Slashdot Mirror
Hollywood, Apple Said To Mull Rental Plan, Defying Theaters (bloomberg.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Movie studios are considering whether to ignore the objections of cinema chains and forge ahead with a plan to offer digital rentals of films mere weeks after they appear in theaters, according to people familiar with the matter. Some of the biggest proponents, including Warner Bros and Universal Pictures, are pressing on in talks with Apple and Comcast on ways to push ahead with the project even without theater chains, the people said. After months of negotiations, the two sides have been unable to arrive at a mutually beneficial way to create a $30 to $50 premium movie-download product. The leading Hollywood studios, except for Walt Disney, are eager to introduce a new product to make up for declining sales of DVDs and other home entertainment in the age of Netflix. They have discussed sharing a split of the revenue from premium video on demand, or PVOD, with the cinema chains if they give their blessing to the concept. But the exhibitors have sought a long-term commitment of as much as 10 years for that revenue split, which the studios have rejected, the people said. Deals with potential distributors such as Apple and Comcast could be reached as soon as early next year to sell digital downloads of major films as soon as two weeks after they debut in theaters, the people said.
I really enjoy the theater. The screen and sound simply can't be replicated at home. But the price is absolutely rediculous. The $12 admission is a tad high but for an occasional treat not unreasonable. The real offensive part is being charged $20 for a large popcorn and 2 drinks. Or if I'm alone, $16 for a popcorn and small glass of water.
The snack stand is going to be the demise of the theater.
As a side note. My theater is independent and doesn't show ads. I've been to an AMC recently and felt like Milton from Office space. Wanting to burn the building.
I go once a year, and it'll be to a movie like Star Wars on Day 1 where I want to want to watch it with a loud crowd. 99.9% of the time, I find other people's talking and cellphone glare to be distracting/annoying, and would prefer to use theater money to buy the movie outright a few months later.
I'm sorry, I'm not paying $30-$50 to watch any single movie. I can get entire seasons of TV shows I love for $20.
The cost of this is ludicrous. It makes me wonder if they're hoping this will fail hard so they can blame piracy or something silly like that.
wow, $30+ bucks for the privilege to watch some shitty movie at home vs waiting 6 months to watch the same shitty movie at home for $1 (or free)? Such a compelling value proposition, tell me more.
I came here with the intention of pointing out that all the movie theaters have to do is to create a good enough value and experience so as to make people want to see the movie in the theater instead of via whatever digital mechanism the studios are cooking up.
However, you make an excellent point that most movies are not actually worth watching. I watch several movies a week on DVD or Blu-Ray (from my local library). I have yet to see one on DVD or Blu-Ray that caused me to wish I had seen it in the theater. I see maybe two or three movies a year in the theater. The last one that I saw that felt was worth it was last year's Star Wars anthology movie (Rogue One), but that was more because I have been watching the Star Wars (and Star Trek) movies in the theater since I was a kid. Most every other movie I have seen in the theater has been forgettable and some even made me upset that I had spent that kind of money on a movie that ended up not being worth it. It is sort of difficult for the theaters to make a worthwhile experience when their product is so awful.
tl;dr - most movies are rubbish, no matter how they try to package them or how much or how little they charge for them, and given the incredibly easy access we now have to all sorts of media and entertainment, the theaters are on borrowed time.
If the movie studios kill the theatres then they (the movie studios) will become mere tv studios without an actual tv channel.
Television show production houses are a dime-a-dozen.
Who's going to pay $100 million dollars or more to make yet another made-for-tv movie?
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
This exactly. They have slowly DRM'd themselves out of the DVD/BluRay business by charging $18 for a DVD or $25 for a BluRay and format locking it while services like Netflix and premium Hulu have tons of content to chose from. Want to stream your DVD to your tablet? Sorry, you can't. You need to hit up a digital service like iTunes and pay yet again for the pleasure unless you bought multi-format from the get go. Hell, I have VHS/DVD movies from years ago before online streaming was even a thing, but the MPAA thinks I should be forced to pay again for a digital copy? Why exactly? I only bought a license according to the MPAA, my SD license should be valid in perpetuity. There was no expiration date on my movie.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
See that's what you don't understand. The snack stand is where the theater makes all their profit.
O think almost everyone understands this -- but it falls squarely into the category of "not my problem".
My theater is independent and doesn't show ads.
Then in all likelihood they won't be around for long.
I'm not so sure about that. In my town, there are three independent theaters that have been around for years now. All three do as much business as the big guys even though none of them show first-run movies. Their advantages: excellent service, beer and wine, reasonable prices, and relatively small, comfortable theaters filled with overstuffed couches and actual living-room-style chairs.
Those are really the only movie theaters I actually enjoy anymore, and judging by how popular they are, I'm not alone.