Yeah, I think the prices also have resulted in a massive change in how consumers decide to go to movies as well. With the price so high for a family of four, people rely much more heavily on positive word of mouth/reviews before making a decision.

So people are much more risk adverse. I've never understood why they don't do tiered pricing based on the type of movie it is. If it's not a mega blockbuster type film, reduce the price a bit to make it easier for people to take a risk and try out a movie without it being a 90%+ rating on rotten tomatoes. I'd personally probably go a lot more if a movie like say Marty Supreme was $10 instead of $20.

So do you want to pay more, or less? I am confused.

And its $100 minimum... at least in NYC. Right now its 20-25 a head and that doesn't include transportation or food.

The missing middle from 20 years back is rentals. That was $5-10 a pop, people rented almost weekly. The option is there digitally now but its not in the public conscience for the same reason as cinema, people can just wait for the streaming option as the turnover is so short. (And granted, more people went to the cinema back then)

Meanwhile consumers are whining about the increases in streaming cost and diffusion, and low quality content. It had to happen, the math wasn't working out. In the social media bubbles users argue they will "just pirate again", over and over as though those who would care to don't already do so. Its toothless. Average people are not going to pay for a VPN and navigate things they don't understand just to pirate. They will eat the cost, whether it be streaming or renting

I doubt increasing the price of their goods will work when the supply of alternative ways to spend time at almost zero cost is near infinite.

thats so much cheaper for a family of 4 for 3 hrs compared to other options.

what are the other cheaper options? going to free parks and museums? i am sure going to free museum will be a big hit with the kids :]