ROTTEN TOMATOES: $10 Movie Tickets Not So Expensive After All

$10 Movie Tickets Not So Expensive After All

Brace yourself for Gold Class luxury.

by Jeff Giles | March 27, 2008

What kind of movie theater charges $35 for a ticket?

If you live in or around Chicago, you'll have the chance to find out for yourself this year, thanks to Village Roadshow. The company, described by The Hollywood Reporter as an "Australian entertainment conglomerate," is rolling out the first of a planned 50 "Gold Class Cinemas" in the Windy City. What will your $35 get you? Here are the broad strokes:

The planned theaters will boast boosted amenities, including plush reserved seating, special parking privileges and upscale food and beverage offerings with seat-side waiter service.

As the Reporter notes, luxury cinemas are nothing new, and "some or all of those offerings are available at existing deluxe cinemas in select U.S. markets that charge $20 or less" per ticket. But Village Roadshow promises its theaters will be even more luxurious, boasting a 40-seat max and something described as "an even higher-end atmosphere."

The Gold Class brand has already established itself in other countries -- according to the Reporter, there are more than 100 of the theaters in Australia, Singapore, and Greece.

Source: The Hollywood Reporter

(1-20 of 36 posts) | Reply

hartman27 writes:
on Mar 27 2008 05:16 AM

Nah...$10 still sucks

(Reply to this)

SlyDante writes:
on Mar 27 2008 05:17 AM

...& you just know the first movie they'll be showing at one of those cinemas is "Meet The Spartans".

(Reply to this)

Some guy you dont know writes:
on Mar 27 2008 05:26 AM

I love that they used a poster for A Fool and his Money.

(Reply to this)

Joe Utichi writes:
on Mar 27 2008 05:30 AM

Americans have it easy. Top seats in the Odeon, Leicester Square in London cost something around $40 and have done for years.

(Reply to this)

mouse_clicker writes:
on Mar 27 2008 06:12 AM

There's a theater like that here in Wichita called The Warren that has just about all of that (including the seat-side waiter service you call with a little button), and the tickets still just cost $9. Actually, they just raised the ticket price TO $9 and everyone freaked out. I'm not sure why I should spend four times as much for an atmosphere they can't even accurately describe to me.

(Reply to this)

donwillymo writes:
on Mar 27 2008 06:31 AM

I'll stick to 7$ tickets in a theater smaller than my bathroom, sticky floors, stale popcorn, cops stationed out front with loud *** annoying high school kids thank you very much. Now thats a romantic date.

(Reply to this)

TombstoneLawDog writes:
on Mar 27 2008 06:31 AM

I say if people want to spend that much, god bless 'em. If I were a bit wealthier, I might do it, just because they probably have a hit squad on stand-by for any worthless sh#tbag as#hole who doesn't shut their goddam# phone off or, worse yet, answers it.

"Central, this is Enjoy the Silence team leader. We got a bogie, Sector 4: Never Back Down. Row seven, seat 6. Nokia. It's always a Nokia! Target is male, approximately 5'7", 186 lbs. Execute with extreme prejudice! Watch that crossfire, boys! THIS IS WHAT WE LIVE FOR.."

(Reply to this)

donwillymo writes:
on Mar 27 2008 06:34 AM

good one tombstone

(Reply to this)

spitting into the wind writes:
on Mar 27 2008 06:55 AM

Unless I'm getting fellated for my $35 while watching Jessica Alba perform as a lap dancer it is not worth it.

(Reply to this)

osiris3657 writes:
on Mar 27 2008 07:34 AM

I can't believe some of you pay $10...I pay 5-7 dollars depending on which theater I go to here in San Antonio (yes, they are nice quality theaters that are kept clean)

(Reply to this)

reavus4983 writes:
on Mar 27 2008 07:44 AM

I won't even pay $10 any more unless it's a movie I'm dying to see. Or unless my girlfriend pays, which somehow she keeps doing. The theater near my college is like $12 and when I went into NYC I had to pay like $13 about two months ago. You can buy 2-3 DVDs now for that price, and not even bargain-bin quality ones any more.

(Reply to this)

High School With Money writes:
on Mar 27 2008 07:53 AM

It'd be worth the admission price just to see some grade A rude@ss get tossed out without a refund. Forget overcharging at the concession, "Operation Douche Booter" will be the theater's #1 revenue.

Of course, they neglected to say whether ads will run before a $35 movie...

(Reply to this)

Oblivioncry writes:
on Mar 27 2008 08:45 AM

i pay like 6 euro and teusdays only 4 euro....and the atmosphere of a 100 ppl room is unbeatable.

(Reply to this)

thereign writes:
on Mar 27 2008 10:09 AM

F.uck Village Roadshow. Give us some BETTER MOVIES first, and then maybe we should CONSIDER paying $70 to bring a date...and for that price, there should be a written contract that your date has to at least give a lap dance!

It's retarded to pay such exorbitant prices, when the quality of films continues to diminish week after week, year after year. And what will the concession prices be, anyway? $15 for a small popcorn? $25 for a hot dog and medium Coke? And listening to people talking in the film will be the least of our problems, as of course there'll be some back-woods jacka$$ CONSTANTLY ringing the button on their chair for a waiter while the film's running. "Lookee that, Martha! We's gots ourselves one'a them thar waitin' dudes to serve us!"

Spitting into the Wind has the right idea: For $35 bucks, we should at least receive the blowjob, the lap dance, and--for an additional "Thank you for allowing us to molest your wallet"--Catherine Zeta-Jones wearing nothing but black undies and wrapped in a red ribbon as a going home present!

Insanity.

(Reply to this)

vitajex writes:
on Mar 27 2008 10:15 AM

For those of us who have ever attended a movie that wasn't at "that quiet little art-house theater", we know how there are plenty of times you DREAM of paying 3 times what you actually did pay just to actually get to see the movie!

With all the stupid cell-phones ringing, idiots yakking, babies crying, etc., it would be worth paying $35 for some movies if it meant you got to sit in silence. Key word is 'some' movies, of course. $35 for "Shutter"? I shudder to even think...

(Reply to this)

dahluzz writes:
on Mar 27 2008 10:33 AM

In reply to this comment (#1655754)
are movies getting worse or are you just watching the wrong movies?

2007 was one of the best years in memory for film. don't get all worked up when crappy movies make big money or that nothing good has come out yet in 08. the first three months are for burning last year's garbage.

You can't complain about the lack of a quality product if you're not being selective enough. Hollywood's bad movies are worse than ever, but their good ones are as good as they've ever been.

(Reply to this)

mongoose2 writes:
on Mar 27 2008 10:57 AM

Actually, for some movies I'd pay a good deal extra to see a movie with no one under 21 in the theater. Many times babies crying, little ones squirming and talking, and teenagers just being stupid have ruined the viewing experience. During my attempt to see 300, the teenager sitting just behind us actually stood up in the theater and yelled, "Cut off his f***ing head!" It wasn't funny, and the management refused to do anything. I haven't been back to that particular theater.

(Reply to this)

thereign writes:
on Mar 27 2008 10:58 AM

Dahluzz;

Everyone has their own opinions on what makes a great movie or a crappy one. In my own view, I can't believe you could write that Hollywood's good movies "are as good as they've ever been" with a straight face.

Most of the films that generated Oscar buzz were highly overrated at best, a major disappointment at worst. Atonement was a massive snoozefest(and I like period pieces if they're done right). No Country for Old Men was brilliant until the last 15 minutes, where it all fell apart while little gems like Resurrecting the Champ went unnoticed. Of all the films 2007 had to offer, only Juno and Gone Baby Gone rightly deserved their accolades--and in my opinion, Gone Baby Gone, for all its honest storytelling, should have beaten the impossibly overrated No Country for the Oscar.

2007 isn't "one of the best years" in my memory. If everything's so great, where are the films whose caliber matches The Godfather? Jaws? The Exorcist? Se7en? The original Omen? Hell, even just something as recent as The Prestige? And the best movie so far of '08 is without a doubt The Bank Job, and that's an export!

Selectivity has nothing to do with it. Hollywood just isn't trying as hard as it used to.

But then, that's my opinion.

(Reply to this)

reavus4983 writes:
on Mar 27 2008 11:13 AM

In reply to this comment (#1655789)
The frequency of great movies in one year has increased greatly in the past few. There was about one Godfather every five years back in the day; now there are about 5 near-masterpieces a year, and probably even more in 2007. There's a greater frequency of crappy movies too, but almost always, there is something worth seeing these days, either being released in theaters or on DVD. Two years ago I would get bored looking for a good movie to watch, and now I don't even have time to see all the ones that look interesting. There were easily 10 very great and classic-potential movies last year. Also, it's very hard to have credibility complaining about the quality of movies when you put down movies like No Country for Old Men, for future reference.

(Reply to this)

Floor Man writes:
on Mar 27 2008 11:45 AM

Wow...I'm fine with paying my $5-7, thanks....

(Reply to this)

Related Links

A Fool and His Money

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links