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

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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.

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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[future assassin]

and watch a pirated cam version.