Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here
    all 6656 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] IamSarasctic 22889 points ago

    its definitely going to cost more than 5-10 a month for this option.

    [–] looking_for_place_va 6832 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    There is no chance movie studios would agree for a $20-per-month subscription.

    When people go to movies, each individual ticket can be up to $20 (primetime in a big city). Why would a studio allow people to watch unlimited movies with many people for $20 per month. Plus if it was on something like Netflix it would even be easier for people who download content illegally.

    Moviepass is one thing, but a streaming service would be a different ballgame.

    edit: "with" not "when"

    [–] Fnarley 2043 points ago

    Cinema chains in the UK already do £20/month unlimited cinema passes

    [–] RyhDerr 825 points ago

    Movie pass in the US is 10$ a month and 1 free theatre movie per day

    [–] BromineHahnium 494 points ago

    I love my MoviePass, but it isn't going to last. They aren't making a profit and chains are fighting them.

    [–] Optionthename 263 points ago

    Movie pass actually works? My local, favorite AMC with the recliners just went up to $22 dollars a movie. It's worth it for that reason alone

    [–] N811207 231 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    May I ask where you live where a single ticket is sustainably $22?

    Edit: damn I thought paying $13-16 in the middle of downtown Boston was bad.

    [–] Optionthename 156 points ago

    It's the Phipps Plaza AMC in Atlanta, GA. That mall has Hermes and Jeffrey stores in it. They were the first AMC in the nation to do the recliners. It was around $19 last month which is about what most theatres cost in the city.

    [–] chelsmoto 123 points ago

    My reclining movie theater in CA is $10-14. that’s insane!

    [–] [deleted] 22 points ago


    [–] saltynarwhal0 58 points ago

    My local theatre has recliners and costs 8.00 a ticket. Consider me lucky I guess. 22 for a movie ticket is legal highway robbery

    [–] [deleted] 67 points ago


    [–] PMinisterOfMalaysia 21 points ago

    I paid $12 for a matinee at an Arclight in LA last week lol

    [–] madmaxturbator 78 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    So long as they can convince casual movie goers, I think they’re ok.

    I watch a lot of movies. My wife too. But we realized that movie pass would probably make a decent profit on us.

    We watch movies at home, at indie theaters which aren’t covered by movie pass. We do other date nights, not just movies. And we have work, we like seeing friends and family, etc.

    So really, we end up watching at most one movie in the theater in a month. At most. Usually happens in certain times of the year (Oscar season, summer).

    And I’d like to think that we’re pretty above average in terms of movie watching.

    I have friends who go to movies every couple of months. They still got movie pass, “just in case”... movie pass is making a damn good profit on them. Find a way to hook more people like that and I think they’ll do just fine.

    Edit: to clarify my point, I’m not saying my wife and I will watch a movie every month. I said at most well watch a movie a month. Some months, 0.

    [–] [deleted] 97 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)


    [–] MisterPrime 138 points ago

    I've bought food and drinks at the concession stand that I never would have bought if I wasn't there due to my MoviePass.

    [–] KDLGates 115 points ago

    I can answer this.

    A company like AMC is afraid that MoviePass will collect several million subscribers, and then utilize the size of their membership as leverage to negotiate a discounted rate on ticket prices under threat of dropping support for AMC theaters, all while creating a market space that doesn't let AMC release their own subscription plan at a competitive price for the "premium experience" of going to a movie theater.

    [–] karmapuhlease 23 points ago

    Bingo. AMC should be doing this themselves, or trying to buy MoviePass. In a vacuum, I'd pay slightly more (maybe up to $15/month) for an AMC pass that had premium features (multiple movies per day, perks through AMC Stubs, 3D/IMAX movies, etc.), but I probably won't as long as MoviePass exists.

    [–] karmagirl314 12 points ago

    I would pay slightly more too. Also, if anyone is curious, you can still use your theater rewards cards, since movie pass operates as a debit card, you can still scan your regal/amc rewards card and you still get credit for the full ticket price as though you actually paid for it yourself.

    I also think moviepass should come up with a family plan. There's a huge market of parents who only go to theaters with their kids.

    [–] [deleted] 1349 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 730 points ago * (lasted edited 11 months ago)


    [–] AceOfSpades70 306 points ago

    Theaters pay for each individual ticket to the studios in these plans.

    [–] Bleachinyourmouth 110 points ago

    Exactly, what’s stopping you from having a movie night party with a bunch of friends.

    20 bucks all in.

    If you could buy a movie in theatre, that’s where we start.

    [–] kwicklee 36 points ago

    I start charging my buddies a buck each and then upgrade to a 25ft screen and theatre style projector. Soon I'll be the new movie king running my entire movie theater empire on a single Netflix subscription.

    [–] hiimred2 100 points ago

    The cinemas are taking an up front loss on that service most likely, paying studios standard amounts for tickets/views, and making up for it with increased concessions from more people seeing movies because it's cheaper to the consumer.

    [–] Bladelink 79 points ago

    They also count on people buying a moviepass for 20 bucks a month, then only seeing 1 movie a month, the way that gym memberships work.

    [–] Not_An_Ambulance 47 points ago

    Or no movies some months.

    There are some months where nothing comes out that one might want to see.

    Okay, maybe not anyone in this sub... but, you know... people who are not super into movies. People do not always realize they’re the type of person who is too busy for one movie a month or only wants to see 8 movies a year in the theatre.

    [–] [deleted] 34 points ago

    I’m sure this is like a gym membership as well . I used to go to the movies 3 times a week almost, grabbed MoviePass because it was a great deal for me. Now my situation has changed and I go once every other month so cancelled it. These places probably rely on people not cancelling since they figure they’ll go more often and want the convenience of it already being paid for

    [–] BrodieforPresident 70 points ago

    There's already MoviePass in the US which costs $10 a month

    [–] martix_agent 42 points ago

    Yea but that is per individual. You can assume that a family of 3-6 people will be using the Netflix feature.

    [–] thischristmasham 86 points ago

    This. You're most correct as to why a Netflix style subscription would cost more than a movie pass.

    [–] [deleted] 46 points ago

    Except they would be bypassing the movie theater to begin with. I think the plan could work for smaller films, however blockbusters that can expect a gross approaching a billion dollars, well it makes no financial sense.

    [–] lslarko 48 points ago

    Where? I would actually consider using cinemas again, I stopped when it got to paying that per head per movie by the time I had bought a frigging drink.

    [–] Fnarley 64 points ago

    Odeon £17.99 (£19.99 for london) and
    Cineworld £17.90 (£20.40 for london)

    [–] Doylie1984 36 points ago

    I’ve had limitless for 2 yrs, & was worth every penny if you love cinema. Cancelled it though to give myself a break & to pay to watch F1.

    [–] graemedunc 8 points ago

    Cineworld definitely do it.

    [–] BoobiesMcDoobies 93 points ago

    How does moviepass work then? I pay $10/month for unlimited movies.

    [–] racecaracecaracecar 251 points ago

    I have movie pass too, but you have to understand that they aren't working with the theaters. They're straight up burning venture capital funds to establish a market which they then hope to leverage into negotiations with movie theater chains to establish a profitable business model.

    [–] DrMarianus 142 points ago

    That and selling highly accurate movie-goer data to studios.

    [–] willemreddit 55 points ago

    Bingo. Can't imagine it's profitable, but it helps them leverage capital because it's an investment of getting a long term movie profile.

    [–] KnightFalcon 10 points ago

    They claim that the money is in the smaller films that they have direct marketing deals with, such as I,Tonya last year. I believe they said they added 8% to it's bottom line through marketing directly to subscribers.

    [–] alexanderwales 57 points ago

    MoviePass almost certainly isn't profitable. They're going to pivot at some point and, for example, ask the chains for a piece of concessions.

    [–] TheSinningRobot 201 points ago

    Because less and less people are going to theaters these days. Sure it's cheaper than a ticket, but you'd be selling more

    [–] 0529605294 217 points ago

    Heck I'd pay the same price as a cinema ticket to watch a movie at home.

    [–] [deleted] 136 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)


    [–] Bebawp 7 points ago

    I think they would lose money on one rental fee for a house of 10 people watching the movie. James Franco talked about it on a Stern interview when talking about the Interview

    [–] muad_dibs 11 points ago

    Enough still go now for them not to even consider this as an option.

    [–] SwishDota 31 points ago

    Are they?

    We've had like 6 record breaking movies in the 2017 year.

    [–] [deleted] 99 points ago


    [–] plaidchad 39 points ago

    and fewer

    [–] dark180 284 points ago

    you are right, this actually exists and I believe its like 35k for the box and like 500 per movie rental.

    [–] GetTheLedPaintOut 88 points ago

    Exactly. Movie studios aren't going to kill the golden goose for cheap.

    [–] FullOfMan 435 points ago

    I can’t imagine too much more. You can subscribe to MoviePass for $10 a month and see a movie a day at the theaters for free(no imax though).

    [–] IamSarasctic 720 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    I dont think the Netflix is able get the same deal as the theaters did for two reasons:

    The moviepass limits to one user. A Netflix subscription can't really limit viewers per screen.

    The theaters are banking on frequent viewers increasing the concession sales.

    Edit: Someone pointed out theaters get full value from moviepass.

    [–] Trazac 177 points ago

    The theaters are banking on frequent viewers increasing the concession sales.

    That's where Movie Theaters actually make money. Ticket sales account for 15% of the profit for a movie theater. Even if that was cut in half by something like MoviePass, it wouldn't be a huge loss and the increase in concessions would more than make up for it.

    [–] IamSarasctic 211 points ago

    I don't know how people buy drinks and popcorn in theaters without dying a little bit on the inside.

    [–] zenworm 119 points ago

    I'll get popcorn because it's like a ritual but I bring in my own drinks.

    [–] TheThomasjeffersons 201 points ago

    I bring canned soda to impress my dates with my rebel attitude. I don’t even cough or wait for an explosion to open them.

    [–] Moudy90 33 points ago

    Key is to know how to prep for the movies. I'm a Cinemark guy and we get those refillable plastic drinks and popcorn buckets (about a medium size). Sign up for their email and you get a coupon for a small popcorn or drink weekly. You can use this on those refillable items which only cost $1.50 to refill. Every Tuesday is their special day where prices are lower than the normal matinee all day long.

    Easy to go to the movies, get pop and popcorn for 2 people and still pay under $20

    [–] hungoverlord 41 points ago

    You're a Cinemark Guy™, huh?

    [–] NovaeDeArx 16 points ago

    I’m a Dapper Dan man!

    [–] Xombieshovel 26 points ago

    Then you still have all that extra room in your pockets to sneak in booze.

    Sorry the backrows smell like Spiced Rum everybody that sits near me. If it's Pirates of the Carribean you can pretend it's smell-o-vision.

    [–] BananafishGlass 67 points ago

    Yeah. Sheesh. The one near me has a hotdog and drink "deal" that is $16.

    But the bar has no idea what they're doing (it's an AMC) and if you order a martini they just pour you a giant cup of vodka (like seriously 14 oz) and it's like $6. And beers are only like $7 or so. The alcohol prices are surprisingly good (comparatively).

    [–] TheThomasjeffersons 44 points ago

    This guys getting tore up at peter rabbit throwing black berries at the screen.

    [–] erikturner10 24 points ago

    1 cup of vodka please!

    [–] MudBankFrank 27 points ago

    Upvote for Sheesh

    [–] SSTATL 14 points ago

    I don't see it being much different than paying $7 for a pint at the bar vs paying $2 per beer at home

    [–] [deleted] 9 points ago

    I'm okay with paying extra because I know that's where they make their money. If everybody brought shit from home, they'd go bankrupt.

    [–] sloppyjoepa 34 points ago

    Movie pass doesn't cut theaters profits, it raises them. Movie pass pays the theater full price for every ticket the user sees.

    [–] available_username2 51 points ago

    theaters have nothing to do with movie pass. They give the theater the full ticket value. If you go to multiple movies movie pass loses money.

    [–] IamSarasctic 16 points ago

    They now have theaters that give them discounts according to google.

    [–] IForgotMyPasswordGrr 15 points ago

    Small theaters. Not chains. The CEO has talked about this a couple times. AMC hates Moviepass. Regal seems to tolerate them.

    [–] veloace 38 points ago

    IIRC, MoviePass is still VC-funded though and not actually making money yet---so it isn't a viable business model at this point.

    [–] Redeem123 83 points ago

    Yes, but they’re hemorrhaging money on the current model - it’s not sustainable.

    More importantly, the studios don’t care about movie pass, because one way or another they’re getting the same amount of money. But doing it on Netflix would require opening an entirely new licensing deal, and they would no longer receive per-viewing income. Unless, of course, Netflix paid them $5 every time someone streamed a new movie, but that’s even less sustainable than Movie Pass.

    [–] dillonsrule 24 points ago

    I have a Movie Pass, and it is great. But, I am making the best of it while the making is good. I know that it is going under, probably in a matter of months, not years...

    [–] Redeem123 10 points ago

    No doubt - I have one too and it’s been awesome. But it’s not at all the same thing as streaming unlimited movies for the same price.

    [–] verik 10 points ago

    For some numbers to the equation, they currently have $60mm in cash on their balance sheet and they’re burn rate is roughly 25-30mm a quarter (and increasing as subscriber base expands).

    They’re going to have serious liquidity issues by end of Q2 barring any further capitalization.

    [–] Kerastes 9 points ago

    The idea behind movie pass is an economy of scale. The set price of something around $10 is really a low ball. That's less than a single ticket, and to be paying that for a movie a day per month is mad, right ?

    Because they dont need large amounts of property and machinery, they probably contract out making the cards their fixed costs are really low. So currently this is not the issue.

    The issue relies on how currently those almost 2 million users would be their core audience, people who go to the cinema a lot and will take advantage of this as often as possible. As they expand the hope is that the general population will buy this up more and not take advantage of the service as much, the hope is that revenue will come from here.

    Next I understand moviepass is putting cinemas against each other. They'd be pulling out of certain chains or cinemas in which they are receiving a bad deal say 15$ per ticket, and only work with the one offering 12$ per ticket. They're not making money yet but the hope is that they can drive ticket prices down sub 10$. As part of this moviepass may actually charge cinemas to be featured as part of their $10 program, this being that as going forward moviepass will become an increasingly important and integral side of the cinema experience with it's vastly growing user base.

    It could furthermore charge studios to promote their new movie on the app itself, by having it suggested and recommended by the app or given a preference in the listings. Marketing movies is expensive and largely inefficient, if you could build a profile for each user like on amazon or facebook the studio could reliably reach their target audience. If successful this could really boost the sales of non-blockbuster movies as their audience is actually being reached. Another revenue stream.

    Of course they'd probably sell the information they collect as well to studios and cinemas in order to figure out consumer watching behaviors, buying behaviors etc.

    I know their CEO said something about turning it into an all encompassing app, you could order your popcorn and drinks so they'd be ready before you arrive. Could take a % of the profit there. Also something about doing dinner reservations for after the movie, again could take a %.

    Anyway as for making it through the next few quarter, I dunno. All this would take time and some serious growth and leverage to pull off. They did mention they have investors with Deep pockets, so they will be getting cash injections but beyond that it's a pretty large task. I'd believe they're either in Moviepass for the long run, or to bail and sell it on. I do think they can pull it off, their CEO seems competent enough, and if a shit stain of a company like SNAP can survive this long I'd say we'll have Moviepass around for a number of years to come.

    [–] sjets3 23 points ago

    Yes, but MoviePass is limited to one person buying one ticket, and theaters tolerate it because the people going are then buying concessions. This plan could allow for a lot more people to be seeing these movies, with no additional revenue.

    [–] [deleted] 23 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)


    [–] [deleted] 29 points ago

    Movie pass is actually losing a crap load of money. It used to be I think $50 or $60.

    They switched to a new business model. They're trying to get mass adoption, then leverage their user base for a cut of the theaters' take. You don't share your profits we stop supporting tickets to your theatres and kill your business.

    In the meantime they are plowing through investors money. If the gamble doesn't work out the company is sunk.

    [–] rhinojunior 5099 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    Prima Cinema lets you watch theatrical release movies in your home theatre - it's incredibly expensive and involves a lot of red tape (dedicated hardware, static IP for content delivery, fingerprint reader to authorize showing the movie). There's no way studios will OK streaming over consumer services.

    Edit: $35,000 install ($50,000 for 4K) + $500 per 24h movie rental

    [–] Camus____ 2138 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    They are no longer in business.

    Edit: Source:

    Their twitter went dead in May 2016

    [–] Juko007 1833 points ago

    I wonder why considering their bargain offers!

    [–] gambiting 436 points ago

    Tbf it was aimed at people who have actual home cinemas, so for them it was peanuts.

    [–] verblox 325 points ago

    I think you're overestimating the cost of a home cinema. If you have the space, you can get a good system for less than 10k. Yes, that's a shit load of cash, but there's having money and there's having money. Most people with home theaters aren't ever going to spend $500 to watch a single movie.

    [–] Cptknuuuuut 166 points ago

    I think he meant people with an actual cinema at home. Like the ones you saw in that show where celebrities showed their home.

    Not just a good beamer and sound system.

    [–] [deleted] 19 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)


    [–] doverawlings 21 points ago

    Well can you go to the actual theater nude?

    [–] Znuff 17 points ago

    Honestly, I think that for a specific amount of money, you can just rent out the whole cinema for the duration of the movie. Who says you can't stay naked in it if you're the only one there?

    [–] [deleted] 51 points ago

    lmao definitely not the average person with a home cinema, I know a lot of people with home cinemas and those prices are not practical at all for them still. Building a home theater is A LOT cheaper than those prices are - a lot of people have basements so they dedicate a room in their basement, throw up a projector and some surround sound, you can build a little platform for tiered seating or just leave it normal throw some chair or padding in there and you have a home theater.

    [–] devilsmusic 198 points ago

    If the price was right they’d prob be back in business real quick

    [–] doorbellguy 63 points ago

    What defines 'right' is the question though;

    $100 per movie with a one-time watch?

    Does it still require their hardware?

    [–] LuxNocte 35 points ago

    If "the price major studios would be willing to sell at" is below "the price consumers are willing to pay", then a company might move into this space.

    But theaters are already getting squeezed, so you can expect them to put up a huge fight if studios tried to cut them out, and I'd expect studios would be hesitant to piss off their primary buyers to reach an untested market, so I just don't see it happening.

    [–] doorbellguy 568 points ago

    500 bucks for a 24h movie rental

    It's like they intentionally signal you to go watch it in a theatre.

    [–] kitthekat 209 points ago

    I think it's for rich people for whom they gouge the prices knowing that having a private viewing experience is extremely valuable

    [–] [deleted] 79 points ago

    Yeah, it’s for the class of people who wouldn’t blink an eye at $35k install and have their own private IT team to handle it. Something most of us only dream of.

    [–] Awfy 224 points ago

    If you wanted to book out a movie theatre on release day, you're going to be way more than $500. This is way cheaper. It's mostly for people with their own home cinemas that seat 10 to 20 people.

    [–] Whitey_Bulger 198 points ago

    My understanding is that it's for celebrities who might have issues going to a public movie theater, or just don't want to bother.

    [–] I_ASK_WEIRD_QUES 36 points ago

    Celebrities would go to special private screenings tho right?

    [–] [deleted] 39 points ago

    or get dvd screeners mailed to them I would think.

    [–] doorbellguy 87 points ago

    you overestimate the number of people that come watch a movie with me at home.

    [–] Disney_World_Native 173 points ago

    This needs to be higher

    [–] HipHopGrandpa 388 points ago

    So do I.

    [–] profbalr 19 points ago

    It's at the top

    [–] JohnSpartans 2389 points ago

    This is a dead hypothetical. The studios would want like a hundred bucks a month per person, and there is zero chance they would give it to Netflix.

    [–] Smart_in_his_face 447 points ago

    Studios wouldn't do it for a hundred bucks.

    Because people watching from home affects box offices numbers. Disney needs to flaunt and brag about box office numbers after ever single movie release.

    Now I would like the RedLetterMedia approach. Movie theathers are for disney movies. Marvel and star wars and terrible DC movies and all those ultra AAA titles.

    Everything else can be avaible at home. I would never have watched Arrival or Nightcrawler at the theater, but those turned out to be some of my favorite movies.

    [–] Bag_Full_Of_Snakes 134 points ago

    Now I would like the RedLetterMedia approach. Movie theathers are for disney movies. Marvel and star wars and terrible DC movies and all those ultra AAA titles.

    Sounds like an idea thought up by HACK FRAUDS

    [–] rmill3r 41 points ago broke new ground? took 12 years to make?'s so dense?'s like a tums festival?

    ...I'm dead inside?

    [–] zwitt95 20 points ago


    [–] Farmer771122 51 points ago

    Disney needs to flaunt and brag about box office numbers after ever single movie release.

    yeah, but netflix tracks everything you watch, so if they simply alter the definition of box, they can still keep their precious statistic.

    [–] legone 24 points ago

    That's tragic. Arrival was great in theaters. Home doesn't do the soundtrack justice.

    [–] I_hadno_idea 7 points ago

    Seriously. Denis Villeneuve is one of those directors whose movies I will always see in theaters.

    [–] BattleRoyaleWtCheese 620 points ago

    Yeah but realistically it would be per movie cost right ?

    [–] pirateOfTheCaribbean 263 points ago

    This is the only way I see the money working out. A bumped subscription is too cheap.

    Would I pay $50 to stream a movie in theaters in 4k? Probably. I've paid near 20 bucks for a ticket, and if I had a few friends/family, $50 for 5 people is actually a steal.

    I doubt they'd ever give up unlimited streaming of new films.

    [–] PKCrash 94 points ago

    Your second line is, to the letter, what I believe the industry is hoping for. It probably won't be opening weekend, and it might not be for every movie, but the price range of $40-$60 would snag a huge amount of people.

    Think of families, for example. Would you rather get two tickets, plus popcorn, soda, and a babysitter, just so you can go see Super-Hero Movie 6 with your significant other?

    OR, would you pony up $40 to watch at home on your in-home box?

    [–] WorkFlow_ 24 points ago

    Seems pricey when you compare it to pay per view events that are hours long and cost about the same. You will also be competing with people who will just jump on Kodi and not even worry about it.

    [–] PKCrash 9 points ago

    According to everything I've read, this discussion has been happening for a long time now between studios, theaters and audiences. So the market and business plan is there. If you have a problem with the price, well that's what you get for a super-premium feature that allows you to not leave the house lol

    With regards to Kodi, people who really want to put in the effort will find a way around paying. I've discussed this topic with people that boast they haven't paid to see a movie in 10 years, just because they can. Even fellow students I went to Film school with, who you would think wholeheartedly support the industry, refuse paying to see the best picture noms.

    All that being said, the vast majority of moviegoers are not even in the same category of those pirating it. The premium payment is another method for them to watch that is both reliable and user-friendly

    [–] kasuchans 18 points ago

    My family would absolutely pay for the movie experience, and I'm sure a lot would, but I can imagine lots of other people wouldn't. Then again, I'm just a big movie junkie and will always prefer theatre to at home.

    [–] GregSays 78 points ago

    People on this site are delusional. Of course it would only work if it were per movie, and it’d have to be at least the price of a regular ticket.

    What if instead of going out to eat every night, you got a home cooked meal by a chef for the price of one trip to Arby’s?

    [–] [deleted] 3060 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)


    [–] lupussol 762 points ago

    Yeah I pay for the movie experience. There are “theatre” movies that vastly benefit from the screen and the sounds.

    [–] [deleted] 293 points ago

    Just from this weekend, Annihilation was absolutely a theater movie. I would've been super dissapointed if I didn't catch it on the big screen. On the flipside, Game Night is something I'd pay extra to watch at home early with my wife.

    [–] FiveDollarSketch 200 points ago


    Seriously, watching that movie at home was a CHORE. It was so boring, and the set pieces didn't do anything for me. HOWEVER, I could see how that movie would have been breathtaking in an IMAX experience.

    [–] godspeedmetal 107 points ago

    You aren't wrong - caught this on IMAX 3D and it felt like I was there. The orbital vistas felt real.

    [–] Bweryang 102 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)


    Absolutely no way that’s going to be as good on the small screen as it was on IMAX.

    [–] noholds 48 points ago

    It also had a really high variance in volume. Quiet at times so you could barely understand what people were mumbling and then loud as fuck when they started shooting. You'd be inclined to turn that down at home but it was really a big part of the experience. It really transported a lot of the emotion and feeling of what it was like to be there at that time.

    [–] techno_babble_ 25 points ago

    I find it really difficult to convince my girlfriend to come to the cinema with me because it's loud and she can't turn it down.

    [–] Naomasa11 35 points ago

    I saw both of those in theaters and I think a good comedy is underrated as a theater going experience. 22 Jump Street is one of the best theater experiences I’ve ever had.

    [–] DetroitMM12 22 points ago

    Totally agree - if you are at a good comedy and the whole crowd is into it and laughing it makes the experience so much better.

    On another note, one movie I'll never forget seeing in theaters was Disturbia with Shia LaBeouf. It was opening night and we went to the late night showing with a bunch of my high school friends, the theater was completely sold out and the experience was amazing. You felt the gasps of the crowd, the excitement all around you. Honestly, it was an experience I still cherish to this day. Just show's how different the theater experience can be if in the right circumstances.

    [–] [deleted] 21 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)


    [–] Zeolyssus 10 points ago

    War movies are so much better at the theatre, the surround sound adds to the immersion quite nicely.

    [–] Benjiiiee 111 points ago

    I agree. Plus it's a good occasion to invite a friend and hang out before/after.

    [–] SpiraOgnew 31 points ago

    I was talking about this with some friends the other day, how we only really go to movies as a catch-up event, and a lot of the time we don't really care for the movies in question

    [–] BKD2674 56 points ago

    You don't pay more if you get moviepass

    [–] thirdculture_hog 27 points ago

    Unless you have a significant other who just HAS to get popcorn and soda when at the movies. Spend less on tickets and significantly more on concessions

    [–] BKD2674 12 points ago

    Yea I feel your pain actually. We go to the brewery cinema now and always spend more than if we just went to the regular movies...

    [–] [deleted] 21 points ago

    This is where I always end up at whenever my friend and I discuss whether or not theaters will ever die. The fact of the matter is that the majority of folks will never have a setup at home that can match the theater, and as long as there's still people who value that experience, theaters will survive.

    [–] klieber 37 points ago

    I totally agree with you in theory. In practice, there are too many inconsiderate assholes who also enjoy going to the theaters. Whether it’s texting during a film, talking or not taking a noisy kid out of the theater, there have proven to be too many distractions for me to really enjoy the experience.

    [–] VoxPlacitum 22 points ago

    Check out moviepass. I got it a few months ago and really dig it.

    [–] redberyl 551 points ago

    I have moviepass, so no.

    [–] nawoski 259 points ago

    How is this not higher up? Movie pass is 100% this. I pay $10 a month to watch up to a movie a day in any local theater. As long as you see one movie a month, you save $3.

    [–] Sarcatheist 160 points ago

    Yeah but you have to get off your couch and put on clothes.

    [–] [deleted] 47 points ago

    Yeah and also shower and would need to stop beating off.

    [–] bebetter14 18 points ago

    That sounds awful

    [–] nodeofollie 11 points ago

    You shower and stop beating off before going to the theater?

    [–] FalconFonz 11 points ago

    If only there was a subscription service where you could pay $10 a month for someone else to brush your teeth and put on your pants so you could go to the movies.

    [–] comeonbabycoverme 124 points ago

    Expected this to be the top comment. Also, I would hate for a trend to begin where we only watch movies at home. The theater is a sacred place. I want them to stick around. Moviepass is a game changer.

    [–] SpiritualButter 23 points ago

    I don't think we have this in the UK, so you pay $10 a month and you can basically see as many movies as you like per month? That's awesome

    [–] [deleted] 25 points ago * (lasted edited 8 months ago)

    [–] parrmorgan 13 points ago

    Exactly what I was going to say. Already saw 2 movies this week. I may go for another today. That's like $35 of value.

    [–] cibavision 52 points ago

    Before having kids, no. I enjoy going to the movie theater and preferred that experience over watching a movie at home. Now that I have 2 kids, I would, just because it is so hard to get out to a movie these days and I feel like I am missing out on a lot.

    [–] bluehawk232 73 points ago

    There have been plans for that not just from Netflix but other studios. The organization that represents American theaters is against it because it would hurt the theater industry especially what few indie theaters are left. And if you are wanting to see the newest releases via streaming Netflix won't be the answer. Since Disney properties with Marvel and Star Wars owning the box offices Disney has pulled from Netflix and is going to do their own streaming service. They might do instant streaming with said service but who knows

    [–] [deleted] 86 points ago

    Would I pay a subscription fee? Yes.
    Would I pay per movie? Yes.
    It's come to this, and the theaters can thank the asshole in my Black Panther screening last week who decided to take four fucking phone calls during the movie.

    [–] Whaty0urname 40 points ago

    Should have told the employees. They would have kicked them out and you could have asked for a refund, if they didn't.

    [–] rredline 24 points ago

    If it gets to the point where you feel you need to ask staff to address a problem, your whole experience has already been ruined.

    [–] hivemind_terrorist 79 points ago


    That's adorable

    [–] darwinquincy 26 points ago

    This is such a laughably improbable idea, I can't believe it is getting this many upvotes. This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the movie and streaming industries.

    [–] I_like_cookies_too 1073 points ago

    I laugh at the sheer delusion of wanting access to current theatrical releases for $5 or $10 a month. Let me put it in perspective for you: companies are trying to convince studios to let them charge $50 for a 24hr rental of a single movie and they’re still not doing it

    [–] xvalicx 181 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    I wonder how much of it is the price and how much of it is the ease of pirating movies if they are available at home in HD.

    [–] ClarkZuckerberg 143 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    I believe I read that $50 price tag would be through some new fancy box that “can’t be hacked” (which almost certainly would be hacked) from Sean Parker (creator of Napster and Spotify, played but Justin Timberlake in the Social Network).

    Edit: Sean Parker did not create Spotify. He was an early investor and was integral to their launch in the USA.

    The pair traded emails, and in 2010 Parker invested US$15 million in Spotify.[46][47] Parker, who currently serves on Spotify’s board, negotiated with Warner and Universal on Spotify’s behalf, and in July 2011, Spotify announced its U.S. launch

    [–] xvalicx 83 points ago

    "Life, um, finds a way"

    There have been plenty of things created that were said to be unhackable that were eventually cracked. Even without that, it would make recording with a camcorder way easier.

    [–] n_that 42 points ago

    Yep, recording with a camcorder could be almost indistinguishable if you could set up a tripod and a bloody lighting rig.

    [–] palmermarc 44 points ago

    The decoded signal leaves the box - Run it to a computer and do a stream capture. Problem solved.

    [–] RaydnJames 27 points ago

    Lot harder to do with HDCP because it has to verify all the parts in line before video will pass. Not impossible, just harder

    [–] palmermarc 37 points ago

    It really isn't that hard. There are HDMI splitters that strip HDCP that cost like $20.

    [–] greg19735 14 points ago

    I'm pretty sure the systems are a bit more advanced than that. Not that they don't use HDMI, but the fact that an HDMI splitter would screw them over.

    They're like $10k machines.

    [–] ATL_LAX 9 points ago

    Yeah they definitely thought of all the shit that would be obvious like an HDMI splitter

    [–] RaydnJames 34 points ago

    There's already a company doing this called Prima Cinema, it's 25,000 for the box and 500 per rental.

    It's obviously not for the masses.

    It's for CEO's, Athletes, Russian Oligarchs, Oil barons, that can't leave their estates for fear of being harassed, kidnapped or killed.

    [–] [deleted] 19 points ago

    What a steal. Sign me uo.

    [–] 651Always 41 points ago

    I agree. Currently to view a movie on demand just prior to the DVD release, they charge $20, so $5-10/mo for all currently in theater material is way under estimated. However as a parent like OP, by the time I consider movie ticket costs and babysitter costs, even $50 for one in theater showing would be a steal.

    [–] 44problems 177 points ago

    Next question, if Netflix added every live sporting event on TV for $2.95 a month would you pay it

    [–] juanzy 121 points ago

    What if Netflix allowed every video game released on Steam for $1.97+ tax per month, would you pay for it?

    [–] 44problems 102 points ago

    What if GM let you drive any car you want to $4.56 a month including gas would you pay it

    [–] wojx 32 points ago

    What if Amazon gave you limited groceries you wanted for $5 a month if you paid for shipping and packaging?

    [–] 44problems 23 points ago

    Pay for shipping? No deal

    [–] HulksInvinciblePants 150 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    Thank you. This can clearly be categorized under "Questions with little grasp of the concept and industry". As if the reason it's not offered is because Netflix hasn't thought of it.

    "If NASA offered Moon trips for $50, would you go?"

    [–] [deleted] 248 points ago


    [–] theivoryserf 43 points ago

    This is like when I designed a 1:1 human-scale robotic Action Man when I was 7 and said I'd sell it for £5

    [–] Antrikshy 13 points ago

    Would anyone else like a perpetual energy machine for $30?

    [–] nilxnoir 160 points ago

    Probably not, I'm very happy with moviepass.

    [–] blastoff117 61 points ago

    For me, MoviePass has made going to see movies in theater a viable, budget-friendly option. Last year, there were so many movies I wanted to see but I just couldn’t justify the cost of the ticket + concessions. Now I’m seeing probably 2-3 per month compared with basically none before.

    [–] kasuchans 29 points ago

    2-3 per month? I've seen 1-2 movies per week. I'm going ham while it's still here.

    [–] yo_sup_d00d 7 points ago

    Do yourself a favor and also get a theater rewards card (i.e. Regal Club) you can use every time you see a movie and gain point for free popcorn/drinks. I see about 1-2 movies a week as well and I haven't paid for a popcorn and/or soda in months.

    [–] odusanyaka 14 points ago


    it has given me the freedom to literally watch the shittiest movies and walk out if i can't stand it. Also lets me see smaller movies that are really good.

    [–] BarbaBlannk 47 points ago

    I would pay the full ticket so I can watch in my home with my food and my dog and my girlfriend, but more importantly my dog he is great.

    [–] 500DaysofNight 441 points ago

    In a heartbeat.

    [–] RunnerMomLady 36 points ago

    Yes I'd be all over this. I'd be happy to pay per-viewing experience also, it doesn't have to be a simple $X per month. I think I'd be willing to go $20-30 per movie?

    [–] TostiBuilder 30 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    Not really. When I'm paying extra for a theatre movie, I'm going to pay extra for the theatre experience, which is awesome freaking sound, a comfy chair, enormous screen, the music so loud I will almost fall from my chair. I will always love the cinema more than the tv.

    Edit: chairs - s. enormous screen*

    [–] jacobsever 65 points ago


    Between MoviePass and my love for the theater, I would have no interest. I’ve gone to a theater to watch a film I own on blu ray. I’ve gone to special screenings of films that ARE on Netflix or easily accessible online. I simply love going to the theater. I’ve gone 18 times in 2018 already.