SACHA BARON COHEN BANNED FROM OSCARS: EXCLUSIVE 
Cassian Elwes And Mark Burg Start Evolution Independent To … 
Simon Cowell On Search For New ‘X Factor’ Hosts … 
J.J. Abrams And Paramount Extend First-Look Deal Through … 
‘Spartacus’ Alum Jai Courtney Lands Coveted … 
BREAKING: SAG Anti-Merger Members File Lawsuit Against … 
Disney Taps Edgar Wright To Helm Johnny Depp In ‘The … 
IMAX Names Former Paramount Exec Andrew Cripps President Of … 
Conan O’Brien’s TBS Late-Night Talk Show … 
Paramount President Of Animation David Stainton Resigns 
Oscar Countdown: Sherak On Kodak Theatre’s New Name, … 
Costumers Designers Guild Awards: ‘Dragon … 
Oscars Scoop: George Clooney’s & Melissa … 
CAA Signs ‘The Help’s Tate Taylor 
UPDATED: 2012 Oscar Party Roundup 
NBC Brings Back ‘Community’, Schedules … 
Weinstein To Take On MPAA ‘Bully’ Rating 
TOLDJA! Michael Fassbender Commits To Ridley Scott-Directed … 
Charlie Sheen Resumes ‘Two & Half Men’ … 
Comcast Launches Xfinity Streaming Service For Older 
Sarah Palin Doc ‘The Undefeated’ Finds TV Home … 
BREAKING… EXCLUSIVE: This is a fast-moving story so it’s hard getting all the facts straight. Summit Entertainment is pacting with Living Social to offer discounted movie tickets for Man On A Ledge. While its new parent company Lionsgate has done a Groupon movie ticket discount for One For The Money. The deal for Groupon is consumers can buy up to two tickets at a cost of $6 each. The promotion went live last night at midnight and continues for 48 hours until end of Friday. The tickets can be redeemed until March 31st. The Living Social deal is $12 for two tickets valid for up to 4 weeks. The ability to get the promotion starts tomorrow and lasts through Saturday. This is one of the few weekends when both Lionsgate and Summit will be competing with one another at the box office. Obviously this problem happens when you integrate companies and won’t continue much longer. But for now it’s awkward as hell. Thankfully each movie is going after a different audience: one decidedly male and one decidedly females.
Lionsgate was among Hollywood’s first studios to pact with Groupon for discounted movie tickets. That’s when theater owners still get full price with third parties paying the difference. Last spring’s opening-weekend Groupon discount of The Lincoln Lawyer had Lionsgate paying the difference as a promotional cost. But theater owners are leery of letting moviegoers become accustomed to having someone else set ticket prices, especially discounted ticket prices. Fellow studios are leery of artifically hiking box office grosses because when any discount or coupon is used at a theater the exhibitors still report gross receipts based on the value of the tickets sold. Nevertheless consumers will benefit when Lionsgate and Summit lower ticket prices. No word yet on the price but it could be as low as $1 Hmm, Groupon $1 tickets and Redbox $1 rentals: what happens when consumers decide $11 bucks is now too much to pay for any new movie?
Loading ...
I saw the movie. At the premiere. I think a dollar might be too much.
Sam Worthington convincingly proves he’s not a movie star. Just an actor who is better when he’s painted blue. He’s just… nothing.
As for the rest of it? A high-security vault you can crawl through an air vent to get into? As long as you’re a hot girl. Really? That’s the best they could do?
The whole thing is just insulting to the audience. This kind of cynical deal-driven film making is why audiences are staying home.
Groupon away.
Well put. It’s a movie called MAN ON A LEDGE about a diamond heist in Manhattan but the trailers still manage to feature a chick wriggling in and out of a skinsuit and lingerie.
And how does being on a ledge aid in this heist of the “Monarch diamond?” Because everyone on the sidewalks are looking up at the man on the ledge of course! Apparently the Monarch diamond is being protected by citizens walking around on the sidewalks. Of course!
I hate movies that treat me like I’m brain dead. Pass.
Hi! Uh, hello! We’ve already decided that $11 bucks is too much for a film, hence the dismal box office last year.
$11 bucks isn’t too much to pay for Prometheus in 3-D or The Dark Knight Rises, but it *IS* too much for Man On A Ledge. Film is worth no more than a $2 dollar rental at Blockbuster or RedBox. Why should the studios expect us to pay for MOAL what we’re willing to pay for bigger, better films that *demand* to be seen in the theaters?
Having said all that, even Groupon heavily discounting this film won’t be enough to get me to come in and see it; not unless it’s on a double-bill with The Grey.
You have high hopes for Prometheus and Rises and hope you are right about them,,. If you come back with a Dark Knight is bad-ass statement that’s all I need to know about your bias. Dark Knight was overrated to say the least and was rightfully left off the best picture nominees in 2009. Will it make a bunch of money? Yes. Worth $11? We’ll see.
Read somewhere and agree that theaters should differ their pricing based on the movie.
Totally agree that 11-13 dollars for Prometheus or TDKR is justifiable.
Not sure where the price should fall for something like Ledge.
For indie films, I think people are more wary of spending 11 bucks. Whether it’s a good or bad film, you know what you’re getting with big blockbusters. Lower prices for indie titles could really help bolster boxoffice for those films.
I never understood why it’s not the case.
You don’t pay the same for all restaurants, why do you pay the same for all movies?
Yes thats true. Just like some books are straight-to-paperback or Kindle and others have a good run in hardcover not all movies are $12 films. Maybe its time for movies to be less about what it costs to get in the door and more about the content of the movie.
I love movies! I love going to movies! I am by nature neither a cynic nor a curmudgeon and yet if Groupon gave me FREE tickets I wouldn’t walk across the street to see either of these horrible looking movies starring the annoying girl who ditched her successful television series to make turd movies and the guy whose acting is more boring than watching paint dry and can’t manage an American accent. Thanks Groupon, it’s the thought that counts!
Heck, at least theyve run some ads on Ledge.
One for the Money is so bad I haven’t seen a single advertisement — talk about throwing in the towel.
Guess you do need writers, huh Ms. EP Heigl?
The problem with ‘One for the Money’? It is really small screen trying to be big screen. It was the same with the V I Warshawski movie – long running hit book series but a flop as a major motion picture. On the other hand the Bones books were not as well known but turned into a successful TV series where maybe this is where this should have gone – unless they were set on Heigl and she was not interested in going back to TV.
Would love to see one of my home state series on the screen and for my money the Cat Austen & Victor Cardenas series was more fun, sexier and sharper than Evanovichs books – but even saying that i think they are ‘free’ – that is TV – material not wide screen
I am in agreement @ what you said in terms of the Austen/Cardenas books whch i liked better than the Plum series. The trailers for OFTM look like a Lifetime movie – a decent watchable Lifetime movie but not a 20 minute commute and pay 11 dollars movie and the Warshawski film at the height of Kathleen Turners career was a hot mess. They probably should have done what they did with The No 1 Ladies Detective Agency and made it into a series.
But it does seem like the what they call ‘womens mysteries’ have a harder time on the big screen than the male written ones. Movies based on Grisham, Lehane,Patterson did all right.
I am with Barbara and Ellie on this. I liked the Evanovich/Plum books well enough. I liked the Rubino/ Cat Austen books better since it played less to those Jersey stereotypes without sacrificing the “Jersey” .But both of them are served up better as series for TV than features.
MOAL reminds me of a movie that was out just a couple years ago called The Ledge – not a heist movie. Also reminds me of an older film noir from the fifties that had “Ledge” in the title which makes me think that sometimes the out of ideas crowd goes mining the vaults of the 40s and 50s for plots. Because nothing about it seems fresh.
Agreed. Theater owners need to get a grip and realize people will not pay $11 for movies like this anymore.
Theater owners don’t set the prices, the distributors do.
No, theaters set prices. I work in distribution btw
Does anyone believe either of these turds will be in theaters until March 31?
I pay 5.50 for the early bird film. That said, The Grey is the only film this weekend that appeals to me outside of expanding Oscar/Award nominated films such as The Artist, Shame.
Saw THE GREY at CAA last night and it’s incredible. Both visceral and meditative. Remarkable film.
It may not be worth it, but I prefer to see films on the big screen. It’s an experience. So… I can’t seem to find a link to either the groupon or living social discounts. Any help would be appreciated.
bjk
I love it! the studio gets to right-off the difference and I pick up the tab… where’s Team America when you need them?
Just checked actual groupon: Not worth paying since I would be LOSING money to see first showing but I’m not seeing the film period.
Jeepers. What a pack of whiners you all are. Seriously.
‘Movies are too expensive.’
‘$11 is too much.’
‘Prices should be reduced based on what film it is.’
From films that cost millions to make, you’re saying it’s out of order to pay $11?
Eleven Friggin’ Dollars?
Some cinema fans you are. It’s people like you that are ripping the industry off by staying home and burning films off the net for free because you think you deserve a free ride in life. Morons.
Try going googling how much other parts of the world charge for films, like Australia:
$17.50 for a normal ticket, and $22.50 for 3D.
All of a sudden, that $11 that you’re whining about taking out of that wallet you rarely ever use, doesn’t look so bad now, does it?
I don’t think prices should be reduced based on the film. How would you go about doing that anyway?
There will be plenty of people who will enjoy MOAL. Hell, there are people out there who own “Gigli” on dvd.
Most of you need to understand that $11-$15 for a movie is not that bad. It’s called inflation. And Eddie, us folks have every right to complain considering how awful most movies are. Movies costing “millions to make” is exactly why we expect to see a decent movie, not a reason why we shouldn’t “whine”. What does it matter to us how much they spent?
Your justifications don’t make sense. $17.50 for a movie in Australia… I could catch a movie for $9 in cities just outside of Los Angeles, what’s your point?
Hey Eddie you sound like a studio exec that wants to keep things “status quo”. You’re totally right. Lets ignore the fact that many working Americans are struggling to keep their head above water. It’s only $11/per head ($25 plus when you factor in parking, food, etc) to see the type of crap Hollywood have thrown at us the past couple of years.
I love you’re “it’s people like you staying home/burning movies off the internet” remark. Really? Here’s an idea Eddy. Lets have the studios/distributors release movies (like MOAL) in the theaters and online simultaneously. Those cinefiles that want the true theater experience for movies like this will go. The rest of us will be happy to rent it online or on demand instead of watching tripe like this in the theater.
People don’t just steal stuff online because they can. THey do so because they don’t want to go see the movie in a theater or they don’t want to wait four-six months after the release to watch it online.
Piss off enough people and yeah you they will all steal it just to stick it to you.
Ok…I’m sorry folks. But ONE FOR THE MONEY is based on the first of a series of wonderfully fun books by Janet Evanovich. Granted, it may not be for everyone…but what movie really is? If it lives up to the book, it should be entertaining to say the least. And sometimes I just enjoy a good time…nothing mind boggling or intricately woven to the point of brain-ache. Sometimes I just want to be able to sit back and enjoy a fun ride. You can’t take everything so seriously that you lose your sense of humor…if you do, then I have much pity for you. I’m sure, whether they’re ‘in the industry’ or not…there are some people out there that might actually enjoy this movie as well. As for the price of a movie…my god, you waste more than that on junk food I’m sure. So quit being so negative just because you may be ‘in the business’ as some of you have so eloquently pointed out… that only proves to me how biased you truly are. Take a break from your stressed out lives and give your brain a rest…Sounds like you could use it. LOL
Hey Eddie,
The bottom line is that no matter how much the movies cost these studios (who are all about hiring and promoting people have no clue what they’re doing in the first place), the majority of them are simply not worthy of spending our hard earned money on these days. Movies like ONE FOR THE MONEY and MAN ON A LEDGE are the problem and the reason people are not satisfied with the crap that Hollywood churns out of their vertically integrated machines. We should not rationalize spending more money on a ticket just because the morons at the studios gave a go ahead to blow millions on a movie that they don’t have to assume the risk for (thanks Ryan Kavanaugh) so that they can take a big distribution fee for simply existing (there’s no actual real cost of distribution near the amount they claim) and laugh at all of us in the end. We need to stop the madness. Laying down the law that we won’t pay high prices to see bad movies is the exact place to start. It worked for the auto biz and it will work for the movie biz if you can even call it that anymore.
@ Eddie Are You OK?: No, films like Man On A Ledge and One For The Money (Is that a prequel to Two For The Money? Ha) are not the problem.
A consenting adult, choosing to go see the film, paying for it, watching it in it’s entirety, then walking out screaming that it was rubbish and saying films are a rip off, is the problem. It’s playing the blame game. I mean, hey, how could it possibly be YOUR fault that you picked a lemon?
We make our own decisions. Nobody puts a gun to your head to say you have to go and see a film. It is YOUR choice. So if you go and see a film that you don’t like? Who’s fault is that? The Studios? What would you want from them, to put on a ‘Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back’ stamp on every film? There isn’t a One Size Fits All when it comes to cinema, and that’s the beauty of it; one person’s trash, is someone else’s treasure.
Can we start being a little rational here and accepting some personal responsibility instead of crying out blue murder because something didn’t suit your personal cinematic palate?
OK. I understand that it hasn’t been a stellar few years for cinema, and the nominations for the Oscars have highlighted that. The Descendants, along with Clooney’s performance, never would have been mentioned in times of truly great cinema (American Beauty, No Country For Old Men, There Will Be Blood, Million Dollar Baby, etc ) but it’s one of the most talked about films. It’s indicative of how the industry has begun to scrape the bottom of the barrel in search of quality, and coming up short as a result.
But you all seem intent on kicking cinema when it’s down, and from what I can assume, most of you are probably involved in the industry which is why you post on deadline. How can you trash something so freely from which you also hope to earn a livelihood? Contradiction much?
How about you remember why you got involved in film in the first place, that being for your passion and willingness to overlook it’s flaws (Which we all have) whilst celebrating it’s strengths (As we too, all have)
Cinema is superb because it can be so random, and illustrates that just like life, nothing is ever perfect. Stop demanding it to be, and you might just finally enjoy it again.
I’d rather stay home and watch PORTLANDIA over and over than see anything coming out of studios these days.
One for the Money and Man on Ledge looking absolutely dull.
This is more profound than any of these comments are giving it credit for. First of all, we are an industry built on collaboration. Yet Studios call the shots when it comes to dealmaking and creatives are invariably at the mercy of those deals. Much time and money is spent on making deals and fighting for participation. Creatives live and die by Box Office returns and MAGR is predominantly based on Net as opposed to Gross. If theater owners decide what the bottom line is, participants have to eat the decision, whether they like it or not. Now we eat it even more by these kinds of decisions. The issue is the cost of marketing movies and the needs the Studios have to recoup their “all in” exposure. Once again, we are getting hosed because of Studios inability to control costs and the power of distribution. When did decisions like these become unilateral? This is a slippery slope for sure and we’re not thinking big picture because Studios have forgotten their clout to control the process of bundling the “must have” films with those trickier titles. Man up Studios and realize your backbone or we’re all going to be in the poorhouse selling our creative souls to those who have no vested interest in the art form, but rather the bottom line.
I have to say that I enjoyed “Man on a Ledge.” It was entertaining and, I thought, well-made, with enough suspense to keep things rolling. My biggest issue was the fact that Worthington, who can be a solid actor, continues to show that he’s terrible at slipping out of his Australian accent. Dude, you’re a well-paid professional. Nail that down. It looks bad when, by comparison, his amazing English co-star (Jamie Bell) manages to get a flawless American accent down without a hitch.
NotQuiteRight is absolutely correct in this case.
While some distributors might argue that the theatre owners set their own ticket prices, they fail to tell you that they set a minimum per cap for the market and theatre owners will be charged an additional film rental for every ticket sold below that per cap. This policy causes a problem when try to set ticket prices on a picture by picture basis.
Bullshit.. Distributors like people to think that the theatres set the price , but what they fail to mention is that they have minimum per capitas set that prevent theatres from lowering the prices and offering discounts to our customers