Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by msmash on from the shape-of-things-to-come dept.

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.

12 of 248 comments (clear)

  1. Why stop at $50? by JoeyRox · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Why stop at $50? by fred6666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Why stop at $50? by ranton · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    3. Re:Why stop at $50? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    4. Re:Why stop at $50? by Rakarra · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  2. So 16 days after they hit piratebay? by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  3. Re:Dinner and an Other Movie for less. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  4. Not that expensive by ranton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    1. Re:Not that expensive by fluffernutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    2. Re:Not that expensive by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    3. Re:Not that expensive by sexconker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Not that expensive by AlanBDee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.