There is a big difference, however, between the live music scene and the cinema scene. Firstly, with music you have the added benefit of radio play to be able to judge how well your band is doing in a certain area, and price accordingly. With a movie, you're really just putting out trailers and hoping people watch them, like them, and are enticed enough to go see the movie.
Again, I beg to differ. What have been the biggest movies of late?
The Avengers: Well known characters with broad, established appeal and a whole slew of previous movies leading up to it.
Prometheus: Well-established, successful franchise, with the original director returning to the helm, who also happens to be (arguably) the second most well-known director of tent pole films in the world (after Spielberg).
The Dark Knight Rises: A combination of both of the above. Long-established and popular character, enormously successful franchise, helmed by a highly-respected writer/director.
Skyfall: Perhaps the most successful franchise in the world, and certainly the most enduring, with a very broad appeal and, recently, an elevated pedigree.
and, presumably,
The Hobbit: Adapted from one of the most popular novels of all time, prequel to one of the most popular and respected trilogies - in both film and novel form - of all time, helmed by the original director, who has earned global respect and accolades, not to mention a couple of Academy Awards.
Each of those movies, unless someone fucked up royally, was bound to succeed. Hell, I saw - or will see - each of them in a theater and would've paid whatever was required in order to do so. There was no confusion, they were pre-sold. Audiences would have gone, no matter what. The marketing just made sure everyone knew when and where to show up. They are U2.
There's quite a few differences with music: at U2 you're paying because you're a big fan of U2 already and they may only tour your area once every couple of years if that. Now, you could say some major Directors are similar, but with a large band you're not only paying to see the band themselves, part of what you're paying for is the larger and better venue, the bigger and better soudn system and operation, the amazing light and pyrotechnics show.
Again, I disagree that there is any difference. As stated above, people attend those big movies because they are already fans of either the franchise, the genre, the source material, the filmmakers, or a combination of those.
And the "amazing light and pyrotechnics show" could not be more accurate in describing those films, and are a huge part of why people enjoy them!
Do you then design scaleable movie theatres? Where the $4 movies are shown in the average theatres, and the expensive ones shown in the large theatres with the biggest screens and the best sound? If so, then why should your indie film suffer a smaller screen, and mediocre sound simply because it's an indie film?
There are a couple of issues to address here.
First, as I stated in an earlier post, in my tiny town of 10,000 we have an octoplex. It includes auditoriums of varying sizes. Some seat a couple hundred people, while others only accommodate a few dozen. The big movies, like those listed above, already command the larger venues - understandably - while the smaller films are relegated to the smaller screens, so that particular distinction already exists.
However, those smaller auditoriums have the same quality of projection and sound as the larger ones do, they just seat fewer people. The screen is smaller, yes, but the audience sits closer to it, so the experience works out to be the same. Judging from your earlier post, your situation in Australia may be quite different, but in America it's fairly typical.
Second, you're using the term "indie" films, which I tend to apply to ultra low-budget movies like those I produce. I'm not necessarily talking about them. I'm talking about films like
The Paperboy, which features big-name performers - Matthew McConaughey, Nicole Kidman, John Cusack, Scott Glenn - and an Oscar-nominated director. From what I've read about it, that movie appeals greatly to me, but not enough to spend $15 to see it on the big screen instead of
Prometheus. I would gladly have paid $4, though, in order to see it in one of the smaller theaters.
Or do you say that you'll price based on production value? When you pay $10 to see a band at the local pub, the music itself might be good, but the lighting and sound aren't always great and certainly aren't on par with a U2 arena concert. So then - price based on production value..? I personally think if you price based on production value, you force everyone out of the $4 movies because once they realise that they're average, or that at least the production values are mediocre, then they'll stop watching them.
I think I pretty much addressed this above, so I won't repeat myself. But I will say that the term "production values" is vague. What do you consider to be "production value" in a film you go see? Huge special effects? Big stars? Great cinematography?
I haven't seen
The Paperboy yet, but I'd be willing to bet that, despite its low budget, the production values are pretty decent. No big special effects, presumably, but I'll take a good story over that any day.
Plus, part of the reason you can have tickets cheap at a pub is the drinks the band's meant to sell... I don't know of too many cinemas that have bars in them.
We have them in the U.S.A. There's one in my town. It's sweet! NO KIDS!!!
