Hollywood's New Plan: New Films To Hit Homes in 30 Days

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
What do you think about watching new movies in the privacy of your own home just 30 days after its theatrical release for $20 - $30?

The cable company presented a variety of scenarios. But the main one, which has received early support from some studio executives, would allow consumers to watch a movie at home just 30 days after its theatrical release—far earlier than the usual four months—for roughly $20 to $30 a pop.
Click to expand...
 
I guess if you have a big family that would be alot cheaper than going to the theater.

I would just wait for it to be released on disc so I could own it since it's just me and the girl at home.
 
I think they are insane to expect someone to pay $20 to $30 for a rental. That's more than going to the theater.
 
I think this will be seen as an attractive opportunity, and theater companies and distributors are not going to like it and will likely fight it vehemently.
 
considering movies cost me $10.75 per ticket i would be down for it.

plus , IMO my local theater sucks. me and my bro were complaining about the crappy quality on the projectors.
 
Budzman said:
I guess if you have a big family that would be alot cheaper than going to the theater.

I would just wait for it to be released on disc so I could own it since it's just me and the girl at home.
Click to expand...

I’ve always just waited for the physical media for the same reasons. Not to mention wait a few weeks longer and the movie becomes part of the movie packages on cable.
 
zainali said:
considering movies cost me $10.75 per ticket i would be down for it.

plus , IMO my local theater sucks. me and my bro were complaining about the crappy quality on the projectors.
Click to expand...

Yup if theater prices weren't so hi for the quality they provide it would be ok.
 
I guess it's hard for me to estimate how other families might be impacted, but personally I see this as a non event.

If something is on at the movies that I want to see, I can afford to go see it. If by chance I miss something, it's no big deal to wait for the Blu-ray or DVD. I can't think of anything Hollywood can spit out that I can't wait for, though I do enjoy movies.

The one thing that I suppose would be nice, is it would eliminate the babysitter fee that I have to tack onto a night at the movies. But heck, it's nice to get out and do something once in a while so I'm not too hung up on that.

I guess I see this as a product that either has no market, or simply isn't "for me".
 
With AMC breaking the $20/ticket mark with 3D Shrek, this seems like a steal. :p

In all seriousness, it's about $12/ticket here and I never go to a movie alone, so $25 would be right in-line with the theater, except I'd be able to save on snacks, increased comfort, and have readily-available alcohol. :D
 
This would have been nice to have when some of the movies my Daughter and I wanted to see came out in theaters while she was in the hospital.
 
For $20-30 they can suck my balls. Who the hell do the studios think they are? Who the hell would pay that? I'm just fine catching it on a weekday after work at a discount or waiting until it comes out on dvd.
 
I can dig it.


I probably wouldn't use it very often, but I can see how it would be attractive to some people, especially families. I'm single at the moment (no kids or anything) but I brought my sister and her kids to see the chipmunks movie a month or two ago and I cost me nearly 100.00 after tickets and snacks. That's a little ridiculous
 
sounds like a competitive pricing model. My wife and I drop 25-30 on going to the theater easy after paying for tickets and refreshments. I would prefer our home theater setup and the comfort of being at home to the theater. We get to drink alcohol, and the snacks are a hell of a lot cheaper.

So few movies are even worth seeing in the theater anymore. We only go two-three times a year as it is.
 
$20 for a RENTAL? Screw that.

At least it's a step in the right direction to actually combat piracy
 
sweet! that's within the range that my memory will still function, Four months and I forget about movies. But, did they actaully make this whole statement without mentioning EBIL PYWATS!!!
 
wtiger said:
For $20-30 they can suck my balls. Who the hell do the studios think they are? Who the hell would pay that? I'm just fine catching it on a weekday after work at a discount or waiting until it comes out on dvd.
Click to expand...

Not to mention it’s not like the movie industry has had any really stellar product to sell these days. They are killing themselves.

Google the expected “Remakes of movies in 2010” and you begin to wonder why they hire writers at all.
 
Delivered over the cable operators crap network to their shitty set top box as over compressed nodef crap? No thanks.
 
They obviously are not worried about piracy cause they know that it will be pirated. And thinking along their lines they may say something like this 'Due to people pirating our new service it has caused a drastic decline in profits for all theatrical releases'.
 
$10 and 14 days would be better. Cinema ticket prices also need to go down. It's just not worth the cost compared to other forms of entertainment.
 
Movie with kids: $7.25 * 3 + $10.00 = $32 for tickets, assuming no purchases while there and the other parent staying home (sometimes not possible).

Movie for adults: $10 * 2 + $15 = $35 (assuming dirt cheap babysitting: 3 kids for $5/hour for 3 hours -- if we were in Seattle I'd expect it to run $60+ just for the babysitting).


If you don't have kids this early rental idea seems silly. But with kids, going out to theaters is really expensive. If you have a child under 3 it's also a gamble taking them out -- I spent most of one movie in the lobby taking care of the youngest who didn't want to sit through the show. Note that if you have young kids you also want another adult along or you'll be packing all the kids up any time one of them wants to go to the bathroom or gets scared or bored or starts asking loudly for me to pause the movie for them.

Personally I'd just wait the extra time for the disk to come out and either rent it (e.g. Netflix) or buy it. We discovered quite some time ago that it was cheaper to buy DVDs than to go to theaters. We also get to see the whole movie since we can pause every 15 minutes instead of missing a big piece.
 
other than the whole "herd" syndrome, where you must go see a movie because everybody else has seen it, how is that better than any rental at less than a 1/4 of the price?

"saves you money compared to the theater".
That reminds me of an old joke:
A (insert relevant nationality stereotype) kid comes up to his father, all sweaty and excited, and tells him: "Dad! I just saved 3$ running after the bus instead of sitting in it!"
In response, his father immediately smacks him.
"Why did you hit me, dad?" asks the kid.
"Idiot, if you had run after a taxi you'd have saved 20$!"
 
Considering movie tickets are ~10 dollars a pop and you just about always go with at least one other person, this doesn't seem all that awful. I'd much rather watch movies in the comfort of my own home and not have to pay 10 dollars for popcorn and soda then sit in a scummy theater surrounded by other people.
 
I can't stand to pay more than 10$ to go to a GOOD theater. I'm sure as hell not going to pay 20-30$ to RENT a movie, I could BUY at that price a few months later. Furthermore, I can get it on-demand for well under 10$ not that long after that.

If they want to start selling movies again, start giving me a reason to watch them. Stop remaking crap. Start producing good, original content. Enough with 10s millions of dollars of CGI, you don't need it to have a good movie. Lord of the rings was nice with it, however the books had no CGI (or even moving pictures!) and did just fine without it.

Furthermore, stop trying to sell me a DVD that contains a 90 min video, that I have to watch 4-5 ads for other videos, and 16 "don't pirate this movie" warnings. Some of that shit is annoying enough to make you want to pirate it.

About the only thing I'm willing to do anymore is on-demand stuff because I don't have to deal with all that crap. However, 30$ is a far cry from the 6$ or whatever for on-demand stuff. Five times the price to see it a little earlier? No, thanks.
 
ianken said:
Delivered over the cable operators crap network to their shitty set top box as over compressed nodef crap? No thanks.
Click to expand...

Depends on your provider. Suddenlink is small, but yet big enough to provide the on-demand stuff. So they're perfect for this kind of thing.

Sure way to fight privacy? $1 rentals without having to get your butt off the couch.
That $20-30 nonsense isn't going to help it.
 
For those of us who are single, or no more than a couple, it's simply too much. Granted there are some who are truly wealthy, and I agree that they should be spared the indignity of a trip to the theater. But I suspect the rest of us will have to forgo the offer out of economic necessity... :p;):rolleyes:
 
I thought the same exact thing you guys are ranting about. 20 dollars... ridiculous, right?

Well.. we are thinking individually that is a "rip" off...

WRONG. If you consider watching a movie with a group of people, and everyone throws in a couple bux, then it isn't such a rip off.

I am all for this, especially if you have a family, the costs of going to a theater is ridiculous. 10 dollars a ticket, 5-10 dollars for candy and a drink. You're looking at spending 50+ dollars.
 
Considering how many good movies were ruined by retards bringing their 2 year olds to the theater, I`d be game for this.
 
$10 yes, $20+Nope.

I'll just wait till I can get it on Netflix for what I'm already paying.
 
Personally I'm all for it. At least the movie studios are TRYING to adapt to changing times rather than constantly trying to penalize the consumer and change the laws to protect their dying business model.

However the movie studios will probably fuck it right up by forcing people to watch 25 minutes of previews and ads that you can't skip, and then they'll be all bent out of shape when piracy stays the same (or increases).

The key is offering something of value, the customer has to have a perceptible increase in value or else they just won't pay. Steam has proven this, having access to ALL your games 24/7 no matter where you go is simply awesome, automatic patching is another big one. Steam, even though you lose the physical copy, ends up offering more, not less, for the same price. And that's why it succeeds.

They just need to realize often people pirate so they can watch movies on whatever device they want, ad-free... the convenience of piracy is often what they're attracted to, not the "free" price tag.

People are generally good, and willing to pay for media they like. But they won't deal with ads and other bullshit forced down their throat, when it's so bloody easy to acquire ad-free, DRM free, and now identical quality copies in a matter of an hour or two.
 
I refuse to pay 20 bucks a ticket to go see a movie, what makes them think i will pay 20 to 30 bucks to watch it in my house?

I will just wait for the people who share the movie :D

If it was maybe 15 bucks MAX, then yes.. but anything near or over 20 dollars, the mpaa can fuck off.
 
Last trip to the theater put me out over $30, was lesser quality than my HDTV, and damn near resulted in getting kicked out when me and a dude who insisted on chatting it up on his phone almost went at it. I'm in.
 
MrGuvernment is spot on with the link, that's the only reason that this will happen, even then only people with compatible setups will be able to do this. For the average family that isn't living with new tech to support this is still gonna be stuck going to the theaters, not to mention the people with cable boxes without HDMI ports. I imagine this will only be reaching a small percentage of people so the theaters should be OK for now. The only problem I see with this is for when stuff like this and this become commonplace and they start going lawsuit crazy again because a bad decision that they made is making them go from obscene profits to just profits.
 
thought the same exact thing you guys are ranting about. 20 dollars... ridiculous, right?

Well.. we are thinking individually that is a "rip" off...

WRONG. If you consider watching a movie with a group of people, and everyone throws in a couple bux, then it isn't such a rip off.

I am all for this, especially if you have a family, the costs of going to a theater is ridiculous. 10 dollars a ticket, 5-10 dollars for candy and a drink. You're looking at spending 50+ dollars.
Click to expand...

The ONLY situation this makes sense in is if you have a family. Then it is purely obvious economics.

There are several things that make this offer unattractive:

* Unless you actually have a nice tv & audio setup, the experience is not going to be close to what you have in the theater (purely from an audio/visual perspective).
* Hopefully you have a high speed internet connection because guess what, high definition movies are going to take up bandwidth. Hope that you don't get throttled or interrupted in the middle of your movie! Are they going to give you a mechanism to pause it? possible, but not guaranteed.
* You can BUY the DVD/Blu-Ray at that price when its comes out.
* You won't be able to watch any 3D movies doing this. So 3D Shrek costing $20? Yes thats for a good reason because its a unique experience that you can't get at home. (not saying its worth that much).
* People go to the movies a lot of times not just because something is popular or they feel peer-pressure, but because they like to get out of the house. They like to have an evening out, dinner, movie, or just the movie. Its good for a change of pace than sitting at home all evening or day.
* What about if you want to invite your friends? Gotta clean up the house! make sure the viewing angles are all good and the sound angles, etc. don't want anyone to have a lesser experience, do you? Basically -- going to the movies eliminates a lot of hassle.
 
MrGuvernment said:
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/05/07/fcc-hands-hollywood.html
Click to expand...
That won't stop jack. But if they do that ONLY for rented stuff it'd be OK. But it's still stupid being as long as there's a video stream to the TV, you can duplicate it.

wiseoracle said:
I am all for this, especially if you have a family, the costs of going to a theater is ridiculous. 10 dollars a ticket, 5-10 dollars for candy and a drink. You're looking at spending 50+ dollars.
Click to expand...
I never got people that do this, I mean... You can't wait 2 hours to eat or drink????? :confused:

RyanLucier said:
They just need to realize often people pirate so they can watch movies on whatever device they want, ad-free... the convenience of piracy is often what they're attracted to, not the "free" price tag.
Click to expand...
Bingo. Pirates pirate because you can simply watch the AVI or burned DVD instantly. No menus, no 30 minutes of ads. Stripping out the copy-protection crap also means it works on a bigger range of devices.

Seriously though, offer $1 rentals at home and that'd be insanely popular. At cost so low, piracy wouldn't be worth the effort anymore (at least given, as you said, they don't screw it up by mandating an insane amount of ads).

My cable company (Suddenlink) has On Demand shows. I can watch HD shows of The Office, and watch a max of 3 ads during the whole thing. Less ads than the live version. I'd pay $1 for a movie that had minimal ads like that, hands down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top