Movie theaters are just in the death-throws of an obsolete medium. People didn't decide they didn't want to watch movies anymore. They decided that other distribution methods - DVD/Blu-Ray/PPV/internet/... - were more desirable.
The implication that this shift somehow made it more expensive for us to see movies is just plain wrong. DirecTV PPV movie is $5.99. Matinee around here is $7. If I don't want to pay $6 for something and I'm willing to have less convenience, I can drive down to a neighborhood RedBox and rent a Blu-Ray for $1.50.
Likewise I could go to a pro sports game if I wanted to. Their prices passed obscene long ago. I might watch a local team's game if it is free (OTA). That's the value I place. Obviously there are others who are willing to spend a small fortune on their sports.
If Speilberg's threat of $25 movies comes to pass then so be it. As with sports I'll choose not to. If it is never available at the value I place on it then I won't see it.
That's the way the world works in most things.
Except TV... that has to be different
Actually, you are making my point for me. Hollywood for years made prices of vcr tapes of their movies cost prohibitive to people buying them for fear it'd hurt their movie ticket attendance. As cable (read HBO really changed the entire landscape) started airing things as well, they have slowly manipulated the markets, by making things faster available to own and easier ($), but overall at a higher cost than before (Movie tickets and subscriptions to hbo are higher and higher, and today, blu rays cost what vcr tapes did and more unless its on sale or an older movie they've already made their money on, and today they are also selling tv series, which they didn't really used to do in such large quantity, plus they also get massive money from hulu, netflix, etc for stuff that they never had before) , and increasing the price of movie theater tickets at the same time. Its the exact same thing and streaming is just another medium that they will do the same thing with. They will increase its costs as needed to balance any profits the new medium may pull away from other sources.
They probably hope for the most part that it replaces blu ray sales to a certain extent so that hey can actualy charge a little more for it and yet have even less costs since they dont have to pay to make all the discs, and the costs of the infrastructre to stream all this is more of a one time charge and some of it is actually taken care fo by internet providers, who will charge their own fees and get their own money. Why do you think comcast bought nbc and nbc was happy to do it? Soon you will see more and more pricing based on usage and maybe even type of usage. Could you imagine if they start charging a separate rate for streaming of movies etc vs, simply surfing google for a restaurant. I wouldn't put it past them.
And good grief, if a la cart hit for say fox, you would end up paying for a bunch of channels a higher price for each since overall they'd need to keep the same profit lines, and each channel would have less people so less subs paying, and less money from ads for less viewers, OR, or one channel with all programming at a price significantly more than equal to what the individual channels would cost, because you'd be paying for all the programs, plus all the lost ad revenue that the loss of the other channels would cause. And I'd expect the costs of their movies an tv series to increase for blu ray sales as well, to keep everything in balance. They dont care if only a few peopel can buy instead of everyone, so long as they keep their proifit margins. They just dont care about everyone having access in the first place.
The real solution, is for all sports leagues to stop getting so much money for their broadcast rights. That would help fix a lot of all these issues, and why i think a hybrid system where most sports are spun off may be coming sooner rather than latter.