Slashdot Mirror
Studios Flirt With Offering Movies Early in Home for $30 (variety.com)
It looks like Hollywood studios are not kidding around the concept of making the movies available in the home mere weeks after their theatrical debuts. Variety has a new report this week that claims that six out of seven Hollywood studios are in discussions. From the report: However, the companies, particularly Fox and Warner Bros., are showing greater flexibility about timing. Initially, Warner Bros. CEO Kevin Tsujihara had kicked off negotiations with exhibitors by offering to cut them in on a percentage of digital revenues if they agreed to let them debut films on-demand for $50 a rental some 17 days after they opened. Currently, most major movies are only made available to rent some 90 days after their release. Some studios offer films for sale electronically roughly 70 days after their bow in theaters. Other studios, particularly Fox and Universal, felt that $50 was too steep a price to ask consumers to pay. They are now trying to get exhibitors to agree to a plan that would involve a lower priced premium on-demand option that was made available at a slightly later date, according to three studio insiders and two exhibition insiders. Fox and Warner Bros., for instance, are considering making films available between 30 to 45 days after their opening, but at $30 a rental, a price they believe won't give customers sticker shock. Universal, which is seen as being the most aggressive negotiator in these talks, would like the home entertainment debut to remain in the 20-day range.
So film enthusiasts are supposed to spend themselves silly on 4K TV sets, upconverting BluRay players, broadband internet or streaming setups, and then you can't view a film the day it is released because you need to be at the cinema for that? What is the difference between me "not going to the cinema and waiting 90 days for the rental" and "not going to the cinema and waiting 0 days for the rental"? People who WANT to go to cinema WILL go to the cinema. What's the point of keeping people who like to see films @home waiting for 20 - 90 days anyway?
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
This will finally erase any remaining vestiges of differentiation between "true movies" and "direct to video"/TV shows etc. Which, in turn, in due time will eat into their profits. At the same time, they don't have much choice, do they?
Didn't we discuss this 2 or so weeks ago? Here's a summary of my conclusions (to save everybody time).
Your local theater chain is going to hate this idea, few people will pay this much to see the movie at home instead of the theater, somebody will figure out how to pirate the film from their living room with much better quality and have a full resolution torrent up within 3 hours of the film's release... I think distributers are fooling themselves thinking this will rake in more revenue...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I would want at least $100 from the studio to waste my time watching their movies. $800 to suffer through anything with Tom Cruse in it.
$30 is the price for 2 seats.
2 seats in a theatre. With a 75 foot screen and high-tech sound.
If you are a family with kids the $30 is a great value
$30 to watch a newish movie in your own home is terrible value when compared to literally every other in-home viewing option. This will interest some folks, but I suspect not very many.
If YouPorn, RedTube, PornHub and others are any indication, some are attention whores whores.
#DeleteFacebook
If they make it soon enough after the initial release it would totally be worth it.
$30 is ~ what you would pay for two tickets during non-prime hours, without the popcorn, soda, and goobers. If this were a family movie I could have my wife and kids plus whatever relatives and friends (especially their kids) in front of a current in theater movie with all the popcorn my hot-air popper can make and all the 3-liter soda and candy they can handle during that time period for less than the cost of three tickets.
The biggest problem I see is the spills directly affect furniture I own and I don't get the public performance benefit which counters my wife's pause button abuse issue.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
2 seats in a theatre. With a 75 foot screen and high-tech sound.
That you have to sit 100 feet away from. And the "high tech" sound is all about that base, bout that base, bout that base.
I have a projector. When I watch a movie at home the screen is filling as much of my vision as a pretty large movie theater.
I also honestly have MUCH better sound, and that is with a middle of the range receiver with cheap speakers (but there are five of them plus a subwoofer).
$30 to watch a newish movie in your own home is terrible value when compared to literally every other in-home viewing option.
That made no sense and I could not parse at all what you were trying to say, except for the general concept you were trying to get across of "you are wrong". But as noted, you don't even understand that sitting closer to a smaller screen gives an equivalent effect and you consider movie theater audio to be "high tech".
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Spend enough money for your kitchen equipment and ingredients, and why eat out anymore? Even if you suck at cooking, there are plenty of options for eating a variety of cuisine of decent quality at home.
Here's why.... people get stir-crazy and want an experience... an event... a reason to get out. True, not all theatres are a pleasant experience, but we have a few in my town with huge leather reclining seats, wide isles, and other and massively overpriced VIP options. So sometimes an 'experience' means leaving the house and sharing it with random strangers.
Oh, and 'bout that bass, I'd probably be evicted from my apartment if I decided to get 'dat bass. So pushing my culinary comments aside, for a lot of people, a big ol' theatre is still a better experience than in-home viewing.
There are two types of people in the world; those who believe there are two types of people, and those who don't.
If they make it soon enough after the initial release it would totally be worth it.
While your math adds up, I still can't get past the logic. Is the movie somehow worse if it's viewed two months later? $2 from Redbox still gets you the same movie experience you described, it is just a little later.
So if you pay $60 to take your kids there opening night you're a Good American. If you wait 30 days and pay $30 to watch it at home with the kids you're an idiot?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That you have to sit 100 feet away from.
You know there's multiple rows of seats to choose from right? There's a range to choose from you might find enjoyable. I suspect you hate the theatre in general for some reason though.
I have a projector and I like to rub my balls on my awesome sound system.
Good for you.
That made no sense and I could not parse at all what you were trying to say, except for the general concept you were trying to get across of "you are wrong".
I think maybe you're somehow overly offended by my post and your rage has left you unable to parse basic english.
But as noted, you don't even understand that sitting closer to a smaller screen gives an equivalent effect and you consider movie theater audio to be "high tech".
Like I said, some people (apparently you judging by your over-the-top reaction) will like this kind of service, and that's fine. But most people don't have a sound system that they would rub their balls on.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I personally follow your logic. I am much more likely to buy a BluRay later on and be happier because I get to keep it for about the same price or less than the rental. In fact a significant part of my movie collection is from the bargain table where they sell the former Redbox rentals and the like, I rarely pay normal retail for anything.
A house full of kids and family is a different thing. I consider what I described as an event, not a habit or one-off viewing. I can buy disks for my own thing as a habit and would by default rather use something in my own library. If however it's a kids birthday and I they want a movie party it's cheaper to do it the way the article describes than it is to rent the theater, or buy a bunch of tickets. When it comes to a kids birthday party all the kids probably already watched what's in my video library, possibly on other one off occasions at my place. In short I consider it completely different than a pay-per-view that you seem to be comparing it to. If I did it at this price once a year it would be surprising, but I would like the option to exist. In fact I wouldn't be against a sliding scale, even $100 during the premier week, $50 the next week etc... If it were for an event it would still be cheaper than buying a bunch of tickets or renting out a birthday/event room, and the kids can watch it in their pajamas and not worry about noise levels the way they wouldn't in a theater anyways.
Consider this a favor to movie goers that I keep this bunch out of the theater.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
$30 is ~ what you would pay for two tickets during non-prime hours, without the popcorn, soda, and goobers.
Maybe if I was intentionally trying to go to the most expensive theater in town.
I can easily purchase non-prime hour tickets at a value theater for $3.50 per ticket ($6 later in the evening) and even just picking a random theater few will break $10 each.
Granted - ticket prices vary by region of the country you may be in but if the movie studios aren't planning to ALSO vary this $30 rate they still are going to have to compete against cheaper tickets in those regions.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
When we take kids to the movies, we have to use earplugs because they never turn it down to child-safe levels for children's movies.
In my area some theaters have once-a-week baby-friendly viewings during the day. Generally has about 20-30 mothers toting a baby or young toddler, and they reduce the volume and keep the lighting brighter. I took a day off to go with my wife and it wasn't bad. Maybe they have a similar offer in your area? The caveat of course is that there is the occasional baby crying.
While your math adds up, I still can't get past the logic. Is the movie somehow worse if it's viewed two months later? $2
Worse, no, but it's also not topical. Part of the experience of seeing a movie when it premieres is being part of the buzz surrounding the discussion of the film. Humans are a social animal (realizing this is slashdot, I feel this must be pointed out), and sharing experiences - such as books or entertainment - is part of the enjoyment of the entertainment.
So, no, the movie is no worse, but the overall experience is diminished. For a second weekend showing, I'd be in for $30, maybe even $50, for a blockbuster. For a third to fifth weekend - most of the social shine is off of it so, no. Granted, I have a 125" screen and a nice sound system so I lose very little watching movies at home but it's still fun to go "out" with the family to see something brand new.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I guess that means we get better quality torrents on the first day instead of waiting weeks for the bluray.