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.

Comments

way too low

[dprimary]

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.

Re:Hahahahaha

[pecosdave]

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.

Re:It's not about the screen size, it's field of v

[Phics]

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.