Ziegfeld Theatre

141 W. 54th Street,
New York, NY 10019

Unfavorite 131 people favorited this theater

Showing 2,101 - 2,125 of 4,511 comments

KJB2012
KJB2012 on November 12, 2007 at 2:53 pm

Back to pricing, in L.A. the El Captian charges $22 for their reserved area and $13 for general admish seating. Over at the Archlight the top is $14. So I would have to say that $12 for the Ziegfeld isn’t over the top.
If one looks back into the 1950s, the top price at a roadshow house in NYC or LA was $3.50. I don’t know what that would be in 2007 dollars but I know it would be a lot more than $12.

JeffS
JeffS on November 12, 2007 at 12:05 pm

Although as I told you on Saturday Bill, I really regret not having gone to Porgy & Bess. I missed out bigtime, regardless of cost. But then, that falls with my past statements about the movie not being from the current crop of crap which I have no interest in paying $12 for.

Bill Huelbig
Bill Huelbig on November 12, 2007 at 10:32 am

If the Ziegfeld loses a million dollars a year, I hope Clearview/Cablevision makes enough money elsewhere to offset that. To quote “Citizen Kane”, a movie I thoroughly enjoyed seeing at the Ziegfeld, “I did lose a million dollars last year. I expect to lose a million dollars this year. I expect to lose a million dollars NEXT year. You know, Mr. Thatcher, at the rate of a million dollars a year, I’ll have to close this place in … sixty years.”

I realize it’s hard for out-of-towners like Jeff to get to the Ziegfeld, but everything’s relative. As someone who lives or works in or near NYC, it’s more expensive for me to attend a show at the Lafayette when you factor in the cost of a train ticket. But the Lafayette is a true cinema treasure, so it’s more than worth it. Same goes for the Ziegfeld.

Luis Vazquez
Luis Vazquez on November 11, 2007 at 5:43 pm

I do remember paying about $20 to see on one of the Harry Potter films in Leicester Square about 5 years ago. Now I thought THAT was expensive. $36? I’d rather spend twice that and get a half price ticket to a Broadway Show. However, I did spend $25 at The Ziegfeld for the Dreamgirls engagement and it was worth every penny! So, I guess I would just become very selective over what I went to a theater to see. Does anyone know if “Sweeney Todd” is going to run in a similar rollout as Dreamgirls?

Al Alvarez
Al Alvarez on November 11, 2007 at 5:26 pm

The kids, seniors, early birds and discount ticket programs bring the average price down significantly. Manhattan has a higher average due to the limited effect of those categories.

Compare the Ziegfeld to the Odeon Leicester Square in London and you will find $12 a real bargain. They get around $36 for an adult yet New Yorkers still complain.

Back when the Ziegfeld charged six dollars people still complained.
Remember Mayor Koch at the picket lines?

KJB2012
KJB2012 on November 11, 2007 at 3:16 pm

I have often wondered how they come up with those “average” ticket prices. Do they include the bargin houses? If they factor in the second run houses that charge $2-$3 a pop, maybe they can come up with $6.58 as an average.
But in the first run universe $9 is about the floor for a regular priced ticket that I’ve seen. Yes, seniors, kids and the bargin mats are cheaper.
Anyway that’s for the info.

Michael Furlinger
Michael Furlinger on November 11, 2007 at 2:47 pm

Peters numbers prove my point ,i only went back 20 years but the last 6 years of tickets are the highest ATTENDANCE in the last 50 years!

Luis Vazquez
Luis Vazquez on November 11, 2007 at 1:56 pm

Peter, thanks for the schedule above. I think it’s very informative. However, I have one big question. If the average ticket price in $6.58 per ticket and many metropolitan areas are paying almost $12, where in the country are movie ticket prices $5 or less to average out at $6.58? I travel quite a bit and rarely see prices under $7 or $8.

PeterApruzzese
PeterApruzzese on November 11, 2007 at 1:20 pm

Here is some historical data regarding numbers of tickets sold:

Year – Box Office Gross – Avg. Ticket Price – #’s Sold

1930 – 732 million – .20/ticket – 3.66 billion tickets sold
1935 – 566 million – .24/ticket – 2.39 billion tickets sold
1940 – 735 million – .28/ticket – 2.62 billion tickets sold
1945 – 1,450 million – .34/ticket – 4.264 billion tickets sold
1950 – 1,376 million – .48/ticket – 2.86 billion tickets sold
1955 – 1326 million – .52/ticket – 2.55 billion tickets sold
1960 – 951 million – .69/ticket – 1.38 billion tickets sold
1965 – 927 million – 1.02/ticket – 909 million tickets sold
1970 – 1,162 million – 1.55/ticket – 750 million tickets sold
1975 – 2,115 million – 2.05/ticket – 1.03 billion tickets sold
1980 – 2,749 million – 2.60/ticket – 1.06 billion tickets sold
1985 – 3,749 million – 3.55/ticket – 1.06 billion tickets sold
1990 – 5,022 million – 4.23/ticket – 1.19 billion tickets sold
1995 – 5,490 million – 4.35/ticket – 1.26 billion tickets sold
2000 – 7,670 million – 5.39/ticket – 1.40 billion tickets sold
2001 – 8,410 million – 5.65/ticket – 1.49 billion tickets sold
2002 – 9,520 million – 5.80/ticket – 1.64 billion tickets sold
2003 – 9,490 million – 6.03/ticket – 1.57 billion tickets sold
2004 – 9,540 million – 6.21/ticket – 1.54 billion tickets sold
2005 – 8,990 million – 6.40/ticket – 1.40 billion tickets sold
2006 – 9,490 million – 6.58/ticket – 1.44 billion tickets sold

Michael Furlinger
Michael Furlinger on November 11, 2007 at 11:45 am

THESE NUMBERS ARE TICKETS SOLD NOT BY GROSS

Michael Furlinger
Michael Furlinger on November 10, 2007 at 11:12 pm

LAST 20 YEAR BOX IN ATTENDANCE #1 BEING BEST YEAR
1.2002
2.2003
3.2004
4.2001
5.1998
6.1999
7.2000
8.2006
9.1997
10.2005
11.1996
12.1994
13.1989
14.1995
15.1993
16.1984
17.1983
18.1990
19.1982
20.1992

JeffS
JeffS on November 10, 2007 at 10:58 pm

Well, the movies don’t interest me. I’m no longer their target demographic (I’m in the mis 50’s). The product is crap, they make no money off me. I’m not the only 50+ in existence, and I can’t be the only one who feels this way. There is maybe 1 movie or less per year I see or even interests me, and it’s when it comes out on DVD. I’m not interested in paying $12 to see people text message, cough, talk, block my view, or talk on the cell phone.

My choice of films is the classics series up in Suffern. Say what you will. Pete: Thank you. Great show again today.

Michael Furlinger
Michael Furlinger on November 10, 2007 at 10:48 pm

i am using the last 50 years….

Michael Furlinger
Michael Furlinger on November 10, 2007 at 10:47 pm

attendance not just box gross…..

Ed Solero
Ed Solero on November 10, 2007 at 9:16 pm

Longislandmovies… are we really in a top 10 trend these last two years in terms of attendance? Or is it in terms of box office dollars? It is my understanding that in 1946, weekly movie attendance in this country peaked at about 90 million patrons! To your point, the industry is still raking it in, but I think its in terms of revenue as opposed to seats being filled. In the final analysis, I suppose, the revenue is the bottom line. But I’d love to see inflation-adjusted comparisons of the revenues in those peak attendance years of the 1940’s to revenues in the last couple of years.

Michael Furlinger
Michael Furlinger on November 10, 2007 at 8:51 pm

jeff the industry is not getting killed ….bsns is great…..up 2 years in a row and the 2 years before were still in the top 10 of all time attendance!

JeffS
JeffS on November 10, 2007 at 7:47 pm

“Sounds to me like Jeff S. needs to open up his own theater and charge $6 admission to all and $ dollar soft drinks and candies for everyone. We’ll see how long that theater stays in business. :–)”

No, that’s not the case at all. My only topic is “it’s too expensive”. I don’t care about the high rent district, the politics, the subsidies, the anything. $12 is just too high. It is what is killing the industry. G R E E D.

It doesn’t matter if anyone agrees with me or not. It’s my opinion.

Michael Furlinger
Michael Furlinger on November 10, 2007 at 5:22 pm

The only time you will see ahouse allowance in NY is on old films reissued…..THE house allowance for those pics would be about $25.00 per seat so $25.00 X 1131 seats per week….

PeterApruzzese
PeterApruzzese on November 10, 2007 at 5:20 pm

Interesting, then. When we saw Clearview’s books a few years ago (when we were looking to acquire them), the Ziegfeld showed the operating loss I mentioned above, which was also confirmed independently. Glad things have improved since then.

Michael Furlinger
Michael Furlinger on November 10, 2007 at 5:18 pm

NY CITY DOES NOT WORK ON HOUSE ALLOWANCE!THEY WORK ON A ‘nut" basis…

Michael Furlinger
Michael Furlinger on November 10, 2007 at 5:17 pm

petter my ofiice was in this theater s i was the dm …..Ny city does not work on house allowance….

PeterApruzzese
PeterApruzzese on November 10, 2007 at 5:16 pm

The rent is low comparative to other Manhattan real estate, but they still pay the same utilities, payroll, taxes, as everyone else. Of the approximately 28 shows a week they run, only about 8 cover their own expenses. Every other show is a loss.

PeterApruzzese
PeterApruzzese on November 10, 2007 at 5:13 pm

That is not the case. If that were so, then no theatre would ever lose money, and we know that is not true. There is a minimal house allowance that is deducted from the gross ticket sales, but if the deal includes using that, they end up paying more in box office percentage to the studio.

Michael Furlinger
Michael Furlinger on November 10, 2007 at 5:10 pm

ps….The Ziegfeld has a very low rent as they have a 100 year lease..