Slashdot Mirror


Slashdot Asks: Would You Like Early Access To Movies And Stop Going To Theatres?

It appears many major stakeholders in the movie industry want to bring new titles to you within days, if not hours, as they hit cinemas. Earlier this year, we learned that Sean Parker is working on a service called "Screening Room", an idea that was reportedly backed by Peter Jackson, Steven Spielberg and JJ Abrams, to bring movies on the same day as they show up in theaters. Apple seems interested as well. It is reportedly in talks with Hollywood studios to get iTunes rentals of movies that are still playing on the big screen. Earlier this month, Bloomberg reported that several studios are exploring the idea of renting new movies for $25 to $50 just two weeks after they have hit cinemas.

None of such deals have materialized yet, of course, and also it needs to be pointed out that several movie companies have discarded these ideas before because they know that by offering you new titles so early they are going to lose on all the overpriced cold drinks, and snacks they sell you at the theatre. There's also piracy concerns. If a movie is available early, regardless of the DRM tech these companies deploy, good-enough footage of the movies will crop up on file-sharing websites almost immediately.

But leaving all those aspects aside, would you be interested in getting new titles just hours or a week or two after they hit the cinemas? Would you want to end the decades-long practice of going to a theater?

36 of 341 comments (clear)

  1. no by turkeydance · · Score: 2

    early/late. wouldn't go anyway.

    1. Re:no by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      early/late. wouldn't go anyway.

      The implication in TFS is that they are available later and making them available sooner may or may not cause people to watch them.

      They're not even available later. They're not available at all. Look at all the Netflix movies that are only on DVD. Last night I looked for The Lobster and found it was only on DVD. So it's not in the theater any more and not available streaming and I don't have a DVD player and the world has moved on from DVDs.

      So if they want me to watch, make it available sometime at least. I'm not watching it if it's not available at all.

      Pondering of the relative merits of early vs. late release timing when the current situation is there is no release at all is moot.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    2. Re:no by msmash · · Score: 2

      You don't have a Blu-Ray player? An Xbox 360/One or PS3 or PS4? They could play the DVD. I don't have an optical drive on my work machine, but I have an Xbox One, so on rare occasions when I have the Blu-Ray movie, I have something I could play it on. I know optical discs are going away but a Blu-Ray player could still come handy in the years to come.

    3. Re:no by Bigbutt · · Score: 2

      Then you don't get no movies... (at least for now)

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
    4. Re:no by jedidiah · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your excuses are terribly lame. The mail is trivial to use. A disk player is trivial to use. Your whining about wires is also lame.

      If you aren't willing to plug something into your TV, then you have to be content with "smart TV" features that suck or broadcast TV.

      But if you insist on depriving yourself, that's your own problem.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    5. Re:no by sexconker · · Score: 2

      Buy the DVD and rip it. Or Buy the DVD and take it to WalMart and have them do it for you.

      Cry more.

    6. Re:no by judoguy · · Score: 3, Informative

      They're not even available later. They're not available at all. Look at all the Netflix movies that are only on DVD. Last night I looked for The Lobster and found it was only on DVD.

      Stream it on Amazon Prime for free. https://www.amazon.com/Lobster...

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    7. Re:no by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      Does anybody watch movies anymore? They ran out of stories 20 years ago.

      Why would anyone stop watching movies? There's tons of great movies from 20+ years ago that you can still watch!

    8. Re:no by zrobotics · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Then why are you even commenting? According to you, you wouldn't be consuming the media in any fashion, regardless of release schedule or format. I might be able to go and comment on a NFL discussion, but I won't have anything of value to add.

    9. Re:no by gnick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...Last night I looked for The Lobster and found it was only on DVD...
      Pondering of the relative merits of early vs. late release timing when the current situation is there is no release at all is moot.

      Just because you've elected to move past DVDs doesn't mean there is "no release at all." It means you can't figure out how to take advantage of the release that is readily available. Just because the industry hasn't decided to adapt to your standard yet doesn't mean they're somehow trying to keep the movie from you.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    10. Re:no by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      There was nothing whiny about his "excuses". It's his money and time, and his prerogative how to spend them. If the movie companies want his business, they'll make their product available in a format he prefers (and which many people these days prefer, considering how popular streaming video is these days, as evidenced by Netflix's instant play offerings, Hulu, Amazon video, etc.). If they can't be bothered to do that, then he was every right to call them morons and spend his time and money elsewhere.

      It's really no different than a company which offers me information and the ability to order their products on a website, versus a company which has no website and insists that I use a fax machine to communicate with them. Guess which one won't be getting my business. But I will make fun of them whenever I have the chance.

    11. Re:no by Rakarra · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You sound like a complete asshole. WhyTF should anyone hang onto ancient and obsolete technologies just to accommodate the media companies?

      The BluRay is superior to streaming in every way other than "I want it this minute." Now, I want it this minute is pretty compelling, I'll certainly grant that. I've definitely had my movie-watching desires foiled by lack of access.

      But with a BluRay rental, I get better sound and picture, the download doesn't max out my Internet connection nor does it count towards my ISP data cap (which most ISPs have even if they refuse to tell you about it), I don't get "buffering" whenever I try to seek, I usually get some decent extras, I don't have to subscribe to five online services to get a decent library, and I have a far better chance of finding niche, less popular, or foreign offerings.

      Some of those are technical limitations, some are business limitations imposed by an ISP, and some are limitations imposed by the content owners. That last one in particular is a reason to dislike streaming; streaming sucks because all the power is back in the hands of the big content companies, and their practices are anti-customer.

    12. Re:no by mattack2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      WhyTF should anyone hang onto ancient and obsolete technologies just to accommodate the media companies?

      They're not "ancient and obsolete", since they provide BETTER picture and more usable controls (far less latency fast forward/rewind) than the streaming video.. Plus movie extras (I realize many don't care about those, but I like them a lot, even though admittedly most rental DVDs/Blurays have only a tiny portion of it if any).

      Even though tons of "video stores" have gone away, if a company can put up tons of vending machines to rent movies and games, it seems to me yet another sign physical media is not dead.

    13. Re:no by dyslexicbunny · · Score: 2

      Well according to Google.

      YouTube: From $4.99
      iTunes: From $4.99
      Amazon Video: From $4.99
      Vudu: From $4.99
      Google Play Movies & TV: From $4.99

      the world has moved on from DVDs.

      Everyone I know still has the means to play a DVDs even if they don't use them as often as they used to. In a world where some people have data caps and limited speeds, I don't think the world has moved on.

      Besides, I can't count on streaming options to reliably have the same offerings on a consistent basis. My physical copies work and if they stop, I can rip them to make sure they still do.

    14. Re:no by Salgak1 · · Score: 2

      I find, all too often, that all I need to watch is the trailer. As you noted, the massive levels of complete bullshit in movie marketing: amazing trailer, actual movie is "meh" at best.

      And, of course, overpriced snacks, screaming kids, jerks talking on their phone.

      Hell, people talking during movies: if I want to see that, I'll watch Mystery Science Theater, where at least the comments are funny. . . .

      I honestly have not set foot in a theater for nearly a decade, and I don't miss it.

  2. Depends on price by daninaustin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    $25 is ok... $50 is way too much.

    1. Re:Depends on price by David_Hart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      $25 is ok... $50 is way too much.

      If they included a copy of the Bluray or movie download when released for sale, it might be worth it. But not for a rental. For a rental I would be willing to pay no more than the movie theater price, about $10 to $15.

    2. Re:Depends on price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The idea of the media people trying to make this "like X # of people going to the theater" is dumb. People don't want to spend a shit ton of money on AV equipment just to be told they are to pay the exact same price or more as movie theater visitors. Sure you save a drive but otherwise why would you not go to the movies if it is the same price.

      Seems like no one wins. Huge families of like 5+ benefit and the theaters and studios lose. Small families and single people lose / don't benefit because it just makes sense to keep going to the movies or not do this. Maybe a family of 4 is in the Goldilocks zone where it is slightly cheaper but not so much cheaper that it hurts the studios. The other fatal flaw is the cost of living differences. Movie ticket prices vary wildly and thus in big cities with expensive real estate this option will seem more attractive while in small towns with cheap tickets this will seem dumb.

      The actual best thing to do would be to - like you said - pre-sale the movie w/ guaranteed DVD / BR copy free when released. This way you can charge $30+ and people won't feel like they are paying the same amount just to provide their own equipment and facility to watch the movie. The bundle price per item is lower but I would be willing to be the total revenue per movies can be higher because more people will "buy the DVD", and the studio gets the money much sooner.

      All this said - I think the studios need to realize that times change. Amazing home theater equipment is getting so cheap and if the big studios don't watch out, small studios and YouTubers will be able to capture this growing market that can enjoy high production value content at home. Studios are thinking of it as a zero-sum game between themselves but in reality people can, are, and will continue to provide content that never hits the theaters. Studios may win the ticket price PER CUSTOMER war but lose the battle for how people think about when, where and at what price they consumer content.

    3. Re: Depends on price by unami · · Score: 2

      or it will boost the quality of piracy significantly, having a digital release out there ready for the taking. most people i know who pirate movies that have just arrived in cinemas don't care about quality, though. also, they'd never pay for a home movie anyway.

  3. I Would Rather Go To Theatres by msmash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Even if services that offer same-day movie screening as they hit cinemas arrive, I would rather go to a theatre and watch it on the big screen. Watching a movie, in my opinion, isn't just about watching the movie. It's the experience, something I feel I wouldn't be able to replicate on my smartphone or TV at home.

    1. Re:I Would Rather Go To Theatres by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As would I. I actually prefer the theater experience, providing you don't have a theater full of assholes. When I went to The Force Awakens last year on its opening day, that old communal experience I remember from theaters when I was a kid came back. There was cheering and clapping when the Star Wars theme played and in general it really was a wonderful experience. My experience with Deadpool was even better, as people laughed at the jokes through the whole thing. And there's the big screen, which I really do love. Can't reproduce that at home.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:I Would Rather Go To Theatres by msmash · · Score: 2

      Precisely. People could be annoying at times, but when they resonate the same reaction as you, it's cool.

    3. Re:I Would Rather Go To Theatres by pr0fessor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't usually go to the theatre, I can skip the experience of waiting in line and paying outrageous concession prices only to be disappointed that I keep missing parts of the movie because groups of teenagers keep standing up in front of me, walking in and out, and horse playing.

    4. Re:I Would Rather Go To Theatres by click2005 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Thats why they're doing this. The internet has destroyed the movie industry but its not because of piracy.
      A few decades ago it took a week or two for most of the public to find out if a movie was bad.
      These days people can tweet and rate movies on IMDB & Rotten Tomatoes within minutes of leaving the cinema.
      No amount of bought reviews and media hype will work once enough people know its a turd.
      They just want more people to see movies before finding out how bad they are.

      --
      I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
    5. Re:I Would Rather Go To Theatres by freeze128 · · Score: 2

      Theaters would have to offer something *REALLY* special to get patrons to go there. You have overpriced snacks, obnoxious patrons who seem to think a movie is a 2-way communication medium, loud/crying children, annoying teenagers, atomic powered air conditioning, interrupting cell phones, only one armrest, and a lottery ticket for you to get shot.

      The "movie theater experience" is really losing its ability to outweigh all that.

    6. Re:I Would Rather Go To Theatres by godrik · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am always wondering when I read slashdot. It seems like every other slashdotter has the single worse cinema experience ever. I go the the movies fairly often (every other week or so), and I have trouble with "uncivil patrons" maybe once a year.
      What are we doing differently? I go there usually on friday or saturday either at 10pm or midnight. Usually at my local AMC. I almost never have any problem.
      Maybe timing or location makes the difference?

    7. Re:I Would Rather Go To Theatres by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Really?

      Revenue at the 2015 global box office crossed $38 billion for the first time in history, surpassing last year's record $36.7 billion.

      That includes an unprecedented $11 billion-plus in North America, up 6.3 percent from last year's dismal $10.35 billion

      By the end of 2017, China is expected to surpass North America and become the largest movie market in the world. http://www.hollywoodreporter.c...

      So no the movie industry has not been destroyed by the internet. No even close. Time to take you head out of your ass.

    8. Re:I Would Rather Go To Theatres by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      I would rather go to a theatre and watch it on the big screen. Watching a movie, in my opinion, isn't just about watching the movie. It's the experience, something I feel I wouldn't be able to replicate on my smartphone or TV at home.

      So you actually like having people kick the back of your seat, listen to them talk/text on the phone or talk to their companion, listen to kids talk and scream during an adult movie, and only have access to shitty drinks and snacks at absurd prices?

      That's an "experience" I can do without.

  4. Almost never go... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 3, Informative

    I almost never go to the cinema. It's useful when you're a kid wanting to date as neutral ground (although from what I understand kids don't date anymore- just hook up).

    I'd much rather watch in the Living room than the cinema. No overly loud sound. No uncomfortable squished together seats. No popcorn stuck to the floor. The cinema isn't exactly a positive experience.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    1. Re:Almost never go... by Moof123 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Same here. We've gone maybe once in the last year. I always end up feeling ripped off after going.

      Our kiddo prefers watching at home where he can watch a movie 2-4 times in a row. The first time he gets good/bad, and who some of the characters are. By time he has seen it 2-3 times he actually gets some of the story line and might watch it one more time before moving on tot he next. He asks a lot of questions along the way, which is problematic in a theater. He also likes if we can "skip the scary parts", also problematic in a theater.

      Alternatively we go to a grown up movie, requiring a babysitter, arranging his dinner, etc, etc. Ends up being a ~$100 evening full of stress and a late bedtime with next day stress spillover. Recently most of the movies have not lived up to the cost and hassle. Too many plot hole ridden CGI showcases. We wait till the dust has settled and just buy an occasional DVD. Many of those still only get watched once...

  5. I'm the wrong person to ask... but since you did by decipher_saint · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I barely go to the theatre anymore because of a lot of reasons, if you let me pay to have Day 1 access to the digital copy to either stream or outright buy DRM free I'd never set foot in an overpriced auditorium ever again.

    The model would become more like digitally distributed video games, Launch day sees a big spike in sales (hell, pre-orders?) and then it kind of tapers off after a month or so, then you got a back catalogue you can keep old movies on. Things that normally wouldn't get distribution have a cheap option now... hell the more I think about it the better it sounds.

    I mean, do for movies with what Steam did for games and you're gonna win

    --
    crazy dynamite monkey
  6. Probably by Game+Genie · · Score: 2

    I go to the move theater maybe once per year. For what it costs once I buy two tickets and some concessions, not to mention the time wasted getting there, I wouldn't mind paying the price of 2-3 tickets to stay at home and watch.

  7. Re:Haven't been to a theater in years by avandesande · · Score: 2

    Saw one of the hobbit movies and swore them(theater movies) off for good. What a piece of crap!

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  8. IMAX or bust, baby! by Ann+O'Nymous-Coward · · Score: 3

    I couldn't possibly be less interested in this early access crap. The only times I bother to go to the theater are for blockbusters, and for those I won't settle for anything less than the full on blockbuster experience. Always IMAX, preferably IMAX 3D. Go big or go home!

  9. Why I watch in the cinema by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 3

    Watching in the cinema is a completely different experience. Going out of the house and making a journey somewhere builds up the sense of occasion, especially when it's combined with a nice meal somewhere beforehand. Watching a film as part of a large audience is also a better experience than watching at home. Sure there are certain audiences that are annoyingly chatty, but for the most part I have a good experience with fellow film-goers. Watching as part of an audience helps you to pick up on things that you wouldn't notice otherwise. Also, the inability to pause means that you have to put your phone away and give the film your undivided attention. Watching at home leaves you prone to more distractions.

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
  10. A very different "rather" by yoda-dono · · Score: 2

    Rather, I'd like for the people that make the theater going experience terrible to jump on methods like this and just stay home, instead of ruining things for other people. Bad, overly-entitled theater goers who do nothing but distract and annoy (and in some cases even through smell) are a huge part of the love loss with the theater (that and sub-par Hollywood movie writing standards). Sure, maybe the multiplexes would suffer from stuff like this, but they've had their good run, perhaps it is time to scale them back and make a concerted effort to focus on true classic theater experiences rather than attracting and awing the fickle masses (whom will never be pleased anyway and always demand more useless gimmicks to keep coming).

    At the same time, I'm still surprised AMC's texting-friendly screenings got shot down as soundly as it did... Perhaps not all hope is yet lost for humanity... though all that supported it should definitely stay home and stream movies, so they can text about their superiority to their hearts content, at a safe distance from the rest of us.