Studios Push for $50 Early Home Movie Rentals (variety.com) 248
As many as five major Hollywood studios have been working with cinema owners to shrink the traditional release window and allow consumers to rent movies on-demand in as little as 17 days after they hit theaters, reports Variety. From the article: Warner Bros. and Universal have been the most aggressive in pursuing an arrangement that would see certain movies receive a premium video-on-demand release within weeks of their theatrical premieres, but now other studios are joining the discussions. Twentieth Century Fox has also begun to talk early releases with theater owners, while Sony is having its own separate talks with exhibitors and is trying to devise its own plan. Paramount, which previously did a pilot program with AMC and a few other exhibitors to release "Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse" and "Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension" on digital platforms early, has continued to seek a similar strategy. Though different studios are exploring different scenarios, the plan that has gathered the most steam would involve offering up movies for $50 a rental some 17 days after their theatrical opening. Those rentals would be available for 48 hours. The latest round of discussions began roughly 18 months ago.
Why stop at $50? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why stop at $50? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well if you go to the theater with a group of friends it can add up quickly to $50 or more especially if you buy pop corn and the movie is in 3D.
Re:Why stop at $50? (Score:5, Funny)
If you're lounging with 6 people in your underwear, you're probably not paying that much attention to the movie.
Re: (Score:3)
If you're lounging with 6 people in your underwear, you're probably not paying that much attention to the movie.
You were thinking of a bunch of hungover students in digs at 4 in the afternoon, right? right?
Re: (Score:2)
Who the hell goes to the cinema any more, only to see retreads. Got something new, fine but endless shit retreads of which that POS ghostbusters was the prime example, fuck it. Last movie, Guardians Of the Universe, quite fun on the bigscreen, since then the rest have been pretty shite and only worth picking up in the supermarket bargain bin, so many crap Jar Jar Abrams specials with the stupid food, drink and cinema ticket package deals to hugely inflate gross ticket revenues to hide crap movies (yep a who
Re: (Score:2)
One person will pay it, so they can be the first to upload a torrent to The Pirate Bay
Re: (Score:2)
One person will pay it, so they can be the first to upload a torrent to The Pirate Bay
And you don't figure that they won't water mark YOUR copy of the movie so they will know exactly who did this and come after you?
(Or, in reality, you don't think they will protect the content by using encryption, custom player software and other DRM techniques to make it necessary for you to break into the HDMI signals directly to capture the video? Or are you planning to record it using your video camera pointed at the TV?)
Re:Why stop at $50? (Score:4, Informative)
HDMI capture card. Watermark is useless when payment was with a disposable/stolen card.
The guys who do these rips and releases have been doing it with other streaming services for years.
Re: (Score:2)
HDMI capture card. Watermark is useless when payment was with a disposable/stolen card.
The guys who do these rips and releases have been doing it with other streaming services for years.
So who broke into HDMI? I thought they guarded the keys to the kingdom pretty well and unless you happened on some stolen keys your player wasn't going to talk to your display/Capture card for love or money. If you did find some stolen keys, all they have to do is invalidate them and sooner or later your capture card will go on the blink as your devices get new keys. You can bet the content owners would do their best to make sure all your HDMI devices got updated before they let you play anything.
Watermar
Re: (Score:2)
HDMI capture card
Defeated by HDCP, when they turn that on. More and more devices now refuse to output if everything in the chain isn't HDCP-compliant, which broke my home theater setup when I tried connecting my HDCP-enforcing Roku to my HDMI matrix (splits signal into two different rooms).
Re: (Score:2)
HDCP 1.x is defeated. Publicly and trivially.
HDCP 2.2 isn't, as far as I know, publicly defeated. One vendor made and sold a working stripper at one point, but I don't know if it's still functional (I believe HDCP 2.2 has more updating capability to revoke blacklisted decoders). They also got sued.
Re: (Score:2)
At the very least, very high quality cam recordings would come out of this.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a movie script idea for you Hollywood: Make a sequel to Superman where Lex Luther actually does sink California in the ocean. That I'd like to see.
Be careful what you wish for. They might do so, and it might be a documentary. Indeed, orange rhymes with climate change denial...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why stop at $50? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't blame Marvel or DC for milking that cow, but I don't understand why audiences haven't lost interest.
Because most of them are actually quite decent as movies. I didn't watch Ant-Man and will probably skip yet another Spider-Man reboot, but Doctor Strange was mild fun, Deadpool was great, and Civil War pretty great too.
Re: (Score:2)
Non-comic-book movies I've seen recently that are absolutely fantastic, not utter crap:
Hacksaw Ridge
Manchester By The Sea
Arrival (actually this was just 'good,' not fantastic)
Rogue One (except maybe some of the weird CG human stuff at the end)
Finding Dory
Zootopia
Kubo and the Two Strings
Sadly I've been busy of late and haven't had time to watch that much, and there are a number I'd love to see but haven't, like Fences, Moonlight, La La Land, John Wick 2 (comic book movie? Video game movie??), Ip Man 3 (delic
Re: (Score:2)
Non-comic-book movies I've seen recently that are absolutely fantastic, not utter crap:
Hacksaw Ridge
Manchester By The Sea
Arrival (actually this was just 'good,' not fantastic)
Rogue One (except maybe some of the weird CG human stuff at the end)
Finding Dory
Zootopia
Kubo and the Two Strings
Sadly I've been busy of late and haven't had time to watch that much, and there are a number I'd love to see but haven't, like Fences, Moonlight, La La Land, John Wick 2 (comic book movie? Video game movie??), Ip Man 3 (delicious chinese propaganda).
Zootopia was good.
Finding Dory was lame. Maybe the kids like it, I don't know. But there's nothing in it worthwhile if you've already seen Finding Nemo.
Manchester by the Sea is a depressing, boring, grey turd. It's extremely overrated even if you go in with the attitude of wanting to drown yourself in a miserable bog. I've discussed this movie in detail before. [slashdot.org]
Arrival is fucking dogshit. If the fucking heptapods can see the fucking future why couldn't they see us learning each others' languages (and th
Re: (Score:2)
Manchester by the Sea is a depressing, boring, grey turd. It's extremely overrated even if you go in with the attitude of wanting to drown yourself in a miserable bog. I've discussed this movie in detail before. [slashdot.org]
I actually had a fun time watching this movie. About 15 minutes in I remembered "Hey, wasn't this that movie Casey Affleck said was depressing in his monologue hosting SNL?" But I had fun. I knew it was going to be super-depressing, so eventually I just couldn't help but start laughing. I mean, I knew nothing was really going to get better, so the endless parade felt like a parody, and I enjoyed the parody. I also think it's a great character study of a fundamentally broken man who hasn't yet found a way to
Re:Why stop at $50? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not make it $500, at least if you're intention is to charge a wishful price that nobody is going to pay anyway.
You must not have young children (who need a costly babysitter), rarely go to a movie with friends or family (thus reducing the price per viewer below movie theater pricing), or perhaps live in a low cost area where tickets aren't pushing $15 per person. Because otherwise you wouldn't think $50 for this service was wishful thinking on the part of the studios.
I would gladly pay $50 for a dozen or so movies per year so I don't need to spend $50+ per night on a babysitter.
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus man, take your wife out once in a while, will you? She probably loves the fact that you can hire a babysitter and get a night out without the kids. At least that was my experience when my kid was young enough to need a babysitter.
Re: (Score:2)
That changes everything. But I imagine you have better things to spend $50 on. The need to see something the minute it comes out is something I never understood, but then I spent a good deal of my younger life watching movies that were made before I was born.
I wish you well, friend.
Re: (Score:2)
You still only have the same amount of movies per year. They are just talking about reducing the lag.
So in the month they introduce it, you might catch up and get another half dozen movies for $50 each, but after that its just more expensive video rental.
Cant you just wait ?
Re: (Score:2)
Really? With a 4K TV and matching material, just move closer to the screen and volia! You have a larger screen... Well Up to a point you do. I mean having a large screen that's 200' away from you is kind of like having a somewhat big one 100' away. 60" at 5 feet is pretty darn big, when you consider how much of your visual field it covers.
Personally, the real reason is to get both the screen size, brightness and SOUND QUALITY. Although, all these can be approximated at home for less than you think if y
Re: (Score:3)
There's no rule saying you have to be related to watch the movie together. It makes sense for most people if 4+ of them (at $13/ea ticket prices) are willing to get together and watch as a group. I have a 5.1 home theater system with a projector that throws a 12' x 7' image, and that's exactly what my friends and I occasionally do.
The fly in the ointment isn't the price. It's the entire concept of watching
Re: Why stop at $50? (Score:2)
Movie theater = $6 parking, $25 for 2.5 hours of babysitting, $15 for two movie tickets. So if my wife and I are really hyped to see a new movie, then $50 for the comfort of our basement media room is about the right price point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not make it $500, at least if you're intention is to charge a wishful price that nobody is going to pay anyway.
FYI, Prima Cinema charges just that [slashfilm.com] plus a $35,000 initial fee. It's how millionaires watch same day cinema releases without the plebs bothering them. Maybe that offer and this offer isn't for you...
Re: (Score:2)
I assume they have done some market research and think that $50 would be the price point that would make them the most money. Fair enough - they are a business, they have every right to set prices where they want, and consumers have every right to choose to purchase or not at that price.
$50 is more than some people can afford, and insignificant to others.
So 16 days after they hit piratebay? (Score:4, Insightful)
No thanks. I'll just keep not seeing them. Yeah, not seeing them, that's the ticket.
I'm really disappointed with Scottish pirates. Trainspotting 2 has been in release in Scotland for weeks and there are no torrents on piratebay.
Re: (Score:2)
Wife and I saw it last week, and it's a good one. You're going to enjoy it.
Dinner and an Other Movie for less. (Score:2)
I can take my sweetie to a nice dinner and released movie for less than $50.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I used to be able to do that too. Now three kids later, $50 for an evening out: dinner OR movie is well over $50. No way we're all doing both.
Turns out though that homemade pizza, popcorn, and movies in the living room (with a blanket fort or two as well) are much more fun.
Confession (Score:2)
I have not been in a cinema for months, and neither have the majority of people have seen any of the oscar 2017 films of which are oddly not superhero films.
I'd rather give the $50 to a homeless person (Score:5, Interesting)
and watch a pirated cam version.
Re: (Score:2)
And use that free wash on the homeless person.
Re: (Score:2)
I would sometimes go for that as a purchase (Score:2)
$50 is pretty step, but for some movies I might pay that much if I was basically purchasing early.
But as a rental I also think that's too high, especially for only a 48-hour window. That said I might pay that much for home access to Star Wars movies after they were in the theater, which would save on repeat theater viewings (so far Star Wars movies are the only movies I ever see in the theaters multiple times).
One aspect of the cost people are not factoring is in the mental savings of not having hundreds of
When you have kids, $50 is cheap for a new movies (Score:2)
Let's see, cheapest movie tickets I can get is Costco $35 for 4. Then I have to buy popcorn and drinks $20. I have to deal with 20 minutes of commercials and previews, annoying kids yelling over the movies (ok, sometimes those are mine and I'm embarrassed by it), people walking pass the screen to use the restroom, dealing with new openings crowd, parking and herding the kids to the theatre. Versus at home and calling a couple of other parents to make it movie night. Yeah, sign me up and save my sanity.
PASS (Score:2)
I will pass on this option.
Obligatory xkcd (Score:3)
https://xkcd.com/606/ [xkcd.com]
No, really. This applies to movies too. Why spend more to see it now when you can find it in the Walmart bargain bin a year later?
Re: (Score:2)
That comic also shows the downsides in a humorous way. You miss out on the social experience of sharing your thoughts about said movie (or game). Or if you do try to share, people will probably roll their eyes and walk away.
Re: (Score:3)
https://xkcd.com/606/ [xkcd.com]
No, really. This applies to movies too. Why spend more to see it now when you can find it in the Walmart bargain bin a year later?
Depends on what it is and whether you want to be part of the cultural experience or not. The bigger films are quite often larger events that just the act of physically taking in the entertainment, there's conversations with friends, forums, youtube breakdowns, reviews with spoilers...
I went to see Star Wars VII on a 1st-day midnight showing, and it was very exciting. I don't care *that* much for Star Wars but it was just really fun going to the cinema with a bunch of people all excited to see something. Yea
Why? (Score:2)
Why would I want to rent someone's early home movies?
Definitely not worth it (Score:2)
Very few movies are worth watching for free. Paying several times as much to watch it over two weeks after it hits the theaters? No thanks. I think I saw two or three movies in the theater last year.
Here's a clue for you, Hollywood: If you want more of my money, make more movies that don't suck throbbing purple donkey dick. But we all know that's not going to happen.
Re: (Score:3)
Hollywood: If you want more of my money
They don't care about your money. They make plenty from other people who are not you, which is the overwhelming majority of people on the planet, as it happens.
Doing for cinemas what Uber did for taxis (Score:2)
So, $50 to rent for 48 hours.
Invite 10 acquaintances over to watch the movie, suggest they pay a modest $2 contribution for, say, wear and tear on the carpet as they walk through the house to the TV room... two showings a day over two days... $30 profit!
Think quantity (Score:2)
I wonder what the Theater Chains think.. (Score:2)
My guess is that they are pitching a royal fit about this idea. They will not want to allow this, regardless of what it costs, unless the distribution companies make some kind of major concession. Theater chains fight hard to get exclusive rights to first run movies for a reason and they count on the suckers who feel they have to see the movie when it first comes out.
Distribution contracts for chains vary, but for the big movies, the distribution company gets a hefty percentage of the box office sales
Being able to sell food deals with ticket prices? (Score:2)
Being able to sell food deals with ticket prices? so they can clam $5-$6 of an $16 ticket as food cost and pocket it?
On what platform? (Score:2)
If you're making it generally available across multiple content providers, cool.
If it's going to be on a proprietary platform per-studio, or some abomination like Hulu? Fuck no.
I can't wait... (Score:2)
I think this is a great idea. I can imagine throwing a movie night/party with friends. Normally it would be silly to throw a party to see a new release after everyone can simply rent/buy the movie. In this I can buy/rent the movie and throw a BBQ. My friends and I often throw parties for Boxing/UFC fights or other sporting events. Now we have one more excuse to get together.
I won't do this for most movies but I may for some.
Not that expensive (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering I spend about $35 on two tickets plus concessions, $50 is not that bad to be able to watch new movies without leaving the house. I often see blockbuster movies with 2-4 friends or family members, so then its a bargain. And in my current situation I need a babysitter to see a movie in the theater, so this would cut the cost of a movie in half for my wife and I right now.
I certainly wouldn't call it cheap, but the price is about what I expected.
Re:Not that expensive (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah but it would be way cheeper to pirate a copy uploaded by someone who rented it and cracked the DRM.
Re: (Score:2)
I for one would welcome this. There are plenty of movies that we'd like to watch at home instead of in the cinema, and I'd pay extra to w
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but it would be way cheeper to pirate a copy uploaded by someone who rented it and cracked the DRM.
Sure. On the other hand I have a fairly large number of friends that like to see new movies in groups, and often go to the theater together. I just don't care to go to the theater much anymore but I do occasionally host movie nights with the projector and surround sound system anyway, so if this service allows us to pause or to rewind or to otherwise replay then it could be very advantageous. We could do our own movie dinner theatre for a fraction of the cost of going out to the movies, could pause the m
Re:Not that expensive (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I used to buy the discs and them immediately rip them to hard drive and store them on a server in my closet so we could watch them on any screen in the house.
These days we have a few alternatives
About 150-200 films and 2000 TV episodes on my iTunes library at this time... I was able to remov
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
But if all you get out of going out to watch a movie is watching a movie, why not watch an older movie for nothing? Does the newness of a movie really mean that much to you?
Re: (Score:2)
But if all you get out of going out to watch a movie is watching a movie, why not watch an older movie for nothing? Does the newness of a movie really mean that much to you?
Yes, considering I've most likely already seen the old one.
Re: (Score:2)
But if all you get out of going out to watch a movie is watching a movie, why not watch an older movie for nothing? Does the newness of a movie really mean that much to you?
Agreed. The newness factor doesn't mean squat to me. In a year it'll still be the same movie and I'll watch it at my leisure from home.
This is basically telling people they can avoid going to the theater for $50.
Re:Not that expensive (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, unless you have seen everything you would possibly want to see in older movies available for $10, why would you pay $50 for the same home experience?
Yes, I have seen every decent older movie I care to see. Every once in a while I am surprised by an old movie I missed, but it's quite rare. After a couple decades even great movies start to show their age anyway.
Re:Not that expensive (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is, unless you have seen everything you would possibly want to see in older movies available for $10, why would you pay $50 for the same home experience?
Yes, I have seen every decent older movie I care to see.
This may seem a bit obvious, but new movies turn into older movies at exactly the same rate that new movies are released. It's not as if "older movies" were a fixed set. If you make a policy of only watching movies that are at least X years old, you'll end up with the same amount of "new" (to you) content each year as if you watched every new blockbuster on opening night at several times the price.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This may seem a bit obvious, but new movies turn into older movies at exactly the same rate that new movies are released. It's not as if "older movies" were a fixed set. If you make a policy of only watching movies that are at least X years old, you'll end up with the same amount of "new" (to you) content each year as if you watched every new blockbuster on opening night at several times the price.
But a large part of the enjoyment from movies is discussing them with others. Similar to sports and other forms of entertainment, they are shared experiences. It only takes a few weekends for coworkers to assume anyone who cares about a movie has already seen it and spoilers are fair game.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I have seen every decent older movie I care to see. Every once in a while I am surprised by an old movie I missed, but it's quite rare. After a couple decades even great movies start to show their age anyway.
If you can say this with a straight face, then you are someone who:
** is too young to know what the fuck you want
** deserves to pay $50 for crap like "Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension"
Re: (Score:2)
I'll go with a variation of A: I have no interest in the history of film. Even many of my favorite films from childhood are not that enjoyable any more. The camera work, dialogue, and general cinematography from older movies really detract from the experience.
I have respect for the history of computers as well, but I wouldn't enjoy using a Commodore 64 anymore either.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not that expensive (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What??
First of all, /. is hardly representative of the general public. Second, even if it were representative of the general public, markets don't exist to supply what most people want; they exist to supply what enough people want to make a venture profitable. Third, markets have no obligation to provide what you want, or withhold what you don't want (if the thing you don't want isn't actually illegal/harmful). Fourth, if not capitalism, it'd be whatever is in it's place; the rest of the world has no obliga
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not that expensive (Score:5, Insightful)
Fifth, again... how does this hurt you? If you don't want to pay to see new movies, don't watch them; nobody -- including ranton -- is forcing you to do that or even see any studio movies in general.
If this is successful:
They'll delay the release of the bluray/whatever a bit more to capitalize on the home rentals.
They'll delay releasing it onto Amazon/Google/etc. for pay and to Amazon/Netflix/etc. for free for the same reason.
They'll use their rental streaming infrastructure to set up shop on their own and avoid popular services users already have (Amazon/Google/Netflix/etc.)
They'll eventually jack up the price or try to introduce shitty DRM to detect the number of people watching.
They'll inject ads, ads, ads before and probably during your rental.
If this is unsuccessful:
They'll throw a hissy fit and blame piracy.
They'll jack up the costs of blurays and streaming/download licensing, ostensibly to pay for the failed experiment, but really the higher prices will just be the new normal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, those things actually "hurt" you? Amazing. You epitomize first world problems right there.
Again, if you don't like it, don't buy into Hollywood movies. Nobody's forcing you to support them. It's an entirely unnecessary, voluntary engagement; and it's entirely up to you whether or not you engage. Jesus.
Re: (Score:3)
Because the idea that you *have* to watch a brand new movie is pretty ridiculous and it pretty much validates anything the movie companies want to charge.
Well if you want to be part of culture now - social conversations about the film, youtube philosophical breakdowns, avoiding spoilers... they yes you probably should see it around when it comes out. You can of course save yourself a little cash and wait months, but then you won't be part of the larger cultural moment, and for many films that's part of the experience.
Movie Time! (Score:2)
Or invite over a few friends and split the cost. Oh, wait . . .
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
"Movie party! Gonna rent [flick]. Fred, you bring popcorn and milk duds; Larry, bring some sodas."
Re: (Score:2)
Or invite over a few friends and split the cost. Oh, wait . . .
That's the assumption that they're working from, not the cost-splitting part, but that multiple people will be watching.
They're thinking "Let's see, 4 people times $15 for an evening screening should be $60, so we'll charge under that...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can get a very large quantity of excellent novels from Project Gutenberg free. Why would anyone buy one at a bookstore?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The thing is, unless you have seen everything you would possibly want to see in older movies available for $10, why would you pay $50 for the same home experience? Unless it's a movie you really want to see NOW it will make more sense to just get an older movie for now and wait for the price to come down.
For most movies, I'm content to wait for the DVD from Netflix. But for about 1 movie a year, I want to see it soon. I don't like the theater when it's busy, so I usually wait a couple weeks anyway. I'd definitely prefer my home theater to the cinema.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I often see blockbuster movies with 2-4 friends or family members, so then its a bargain.
You haven't seen the small print yet. It will probably be a crime to let anybody outside of permanent residents see the $50 screening of the movie. You will probably also need a web cam covering the audience to allow the movie to start playing...
Re: (Score:3)
"to watch new movies"
Except they're not new movies. The article says "some 17 days after their theatrical opening". At that point, might as well wait until they are $1 at Redbox.
Re: (Score:2)
I can go to a cheepo matinee for $7/head. Why should I pay $50?
I can do without the concessions.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes I am sure they considered the expensive babysitter in their pricing discussions. It's people like you these guys were thinking of. I'm half surprised they didn't price it at $100. Or $500. I'll continue with just downloading the movie for free when available until I make my first billion and those rich studio execs can go fuck themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
They will also include free non-skip able ads
And there lies the killer. I might pay $20 to see a good, early, first run movie. Not $50. And not with anything else 'added' unless it is completely optional. For $50 I'd expect to get dinner with the movie.
Re: (Score:2)
They will also include free non-skip able ads
Yay!!!! I don't have to pay for the ads!!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
And there lies the killer. I might pay $20 to see a good, early, first run movie. Not $50. And not with anything else 'added' unless it is completely optional. For $50 I'd expect to get dinner with the movie.
Dinner and a movie costs way more than $50.
You rent the movie, your friends bring over take-out or pot-luck.
$50 doesn't make sense for an individual but for a large group it's pretty easy.
That said, I only go to see digitally-projected 3D films anymore (kids, etc.). Bluray from Redbox is a way better d
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to see fucking CGI, search for "3D hentai".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I just wait until it shows up on Netflix on its own.
Re: (Score:2)
When I first read the caption, I thought it was $50/year which would have been reasonable. Fifty bucks per movie is insane. I don' t think many will bite the hook.