Big Hollywood Directors Seem To Think People Will Actually Pay $30 To Watch Movies At Home
from the reality-calling... dept
We still can't figure out why anyone is "worried" about Hollywood's silly plan to offer $30 video-on-demand rentals 10 weeks after films are in the theaters. Yet, theater owners who are effectively admitting that their service sucks are all complaining and now a bunch of big Hollywood directors are joining them. James Cameron, Peter Jackson, Robert Zemeckis, Michael Mann, Kathryn Bigelow and many others have apparently written a letter to the studios protesting the plan. Do they not yet realize that very few people are likely to pay $30 to watch these movies? And their basic argument doesn't make any sense: they say this is a threat to theaters (it's not) and that this will harm the movie industry as a whole (it won't).And, as stupid as $30 movies at home are, what this really foreshadows is the ridiculous levels to which the industry will go to block the real innovation that the industry needs: day and date release on all formats on the same day. If they're so scared of massively overpriced video at home ten weeks after the theater debut, you can bet they'll go absolutely ballistic when anyone tries to release video on demand and in the theater at the same time.
It seems that, once again, we have people focusing on the "tradition" of the way things were done, rather than actually providing what consumers want. How many times does this need to happen before industry folks realize this doesn't work?
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
Filed Under: directors, james cameron, kathryn bigelow, michael mann, movies, peter jackson, robert zemeckis, video on demand
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Hypothetical.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hypothetical.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hypothetical.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hypothetical.....
Possibly the Counterfeit DVD producers would, but that business is in decline.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypothetical.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypothetical.....
I wouldn't be surprised if pirates paid the 30 dollars, they pay the 12$ already to get into the theater and get a shitty cam version. Also people are often going to ridiculous lengths to be the first to release a screener, though that will probably die off since anyone can release it in 10 days(though that pre-10 day release will probably still a big deal).
People will rent these and they will put them online. I have no doubt.
As far as the counterfeit dvd market's decline; I think a lot of that has to due with the shit quality of most of those movies. These rentals will probably improve the quality of most counterfeit DVDs. Although I havnt noticed a decline in the market personally, still plenty of people selling them at the local flea markets and walking through all the local bars on the weekend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypothetical.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hypothetical.....
There's usually decent quality digital rips (not cams) a day or two after release for many movies. Much distribution is done digitally now, without needing to ship film rolls around.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinema
It just takes one guy making $8 an hour at the theater flipping switches and making sure the projector works to get a good capture or straight up copy it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypothetical.....
I was thinking this was a good deal for families. But why pay 30 bucks to watch it once when you can wait another week and buy the movie on disc and watch it over and over again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
0, meaning no matter how many times it happens they will never realize anything.
They will continue to force laws, sue fans and attempt to reeducate the population. Because as you know attempting the same thing over and over expecting different results is a promotable quality in the gatekeeper industries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DirecTV
I wonder if there is anyway to get any information on how many people actually spend the money. I also wonder how many people have to buy before it is worth the satellite bandwidth to offer them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DirecTV
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Price point seems to be a sticking point
As for the 'theatre experience' it generally sucks. You wait in line to buy tickets, wait in another to get snacks and yet another to get seats. And you havent experienced the utter joy of entering a crowded movie with three kids in tow and no more than 2-3 empty seats next to each other. Then you get to take each kid to the restroom individually because God forbid their bladders fill at the same time.
Thirty bucks is sounding pretty good to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Price point seems to be a sticking point
Can't speak for other peoples Video on Demand service, but mine doesn't come with Digital HD audio, so I'd rather wait a bit and get the Blu-Ray.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Price point seems to be a sticking point
The threat is the poor theater experience you described.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Price point seems to be a sticking point
I don't share the same enthusiasm as you do. At the very least you could wait a bit longer, buy the DVD/BluRay and watch it over and over again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Price point seems to be a sticking point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Price point seems to be a sticking point
We have two young kids and no family living nearby. If we want to go see a movie, we buy tickets AND pay for babysitting. So now we have to plan in advance when we want to go and find an available babysitter before we even get out of the door. That's usually well north of $75 without soda or popcorn, and for that we get to go sit in a sh*tty theater and have a mediocre experience. We also run the risk of committing to a babysitter only to find out that the movie is sold out (this has happened twice in the past couple of years).
Would we do it for every new movie that came out? No. But we would do it more frequently than we make it to the theater.
Done right, this idea will do well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If what you are saying is the theaters don't offer anything and its actually more convenient and a better experience to watch it at home, then what is the point of theaters?
A giant screen and a massive sound system makes some movies way better, but not all of them. Some people wouldn't pass up the opportunity to see something they are anticipating at theaters, all lot of people would rather stay home. So maybe the theaters have to start providing something beyond a giant screen and massive sound system to make it worth it for people to show up.
If the ONLY reason people go the theaters is because they get movies first (for no reason other than to get people in them) then they probably should close.
Provide something people want or don't make money, its simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
FACT 1: The theater going experience sucks.
FACT 2: Because of "FACT 1", people would rather watch movies at home.
FACT 3: Piracy exists.
The brilliant conclusion: Leave everything as it is, but increase home-movies-watching prices. Oh, and introduce unnecessary delays too, just to round it off.
Can we see a problem here?
.
.
.
No? Then let me give you a hand:
If you want to save the theaters, you need to give people an incentive to go. You don't do this by making every other options WORSE, you do this by making the theater option BETTER. If you make every other option worse, the consumer, faced with many sucky options will opt for the one that isn't quite "right" but still doesn't suck: piracy.
Where you had a potential customer, now you have a pirate. You lost a customer and it's your own damn fault.
If instead you keep improving the consumer's options, the consumers will be more than happy to give you money. People were happy paying for the likes of Hulu and are happy paying for Netflix, so the problem isn't that people aren't willing to pay. The problem is that the alternatives are very very poor.
Now, toss in basic economics and what do you get:
- High demand drives people to seek for a supply
- Supply is insufficient or impractical
- People seek a new supplier
- Who's the supplier that is always there for you and doesn't cost a dime (although you don't like using it so much because of the potential troubles)? Yep...
It's that simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sooooooooo, if the only reason people go to a theater at all is because they have no alternative choice (which your semi-rant implies) why should they stay in business? Do they have a divine right to be new release cinema gatekeepers or something? Is a monty-pyhon style cardboard lightning bolt going to strike me if I don't see a movie in a theater?
If the industry would use it's brain it would realize that you get money from customers from providing them a service that they want, not by providing them what you want to provide them. Only monopolies get to do the latter which is why these industries are fighting so hard to remain monopolies...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thank you, I did. But it's always refreshing when someone starts off their comment with a direct insult on my intelligence. That's who I know they're to be taken seriously.
you would see it IS a direct threat to theaters
How so? Ten weeks after the theatrical release, most films are already out of the theaters.
You could invite friends over for a viewing and see a movie for a few bucks each. Even just 2 people, that's only $15 each, and worth it to many to save on concessions and enjoying the convenience.
Or you wait a few more weeks and get the same movie for a couple bucks. Or at no marginal cost as a part of your Netflix subscription.
Quit being an ignorant fool assuming the industry is always wrong.
Well, we can argue on this point if you'd like, but I don't think the industry is always wrong. I think some people haven't thought this through very carefully. And I believe I've backed that up with a rational explanation of why.
Unless of course they are giving it to you completely free as you think you are entitled to
Perhaps you have me confused with another site, because I've never made this argument.
Care to try again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How many people have a set up at home capable of rivalling the theatre experience. Who is going to pay 30 bucks to watch a film on their tv when they can watch it for half the price on a 100 foot screen with digital sound? Are you going to set up your own little ticket booth collecting money from friends to watch a film in your living room? The only chance this thing has of being successful is everyone suddenly forgetting they can rent the movie for 5 bucks in a month and a half and suddenly deciding that the much more immersive theatre outing should be overlooked for a much more expensive lesser experience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Poll
Long story short, consumers' pricepoint for this is way lower than $30.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The bottom line is- the product as is, is not a threat, but would be easily adaptable at a later point to move more control from the theatres to the studios. Which is probably what they wanted all along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HAHAHAHHAHA RIIIGHT
GET FUCKING BENT is all i have to say
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I owned a theater...
Serving wine & beer would be a good idea. How about descent food instead of just crap you can buy at 7-11 and smuggle in yourself. Of course too many cities make it almost impossible to get a liquor license or a food prep license.
What about giving away promotional items related to the movie you are watching? A prize drawing or getting a special promotional code with your ticket is something you can't get at home.
There are a lot of things that can be done to get people in the theaters. Making home watching too inconvenient or too expensive isn't one of them.
No way in hell will I pay $30 to watch a movie at home.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If I owned a theater...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If I owned a theater...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Streaming
But then add that if you already pay for a Netflix account, the movie gets permanently added to your account. The above free streaming wouldn't require a paid Netflix account.
Or something along those lines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Streaming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It just proves....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ISPs and MPAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What planet...
I stopped going to movies because of the cost.
No way I'll drop $30 for a movie at home.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You seem a man(?) of few words... may I loan you an "epic" to go with that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can't think one movie that I could not wait to see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WWE Extreme times call for extreme rules. See what happens when John Cena, CM Punk, Rey Mysterio, Edge, and Randy Orton put it all on the line at Extreme Rules, Sunday, May 1, 8PM ET/5PM PT, live on DISH Network Pay-Per-View.
Sunday, May 1 at 8PM ET
$44.95 (Standard definition)
$49.95 (High definition)
WWE goes over the limit as John Cena, Randy Orton, The Miz, Edge, Rey Mysterio, Alberto Del Rio, and all your favorite WWE Superstars collide at WWE Over the Limit, Sunday, May 22 at 8PM ET/5PM PT, live on pay-per-view.
Premieres Sunday, May 22 8PM ET
$44.95 (Standard definition)
$49.95 (High definition)
They are not complaining on this pricing. It's still entertainment. It may be live, but still people are paying for this.
Sooo...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Many of the people involved in this scheme are woefully ignorant of the real value of their movies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd love to hear your argument as to why releasing a movie simultaneously on all platforms would make any sense whatsoever from a financial perspective. It doesn't. It's called not controlling your supply. There's a reason Disney recalls DVDs and then special releases them every so often -- limiting its run in the market actually encourages more buys than if they were always available.
Same principle applies here. How many times do you already hear, "Oh, I'll wait to see that when it's out on DVD?" With your plan, that number would skew tenfold, including all the ancillary platforms, and the total number of viewers would stay basically the same. Let's even say hypothetically that you could prove to me that more people would watch the movie because it's available in more places, you've now brought platforms into play that require purchases for less money that more people can watch per purchase, while marketing costs would stay flat. Revenue would still drop, that shouldn't even be debatable.
Not to mention that the theater experience has made major strides with 3D and needs all the revenue it can get to justify investing in glasses-free tech, which would explode that platform's potential.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
growing pains
[ link to this | view in chronology ]