money. If an actor stars in movies that consistently gross over $100 million, they're entitled to large salaries. Just think about a movie like Titanic. Leo and Kate didn't get paid very much, but they were the main reason millions of people watched it.

I thought a big sinking ship was the main reason.
Kram Sacul is offline  
post #22 of 28 Old 10-19-2009, 02:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Shaded Dogfood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Terminus and the Lake of Light
Posts: 4,830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 34
I thought a big sinking ship was the main reason.

Good point, but most likely the reason that there was such repeat business was the love story.

CW Hinkle
Shaded Dogfood is offline  
post #23 of 28 Old 10-19-2009, 03:22 PM
Senior Member
 
Raptorsys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 379
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaded Dogfood View Post

I thought a big sinking ship was the main reason.

Good point, but most likely the reason that there was such repeat business was the love story.


My niece was about 12 years old when Titanic came out and like a lot of her girlfriends she was in LOVE with Leo and saw the movie at least 10 times! The sinking ship didn't get her money -- the pretty boy actor did!


Brian
Raptorsys is offline  
post #24 of 28 Old 10-19-2009, 05:26 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Dean Roddey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 19,434
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Why is it that there's probably more complaining on the internet about the cost of CDs and DVDs, which are some of the best value for the money on the planet and something that no one actually needs to buy in order to survive or be happy, than there probably is about oil or food or housing or health care? I mean you can get a massively expensive set of movies like LOTRs, and watch them as many times as you want, for like $25 or something like that. That's insanely cheap for what you are getting.

Dean Roddey
Chairman/CTO, Charmed Quark Systems, Ltd

www.charmedquark.com

 

Dean Roddey is offline  
post #25 of 28 Old 10-19-2009, 05:48 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Tulpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 10,026
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by JediSpork View Post

I know that some movies could be lowered in price just by paying the actors less.

But then you won't get some of the more popular actors that tend to get people to see the movie, and the studio that will pay that amount will snag them and make a mint. You may not see a movie because of any particular name, but studios have found it drives revenue more than anything else, other than familiarity with source material (read: comic book movies make money because a large number of people read the comic book.)

Quote:


Seriously does a 70 year old movie need to cost that much?

Age really doesn't matter. It's the popularity, demand, and features that set the price.

Don't believe everything on the Interwebz! A duck's quack DOES echo!
Tulpa is offline  
post #26 of 28 Old 10-19-2009, 05:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kram Sacul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 5,257
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaded Dogfood View Post

Good point, but most likely the reason that there was such repeat business was the love story.

That is probably true. The ship itself was the initial draw, the love story was what made them come back.
Kram Sacul is offline  
post #27 of 28 Old 10-27-2009, 06:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RVonse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Chesterfield, MO, USA
Posts: 1,783
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post

Why is it that there's probably more complaining on the internet about the cost of CDs and DVDs, which are some of the best value for the money on the planet and something that no one actually needs to buy in order to survive or be happy, than there probably is about oil or food or housing or health care? I mean you can get a massively expensive set of movies like LOTRs, and watch them as many times as you want, for like $25 or something like that. That's insanely cheap for what you are getting.

Have to agree with Dean.

Dvd's are by far a better value than health care is today.

Going to the movie theater isn't quite as thrifty as buying a dvd but thats only because you are paying for the luxury of someone elses equipment and someone else is also cleaning up after you.

But either way, your dollar goes way way further than health care, hands down.

Bob
RVonse is offline  
post #28 of 28 Old 10-27-2009, 07:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
thehun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Wine country CA
Posts: 7,242
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

I thought a big sinking ship was the main reason.

Yep the only reason I went for sure. I was fascinated by Titanic since I was a kid.


As for the prices, well I stopped going to theaters. The price went up and the quality went down. I also stopped to buy movies just for "demo" purposes like I used to do with DVDs. I rent more and never buy "blind". I'm the guy the studios just love to hate. Eff 'em.

The Hun
thehun is offline  
Reply Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off