MoviePass Slashes Offering to Three Films a Month | Hacker News Reader

MoviePass Slashes Offering to Three Films a Month

wsj.com

26 pointslaurex17 comments

I knew this was coming, and it's not like I watch more than three movies a month in the theater anyway, but stuff like this makes the package less appealing to me. Part of what made Moviepass neat was its "too good to be true" nature, though it was obvious this this model was unsustainable.

I don't know if I am going to cancel my membership, but I feel kind of bad for the company. It seems like now there's no "right" decision for them to make; either they keep working at a huge huge huge loss, or they upset their customers severely. It was definitely (in my opinion) an unwise decision to move to the $9.99 price, and it seems like now there is no way out for them.

most of the theaters around here are AMC and they offer 3/week for 20 bucks now. without the limitations+additions on crappy screens, busy night fees, etc.

i wonder if the new terms will be profitable enough for them to stay in business for the long haul.

While that's probably fine for most people. In my city. We've got about 8 theaters all of which are available through MoviePass. I don't see why I would pay for 3/week only at AMC.

I would much rather have access to less movies a month, but with the option to go to any theater in my city that best matches my schedule.

I think that 3/month is worth $10/month, I also think that they should remove the restriction of rewatching movies. 3/month should be 3/month.

*fewer

-Stannis Baratheon

I support this form of pedantry.

There aren't 3+ movies a week that are worth seeing.

Their business model is predicated on buying lemonade at $5.00 and selling it at $2.00. They should just go under and stop the farce. If they had succeeded, we'd just have another painful monopoly on our hands.

I've found that when you see business plans that focus on buying at $1 and selling at $.50, the real plan is getting people within a subset. Once they have critical mass, they are a prime target to be bought

It's obvious that they're losing money hand over fist - it doesn't take a economist to understand that $10 is less than 1 ticket... or in bulk.

It would seem their only 2 major options (and 1 prayer) is to raise prices/lower service, go bankrupt, or hope and pray that someone in media will just buy them.

The crowd that is paying are dedicated movie-goers that are willing to pay money ahead of time. It really now matters how much this list/group is believed to be.

They attempted to aggressively buy their way into a market with hopes to strong arm themselves into profitability.

There customer service is terrible.

I was using it maybe 1x / month so three is fine.. in nyc using it once saves you $5.

I live 5 minutes walk from the best cinema in my region. I don't see the value in these subscription services: there aren't three movies a year which are worth watching. Let alone a month.

I could see value if cinemas regularly screened non-current good films. Is that a thing in America?

Occasionally, at non-mainstream theatres. 'Dollar theatres' were also popular in my college days; they would play things like "Liar Liar" or "Home Alone" for a buck, and then you don't feel bad spending $10 on concessions.

As far as places to go watch classics, or cult movies, I haven't found anything that isn't just streaming/buying. What a shame! I think this would be pretty popular if reasonably priced.

I agree with you, there aren't 3 good movies a month. I don't need more 'infinite media' subscriptions when we're already overloaded with mediocre media every day.

> As far as places to go watch classics, or cult movies, I haven't found anything that isn't just streaming/buying. What a shame!

It's something you get with top end 'art' cinemas. The BFI cinema in London, for example, has regular retrospective seasons for particular directors and so on.

But I suspect it is also in receipt of a lot of public money and philanthropic donations. People who show up for a Kurosawa retrospective are not typically going to have a bucket of popcorn and a litre and a half of mountain dew for company. The dosh has to come from somewhere.

It's worth mentioning because the obvious flaw with moviepass is that it cannot possibly become profitable, but there are ways to show movies that do not require profitability, merely the willingness of taxpayers and private individuals to dip into their pockets to protect a perceived public good.

I'm currently in a large-ish metropolitan area and my problem is that even after watching 30-31 movies a month, there are still several new releases that I miss. For all of its faults, Moviepass has really opened my eyes to many excellent independent and foreign films.

For those who claim there aren't three films a year that are worth watching, what do you think is a film worth watching? Do you require that everything be a "Citizen Kane" or "2001: A Space Odyssey"?

I've been more and more picky about movies over the last few years. I think that the OC was probably just exaggerating, but I'd say I watch all of 3 movies per year in theaters.

I don't mind wasting a lazy evening watching a movie at home, even some lackluster ones if I'm being honest, but if I'm going to take my wife out and spend $40, I'd rather go do something interesting, eat something fun, do anything else, typically.

Usually the only movies I'll pay money to watch in theaters are ones that I don't want spoiled while I wait to watch them at home. Work usually takes us to a few movies a year and I always leave thinking "I wouldn't pay money to see it...but it was fun I guess."

Depends on where you are. Alamo Drafthouse usually has classics (popular and cult) as well as indie films.

They're also piloting a program similar to moviepass or AMC's offering.

repost from today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17697751

Reply on news.ycombinator.com