Sure but if cinemas aren't full (and they rarely are except for opening weekend) the actual cost of having someone in the theatre is nothing. If the target customer sees 2 movies @$12 each a month it doesn't matter if they see 10 at $30 total as long as they aren't filling the cinema - the cinema is still making $6 more off them, plus any snacks they buy.

Maybe it's a matter of just not allowing subscription passes for opening weekend (or only at the door if it's undersold rather than in advance). Maybe you get your seat allocated at ticket pick up rather than in advance so full-fare paying customers get the best seats. There's obviously going to be a compromise somewhere, but it doesn't have to be unworkable.

Do theaters pay studios per showing or per ticket sold? If it’s per ticket sold, then monthly passes could be cost prohibitive for theaters: they would end up eating the cost of people going to 5 movies in a week, while owing the studios more. If they pay per showing, then monthly subscriptions with caveats like “only 30 seats for monthly passes available, until an hour before the show, when all seats become available” could make sense.

> Do theaters pay studios per showing or per ticket sold?

Percentage of revenue, i.e. per ticket sold [1]. That said, the studios' take rates vary "as you move into the second and third weeks of release," when "the percentage starts to swing to" a greater take rate for the cinema. A movie pass which blacks out the first N weeks after release could thus be economical (if something the studios would fight tooth and nail).

There are some super shady deals here. If you want to be able to show $BLOCKBUSTER, you might have to agree to pay for a minimum of N seats/day of showings of $UTTER_CRAP. If nobody shows up, the studio still gets paid, and of course the stars of $BLOCKBUSTER don't see a cent of that money.

There is nothing long term about these contracts. Movie studios can change the deal at any time and theaters have almost zero leverage.