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

"Unthinkable", another weird movie studio story

[sammyF70]

funny how stories tend to come in packs. The Movie "Unthinkable" was ranked #3 at IMDB prior to the release of the DVD/BR (it was a straight to video release). The producer ended up asking on the IMDB forums the people who had rated it where they got it from and about ideas on how to make things fairer for both sides.
As someone who saw it ~early~ too, I can only urge you to watch it (if possible through a legal rental or by buying the DVD or BR ... it IS worth it), as it is a really interesting movie.
I wonder whether this and TFS are linked somehow.

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.

I work for a video rental store

[Supurcell]

In the last couple years, there have been a ton of retail exclusives. There are a few distributors who won't sell us movies that have some bogus exclusivity, but you know who will? Best Buy. We just buy em there, and rent em out just like anything else. The only thing we can't effectively get a large quantity of are the Netflix exclusives, but those are usually more obscure movies(which my store specializes in).

What I really hate are the "Rental Exclusive" editions of movies which have long, unskipable previews before the movie.

Re:I work for a video rental store

[cjHopman]

Those copies at BB are only licensed for private home exhibition (that's why the rental copies cost a lot more and your company pays royalties when you rent them, dipshit). By renting those out you're cheating not just the studio and the distributor, but also the writers, director and actors out of income. My neighbor down the hall is Columbia Pictures Home Ent's Worldwide President, you want me to pass along a URL to your post?

God I hate freeloaders.

Might want to pull out that law book of yours before commenting on legal matters. The right to rent retail purchased DVDs was affirmed in NEBG v Weinstein. Feel free to read more here.

You've now made a fool of yourself to us, please reconsider before doing the same with your neighbor down the hall.

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.

Re:Something seems off

[0100010001010011]

One of my favorite movies, The Man from Earth cost $200,000.

It had 0 CGI, no big name actors but a kick ass story from Jerome Bixby.

Paranormal Activity was made for $15k and grossed $9M the first weekend.

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.)

Big Rental Release

[RichMan]

The bigger the rental release the more copies the rental places need to have to meet the surge. If the surge is dampened because of earlier sales and less hype because of the mixed release dates then the rental places have to buy less to meet the peak opening demand.

So releasing into both markets at the same time is likely to lead to more sales into the rental market.

Re:Redbox is for new releases

[LBt1st]

From their couch.

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.