Forgot your password?

typodupeerror
Businesses Movies

Netflix Will Delay Renting New WB Releases 418

Posted by kdawson
from the times-they-are-a-changin' dept.
DesertBlade tips the news that Netflix will delay renting new releases from Warner Brothers for 28 days, and adds "Luckily I am so far behind in my movie watching that I will probably never catch up anyway." "It's part of a strategy by several studios to create staggered releases of DVDs so that the most profitable transactions are available first and cheaper rental options take effect further down the road. The move could be copied by other studios, forcing consumers to wait nearly a month if they want to rent popular movies from Netflix. ... The studio is hoping that the four-week window will push consumers interested in watching movies at home to buy the DVDs or pay a premium to rent them from stores like Blockbuster or from Internet and cable video-on-demand services. Warner Bros. already imposes a 28-day window on $1-a-night kiosk firm Redbox."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Netflix Will Delay Renting New WB Releases

Comments Filter:
  • by Sebilrazen (870600) <blahsebilrazen@blah.com> on Thursday January 07 2010, @06:11PM (#30688342)
    1090p, cause it's like 10 more.
  • by SCPRedMage (838040) on Thursday January 07 2010, @06:28PM (#30688554)

    Pirating is just so 19th century.

    Perhaps. But the hats are AWESOME.

  • by Simonetta (207550) on Thursday January 07 2010, @07:21PM (#30689098)

    But "28 Days Later" wasn't that good.

        If there's a 'must-see' then we don't know about it until it's out of the first-run theaters. How else are you going to know that the film is good? People that go to first run movies, spend $10 each for tickets, $25 for babysitter, $5 for popcorn, and $4 for popcorn aren't going to tell you that the movie wasn't anything but good. And the second week people are always going to say the film is good to prove that they can wait for quality.

        No, you gotta wait until the movie reaches the second-run $3 theaters. If it isn't any good then it won't get to these theaters. The studio will blitz the opening night with deceptive ads for a turkey and then go straight to DVD.

        If it's a real 'must-see' then just watch the previews/trailers until you know the whole movie. Your average Hollywood movie can have its entire look/feel/plot experienced in a three minute preview (Spiderman III, Superman Ten, anyone?).

        Nah, If it's worth seeing, then it's worth waiting for the DVD. And if it's really good, then it will make it to the library shelf where it will be free for a week or more.

        And if it's great, then it's timeless quality. So why not wait a year or two to see it? What difference does it make? Now's the time to go to the library and check out for free all the excellent movies that you decided not to see because you didn't want to spend $10 on an independent or foreign film when it was in the theaters.

        Myself, I always save the best for last. Maybe this week I'll watch this movie called 'Star Wars' that I've been hearing people rave about for so long.

  • by L3370 (1421413) on Thursday January 07 2010, @07:38PM (#30689204)
    my mom worked at a video rental store for a bit and I'd loiter around a lot.

    $75 was norm--up to 150 for big time releases. The tapes would then go on sale for 15-$20 after they've made enough money on rentals or when the tapes were played so much that quality started to wane. I think producing the videos on linear media took a significant block of time, even after the progression of the technology. Probably why the prices remained high even after years of use.

    One day I saw what they do to "fix" bad tracking sections on the tape. They just cut it out. 2 seconds of bad tracking was like 10 feet of tape. I got a kick out of how they could chop this out and no one would notice.
  • by nextekcarl (1402899) on Thursday January 07 2010, @07:50PM (#30689292)

    I know! How you you think I got this eye patch!

  • by Chris Tucker (302549) on Thursday January 07 2010, @07:50PM (#30689294) Homepage

    "I do not download movies or songs from torrent sites because the risk is too high."

    Too true!

    If only there was SOME way to use the net to safely download the latest.

    What news this would be to groups of people seeking an alternative to bit torrent for their binary files.

    Oh, Internet! Why have you failed us so?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2010, @08:16PM (#30689498)

    1990 called... It wants its prices back.

  • by The End Of Days (1243248) on Thursday January 07 2010, @08:48PM (#30689712)

    That's the best excuse to pirate I've ever read. You win Slashdot.

  • by FatdogHaiku (978357) on Thursday January 07 2010, @10:28PM (#30690298)

    "Perhaps. But the hats are AWESOME."

    Yaahrrr... but gettin' the peg-leg and hook installed can be a mite painful.

    Aye, an the first time ye scratch yer balls afterward can be a life changing event!

  • by cayenne8 (626475) on Thursday January 07 2010, @11:35PM (#30690626) Homepage Journal
    "It's about established players like Blockbuster willing to pay a larger cut to studios to rent movies first."

    I'm confused...I thought Blockbuster went out of business?

    Everyone I've seen in a few cities, have people on the streets in front of them with going out of business sales...?

Space is to place as eternity is to time. -- Joseph Joubert

Working...