Movie Studio Finally Sees the Light On Rentals

Griller_GT writes "After months of conducting studies about the effects of delays on sales of DVDs, 'Paramount Pictures has agreed to provide its movies to Redbox on the same day they go on sale.' A Paramount exec said, 'Those people who want to rent are going to figure out ways to rent, and us restricting them from renting isn't going to turn it into a purchase.' Gee, who would have thought of that?" Reader DisKurzion sends in news of another movie business experiment underway by an Australian company called Distracted Media. They are raising funds for a movie called The Tunnel by letting people invest in individual frames for $1 apiece. When the movie is complete, it will be released for free on torrent sites.

Comments

They're finally starting to get it

[SweeBeeps]

Alternative distribution methods are definately here to stay. Companies like Blockbuster (who may just consider this another coffin nail) had a purpose 10-15+ years ago, but were incredibly slow to react to market changes (Netflix in particular) and are all having rather violent death fits (they're using the last of their influence with the big production companies to try and force Red Box to carry childrens movies only or not carry any new releases).

Re:They're finally starting to get it

[ma1wrbu5tr]

Refusing to make content available to low-cost vendors encourages piracy. Plain and simple.

I'll never pay .99 cents a song to iTunes when there are other cheaper and legal options out there anymore than I would pay the now defunct Hollywood video $5 for a rental when I can get it elsewhere for $1. I'm willing to wait!

To a similar end, I have dumped DirectTV's crooked asses and replaced them with a Netflix subscription and a digital converter box to get broadcast channels. Why would I pay $75 a month for commercial laden TV? What good are 120 channels if they are paid programming 8 hours a day?

The entertainment industry might be finally getting with the digital age, but still seem to have trouble doing math. Perhaps they should ditch the abacus and get a calculator.

Asmounding!

[CarpetShark]

So, you mean, I can now drive to a store and rent the DVD/Bluray of a movie on the same day as I can buy it in a store, six months after I could download a virtually complete and much more interesting workprint release?

Wow, this is real cutting-edge tech they're bringing to consumers. Who wouldn't want to pay through the eyeballs for that?

Re:Asmounding!

[jeffmeden]

Is a $1 (perhaps $1.50 or whatever bluray ends up costing at the 'box) really "paying through the eyeballs"? That's the big deal here, it used to be that Blockbuster was the only outfit to rent from, and new releases are regularly $5 or more per day from them. Now, the 'box will rent them for $1 or so, and you can find one at tons of convenient places and there's no pimply guy behind a counter to eye you for renting a chick flick (or even require a voided check, social security card, and fingerprint before 'allowing' you to be a customer). Just swipe any credit card and you get your movie. Digital distribution may be a little ways off yet, but this is surely a step in the right direction (and away from overpriced brick and mortar rental places.)

Re:Asmounding!

[DamienRBlack]

Yes I see it now. Someone with a black mask and flashlight breaks into a house, looks and the jewels, takes some photos and then goes home empty handed, leaving the jewels. He used a technologically advanced 3D printer to recreate his own copy of the jewels. Theft! How dare he! What is he doing? He is the vilest of thieves, duplicating other peoples property. /sarcasm

For the record, downloading movies or music is copyright infringement, not theft. Illegal? Yes. Theft? No. I'd like to see a prosecutor try to make the case that duplicating and distributing copyrighted material is theft. It would be laughable. Their case would be summarily thrown out.

Re:Asmounding!

[IshmaelDS]

That's not really changing it. That's cutting $1 off the price and a day off the rental and changing the wording. If it's $1 a day for a min of 4 days than it's a 4 day rental for $4 dollars. It used to be $5 for 5 days.

About time!

[eihab]

It's about time movie studios started realizing that. I'm a rental-convert and have been renting my movies for almost 2 years now.

I have a shelve full of DVDs and VHS tapes that are collecting dust. Most movies aren't worth re-watching and it seems ridiculous to purchase things you're only going to watch once.

I still buy DVDs, but I only buy movies that I know I will watch again (e.g. The Matrix, God Father trilogy, etc.).

Everything else is on the Netflix queue, and if it takes 10 months for me to finally see it, oh well, so be it.

Case in point, I was looking forward to watching Ninja Assassin because the previews looked good and it has the "Wachowski brothers" stamp on it.

When it finally reached Netflix and my mailbox, I was extremely excited... extremely excited that I didn't go out of my way and buy it. The movie was a piece of junk in my opinion, and it would not even be on my shelve collecting dust with other DVDs.

tl;dr: Renting Movies "FTW".

Re:Something seems off

[CarpetShark]

Remember, Hollywood movies can cost from $10,000,000 to $100,000,000 to shoot and produce so compared to that it is nothing.

Remember, what big companies put on paper as "costs" after tax evasion, big bonuses, and drug-fueled parties isn't much to do with the actual costs of a project.

Wow

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

A Paramount exec said, 'Those people who want to rent are going to figure out ways to rent, and us restricting them from renting isn't going to turn it into a purchase.'

That statement just kills me. In recent years, phrases like 'the customer is always right' seem like out-of-style-like-full-service-gas-stations concepts. If I were to go back in time like 15 years and talk about how these places lowered the value of the products to the people who pay for them to increase sales from those who didn't, they'd think I was concocting some silly sci-fi story.

At last

[symes]

Having kids, a busy job and a generally hectic life I just don't have time to get to the cinema as often as I would like to. I would more than happily pay the equivalent, or even a small premium, to see a new release at home... why? Because going to the cinema is not just going to the cinema - it is an event with baby-sitter costs, a meal, drinks and generally making the most of a rare night out. Why oh why can't the movie business see this market (I'm pretty sure I'm not alone, well maybe on slashdot) and cater to my needs? I mean really! They are bonkers, the lot of them. Hell, I'd even subscribe and watch a new release once a week.

A return to the days of commissioned art.

[maillemaker]

>They are raising funds for a movie called The Tunnel by letting people invest in individual frames for $1 apiece.
>When the movie is complete, it will be released for free on torrent sites.

Sounds like a return to the days of commissioned art.

Re:Redbox is for new releases

[LBt1st]

From their couch.

Re:Something seems off

[ma1wrbu5tr]

Remember, Hollywood movies can cost from $10,000,000 to $100,000,000 to shoot and produce so compared to that it is nothing.

How much of that cost goes to pay made up positions like "Associate Producers" and others who really contribute nothing to the project?