Comcast And Theaters Disagree On How Best To Not Interest Movie Watchers

from the let's-try-that-again dept

Tue, May 15th 2007 3:13am — Mike Masnick

We've been greatly interested in the concept of releasing movies in multiple arenas at once. That is, rather than just focus on offering them at movie theaters, also offer up the option to offer them on TV and on DVD at the same time. Of course, movie theaters have been aggressively fighting off any such "day and date" release, boycotting those who try it and declaring that it's "technically" impossible. What they really mean is that they don't quite understand the business they're in. Giving consumers more choice in how they view a movie can only help that movie -- and it should help the theaters too. Why? Because it will force them to improve the movie going experience, and recognize that people like going out to the movies -- if the experience is a fun one. Still, the latest skirmish in this ongoing battle is equally ridiculous on all sides. First, you have Comcast trying to secure the rights to offer pay-per-view versions of movies currently in the theater -- but then saying they'd charge $30 to $50 for the privilege. This is followed up by the theaters, bizarrely, lashing out at the idea and promising to boycott any movie that is released this way. This is incredibly short-sighted for a variety of reasons. First, the number of people willing to pay $30 to $50 to sit in their own homes to watch a movie is incredibly small. If anything, it will actually (and I can't believe I'm saying this) make the current theater offerings look better. Second, if the theaters actually did boycott these movies, then they hand the advantage right back to Comcast by giving Comcast an effective monopoly on showing that movie -- which is about the only way you could justify the high price. In other words, you have two separate industries competing each other to see who can make the worse strategic move in terms of getting people to watch movies -- and the end result is that those people will simply find some other way to satisfy their entertainment needs.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

38 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Bigleon, 15 May 2007 @ 4:24am

Why Boycott
Alright, this is not as bad as it would first seem. By charging high paper view amounts people are more likely to go out to the theater. But, which this paper view does is it helps out pirate market. Because now they an get those avi's of the new movies out a lot quicker, so I think this might hurt them both instead of helping either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2007 @ 4:43am
  
  Re: Why Boycott
  First off it's not a "paper" view, it's a pay-per view, as in you pay for each viewing.
  
  Secondly
  
  "By charging high paper view amounts people are more likely to go out to the theate"
  
  No it won't make more people go to the cinema it will simply fail outright because who in their right mind would pay such an insane fee to watch a film once and in their own home when a DVD costs about £3-£4 to rent?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wolfger, 15 May 2007 @ 5:35am
    
    Re: Re: Why Boycott
    when a DVD costs about £3-£4 to rent
    
    What? You guys are getting ripped off! That's $6-$8 U.S. currency. I pay $20 for unlimited Netflix rentals per month.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
MadJo (profile), 15 May 2007 @ 4:31am

A boycott by the theatres helping Comcast?
They really should know that making stuff that expensive is not going to increase revenue. It hurts sales, especially with these secondary products as movies and music. (you don't have to have movies in order to live)

The best offering would then become (bittorrent) downloads, be it a grey area on its legality.

The content industry and its players simply don't seem to understand the game they are in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rahrens (profile), 15 May 2007 @ 4:33am

Uh
Don't ya mean "pay-per-view"? I mean, a movie would be boring and take a long time to see if it were printed on paper!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bigleon, 15 May 2007 @ 4:39am
  
  Re: Uh
  I think it's just a bad happy because when most people say it they say it paperview and not pay-per-view. I just realized I had done that...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Charles Griswold, 15 May 2007 @ 4:52am
  
  Re: Uh
  Don't ya mean "pay-per-view"? I mean, a movie would be boring and take a long time to see if it were printed on paper!
  
  Nope, he means paper view. Yes, it's true; the theaters have their underwear in a twist over Comcast's plans to release same-day flip-book versions of popular new movies. When you think about it, $30 for a feature-length flip book isn't a bad price.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
locoHost, 15 May 2007 @ 4:49am

...can only help that movie -- and it should help
Ummmm yeah right. So lets say I own (I don't) a theater chain: You're telling me that releasing movies on PPV and on DVD at the same time it's showing in my theater "helps me"?!?! You say it helps me because that will -force me- to spend hundreds of thouseands or millions of dollars upgrading my theater. Thereby -possibly-, -eventually- improving my ticket sales!?!?! Are you out of your mind!?!?!?! What a great bonus for me the theater owner!!! Let's go for it!!!

Completely stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Straif, 15 May 2007 @ 4:53am

Well, $50 for 5 people is cheaper than going to the theater. Throw in your own microwave popcorn, soda (or beer), and candy and it is much cheaper. At the $30 price-point it becomes reasonably cheap for 2 people. Granted, it isn't the same as the big screen. For me, I would (generally) rather go out, have a nice dinner, and enjoy the experience. However, if it were more like $10-15, or the movie was likely to suck, I might stay in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Phillip, 15 May 2007 @ 5:15am
  
  Re: @ Straif
  Exactly while for one person it isn't going to be worth it. I think it would be great to watch with a group of friends. You could get 4-5 friends and watch it on a nice HDTV with your own surround sound system and snacks.
  
  Plus you don't have to deal with rude patrons, sticky floors, and exorbitant snack prices.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Sanguine Dream, 15 May 2007 @ 5:38am
    
    Re: Re: @ Straif
    I think the fact that most people would do the pay per view idea in groups is why they would charge so much. $30-$50 divided 4-5 ways comes to between $7.50($30/4) and $10($50/5). That's in the range of what most people pay at the movies these days. Add in the fact that you have your choice of what to eat/drink (chips, beer, hell you can cook on the grill before the movie), a familiar setting (your home or a friend's home), and most importantly you can (hopefully) pause in the middle for a potty break on those Lord of the Rings length movies.
    
    For the solo movie goers this is a bad idea but for the ones that go in packs this may not be such a bad idea.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2007 @ 6:00am

Market forces
What this is really about is market forces rearranging the landscape because of new technology. Of course, the theaters hate it, and Comcast is trying to spin the fact that they are invading the market to avoid repercussions. But the reality is that theaters may go extinct as people have increased options for viewing movies. Or the theaters will evolve by offering an experience that can only be had at a theater. I paid a premium this weekend to see Spiderman 3 on IMAX. It was worth it. Either way, times are changing, and consumers will determine the face of the new landscape.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RandomThoughts, 15 May 2007 @ 6:03am

$50 bucks for a family of 4 or 5 isn't that bad, especially when you factor in popcorn and soda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. Moneybags, 15 May 2007 @ 6:12am

PPV
Spiderman 3 costs -
4 Tickets: $43.00
4 sodas, 1 popcorn and 2 boxes of candy, $35.00

Of course the 11 year old wants to see it again.

$30.00 for pay-per-view doesn't sound all that bad. Especially if I could copy it down to the DVR.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Witty Nickname, 15 May 2007 @ 6:20am

Done before with success
Do theaters not remember when George Lucas re-released the Star Wars Trillogy on the big screen? Or when they did the "Gone With the Wind" 50th anneversary?

These theaters raked in PLENTY of money. These films were on home video at the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ambo, 15 May 2007 @ 6:48am
  
  Re: Done before with success
  Yes, but how many movies are as good as Star Wars and Gone With the Wind? Most movies don't have that great of a following.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2007 @ 6:48am

lol, paper view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DeMille, 15 May 2007 @ 6:56am

Not Ready For This Yet
I no longer go to movie theaters because
1) High admission price
2) Crappy experience - cell phones, rude little bastards, expensive popcorn

But, I don't own a 50 foot wide by 40 foot high screen yet, and although my sound system is good, the room is only 25' x 15', whereas the local theater is around 125' x 90' and the sound can be louder and deeper. I won't pay theater prices to stay in my home, even though my viewing experience is good. It's still not a theater.

When theater owners wake up, and make the experience a pleasant and enjoyable one, they'll get my business. But, by the time they do, I might just have added an addition to my house big enough to accommodate the huge screen and industrial sound system.

And oh yeah - ain't no way Comcast is getting that much of my dough either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bluebearr, 15 May 2007 @ 7:04am

Seriously, "day and date" release would gather what I believe would be some significant extra business for movies. How many people are there like me, that see a preview & all the marketing hype and think "wow, that looks cool", but just don't want to pay for the theater? Instead of "I need to see that in the theater," I think "Hey, I need to see that when it comes out on DVD" - but by then, the hype and media blitz has faded, I've forgotten about it, and something else is being hyped as the Greatest Show in the World.

I think releasing movies in several venues at once would allow studios to leverage their advertising and save them a bundle in media costs. However, there is still a stigma attached to "direct to DVD". This stigma may fade if a truly great movie gets boycotted by the theaters as they are threatening. I think that if they did this they would hand over a huge lever that they have - that of "box office legitimacy."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Avatar28, 15 May 2007 @ 7:06am

way too expensive
DeMille got it exactly right. I've got a 52" big screen and a $1500 audio system to go with it. That's nice, but if it is going to cost the same, I think I would rather go out to the theater and see it on their 100x larger screen there, particularly with the advent of digital projection and it's increased image quality. Last time we went to the theater I think we ended up paying around $40 for myself, my wife, and our 3 kids to go see Spiderman 3. Granted, we had already had lunch so we just snuck some jelly beans in for the kids to munch on and got a large drink. That was still below $50. And god forbid I should want to have some sort of "date movie" with just myself and the wife. For $50 we can go have a pretty nice dinner AND see the movie (if we don't try eating at the theater).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andrew, 15 May 2007 @ 7:14am

Just wait...
Wow, the frustration over immediate gratification here is amazing.
Here's a crazy thought: just wait a couple of months and own that movie for under $20.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RunninBlue, 15 May 2007 @ 7:32am
  
  Re: Just wait...
  What Andrew said....
  
  I haven't gone to a movie theater in almost 10 years - and don't plan on doing it anytime soon. It is way too inconvenient and not very enjoyable. Just my opinion, I guess. I just wait til they come out on DVD to rent or buy them..
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RunninBlue, 15 May 2007 @ 7:35am
  
  Re: Just wait...
  What Andrew said....
  
  I haven't gone to a movie theater in almost 10 years - and don't plan on doing it anytime soon. It is way too inconvenient and not very enjoyable. Just my opinion, I guess. I just wait til they come out on DVD to rent or buy them..
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ambo, 15 May 2007 @ 8:16am
  
  Re: Just wait...
  I agree. In the last 10 years or more, I've gone to the movies to see Star Wars, Star Trek, and maybe 2 or 3 others. It's got to be one of those "once in a lifetime" type experiences for me to pay that kind of money to go to the movies. I buy a few movies, but I usually wait until the movie comes on TV or I maybe borrow it from someone.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joe, 15 May 2007 @ 8:03am

I can see why some would pay for the movie at home
If you have a family, it can costs upwards of $150 for a night at the movies. You have to pay for movie tickets for the family, wait in line with kids who don't want to stand, and have to take bathroom breaks in the middle of a movie. Overall I think most families would pay $50 - $80 to watch a movie at home depending on the size of the family and the quality of the TV they would watch it on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eric Steven, 15 May 2007 @ 8:15am

Theatres are doing what is standard in industry
Even though consumers want a paperback book at the same time as the more expensive hardback book, it has been standard for decades and still is today for the publishing industry to only give the more expensive option first. The copyright owner has the right to release their work when they want and in what format they want. If a consumer doesn't like the timing or the formats offered, then they have the right not to pay for it. Even though consumers wish that every published work was freely downloadable from the very first day of publication, the copyright holder has every right to see how much we are willing to pay for their work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- SailorRipley, 17 May 2007 @ 1:44pm
  
  Re: Theatres are doing what is standard in industr
  just because something is or has been been the standard doesn't mean
  
  1. it's right.
  2. it should be/stay the standard.
  
  And frankly, even though it is copyright reality, your statement is a perversion of copyright's intent: copyright was meant to give some guarantees to content creators: that they should be entitled to compensation when somebody publishes/sells their content.
  
  To use your example, I would buy a lot more books if I could buy the paperback right away...(I just don't like hardcover books (with a few exception), it has nothing to do with the difference in price (although that is a bonus), I just prefer paperback) but as it is, I buy very little books as I borrow the book(s) from the library, thus for the most part, eliminating the need to buy them (which I would IF I would be able to purchase the paperback from the start)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Max, 15 May 2007 @ 8:28am

Not good enough
I would rather watch a movie in privacy on my HDTV Home Theater Sytem , Better sound, picture (most of the time) In my own lazy-boy with a Beer or Scotch, In my sweat pants & t-shirt. No A-holes around providing thier own running dialog of what's happening... If I can get a first run movie in my living room. (Release HD-DVD or HD-PPV, at same time time as it in a theater. It's no contest who will win my dollars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
chris (profile), 15 May 2007 @ 8:57am

the perfect theater
my dream of the perfect movie theater is this:

1) serves alchohol and is 21 and up. no teenagers, no babies, no old people. if you want to take the kids to see shrek go to a theater that caters to families.

2) has convenient showtimes. have enough screens (even if it means smaller theaters) to run movies every hour. do you know how hard it is to get 4 people into and out of a restaurant in order to make a 7 or 9 pm show time?

3) serves dinner. "dinner and a movie" is more american than baseball. the dinner part is nearly impossible with 8 o'clock show times. 6-8pm on a friday and saturday night is prime time for most restaurants and it's nearly impossible to get 4 people into and out of a restaurant in under 3 hours at that time.

4) shows more than slasher movies and chick flicks that appeal to teens on dates.

5) keeps films for at least two weeks. i tried to go see "the protector" (a kung fu film from thailand) in the theater and couldn't find it anywhere but a second run theater two weeks after it came out. same story with "black snake moan".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2007 @ 9:32am
  
  Re: the perfect theater
  Just an FYI black snake moan, although I liked it wasn't a very popular movie with the censors as expected. Usually if it can't get past them, it won't make it for too long.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ariel (profile), 15 May 2007 @ 11:22am
  
  Re: the perfect theater
  Chris, you need to move to Alaska:
  http://www.beartooththeatre.net/index2.html
  
  It might not fulfill requirement 5, but it's got another payoff: Tickets are only $3.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wacko, 15 May 2007 @ 9:20am

Ok for those of you who might read this and are part of either industry... Why not compromise... Hmm there's an idea. Why not make it so that instead of having to wait 5 to 6 months for a movie to come out on DVD, let the theaters make there insane amounts of money in the first three weeks of the movie opening (which for most movies is all the money they will make) and then let them release it on PPV then. As of now there is a 4 month difference or something along those lines for those that have digital cable and want to watch it on PPV, but in my opinion that might be a good solution. Granted who ever is going to provide the PPV service won't be able to charge as much as they are suggesting now, as the movie is no longer “out of the box” new, but still...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- SailorRipley, 17 May 2007 @ 1:47pm
  
  Re:
  Because they probably fear (and the fear is likely justified) that a significant amount of theater visitors, although not willing to wait 5 to 6 months, would have the discipline to wait 3 weeks
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amethyst, 15 May 2007 @ 9:40am

Movies
If they could make people in theaters non-annoying, I'd go more often. As it is, I only go to the movies I really want to see and don't want to wait for the DVDs. I'd love to be able to watch them via internet downloads (legally).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ambo, 15 May 2007 @ 10:18am
  
  Re: Movies
  Isn't that what service Vongo provides? (legal internet downloads of movies) Although I'm sure it has some annoying quirks. I don't know anyone who uses it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Larry, 15 May 2007 @ 10:50am

Cost per view
When techdirt refunds the $73.00 it charged my credit card, I can use that money to watch a couple crappy movies on the paper view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HarleyVrod, 23 May 2007 @ 12:27pm

Comcast and Movies
Hey, wait one minute. Can anyone name a studio that was announcing their support of Comcast's announcement? I remember not one studio stated they were on-board. Comcast tests the consumer waters and makes a splash with a grand press statement that has more fiction to it than facts. The theater owners responded to the media beating down their doors but where did the media go to get any statements from studios. After all it's the studio's product being bantered about here. The STUDIOS determine how their product is distributed and on what timeframe. Just examine the DVD release cycle. The studios don't release films on DVD day and date. They LIKE the buzz and media the theatrical runs create. Let's focus here people!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bob Dobbs, 25 May 2007 @ 11:08am

Piracy angle
From a piracy angle, once they started doing this there would be high-quality rips on the Internet within hours. The days of needing to sneak a camera to capture a shoddy telesync would be over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]