Studios Push for $50 Early Home Movie Rentals (variety.com)

As many as five major Hollywood studios have been working with cinema owners to shrink the traditional release window and allow consumers to rent movies on-demand in as little as 17 days after they hit theaters, reports Variety. From the article: Warner Bros. and Universal have been the most aggressive in pursuing an arrangement that would see certain movies receive a premium video-on-demand release within weeks of their theatrical premieres, but now other studios are joining the discussions. Twentieth Century Fox has also begun to talk early releases with theater owners, while Sony is having its own separate talks with exhibitors and is trying to devise its own plan. Paramount, which previously did a pilot program with AMC and a few other exhibitors to release "Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse" and "Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension" on digital platforms early, has continued to seek a similar strategy. Though different studios are exploring different scenarios, the plan that has gathered the most steam would involve offering up movies for $50 a rental some 17 days after their theatrical opening. Those rentals would be available for 48 hours. The latest round of discussions began roughly 18 months ago.

Comments

Too expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

(EOM)

Why buy when you can pirate?

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides, everything that comes out of Hollywood is crap anymore.

Re:Why buy when you can pirate?

[kuzb]

If it's all crap, why even pirate it?

Why stop at $50?

[JoeyRox]

Why not make it $500, at least if you're intention is to charge a wishful price that nobody is going to pay anyway.

Re:Why stop at $50?

[JoeyRox]

err, "..your intention"

Re:Why stop at $50?

[fred6666]

Well if you go to the theater with a group of friends it can add up quickly to $50 or more especially if you buy pop corn and the movie is in 3D.

Re:Why stop at $50?

[AmiMoJo]

One person will pay it, so they can be the first to upload a torrent to The Pirate Bay

Re:Why stop at $50?

[Anonymous Coward]

My gut says they'd be anal about splitting the tab. Even if you don't literally collect money from them, they won't like tagalongs, they won't like "showings".

Or maybe they'll decide it means jack all, it means more interest, more hype about "movie night" in your local microcosm.

Ha, kidding, we know the mafIAA will never stop being ass backwards.

Re:Why stop at $50?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if you go to the theater with a group of friends it can add up quickly to $50 or more especially if you buy pop corn and the movie is in 3D.

If you rent the movie and show it to too many people, the studios will call it a public performance.

Re:Why stop at $50?

[ranton]

Why not make it $500, at least if you're intention is to charge a wishful price that nobody is going to pay anyway.

You must not have young children (who need a costly babysitter), rarely go to a movie with friends or family (thus reducing the price per viewer below movie theater pricing), or perhaps live in a low cost area where tickets aren't pushing $15 per person. Because otherwise you wouldn't think $50 for this service was wishful thinking on the part of the studios.

I would gladly pay $50 for a dozen or so movies per year so I don't need to spend $50+ per night on a babysitter.

Re:Why stop at $50?

[xession]

Except you don't get the 3d in your house unless you bought an expensive tv and expensive shutter glasses beforehand and you don't get the popcorn unless you bought it separately at the store, along with the soda and candy and whatever else your fatass desires that night.

Lets say a ticket goes for $12/person which is somewhat high in my experience. You have to have 5 people watching the movie to get any value out of this service. Many theaters are less than that, around $8-9/ticket - now you have to bring over more than 6 people to get the value. I'm sure some people find comfort and possibly value in the possibility of sitting in their underwear while lounging and watching the latest movies and maybe to them this is worth $50. I find it hard to believe that the average person would agree with that though. Also, it might be awkward to be in a room with your friends or family of 5 others, while just in your underwear.

The people who will use this service are those who are A) disabled and not able to travel to the movies; B) living in a house with a family of 4 or more; or C) stupid with their money.

Why the hell would anyone ever pay $50 to see a movie that they can wait 6 months or less, and legally purchase a digital copy for

Dumb...

Re:Why stop at $50?

[xession]

Last line got truncated.

...Why the hell would anyone ever pay $50 to see a movie that they can wait 6 months or less, and legally purchase a digital copy for less than $10 or for free if their pirate hearts so desire?

Dumb...

Re:Why stop at $50?

[Anonymous Coward]

One person will pay it, so they can be the first to upload a torrent to The Pirate Bay

Yeah, but if people are to actually download that torrent then Hollywood needs to make less shitty movies. If you aren't into comic books then the current crop of movies are just utter crap. I don't like comic book movies and the other stuff is just pure shit. I'll entertain myself in other ways rather than sending $50 so people in Hollywood can tell me how to think or that my politics sucks.

Here's a movie script idea for you Hollywood: Make a sequel to Superman where Lex Luther actually does sink California in the ocean. That I'd like to see.

Captcha: Matrix (another shitty movie)

Re:Why stop at $50?

[xession]

You are thinking about this incorrectly.

That $15 ticket price pays for a lot of things you are paying separately for in your own house.

For $15 at the theater, you are paying for the short use of the facility and the utilities it uses, people to manage the content you intend to watch, people to clean up any mess you or your friends or children make, a very large screen, and hopefully a well tuned surround sound system, all adding to a much better experience than you simply get at home. Thats not to say that ticket prices aren't inflated a great deal, but they pay for more than the movie you are watching.

Now you get to supply the tv (and shutter glasses if you're intending to watch 3D content), the sound system, the internet connection, the other utilities, the cleanup and other necessary maintenance while paying $50 per movie. Its not really entirely a great deal unless you intend to have a lot of people watch every movie you rent. If you have a large family, it makes sense. For most people, this is gonna be a miss for them.

Re:Why stop at $50?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you go to a theater for the movie or to go out of the house and watch on an enormous screen? Almost everyone I know does the latter for most movies. A $50 in home option would basically never be used.

Re:Why stop at $50?

[PopeRatzo]

You have to have 5 people watching the movie to get any value out of this service. Many theaters are less than that, around $8-9/ticket - now you have to bring over more than 6 people to get the value. I'm sure some people find comfort and possibly value in the possibility of sitting in their underwear while lounging and watching the latest movies

If you're lounging with 6 people in your underwear, you're probably not paying that much attention to the movie.

Re:Why stop at $50?

[bobbied]

One person will pay it, so they can be the first to upload a torrent to The Pirate Bay

And you don't figure that they won't water mark YOUR copy of the movie so they will know exactly who did this and come after you?

(Or, in reality, you don't think they will protect the content by using encryption, custom player software and other DRM techniques to make it necessary for you to break into the HDMI signals directly to capture the video? Or are you planning to record it using your video camera pointed at the TV?)

Re:Why stop at $50?

[PopeRatzo]

I would gladly pay $50 for a dozen or so movies per year so I don't need to spend $50+ per night on a babysitter.

Jesus man, take your wife out once in a while, will you? She probably loves the fact that you can hire a babysitter and get a night out without the kids. At least that was my experience when my kid was young enough to need a babysitter.

Re:Why stop at $50?

[ArsenneLupin]

Here's a movie script idea for you Hollywood: Make a sequel to Superman where Lex Luther actually does sink California in the ocean. That I'd like to see.

Be careful what you wish for. They might do so, and it might be a documentary. Indeed, orange rhymes with climate change denial...

Re:Why stop at $50?

[bobbied]

Really? With a 4K TV and matching material, just move closer to the screen and volia! You have a larger screen... Well Up to a point you do. I mean having a large screen that's 200' away from you is kind of like having a somewhat big one 100' away. 60" at 5 feet is pretty darn big, when you consider how much of your visual field it covers.

Personally, the real reason is to get both the screen size, brightness and SOUND QUALITY. Although, all these can be approximated at home for less than you think if you don't mind getting close to the TV. It's also a lot more comfortable on my couch and the concession stand is MUCH cheaper.

Re:Why stop at $50?

[Solandri]

If you have a large family, it makes sense. For most people, this is gonna be a miss for them.

There's no rule saying you have to be related to watch the movie together. It makes sense for most people if 4+ of them (at $13/ea ticket prices) are willing to get together and watch as a group. I have a 5.1 home theater system with a projector that throws a 12' x 7' image, and that's exactly what my friends and I occasionally do.

The fly in the ointment isn't the price. It's the entire concept of watching movies at home. When movies only came out in theaters, you had to watch it while it was still in theaters. Home video, subscription cable, and and now streaming has changed that - you can now watch a movie which hasn't been in theaters for months or years any time you want. My queue over all streaming services is about 100 movies long (never mind the episodic TV shows). I'm more than content to watch other stuff while I wait for hit movies to show up on the streaming subscription services. The only exception I can think of is the reason my sister gave for taking her son to watch The Force Awakens on opening night - so he wouldn't be left out of conversations when the other kids in school talked about it.

Re:Why stop at $50?

[AmiMoJo]

HDMI capture card. Watermark is useless when payment was with a disposable/stolen card.

The guys who do these rips and releases have been doing it with other streaming services for years.

Re: Why stop at $50?

[ljw1004]

Movie theater = $6 parking, $25 for 2.5 hours of babysitting, $15 for two movie tickets. So if my wife and I are really hyped to see a new movie, then $50 for the comfort of our basement media room is about the right price point.

Re:Why stop at $50?

[wasteoid]

Their new program will be called DIVX, for Dividend X, where X is the current price, which changes based on the demand, similar to Uber's surge pricing.

Re:Why stop at $50?

[serviscope_minor]

If you're lounging with 6 people in your underwear, you're probably not paying that much attention to the movie.

You were thinking of a bunch of hungover students in digs at 4 in the afternoon, right? right?

Re:Why stop at $50?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would gladly pay $50 for a dozen or so movies per year so I don't need to spend $50+ per night on a babysitter.

Clerkbot: $50 * 12. That is $600. Thanks.

Re:Why stop at $50?

[Anonymous Coward]

Send the wife out. Stay in with the babysitter. Much more fun!

Re:Why stop at $50?

[JaredOfEuropa]

Dear god no more superhero movies. Marvel and DC should go on a 10 year sabbatical.

Re:Why stop at $50?

[Anonymous Coward]

$50 is armed robbery. The actual experience of watching a movie is never worth more than $10, period. Less so if it's in a theater ;)

Re:Why stop at $50?

[Anonymous Coward]

One person will pay it, so they can be the first to upload a torrent to The Pirate Bay

First? The movie opened in theaters 17 days ago, which means it's been available on torrent sites for at least 17 days.

Re:Why stop at $50?

[bug1]

You still only have the same amount of movies per year. They are just talking about reducing the lag.

So in the month they introduce it, you might catch up and get another half dozen movies for $50 each, but after that its just more expensive video rental.

Cant you just wait ?

Re: Why stop at $50?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sneak over to his house while him and his wife are at a movie and spend time with the baby sitter.

Re:Why stop at $50?

[Anonymous Coward]

The $15 per person at the cinema to pay for the privilege of watching the film with a load of popcorn-munching Americans who won't shut up and who have illuminated the rows in front with their phones?

You think this is money well spent?

Some people really hate the cinema.

The only reason Hollywood might change the price is to make it higher, because if they only charge $50, cinemas will go out of business.

Re: Why stop at $50?

[yrrah]

Why not just watch a different movie and save the $50?

Re:Why stop at $50?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look on the bright side. Babysitters are cheaper than hookers and you don't need to supply them with drugs.

Re:Why stop at $50?

[tsotha]

I don't blame Marvel or DC for milking that cow, but I don't understand why audiences haven't lost interest.

Re:Why stop at $50?

[bobbied]

HDMI capture card. Watermark is useless when payment was with a disposable/stolen card.

The guys who do these rips and releases have been doing it with other streaming services for years.

So who broke into HDMI? I thought they guarded the keys to the kingdom pretty well and unless you happened on some stolen keys your player wasn't going to talk to your display/Capture card for love or money. If you did find some stolen keys, all they have to do is invalidate them and sooner or later your capture card will go on the blink as your devices get new keys. You can bet the content owners would do their best to make sure all your HDMI devices got updated before they let you play anything.

Watermarking IS useful even if a burner credit card is used because like it or not, the IP you are is going to be pretty obvious, even if you go though a proxy, and the player software they are likely going to use is going to have lots of access to information about you that would make it easier to find you. It might take some time to track you down, but they have the tools and are not afraid to use them.

Heck, the MPAA isn't afraid to implicate the innocent, why do you think they'd be afraid to track you down? Personally, I don't do the piracy thing and feel that those who do are being unethical. Not to mention that it's not all that much cheaper to do that stuff when all the necessary equipment and legal liability you take on is figured in. But hey, up to you.

Re: Why stop at $50?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because there are so few decent movies available, the Marvel movies are the best thing going.....and I don't even LIKE superhero movies.

Re:Why stop at $50?

[Rakarra]

Non-comic-book movies I've seen recently that are absolutely fantastic, not utter crap:

Hacksaw Ridge
Manchester By The Sea
Arrival (actually this was just 'good,' not fantastic)
Rogue One (except maybe some of the weird CG human stuff at the end)
Finding Dory
Zootopia
Kubo and the Two Strings

Sadly I've been busy of late and haven't had time to watch that much, and there are a number I'd love to see but haven't, like Fences, Moonlight, La La Land, John Wick 2 (comic book movie? Video game movie??), Ip Man 3 (delicious chinese propaganda).

Re:Why stop at $50?

[Rakarra]

I don't blame Marvel or DC for milking that cow, but I don't understand why audiences haven't lost interest.

Because most of them are actually quite decent as movies. I didn't watch Ant-Man and will probably skip yet another Spider-Man reboot, but Doctor Strange was mild fun, Deadpool was great, and Civil War pretty great too.

Re:Why stop at $50?

[Rakarra]

HDMI capture card

Defeated by HDCP, when they turn that on. More and more devices now refuse to output if everything in the chain isn't HDCP-compliant, which broke my home theater setup when I tried connecting my HDCP-enforcing Roku to my HDMI matrix (splits signal into two different rooms).

Re:Why stop at $50?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ant-Man was better that I expected.

Re: Why stop at $50?

[Anonymous Coward]

I see that. As a single bloke without kids, it seems extortionate. But when you put it that way, I admit it makes sense.

Won't be a buyer myself, but I thank you for pointing out the circumstances where this might fit.

Re: Why stop at $50?

[Anonymous Coward]

And $25 for the babysitting so you can actually enjoy the movie without the brats interrupting every 10 minutes for more food. Nope, fly the mother in law in every couple months and have a real date night - I trust her to actually pay attention to the kids and possibly not burn the house down. No way in hell am I paying $50 for the privilege of watching a movie from my own house (and undoubtedly being forced to watch all the ads before the movie too). There is a $ amount I'd pay, much like there's a $ amount I was willing to pay to get content legally, $50 for a rental is well above it. Appreciate that it's worth it to you, there's obviously a market for it, I believe they are limiting their market and thus their profits by overcharging. I pay a premium for many things that I decided to be 'first' in line for, but when I see something that is going to halve it's price in 4 months and allow me to rent it nearly indefinitely (it's digital and DRM protected, let's be real, it's not bought), I can easily justify forgetting it exists for a few months.

Re:Why stop at $50?

[Kjella]

Why not make it $500, at least if you're intention is to charge a wishful price that nobody is going to pay anyway.

FYI, Prima Cinema charges just that plus a $35,000 initial fee. It's how millionaires watch same day cinema releases without the plebs bothering them. Maybe that offer and this offer isn't for you...

Re:Why stop at $50?

[sexconker]

Non-comic-book movies I've seen recently that are absolutely fantastic, not utter crap:

Hacksaw Ridge
Manchester By The Sea
Arrival (actually this was just 'good,' not fantastic)
Rogue One (except maybe some of the weird CG human stuff at the end)
Finding Dory
Zootopia
Kubo and the Two Strings

Sadly I've been busy of late and haven't had time to watch that much, and there are a number I'd love to see but haven't, like Fences, Moonlight, La La Land, John Wick 2 (comic book movie? Video game movie??), Ip Man 3 (delicious chinese propaganda).

Zootopia was good.

Finding Dory was lame. Maybe the kids like it, I don't know. But there's nothing in it worthwhile if you've already seen Finding Nemo.

Manchester by the Sea is a depressing, boring, grey turd. It's extremely overrated even if you go in with the attitude of wanting to drown yourself in a miserable bog. I've discussed this movie in detail before.

Arrival is fucking dogshit. If the fucking heptapods can see the fucking future why couldn't they see us learning each others' languages (and thus learn ours in advance)? (As shown, the heptapods made zero effort to learn English, instead making us do all the work. However, there is a brief moment where it appears as if they understand English to some degree, so it's anyone's guess.) Or, why couldn't they see the bomb? Or, why couldn't they see that in 3000 years they will need help and fucking help themselves? This movie has all the failings and plot holes of a time travel movie without any of the excitement. I've seen this one most recently and yes, I'm mad about the time I wasted on it. It's not a fucking sci-fi movie it's a shitty movie about some mom whose kid dies or some shit and then gets magical powers from some aliens and through some paradoxical plot holes saves nothing because the aliens just evaporate anyone. Might as well have let the Chinese general blow them up.

Rogue One was simply unnecessary. It's Star Wars: Vietnam. You know what happens so the entire plot doesn't matter. The movie failed to make me (or anyone else) give a shit about the characters involved, which is about the only other option it had. The sound and visuals were typical Star Wars fare. A big fat MEH for this one.

I haven't seen Kubo.

I don't know about Fences or Moonlight.

I'll likely see John Wick 2 at some point.

La La Land was pretty much Hollywood licking its own genitals. It opens with an interesting musical number but they get progressively more boring from there. Plotwise, it's completely predictable. It follows the "meet, deny love, admit love, fight, reuinte" pattern just about every single love story does. The only difference is that in this story the "reunite" ends with "And they lived separately ever after. In separate lives. One was kinda happy or at least content, I guess. The other is alone and kinda sad, probably forever.".
But if you like your happy endings you can have that too - just turn the movie off 5 minutes before it ends. There's an entire extended daydream/what-if sequence showing the woman leaves her husband and child for the man to live a long, happy life together. Then it snaps back to reality - poor RyGoz pecking at the ivories and looking sad.
The movie has a handful of musical numbers (the first couple being the best by far), and then it has an overall theme that gets replayed and reused over and over and over. It's a nice theme for sure, but you'll be hearing it for about a full hour if you watch the movie. I don't care for singing (I'm not gay), so I won't judge that aspect either way. I've heard the Emma Stone did her own singing and people thought it was good.
I've also heard that RyGoz played the piano himself. Going into the movie I hadn't heard this, and there's one shot early on where you're wondering if he's really playing. The movie plays a cute trick on you - the camera

Re:Why stop at $50?

[sexconker]

HDCP 1.x is defeated. Publicly and trivially.
HDCP 2.2 isn't, as far as I know, publicly defeated. One vendor made and sold a working stripper at one point, but I don't know if it's still functional (I believe HDCP 2.2 has more updating capability to revoke blacklisted decoders). They also got sued.

Re:Why stop at $50?

[rtb61]

Who the hell goes to the cinema any more, only to see retreads. Got something new, fine but endless shit retreads of which that POS ghostbusters was the prime example, fuck it. Last movie, Guardians Of the Universe, quite fun on the bigscreen, since then the rest have been pretty shite and only worth picking up in the supermarket bargain bin, so many crap Jar Jar Abrams specials with the stupid food, drink and cinema ticket package deals to hugely inflate gross ticket revenues to hide crap movies (yep a whole bunch of movies did far worse than they claimed because ticket revenues were basically tripled behind a marketing lie, premium cinemas especially, they actually make less money per seat as a result, huge fucking lie).

Re:Why stop at $50?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have extremely cheap tickets where you are. It's $15.70 near me for basic no frills. These showings are always limited and at terrible times to encourage you to see an RPX or IMAX showing ($21.70 and $22.20 respectively. This is all before tax too.
So to me $50 is too much for me to watch alone but with 2-3 other people chipping in it means it's a vastly better experience than going to the theater and having people talking or screaming or playing with their phones.

Re: Why stop at $50?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't have mutant eyes, 4k is pretty useless (eye resolution etc ...)
Or is the point getting at less than 3m from the screen?
I'm happy with full HD at 3.5m to 4m with a 50"

Re: Why stop at $50?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a special-needs child. A sitter that is qualified enough can be costly. It definitely tips the cost of the night over the proposed $50 home-based setup.

With that said, I'm not fond of the movie theatre experience. Sticky floors and annoying twits playing on their phone the whole time.

The only time we go is if it's appropriate for the whole family, and the cost then exceeds this $50 once you factor in snacks.

Plus, HDMI capture cards are getting cheaper. Rip it for my kids to watch it again 100 times while we're at it, and that $50 is a good value. :-)

Re:Why stop at $50?

[Rakarra]

Manchester by the Sea is a depressing, boring, grey turd. It's extremely overrated even if you go in with the attitude of wanting to drown yourself in a miserable bog. I've discussed this movie in detail before. [slashdot.org]

I actually had a fun time watching this movie. About 15 minutes in I remembered "Hey, wasn't this that movie Casey Affleck said was depressing in his monologue hosting SNL?" But I had fun. I knew it was going to be super-depressing, so eventually I just couldn't help but start laughing. I mean, I knew nothing was really going to get better, so the endless parade felt like a parody, and I enjoyed the parody. I also think it's a great character study of a fundamentally broken man who hasn't yet found a way to claw out from the abyss. He has undiagnosed (in the plot) clinical depression; depressed people don't sit around crying, real depression is the inability to feel emotion at most times leaving you a shell of a person. I also appreciated the writing. At no time did characters do really stupid out of character things for the purpose of advancing the plot, which is my big pet peeve for movies these days. Every word felt true to the character, and they felt like real people.

Arrival is fucking dogshit.

Arrival for me is good except for two parts: 1) The military was treated unrealistically. I know lots of movies use a cardboard-cutout stereotype of the military, good or bad, but when the rogue soldier was loading explosives into the ship I was rolling my eyes. Horrible. 2) The ending did NOT think through the implications of these time powers. I was pretty disappointed with that. Now, normally, a really bad ending is enough to trash my appreciation for a film, and there are many films like most of M. Night's where the enjoyment I'd had previously was torpedoed by the ending. For some reason this didn't happen for me on the Arrival. Maybe it's just that half of the movie is SO GOOD that I want to believe as a whole it's better than it is. That said, I'm sure this is a movie that's going to fall in my estimation over time.

I'll agree that Doctor Strange went long, a problem common to action movies now. I still like Civil War, though Winter Soldier is still my favorite main Marvel movie. We'll certainly agree that Batman vs Superman was a disaster. At this point I don't think there's any redemption for Zack Snyder now. Just get it over with and pair him with Damon Lindelof so they can create the worst comic book movie that will ever be made, and be done with it.

I'm sick of movies like Interstellar and Arrival and Passengers masquerading as sci-fi but ending up as romance/drama + /fantasy horseshit instead.

Didn't see Passengers, but I have a very special, intense hatred for the pretension of Interstellar.

One last FUCK YOU goes out to a special turd-in-the-making. Logan. Wasn't the last Wolverine movie bad enough?

I didn't see it. :-( It's strange, some people really like it, some hate it. There seems to be little in between.

Re:Why stop at $50?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think both people that watch 3D will be fine doing to the theatee... the rest of us will make the choice between home or theater....

Gas, traffic, parking, obnoxious people, babysitters, multiple people (more than ~2), overpriced popcorn, overpriced soda, overpriced water, etc...

I'm sure I could find more than a handful of things that would make it "worthwhile" for a single hit of $50.

Re: Why stop at $50?

[PopeRatzo]

I have a special-needs child. A sitter that is qualified enough can be costly. It definitely tips the cost of the night over the proposed $50 home-based setup.

That changes everything. But I imagine you have better things to spend $50 on. The need to see something the minute it comes out is something I never understood, but then I spent a good deal of my younger life watching movies that were made before I was born.

I wish you well, friend.

Re:Why stop at $50?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would gladly pay $50 for a dozen or so movies per year so I don't need to spend $50+ per night on a babysitter.

Then why not just wait until its out on DVD or Netflix or something? Seems pretty pointless to me when the only difference is paying a high markup just to see the movie earlier.

Re:Why stop at $50?

[joe_frisch]

I assume they have done some market research and think that $50 would be the price point that would make them the most money. Fair enough - they are a business, they have every right to set prices where they want, and consumers have every right to choose to purchase or not at that price.

$50 is more than some people can afford, and insignificant to others.

Re:Why stop at $50?

[naubol]

I don't blame Marvel or DC for milking that cow, but I don't understand why audiences haven't lost interest.

Because people who regularly eat haute cuisine can enjoy cotton-candy, too.

Re:Why stop at $50?

[Maxo-Texas]

At the very least, very high quality cam recordings would come out of this.

Re:Why stop at $50?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty sure this service already exists at $500 actually, and yes, people pay it.

Re: Why stop at $50?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a special-needs child. A sitter that is qualified enough can be costly. It definitely tips the cost of the night over the proposed $50 home-based setup.

That changes everything. But I imagine you have better things to spend $50 on. The need to see something the minute it comes out is something I never understood, but then I spent a good deal of my younger life watching movies that were made before I was born.

I wish you well, friend.

Indeed, more important things to spend money on. We go maybe two times a year, but really only if there is something the kids really want to see. The last movie we saw in the theatre was Finding Dory, and the time before that was the Minions Movie in 2015.

Honestly we're more of a go outside and play family, but we also live in Canada where it's cold 6 months of the year with very few indoor things to do in my area. Building snow forts becomes monotonous after a while. :-)

Re:Why stop at $50?

[Anonymous Coward]

who goes? cam-rippers, no?

Re:Why stop at $50?

[davester666]

Is particular, the "new" stuff, namely AVX and 3D has to be negatively impacting sales, in the name of getting a higher first weekend total. It's not for anything like artistic integrity, because the theatre will have early afternoon shows of the movie without avx and/or 3d, but then the 7 and 9 pm shows are only with avx and 3d.

Re:Why stop at $50?

[AmiMoJo]

You can simply insert a downgrade device that strips it. Perfectly legal, the spec allows for it. The player can't tell the difference between the downgrade box and a TV.

Re:Why stop at $50?

[AmiMoJo]

A cheap HDMI switch off eBay and a few wires soldered on is all you need to strip HDCP. The switch box is essentially like a TV, it receives and decrypts the signal, then passes it to another chip the encrypts and sends it to the TV. Patch in to the unencrypted signal.

Re: Why stop at $50?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you missed the whole point of Arrival. You don't have to like it, but at least comprehend it before shitting on it. The whole point is that the Universe is deterministic. There are no "time travel powers" or really even "seeing the future". Simply experiencing time in a non linear fashion. By the way, the kid isn't even born until after the events of the movie. You obviously missed that, it is sort of a twist, and rather important to the way the movie was shot and paced.

Re:Why stop at $50?

[cerberusss]

If you're lounging with 6 people in your underwear

I'm a severe introvert. I will have to recuperate for a week under a blankie after just your mentioning this.

Re: Why stop at $50?

[Anonymous Coward]

Low cost here. $3-4 tickets, $6 for a large tub and two large drinks with $1 popcorn refill and 0.50 pop refill. I'd never go to the high cost places.

Re:Why stop at $50?

[Anonymous Coward]

Guardians of the Galaxy...

Guardians of the Universe just doesn't have the same ring to it... and reminds me of the Dolph Lundgren He-Man movie instead.

Re: Why stop at $50?

[Anonymous Coward]

free parking at Tinsletown,$12 for 2 movie tickets.....beats the heck out of $50.....and we see it on the BIG screen

Re:Why stop at $50?

[painandgreed]

If you have a large family, it makes sense. For most people, this is gonna be a miss for them.

I don't know about that. IME, going out to the movies usually includes dinner out too because going home and making dinner would take too long, and eating at home after the movie would be waiting too long. Besides food and drink and movie tickets at the theater, there is also dinner to consider which with drinks can easily be between $50-100. For dinner plus movie, I can buy nice ingredients for dinner (or take out), bottles of liquor, and the $50 movie for the evening for what we'd usually spend out. Add in the lazy factor of just wanting to sit at home sometimes and it becomes more tempting.

Re:Why stop at $50?

[Rakarra]

HDCP 1.x is defeated. Publicly and trivially.
HDCP 2.2 isn't, as far as I know, publicly defeated. One vendor made and sold a working stripper at one point, but I don't know if it's still functional (I believe HDCP 2.2 has more updating capability to revoke blacklisted decoders). They also got sued.

Well, it seems like in the US, it'd be pretty trivial to prove such devices illegal. Is it an access control method? Of course (otherwise, what is the point??). If it's an access control method, then a device that can circumvent it is illegal under the DMCA, unless that device was specifically given an exemption, which seems unlikely.

Re:Why stop at $50?

[sexconker]

Marijuana is illegal in the US. How many people have easy access to it? How many states are ignoring flagrantly ignoring federal law?

Re:Why stop at $50?

[Rakarra]

Marijuana is illegal in the US. How many people have easy access to it? How many states are ignoring flagrantly ignoring federal law?

Unfortunately there isn't nearly the same sort of push to overturn the DMCA as there is for marijuana. >_>

I like it

[Anonymous Coward]

This should get all the DINKs that moan about children, and all the people who complain about cellphones out of the theatre.

Then again, I go to the drive in, so perhaps regular theatres will disappear as the customers dry up? Beats me.

Either way, too expensive for my blood. Movies around my parts are $8 and I prefer to bring in my own snacks... and the water from the water fountain does the job for me. And no theatre around these parts charges for parking. So just $8. Takes a family of 7 to get your money back at $50.

So 16 days after they hit piratebay?

[HornWumpus]

No thanks. I'll just keep not seeing them. Yeah, not seeing them, that's the ticket.

I'm really disappointed with Scottish pirates. Trainspotting 2 has been in release in Scotland for weeks and there are no torrents on piratebay.

Re:So 16 days after they hit piratebay?

[PopeRatzo]

Trainspotting 2 has been in release in Scotland for weeks and there are no torrents on piratebay.

Wife and I saw it last week, and it's a good one. You're going to enjoy it.

Re: So 16 days after they hit piratebay?

[Anonymous Coward]

You say you won't see them then complain you can't find a pirated movie? Pay for it if it's something you like.

Re: So 16 days after they hit piratebay?

[HornWumpus]

English isn't your native language is it?

Kidding?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can pay a dollar or two and see a movie at home via Redbox or maybe as part of a Netflix/Amazon subscription. I can pay $10 and see it at a theater. Wait, you want to charge $50? Wait, you're serious? Here, let me laugh even harder. LOLOLOLOL!!!!

Maybe it's just $50 so the first guy to pirate it has to open his wallet extra wide?

Dinner and an Other Movie for less.

[sycodon]

I can take my sweetie to a nice dinner and released movie for less than $50.

Re:Dinner and an Other Movie for less.

[ColdWetDog]

Chinese takeout and Redbox?

Whatever floats your boat.

Re:Dinner and an Other Movie for less.

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to be able to do that too. Now three kids later, $50 for an evening out: dinner OR movie is well over $50. No way we're all doing both.

Turns out though that homemade pizza, popcorn, and movies in the living room (with a blanket fort or two as well) are much more fun.

Re:Dinner and an Other Movie for less.

[Anonymous Coward]

Add some kids to that equation. Now the cost is significantly greater due to having to hire a babysitter, assuming that you can sneak away for an evening to actually watch the movie. A $50 48-hour rental gives you an option to stay home and watch the movie at your leisure after the kids are asleep, with the possibility of pausing it when those kids pop out of their room for the 800th time to ask for a glass of water and a trip to the potty.

Does it work for every movie? Certainly not. Is staying at home as nice as going out to a theater? Your mileage may vary. At least you shouldn't have to contend with other people in the cinema continually texting or checking Facebook. You can pause to grab a snack of your choosing instead of having to pay $20 for popcorn and two watered down sodas. And, depending on the movie, you could even get a bit randy without the fear of being arrested.

That is to say that I can see this working to a limited extent, particularly with families.

Re:Dinner and an Other Movie for less.

[bobbied]

I can take my sweetie to a nice dinner and released movie for less than $50.

Dang man.. She's a cheap date and you must live in the middle of nowhere.. Hang on to that one.

I'd be into the better half of $100 to do dinner and a move for two round these parts.

Oh wait... You haven't done this in awhile have you? How long has it been? 2 Decades or so?

Re:Dinner and an Other Movie for less.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if you are young and dumb you're still trying to impress a woman with expensive dinners and gifts.

But after being married for two decades you realize that doesn't mean much. Assuming you could hold onto a woman that long.

I suspect she'll see right through you.

Re: Dinner and an Other Movie for less.

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. I spend that money because I want soul mate. Edit: typo, I don't know why I added the word soul.

Sign me up, cuz', fug me I'm stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiocracy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwZ0ZUy7P3E) working as planned.

Failure

[Anonymous Coward]

If I'm not willing to spend $25 to go see a fucking CGI trainwreck in the theatre what makes they think I will spend $50 to watch it at home?

The whole fucking movie industry is inflated and insane

Re:Failure

[DontBeAMoran]

If you want to see fucking CGI, search for "3D hentai".

simply greedy

[Anonymous Coward]

They will also include free non-skip able ads

Re:simply greedy

[ColdWetDog]

They will also include free non-skip able ads

And there lies the killer. I might pay $20 to see a good, early, first run movie. Not $50. And not with anything else 'added' unless it is completely optional. For $50 I'd expect to get dinner with the movie.

Re:simply greedy

[sconeu]

They will also include free non-skip able ads

Yay!!!! I don't have to pay for the ads!!!!!

Re:simply greedy

[bill_mcgonigle]

And there lies the killer. I might pay $20 to see a good, early, first run movie. Not $50. And not with anything else 'added' unless it is completely optional. For $50 I'd expect to get dinner with the movie.

Dinner and a movie costs way more than $50.

You rent the movie, your friends bring over take-out or pot-luck.

$50 doesn't make sense for an individual but for a large group it's pretty easy.

That said, I only go to see digitally-projected 3D films anymore (kids, etc.). Bluray from Redbox is a way better deal than $50.

What's not to like

[Anonymous Coward]

No dirty seats
No settling for less than idea seats (PRO TIP: best seat on most theaters are 2/3 back and in the middle)
No badly calibrated projectors
No bass heavy sound
No disturbances from other "customers"
No obscene markups on drinks and snacks

My place is clean, comfortable, calibrated 62" TV with great sound system

Re:What's not to like

[fluffernutter]

So look at is this way, the money you pay at the theater is there to cover the costs of the equipment. Why would you pay a similar price if you are using your own equipment instead of theirs? It's kind of like how everyone thought ebooks would be cheaper because of distribution savings, but then they end up costing almost full retail price and Apple is getting sued for price fixing later.

Not that expensive

[ranton]

Considering I spend about $35 on two tickets plus concessions, $50 is not that bad to be able to watch new movies without leaving the house. I often see blockbuster movies with 2-4 friends or family members, so then its a bargain. And in my current situation I need a babysitter to see a movie in the theater, so this would cut the cost of a movie in half for my wife and I right now.

I certainly wouldn't call it cheap, but the price is about what I expected.

Re:Not that expensive

[Altus]

Yeah but it would be way cheeper to pirate a copy uploaded by someone who rented it and cracked the DRM.

Re:Not that expensive

[JonnyCalcutta]

But if all you get out of going out to watch a movie is watching a movie, why not watch an older movie for nothing? Does the newness of a movie really mean that much to you?

Re:Not that expensive

[fluffernutter]

The thing is, unless you have seen everything you would possibly want to see in older movies available for $10, why would you pay $50 for the same home experience? Unless it's a movie you really want to see NOW it will make more sense to just get an older movie for now and wait for the price to come down.

Re:Not that expensive

[ranton]

But if all you get out of going out to watch a movie is watching a movie, why not watch an older movie for nothing? Does the newness of a movie really mean that much to you?

Yes, considering I've most likely already seen the old one.

Re:Not that expensive

[LesFerg]

I often see blockbuster movies with 2-4 friends or family members, so then its a bargain.

You haven't seen the small print yet. It will probably be a crime to let anybody outside of permanent residents see the $50 screening of the movie. You will probably also need a web cam covering the audience to allow the movie to start playing...

Re:Not that expensive

[ranton]

The thing is, unless you have seen everything you would possibly want to see in older movies available for $10, why would you pay $50 for the same home experience?

Yes, I have seen every decent older movie I care to see. Every once in a while I am surprised by an old movie I missed, but it's quite rare. After a couple decades even great movies start to show their age anyway.

Re:Not that expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he's interested in a specific movie, just like people are interested in specific games. Otherwise, why would he bother going all the way to the theater anyway?

Re:Not that expensive

[fluffernutter]

Ok well have fun paying $50 to watch a flick in your basement then.

Re:Not that expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

No

Re:Not that expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok well have fun paying $50 to watch a flick in your basement then.

His parent's basement.....

Re:Not that expensive

[JesseMcDonald]

The thing is, unless you have seen everything you would possibly want to see in older movies available for $10, why would you pay $50 for the same home experience?

Yes, I have seen every decent older movie I care to see.

This may seem a bit obvious, but new movies turn into older movies at exactly the same rate that new movies are released. It's not as if "older movies" were a fixed set. If you make a policy of only watching movies that are at least X years old, you'll end up with the same amount of "new" (to you) content each year as if you watched every new blockbuster on opening night at several times the price.

Re:Not that expensive

[TooManyNames]

I agree that $50 is a bit ludicrous (unless you have a lot of people you're taking to the theater, and have a good setup of your own), but why the snarky response to this guy? It's not like he's complaining about the cost; he's saying that he'd be in the market for what they're offering, and is happy to shell out $50. What's wrong with that?

Re:Not that expensive

[fluffernutter]

Because the idea that you *have* to watch a brand new movie is pretty ridiculous and it pretty much validates anything the movie companies want to charge.

Re:Not that expensive

[JaredOfEuropa]

That's a real concern, I suppose. Torrents of new movies, out in the cinemas but not yet on Bluray, are usually only available as crappy cams with shitty audio, not at all worth watching. (Ahem, or so I am told by those who do such things...) But having them available as high quality streams early on would make it a lot easier to provide a high quality illegal copy.

I for one would welcome this. There are plenty of movies that we'd like to watch at home instead of in the cinema, and I'd pay extra to watch the really new stuff. $50? Why not. Maybe they can throw in a good discount for buying the Bluray later (and when are we going to get those in download-to-own form???)

Re:Not that expensive

[TooManyNames]

Everybody has some sort of stupid, costly activity that they nonetheless enjoy; I'm not an exception to that, and neither are you. Clearly, this guy doesn't *have* to watch a brand new movie, but he seems to enjoy it, so why complain about his particular stupid, costly pursuit? If you don't want to validate movie companies' approach, don't buy into it, but don't begrudge those who actually do want it. If it's successful, there will still be more traditional options available to you, and if it isn't successful, then ranton can make due with what is available.

Re: Not that expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could wait a whopping 3 months and then get it on Redbox for a buck fifty.

Once you stop paying attention to the latest current superhero movie of the minute, your won't notice the diff.

Re:Not that expensive

[radarskiy]

"to watch new movies"

Except they're not new movies. The article says "some 17 days after their theatrical opening". At that point, might as well wait until they are $1 at Redbox.

Re:Not that expensive

[fluffernutter]

Well then there is the answer of why they think they can charge $50. Judging by the comments here, that is NOT what most people want. Just another reminder that capitalism basically doesn't get people what they want.

Re:Not that expensive

[david_thornley]

You can get a very large quantity of excellent novels from Project Gutenberg free. Why would anyone buy one at a bookstore?

Re:Not that expensive

[TooManyNames]

What??

First of all, /. is hardly representative of the general public. Second, even if it were representative of the general public, markets don't exist to supply what most people want; they exist to supply what enough people want to make a venture profitable. Third, markets have no obligation to provide what you want, or withhold what you don't want (if the thing you don't want isn't actually illegal/harmful). Fourth, if not capitalism, it'd be whatever is in it's place; the rest of the world has no obligation to address your particular wants (which seems to be what you're really getting at). Fifth, again... how does this hurt you? If you don't want to pay to see new movies, don't watch them; nobody -- including ranton -- is forcing you to do that or even see any studio movies in general. You just want the movie industry to suffer, is that it? Good luck with that.

Re:Not that expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

Judging by the comments here, that is NOT what most people [on /., a small segment of a small segment of the population of generally one country, that read this particular article, probably self-selecting as people that don't like movie theaters or download lots of free movies] want. [Therefore, I can comfortably extrapolate...um...nothing?]

FTFY

Re:Not that expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what the laws are in the US, but over here you are not allowed to watch movies with friends without paying tax first. Of course this law can't be enforced for the old school televisions, but since many new televisions have build in camera's, face recognition software and phone home network connectivity chances are high that in some future you will be paying extra rent for every family member and an extra fee for non family members, as the law dictates. I know that the strict copyright laws were imposed by the US through free trade agreements, so I think the same laws apply in the US.

Re:Not that expensive

[TWX]

Yeah but it would be way cheeper to pirate a copy uploaded by someone who rented it and cracked the DRM.

Sure. On the other hand I have a fairly large number of friends that like to see new movies in groups, and often go to the theater together. I just don't care to go to the theater much anymore but I do occasionally host movie nights with the projector and surround sound system anyway, so if this service allows us to pause or to rewind or to otherwise replay then it could be very advantageous. We could do our own movie dinner theatre for a fraction of the cost of going out to the movies, could pause the movie if someone needs more food or to use the bathroom or something, and can do this with high quality while the movie is still essentially new. Could even take this a step further, and do a marathon of the previous films in the series culminating in the new release at the end.

For this to work it has to be priced right and the movie has to come out soon enough. $50 might be too high, and seventeen days might be too long, we'll just have to see though.

Re:Not that expensive

[lgw]

The thing is, unless you have seen everything you would possibly want to see in older movies available for $10, why would you pay $50 for the same home experience? Unless it's a movie you really want to see NOW it will make more sense to just get an older movie for now and wait for the price to come down.

For most movies, I'm content to wait for the DVD from Netflix. But for about 1 movie a year, I want to see it soon. I don't like the theater when it's busy, so I usually wait a couple weeks anyway. I'd definitely prefer my home theater to the cinema.

Re:Not that expensive

[fluffernutter]

Maybe I have a bone to pick because I have been through many pro-capitalist posts on Slashdot where people basically insist that an open market is the fairest way of doing things. But an open market is really only 'fair' as much as people are homogeneous in searching for alternatives when a price is too high. All an open market does (if you can even call the American economy and open market) is get people who want to pay the most what they want.

Re:Not that expensive

[fluffernutter]

Yeah I usually go to the one or two a year that my family begs to see. But I would never pay $50 to watch a movie at home without knowing exactly why I have to pay the same for a movie at home that a theater would cost. It just seems like a price point that is meant to take advantage of people who aren't willing to find other options.

Re:Not that expensive

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

But if all you get out of going out to watch a movie is watching a movie, why not watch an older movie for nothing? Does the newness of a movie really mean that much to you?

Agreed. The newness factor doesn't mean squat to me. In a year it'll still be the same movie and I'll watch it at my leisure from home.

This is basically telling people they can avoid going to the theater for $50.

Re:Not that expensive

[fluffernutter]

No one could have seen all older movies worth watching. Even if you have no life and have seen everything on the IMDB top 100 there are still many good movies beyond that.

Re:Not that expensive

[hambone142]

I can go to a cheepo matinee for $7/head. Why should I pay $50?

I can do without the concessions.

Re:Not that expensive

[sexconker]

Fifth, again... how does this hurt you? If you don't want to pay to see new movies, don't watch them; nobody -- including ranton -- is forcing you to do that or even see any studio movies in general.

If this is successful:
They'll delay the release of the bluray/whatever a bit more to capitalize on the home rentals.
They'll delay releasing it onto Amazon/Google/etc. for pay and to Amazon/Netflix/etc. for free for the same reason.
They'll use their rental streaming infrastructure to set up shop on their own and avoid popular services users already have (Amazon/Google/Netflix/etc.)
They'll eventually jack up the price or try to introduce shitty DRM to detect the number of people watching.
They'll inject ads, ads, ads before and probably during your rental.

If this is unsuccessful:
They'll throw a hissy fit and blame piracy.
They'll jack up the costs of blurays and streaming/download licensing, ostensibly to pay for the failed experiment, but really the higher prices will just be the new normal.

Re:Not that expensive

[fluffernutter]

That would be a spectacular comparison if we had to wait 150 years for movies to come out on DVD.

Re: Not that expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

$50? Crazy. I get free cinema tickets every week through our health plan at work. We went three times last year then ran out of anything interesting to see. Even though it was free we couldn't force ourselves to go and see anything. Hollywood stopped being interesting years ago.

Re:Not that expensive

[AlanBDee]

It may come as a surprise, but some of us actually don't want to pirate anything. For me it's more an ethical decision. The creators do deserve to be paid for their work. Lets also remember, the more we pirate, the more convoluted their DRM becomes. That may not affect you much but as a paying customer it's a pain in my posterior.

Re:Not that expensive

[fluffernutter]

Capitalism is basically just people competing with another. I would love to watch a new movie in my basement for $20 and it could be possible except for the amount of people saying "I don't see a problem with $50". If there enough of those people it gets worse for everyone else.

Re:Not that expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

No one could have seen all older movies worth watching. Even if you have no life and have seen everything on the IMDB top 100 there are still many good movies beyond that.

Not everyone has the same idea of what's worth watching. I, and I expect the GP, wouldn't enjoy many of the older 'top 100' movies; they're dated to a degree that hinders enjoyment.

Re:Not that expensive

[rpresser]

Yes, I have seen every decent older movie I care to see. Every once in a while I am surprised by an old movie I missed, but it's quite rare. After a couple decades even great movies start to show their age anyway.

If you can say this with a straight face, then you are someone who:

• ** has no respect for the history of film

** is too young to know what the fuck you want

** deserves to pay $50 for crap like "Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension"

Re:Not that expensive

[strstr]

that's extremely expensive. $50 for some over compressed low resolution garbage at home streamed over my slow internet that isn't gigabit fiber, without the beautiful 4K laser IMAX, nor the Dolby rumbling seats and thunderous bass effects?

fuck that. i'll keep going to the theater for the Dolby IMAX 4K Laser experience at AMC Empire 25 or similar place. sure the popcorn and soda is expensive but that's why I sneak in snacks most of the time.

total price for two at AMC Empire 25: $40 bucks.

http://www.obamasweapon.com/

Re: Not that expensive

[strstr]

I get $2 tickets through T-Mobile Tuesday myself..

Re:Not that expensive

[TooManyNames]

Wow, those things actually "hurt" you? Amazing. You epitomize first world problems right there.

Again, if you don't like it, don't buy into Hollywood movies. Nobody's forcing you to support them. It's an entirely unnecessary, voluntary engagement; and it's entirely up to you whether or not you engage. Jesus.

Re:Not that expensive

[reboot246]

I just wait until the movie is shown on one of the premium networks that I pay the cable company $$$ to watch. I haven't been to a theater in years - big flat screen television, great sound system, bathroom mere steps away (and CLEAN), no idiots around me talking or using their phones, and snacks bought at much lower prices.

I don't understand the need to be one of the first people to see a movie. When I see people lined up around the block to see a movie the first day it's released, I have to fight back the urge to tell them that the damned movie will be shown tomorrow and the next day and the next day, etc.

Fifty bucks? Count me out.

Re:Not that expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

they will like just use cable and sat systems to push this. Now just need someone to hack the smart card.

Re:Not that expensive

[rmullig2]

They can put a watermark on the copy you are watching that cannot be removed and can be traced back to you. Then they will hit you with a bill for all the lost revenue plus legal fees. They do this a couple of times and people will cease to upload these movies.

Re:Not that expensive

[0111 1110]

Yes I am sure they considered the expensive babysitter in their pricing discussions. It's people like you these guys were thinking of. I'm half surprised they didn't price it at $100. Or $500. I'll continue with just downloading the movie for free when available until I make my first billion and those rich studio execs can go fuck themselves.

Re:Not that expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't imagine someone smart enough to crack the DRM wouldn't be able to identify the watermark and remove it

at a bare minimum, it would require someone to compare two legitimately bought copies which I'd imagine I could even do and I'm not even a real programmer

Re:Not that expensive

[ranton]

I'll go with a variation of A: I have no interest in the history of film. Even many of my favorite films from childhood are not that enjoyable any more. The camera work, dialogue, and general cinematography from older movies really detract from the experience.

I have respect for the history of computers as well, but I wouldn't enjoy using a Commodore 64 anymore either.

Re:Not that expensive

[ranton]

This may seem a bit obvious, but new movies turn into older movies at exactly the same rate that new movies are released. It's not as if "older movies" were a fixed set. If you make a policy of only watching movies that are at least X years old, you'll end up with the same amount of "new" (to you) content each year as if you watched every new blockbuster on opening night at several times the price.

But a large part of the enjoyment from movies is discussing them with others. Similar to sports and other forms of entertainment, they are shared experiences. It only takes a few weekends for coworkers to assume anyone who cares about a movie has already seen it and spoilers are fair game.

Re:Not that expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

put a watermark on the copy you are watching that cannot be removed

bwahahahahahahahahahahaha

Re:Not that expensive

[naubol]

Ooo a culture warrior. We don't have enough of those.

Re:Not that expensive

[LostMyBeaver]

Agreed,

Currently, I pay about $15 a ticket and also have to drive to the city to see it on a big screen surrounded by people I simply have no interest in being surrounded by. I can't pause and take a break if I want and frankly, I pay at least $25-$30 in parking. Add the cost of popcorn, drinks and candy and then add that I'm also likely to take the family to eat dinner downtown as well since going to the movies is such a bloody expensive thing that it's a "Special Occasion" treat so why not?

I think in the end, I haven't managed to go to the movie without spending at least $250 with the wife and kids since the kids outgrew happy meals. I suppose we could rough it and maybe get it to about $150 if we skip the meal, but consider the alternative.

Rent a movie for $50
Cook dinner, maybe seasoned roast pork with a red wine sauce, asparagus, garlic and onion mashed potatoes... $15 for four people
Make popcorn (have a small theater popper with proper oil and flavocol) about $1 - $2
A few cans of soda $3
1kg Bag of loose candy from the Swedish candy store in the city... $12

Now, I blew the money a few years back on a 720p projector (would be nicer with better... but... it's what I have and it's pretty good) and painted a room dark matte colors to reduce reflection. I have a 5.1 Sony stereo which would make an audiofil cry, but unless I cover the room in noise dampening foam... so be it.

So, we can gather on a couch and watch movies in more comfort, eat better... I can have a beer or prosecco while watching... and I'll have spent maybe $90 by the time I'm done. And the wife and kids and snuggle on me while we watch the film.

Why in hell would anyone ever spend money on a movie theater? Sure it sounds extravagent to have your own home theater, but consider I spent less building it than it would have cost to go to the movies 8 times.

And then when we go out... which is often enough, we can walk around the city or at the cabins in the mountains overlooking the city and enjoy the view, talk with the people etc... going to the movies is basically paying to sit on someone else's couch and keep silent.

Re: Not that expensive

[LostMyBeaver]

Pretty cool... I can sometimes find a sale on a tickets for about $12 a piece.

Besides, if you buy anything at all while watching that film... popcorn, soft drinks, etc... you're still making it profitable for the theater. I'm not sure how much the theater pays for you to see the film, but let's guess it's probably about $2.

Re:Not that expensive

[LostMyBeaver]

Agreed... my DVD/Bluray collection was well over 2000 discs before I packed them away and stored them in a closet where they'll be forgotten until I no longer have anything left to play them on (pretty sure that's soon).

I used to buy the discs and them immediately rip them to hard drive and store them on a server in my closet so we could watch them on any screen in the house.

These days we have a few alternatives

About 150-200 films and 2000 TV episodes on my iTunes library at this time... I was able to remove DRM until about 3 months ago without re-encoding. Now, I have to find a new place to buy since I don't have Apple Devices everywhere and HDCP restrictions limit my ability to playback on some of my screens that I connect via SDI instead of HDMI. I only buy films if I can strip the DRM to allow playback wherever I need it.

We have Netflix, but it's selection is nice for Netflix originals, but they are missing nearly every film I've searched for recently... for example Full Metal Jacket. So, I don't even bother with Netflix for anything other than a once in a while thing.

Youtube... I'm not 100% sure if it's always legal, I'm counting on Google to manage that, but we often find stuff like Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, etc... and such on there.

Finally, there's the torrent sites.

I end up at the torrent sites because I have an iTunes Movie or DVD I can't play on a device or screen which I paid for. I sometimes feel mildly guilty if I own a DVD copy and I end up downloading the HD version as the studio has had to spend the money to release the HD version and I didn't pay for that. But if I want to watch a film I've bought and I can't because of DRM that's been put in place to deal with pirates, then I will resort to doing what the pirates do in order to be able to watch it.

The only time in the past 10 years I've watched a movie by straight out piracy was when I missed the last 20 minutes of one of the Hobbit films because the movie theater parking lot was prepay and I didn't realize that after paying about $125 to see a movie, I would have to watch... wait for it.... 40 minutes of trailers and commercials. So I let the wife and kids finish watching while I moved the car to a different parking space. So I came home and downloaded a cam and watched the ending at home.

I personally would gladly pay the studios $50 for a film... it's a total non-issue. I have absolutely no problem paying "gouging rates" to avoid having to deal with movie theaters. Besides, $50 is just not a lot of money anymore. The middle class (not middle income... middle income IS NOT middle class) should have a joint household income of a minimum of $60,000 a year in 1st world countries. It's far more likely to be between $100,000 and $200,000. I highly doubt the middle class will even notice the $50.

Re:Not that expensive

[LostMyBeaver]

On principle... I'm with you.

But really, if I can pay $50 to see a new release vs $10-$20 to see an old one which I probably haven't seen because I wasn't really willing to pay to see it earlier... I think that $50 is reasonable. Besides... I think if it's the family watching, $50 is MUCH cheaper than the theater.

The good news is, that if you stop watching commercial TV and you stop reading printed media, you probably are like me and have no idea that there's a new film out until it hits iTunes. So, I get to see things as soon as they come out :) Well as soon as I noticed they've come out. :)

I personally think it's more important for kids. My teenagers like to be able to talk about new films as they come out... especially ones like Warcraft and Assassin's Creed. So, as part of the community thing and avoiding being an outcast, etc... it's kinda important to see that film to fit in.

Re:Not that expensive

[LostMyBeaver]

"No respect for the history of film"?

"Is too young to know what the fuck you want"?

Are you seriously thinking like that?

Ok... let's start with making this simple. It's a rectangle screen with pictures playing on it. After watching everything from the recent Walt Disney documentary to Lawrence of Arabia or the classic version of Spartacus to Bill and Teds, etc... some of us have seen a lot of movies and a lot of DVD covers and trailers.

Most of us have already decided what we want to see and what is not worth the effort. Occasionally, we encounter someone saying "hey have you seen?"... like for example, I've never been ever slightly interested in seeing Clockwork Orange and I'm told by people who are obsessed with film that this is disgraceful.

I honestly enjoy a lot of modern "shit cinema" just as I enjoyed a lot of classic "shit cinema". But let me tell you a secret... unless there's inherent educational value to a film... it's all shit cinema. One could suggest you could get a better understanding of behavior in different cultures and eras simply by the shit cinema they watched, but you don't need much more than a small sample set to accomplish this. I for example really learned a great deal about culture from "Guys and Dolls"... for example, how Cuba was perceived by New Yorkers before the missile crisis. But still, it's mostly shit cinema and I like it.

Now... if you seem to think that there's more to watching a rectangular screen than simply putting your brain into "I'm stupid, I'll let someone else bombard my brain with lights and sounds while I sit here and rot for a while" mode, then you really need to consider a real life. Maybe join a gym or a chess club.

I hear there are now apps you can use to find experimental sex encounters with strangers. You can probably make the movies something more interesting by trying that out.

On the other hand... if you take movies seriously and you consider them a great part of your life and something that is part of defining you... excellent.

There are some of us who have seen thousands of movies and spent time trying to find something else to watch and simply decided it's not worth the effort. It's just a movie. We've seen everything that seems particularly interesting to us. We aren't interested in pissing away time we could be on Slashdot by researching yet another movie. New releases are nice because it makes it easier to find something and if our choice is "Paranormal Activity..." I think a nice walk or a visit to the coffee shop sounds better.

Re: Not that expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

You live in a bubble and have no idea how wealthy you are in comparison to most other humans, including middle class Europeans.

Re: Not that expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

There are some forensic watermarking techniques that aren't so easy to strip out. For example: two chunked transcodes with different invisible watermarks inserted in to the raw video frames between the decoder and encoder. The chunks are interleaved in a unique order as they're served up for download or streaming. The watermark survives re-encoding, unless of course you reduce the quality a lot, but then you've destroyed the value of the rip.

Re:Not that expensive

[kuzb]

Theaters are already feeling the hit because of how ridiculously expensive they are. A lot of people just aren't going anymore. Many won't rent at that price. In fact, idiocy like this is going to push more people towards piracy. If the movie is going to be out in a rental format 17 days after release, you can bet your ass it's going to be available to download/stream by the 18th day.

Re:Not that expensive

[kuzb]

They tried to do this with screeners too. Guess how well that worked out.

Re:Not that expensive

[kuzb]

Well, not trying to be elitist or anything, but you should make time for A Clockwork Orange if you find you have nothing better to do. It is pretty good. Then again, whatever does it for you.

Re:Not that expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

Because a bookstore has that element of serendipity of discovery that online doesn't seem to deliver. And paying for things isn't necessarily a bad thing really, is it?

Re:Not that expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

According to Trump the Middle Class is hurting? $60,000 a year is a lot of money unless you constantly buy things you don't need and things you can't afford, in which case a lifestyle change would be needed.

Re:Not that expensive

[jareth-0205]

Because the idea that you *have* to watch a brand new movie is pretty ridiculous and it pretty much validates anything the movie companies want to charge.

Well if you want to be part of culture now - social conversations about the film, youtube philosophical breakdowns, avoiding spoilers... they yes you probably should see it around when it comes out. You can of course save yourself a little cash and wait months, but then you won't be part of the larger cultural moment, and for many films that's part of the experience.

Re: Not that expensive

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Then merge multiple sources and your watermark is screwed up.

Re: Not that expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol. $60,000 is not a lot of money for a family, not in America, and definitely not if you live anywhere near a large city. Since that's a pretax number, take home is probably closer to $45,000. You're probably looking at 1500 a month between rent/mortgage and utilities minimum. God forbid you dare to own a car or two, there's another $600 a month at least. Oh yeah, you haven't eaten yet, there's another $50 a week per person, if you like living on ramen and bologna sandwiches, more if you're trying to be healthy, more if you eat out because you're too busy to cook. Etc, etc.

This example is probably pretty conservative on costs, double everything but the car if you live in a blue county.

Re: Not that expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

No. If they could put it there without damaging the quality, it can be removed without damaging the quality. And basically every DRM removing tool is written by someone smarter, and more motivated than the person who devised the DRM. This is the reason DRM just simply doesn't work, and is a waste of everyone's time.

Re: Not that expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

No, in America we just pirate it.

Re: Not that expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

Your health plan gives you free movie tickets every week?

Re:Not that expensive

[fluffernutter]

So people NEED to see movies to belong now? Humanity is so screwed.

Re: Not that expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

Movies aren't for socializing.

Re: Not that expensive

[gweilo8888]

And people who think they are for socializing are part of the reason the rest of us avoid the cinema in the first place.

Re:Not that expensive

[wvmarle]

There are enough "old" movies out there for you to watch day in day out without watching the same twice, ever.

Re: Not that expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

Mmmh No, sane people says good, bad, interesting, worthless and thats it weirdoes might care about directors, actors, plots but those are loners so nobody really wants to hear'em.

Re: Not that expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

"larger cultural moment"??

So you have to see chinese and indian flicks so you're part of the larger cultural moment?? That's so idiotic mr bend over...

Re: Not that expensive

[cjplay]

Yes, they catch and prosecute people. Forget that article that says only 1 person was affected from Oscar screeners. I know there are more. Thing is, you don't hear about them much because if they go to trial, the methods used become public knowledge. Therefore, the person just gets fined by the authority and not tried or jailed. Think you are safe? Good luck. Odds are much better than winning your local lottery. Yay for only $50! Still going to some films in Dolby Cinema or IMAX laser.

Re: Not that expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

I go to the cinema to watch a movie in a space designed to do so, if the price is right I pay, bloody simple.

If I see a movie in my house, then I don't need anything but a secuence of video with audio, there's tons of movies I haven't seen, like asian and independent, etc.

Why I would pay 50 bucks for a new movie when there's thousands of NEW ( to me) movies? No reason to pay more than a full visit to the cinema, including drinks and snacks, if I only get a "new" movie and the dubious benefit of being first to watch?? Bragging rights?? If you're a loser. Pay more? If you like being ripped off. Not for me.

Re: Not that expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

"here's the world of normal people - the ones who shoved you into lockers and laughed at you when you were growing up"

And you think that's normal? Do you think you're normal, too?

Re: Not that expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

"I personally think it's more important for kids. My teenagers like to be able to talk about new films as they come out... especially ones like Warcraft and Assassin's Creed. So, as part of the community thing and avoiding being an outcast, etc... it's kinda important to see that film to fit in."

This seems like you're teaching your kids that they can only be happy if they conform in the most banal ways. Honestly, they're not going to become pariahs because they didn't see the Warcraft movie right after it came out. Talk about first world problems!

Re: Not that expensive

[rnmartinez]

THIS. 2 x tickets = 35 2x snacks = 20 babysitter = 30 $85 But at 50 I should get to keep it.

Re: Not that expensive

[Veranix]

Mine does nearly the same thing, through their fitness/wellness program. Earn a few points (mostly by wasting some time on lunch breaks clicking through online presentations about allegedly healthy lifestyle topics), spend them on free movie passes, Amazon gift cards, or whatever else available via the program's website.

Re:Not that expensive

[chstwnd]

cameras and facial recognition software in a freaking TV? and some kind of network phone home system that bypasses my network key? what kind of witchcraft is this? (and who would pay for such things?) the camera would be defeated by a small strip of electrical tape. i don't want anyone spying on me of my family in their skivvies, after all. and i think "smart TVs" are going the way of the 3D television (which are all but dead) because they use proprietary firmware and apps that are outdated pretty nearly the second you open the box (i know this from experience). The replacements (Roku, FireTV, Chromecast, whatever...) survivors will be dictated by whoever DOESN"T incorporate a "phone-home" network that reports on the number of people sitting in your living room.

Re: Not that expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but watching it on a phone is pretty sad.

Re: Not that expensive

[BeaverCleaver]

I really have no idea how sitting on your ass clicking links, to earn credits to sit on your ass watching a movie, could in any possible way be part of a "wellness plan." Is this actually a thing?

Re:Not that expensive

[AvitarX]

I stopped pirating about 5 years or so ago.

It's partially ethical, but also convenience.

I pirated when there wasn't really a good way to watch what I wanted, but now, the couple minutes it takes to find a good file, and the ten or so to download it just isn't worth it when there's likely something just as good on a streaming service, or barring that, youtube (though my go to their has been pirated tales from the crypt, which I assume will be taken down with the reboot coming).

Re: Not that expensive

[AvitarX]

One can eat healthy for $50/person/week.

Rice, beans, eggs, and veggies, variations there of. Some chicken and pork in the mix.

It gives a pretty good variety of dishes available (stir fry, rice dishes, chili, hummus, falafel, scrambles of various types).

Add cheese and sauce, and you can do pasta dishes or pizza.

That's just cooking for myself without any economy of scale cooking in bulk.

I'm not saying it's the most interesting diet, but it's more variety and far healthier than ramen and bologna.

Re:Not that expensive

[david_thornley]

You said "Unless it's a movie you really want to see NOW it will make more sense to just get an older movie for now and wait for the price to come down.".

People don't do that with other art forms. People buy current novels who haven't read most of Dickens, Austen, and Verne. People buy current music, despite the cheap and easy availability of great older music. For whatever reason, people seem to value current art.

Re: Not that expensive

[hipp5]

Movies aren't for socializing.

They might not be for socializing, but they can be a social experience. When I saw Sean of the Dead it was WAY funnier in theatre than when I watched it at home. Part of that can be attributed to the fact that I had seen the movie once already, but a big part is due to the fact that in the theatre I was surrounded by other people who were laughing their asses off. Humans are fundamentally social beings, and we often take our cues from the people around us (even if we like to think we don't).

Confession

[sjwest]

I have not been in a cinema for months, and neither have the majority of people have seen any of the oscar 2017 films of which are oddly not superhero films.

Re:Confession

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I've seen maybe one US film in the past 10 years or so. I refuse even to pirate them.

I'd rather give the $50 to a homeless person

[future assassin]

and watch a pirated cam version.

Re:I'd rather give the $50 to a homeless person

[Anonymous Coward]

Let the homeless person watch the pirated movie, and call it a wash.

Re:I'd rather give the $50 to a homeless person

[DontBeAMoran]

And use that free wash on the homeless person.

Re:I'd rather give the $50 to a homeless person

[fluffernutter]

The last time I let a homeless person borrow my phone to watch a movie it didn't work out so well...

Waitig for the "features"

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so now tell us how your $50 home viewing ticket is going to compete with the $0 home viewing version that came out 16 days earlier with no previews or ads.

Come on guys, the theater experience is really the only benefit you're offering over the pirates. And even that is a 50/50 on if I regret going or not (granted it isn't the studios' fault if facilities are an embarrassment or the audience is borderline insufferable). Now I can pay 4x the price and wait 2.5 weeks to stream it to my budget home system?

I would sometimes go for that as a purchase

[SuperKendall]

$50 is pretty step, but for some movies I might pay that much if I was basically purchasing early.

But as a rental I also think that's too high, especially for only a 48-hour window. That said I might pay that much for home access to Star Wars movies after they were in the theater, which would save on repeat theater viewings (so far Star Wars movies are the only movies I ever see in the theaters multiple times).

One aspect of the cost people are not factoring is in the mental savings of not having hundreds of other annoying people surrounding you as you watch a movie. That is worth quite a lot by itself.

Seen 2 movies in the last 2 years

[Anonymous Coward]

1 was shit and the other was just OK. I would be unable to name 1 actor or 1 movie that could potentially be nominated for an oscar.

Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't pay to see it in the theater.
I didn't pay to buy it on BluRay.
I didn't pay to rent it on Amazon.
I didn't pay to watch it on Netflix.
I didn't pirate it either, because I'm pretty sure there's a 99% chance it sucks.

Now that IMDB closed the boards...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no easy way to find reliable reviews of the shitstains coming out of hollywood. I don't bother reading professional reviews, they're usually full of shit.

Re: Now that IMDB closed the boards...

[Anonymous Coward]

Imdb used to be a good source:

8 or above : potential
7 to 8 : maybe
6 to7 : unlikely
Else : crap

I further weighted the score like this:
US score > non US score : remove the difference times 0.5 (for some reason that worked pretty well)
Women score > men score : skip the movie.

Alas now it seems the population has changed and even a 9 is not a guarantee anymore ... T_T

When you have kids, $50 is cheap for a new movies

[BLToday]

Let's see, cheapest movie tickets I can get is Costco $35 for 4. Then I have to buy popcorn and drinks $20. I have to deal with 20 minutes of commercials and previews, annoying kids yelling over the movies (ok, sometimes those are mine and I'm embarrassed by it), people walking pass the screen to use the restroom, dealing with new openings crowd, parking and herding the kids to the theatre. Versus at home and calling a couple of other parents to make it movie night. Yeah, sign me up and save my sanity.

4K Versions

[Anonymous Coward]

These must be 4K HDR versions, lovingly prepared with maximum DRM and digitally delivered at your home cinema for that perfect green neighbor experience.

PASS

[rholtzjr]

I will pass on this option.

Obligatory xkcd

[marciot]

https://xkcd.com/606/

No, really. This applies to movies too. Why spend more to see it now when you can find it in the Walmart bargain bin a year later?

Re:Obligatory xkcd

[Anonymous Coward]

I am about 5+ years on TV shows. You can usually pick the whole lot up for 30 bucks. Movies it depends. For something blockbuster that I like I get it usually close to when it came out. Wait for the bargain bin or just netflix for the rest.

Cutting the cord has been amazing for my movie library. Its 2500+ at this point. Even if I watched 6 movies a day I still could not watch them all. For the ones I don't care about I donate to the local library.

Re:Obligatory xkcd

[Dutch Gun]

That comic also shows the downsides in a humorous way. You miss out on the social experience of sharing your thoughts about said movie (or game). Or if you do try to share, people will probably roll their eyes and walk away.

Re:Obligatory xkcd

[jareth-0205]

https://xkcd.com/606/

No, really. This applies to movies too. Why spend more to see it now when you can find it in the Walmart bargain bin a year later?

Depends on what it is and whether you want to be part of the cultural experience or not. The bigger films are quite often larger events that just the act of physically taking in the entertainment, there's conversations with friends, forums, youtube breakdowns, reviews with spoilers...

I went to see Star Wars VII on a 1st-day midnight showing, and it was very exciting. I don't care *that* much for Star Wars but it was just really fun going to the cinema with a bunch of people all excited to see something. Yeah it's fake but so is most human experiences.

Uh...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather just download it for free.

Re:Uh...

[DontBeAMoran]

I just wait until it shows up on Netflix on its own.

Re:Uh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. I watched everything worth watching for free. Screener time is the best.

Re:When you have kids, $50 is cheap for a new movi

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't "have" to buy popcorn and drinks for $20. Just say no. Your kids won't die. They'll learn important economic lessons and still get the entertainment you desire for them to enjoy. I have a 7 year old and we have never bought the popcorn or drinks unless they came with the tickets (Some of the Costco ones include popcorn and drinks for the same price as the ticket would be in the theatre). Sometimes she gets upset. Takes kids a while to understand that buying things from an emotional standpoint leaves you broke, so I'll suggest she waste her allowance on it then, and she gets the message really quickly (As in she's never actually spent it at a theatre because when it's your own money, even children get the point).

The other issues remain, but no need to spend on the overpriced food and drinks.

Why?

[wonkey_monkey]

Why would I want to rent someone's early home movies?

Definitely not worth it

[taustin]

Very few movies are worth watching for free. Paying several times as much to watch it over two weeks after it hits the theaters? No thanks. I think I saw two or three movies in the theater last year.

Here's a clue for you, Hollywood: If you want more of my money, make more movies that don't suck throbbing purple donkey dick. But we all know that's not going to happen.

Re:Definitely not worth it

[wonkey_monkey]

Hollywood: If you want more of my money

They don't care about your money. They make plenty from other people who are not you, which is the overwhelming majority of people on the planet, as it happens.

Re:Definitely not worth it

[floodo1]

Actually they do care about that money too ... they care about ALL money that they can possibly get, hence their "anti-piracy" efforts. DMCA notices are basically free but the lawyers behind them aren't ... when they got the DMCA passed into law and now when they continue to abuse it they show that they care.

It would be a far better world if the profits that you mentioned were sufficient for the movie studios, especially with how they manage their tax liabilities, but the cold reality is that they continue to go after people. Here is a recent example: https://torrentfreak.com/holly...

Re:Definitely not worth it

[Anonymous Coward]

"All the movies they make nowadays suck" is the laziest justification for piracy there is, at least think of a decent excuse for your cheapness.

Doing for cinemas what Uber did for taxis

[wonkey_monkey]

So, $50 to rent for 48 hours.

Invite 10 acquaintances over to watch the movie, suggest they pay a modest $2 contribution for, say, wear and tear on the carpet as they walk through the house to the TV room... two showings a day over two days... $30 profit!

Re:Doing for cinemas what Uber did for taxis

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell... charge $2 for a bowl of popcorn, $1 for a water and what not... rake in that money.

Sounds Fair

[WillAffleckUW]

50 cents is about right.

Think quantity

[Stonent1]

Think about having a watching party for a new release combined with party/barbecue or something. Maybe you could get your friends to pitch in and watch it on a 100" projection screen. The cost quickly becomes a non-issue.

Re:Think quantity

[Anonymous Coward]

C'mon dude. The public viewing/party viewing license will cost at least $1000.

What are you? Some sort of filthy pirate?

Movie Time!

[PatientZero]

Or invite over a few friends and split the cost. Oh, wait . . .

Re:Movie Time!

[fluffernutter]

Yeah I'm not really into charging friends to come to my house.

Re:Movie Time!

[suutar]

"Movie party! Gonna rent [flick]. Fred, you bring popcorn and milk duds; Larry, bring some sodas."

Re:Movie Time!

[Rakarra]

Or invite over a few friends and split the cost. Oh, wait . . .

That's the assumption that they're working from, not the cost-splitting part, but that multiple people will be watching.
They're thinking "Let's see, 4 people times $15 for an evening screening should be $60, so we'll charge under that...

Re:Movie Time!

[fluffernutter]

This will work until smart TVs are able to scan the number of people in a room. I'll give it a couple years.

I wonder what the Theater Chains think..

[bobbied]

My guess is that they are pitching a royal fit about this idea. They will not want to allow this, regardless of what it costs, unless the distribution companies make some kind of major concession. Theater chains fight hard to get exclusive rights to first run movies for a reason and they count on the suckers who feel they have to see the movie when it first comes out.

Distribution contracts for chains vary, but for the big movies, the distribution company gets a hefty percentage of the box office sales (as high as 100%) for first run films on opening weekend. After that, the percentage of the box office drops off as the film gets older and older. Where home viewers works for the distribution company (they get 100% of that take) it won't for the theater who losses out on concession sales and their percentage of the box office.

I wonder what the distribution companies are going to give up here? I also wonder what this actually says about the future of theaters? It is yet another nail in that long suffering industry's coffin, which started to die with the introduction of the VCR and video rental shops.

Think of it, now YOU can run a small theater business in your own home for $50 per showing.... If you have a small 12 seat media room, you can charge $20/seat, throw in $10 worth of drinks and popcorn and clear $170/showing. Two showings a night, two days a week and that's $680/week for 8 hours work. You'd only need to fill three seats to break even. Not bad money...

Wonderful

[Anonymous Coward]

After many years of frustration, my wife has some sensory issues that make the cinema overwhelming. This would be great because we could adjust the volume appropriately and lighting. Also pausing for snacks would be a bonus.

On what platform?

[Chas]

If you're making it generally available across multiple content providers, cool.

If it's going to be on a proprietary platform per-studio, or some abomination like Hulu? Fuck no.

Re:When you have kids, $50 is cheap for a new movi

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for a sane comment. I am a New Zealander. We seem to be able to sit through 90 or so minutes of movie without dying of starvation or passing out
from lack of hydration. Just concentrate on the movie. That is what you are there for after all! If you want ot eat and drink you can do it at home while watching the grass grow.

Patience

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll just save $40+ by being a little patient. Plus since I'm always behind on my movies I have no problem waiting to see the new releases. I have over 1000 movies in my movie queue.

Re:When you have kids, $50 is cheap for a new movi

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey dude I feel you.

I mean I have to pay £3000 to rent my own private theatre. And then I have to pay a private chef to come and cater the screening so my kids can eat their favorite food. And I have to pay for a limo to take me there and back so my kids can watch the $50 early release of whatever film they want to which, which I also have to pay for. And then when we get home to the mansion i had to buy, the serving staff i had to hire will only being me my solid gold chalice and crown if I pay them extra to carry it because of the weight. If only I didnt have to pay to encrust it with giant gemstones, but my kids insisted.

Being a parent sure is tough.

$50 to rent a movie?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off with that shit. Ain't nobody gonna do that.

Lol yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

This is how you stop piracy. Do these unmitigated cretins have even the vaguest semblance of a clue?

I just don't even understand the market they're going for here. Still, there may be some people willing to prop up this idea I guess.

Re:Lol yeah

[hambone142]

When I first read the caption, I thought it was $50/year which would have been reasonable. Fifty bucks per movie is insane. I don' t think many will bite the hook.

I can't wait...

[AlanBDee]

I think this is a great idea. I can imagine throwing a movie night/party with friends. Normally it would be silly to throw a party to see a new release after everyone can simply rent/buy the movie. In this I can buy/rent the movie and throw a BBQ. My friends and I often throw parties for Boxing/UFC fights or other sporting events. Now we have one more excuse to get together.

I won't do this for most movies but I may for some.

Not for you

[neoRUR]

They are not aiming this service at all of you who don't want to go out, wait for the movie to come to Netflix, are cheep that you don't want to pay for it, will download the pirate version anyways, or think that going to a movie is a loud and obnoxious thing (Which maybe it is on your area, but I have only encountered that a few times in the many years at the theater, but I don't go to the discount theaters anyways).

The point is, it's not for you, this is for the demographic of people that will pay to see it in their home early or don't want to go out.
This is to get an extra buck from those that want to see the movie but don't go to the theater for whatever reason.

Soon it will turn into same day releases at higher costs (and $50 is not that much.)

How they will combat someone ripping it and posting it, that will be the big question.

Re:Not that expensive ...to each their own, but

[Anonymous Coward]

I buy discount tickets at the auto club (AAA) for 8.5 dollars each.

Haven't bought overpriced sugarwater at a theatre in 10 years.

Theatre is about 5 dollars of gas away. That's $22 ( self and companion), less than half of your $50...

I just watched John Wick...

[Anonymous Coward]

...for $7. First run, only two others in there, on a monster screen. Took me 5 minutes to get there.

Fuck $50.

Yeah, shitty camcorder rips.

[Anonymous Coward]

Shitty kinescope type vids don't interest me, I can wait for a proper digital rip.

This is great!

[CptLoRes]

We will now get WEB-DL releases earlier.

Ughhh...

[pinzvidz]

Fuck off, Murdoch and co.

Being able to sell food deals with ticket prices?

[Joe_Dragon]

Being able to sell food deals with ticket prices? so they can clam $5-$6 of an $16 ticket as food cost and pocket it?

$50 is too much

[Anonymous Coward]

$50 is way too much for a streaming rental. Should be no more than say what you'd pay at the movies (otherwise why wouldn't you just see it at the movies) and should be less than you can rent it for later (less than you can buy it for later too?). So I think a reasonable price would be somewhere between $40AUD and $20AUD. I'd pay a max of $20AUD to stream a recent movie I'd just missed at the cinemas but it makes more sense to wait to rent (for around $9AUD) or to buy (for around $20AUD) later.

Hmmm

[the_Bionic_lemming]

50 bucks to watch it or be patient and get the cd/dvd for a buck or two?

On a side note, just watched the 1.00 blu ray of transformers 4 tonight.

I'm going to follow that up with 5 dollars of 65 hours of "get Smart".

Pawn shops are awesome.

Might net the studios more money.

[Anonymous Coward]

Since theaters get a portion of ticket revenue (increasing the longer the movie is in theaters), selling direct to the consumer allows the studios to receive a larger chunk of the revenue. If four people watch the movie, that's equivalent of $12.50 per ticket (cheaper than in some areas, more expensive elsewhere). But you won't have overpriced concessions.

It's the theaters that are going to get screwed in this arrangement.

behind all of this

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the a priori assumption that watching movies is some kind of fucking essential service or entitlement.

Or it just points to the fact that the majority of biomass in this country is so boring and pedestrian that $50 for a 90min hollywood blockbuster constitutes entertainment.

End times, man, end times.

Who was it?

[XSportSeeker]

I remember there was an interesting tidbit about this thing but I can't quite recall it. Wasn't it one of the Napster guys who came up with the idea?

Sad!

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you Donald Trump?

Outright theft of my idea in canada

[Anonymous Coward]

the idea was a levy at 1.50 for movies and tv and music PER MONTH ( would have tripled the current cdr levy for music say and added a constant stream a revenue )that warner ran off turned into 20$ (during our last copyright law upgrades ugh)

NOW i see they are making this PER movie ? I once was against violence ...but these people really need to be put down for crimes against all humanity

About time

[Anonymous Coward]

We live in the 21st century, we should not need to travel to a specific building to see a movie. Preferably I like to stream it the day it is released, but I guess this is better than nothing. If you can't buy the movie, the only alternative is torrents.

Here's my offer: $5

[_Shorty-dammit]

Five bucks. Take it or leave it.

Re:Being able to sell food deals with ticket price

[bobbied]

Well, that's how they make their money at theaters... Or did you think the box office was where they made the profit? For most first run movies, the box office is a pittance until you get into the third week. How many movies pack houses that long?

Think about what they sell at the concession stand. EVERYTHING they sell is cheap, nearly zero food cost with the containers being worth more than the food. Popcorn, Soda, candy? Likely the highest food cost thing they sell is nachos and hot dogs, but it's still under 5%. Their biggest cost is labor (and that fancy building with the uncomfortable seats).