« Are You Having Long-Term Streaming Problems? | Main | To Continue to Use Netflix on the PS3 You'll Need to Accept New Sony PSN Terms of Service »

Comments

bonzo

Yes and No
Yes, I would be very very interested in streaming a movie almost right after theatrical release.
No, I am not one bit interested in $30. I would pay $5.
.
I haven't gone to a theatre in ~5-7 years and I have no intention of going back. If I did, I'd go to one of the bar/theatres around that charge $3 and have crappy sound. But, no one under 21 allowed, fairly nice furniture (vs theatre seats), and they'll bring you dinner (pub food, but ...).
But still haven't managed to go out to those types of places anytime in the last 5-7 years.
So, I'd like to get 1st run movies streamed to my home TV, but I am certainly not going to pay $30 for them.

Jeff

If I'm able to wait a couple months to watch a new movie, I wouldn't have any trouble waiting another few months for it to come out on DVD. The only way I would consider paying $30 is if it was available on the SAME day it hits the theater.

Reed

april fool's?

no one would pay $30...

lethargic

There would be times I might.....MIGHT....pay 30 dollars to see a movie on opening weekend at home once or twice a year. But two months later? When another month later they'll be on DVD? Why on Earth would I do that? Why would anybody? It makes no sense at all. How

I was thinking about going to see Sucker Punch. Looking up tickets right now on Fandango I can go see it tomorrow at 4:10 for 5 dollars. But instead I'm going to wait two month to spend 25 more? WTF?

BogartBumquest

$19.95 first day release is the most I'd pay. And if it was a movie my family loved, I'd prolly pay it multiple times. (spent like $120 on Tangled so far)

Luis

I could see families paying for this. Since $30 might be cheaper than taking the family out to the movies if they have a bunch of kids. Pause for bathroom breaks etc. Definitely not for everyone but a movement in the right direction, if for the wrong price.

Phelps

Judging by the comments, I see that I'm not the only one to suspect that this is an "April Fool" story. But the link appears to be real (and dated March 31). No thanks, after waiting 8 weeks, I'd just wait another few weeks and see 'em on Netflix without the 30 bucks.

Abrooks62

If I'm going to spend thirty dollars, I would do so only for the theatrical experience. Come to think of it, my girlfriend and I went to see Lincoln Lawyer last Saturday at a 5:00 Matinee. Tickets were only 5.50 each. Since I'm on a strict diet no popcorn. But I did have a large diet soda which I shared with my girlfriend who doesn't drink much soda at the movies. So it was still under twenty bucks and it got us out of the house. So no, I won't pay $30. Like someone else said wait a month and you can own it for less than that. I'm sure someone will pay for it though.

vio

$30 for a single rental 8 weeks after the theatrical release?! LOL! That's a full 2 months after the theatrical release. A lot of movies come out on DVD only 3 months after their theatrical run. This HAS to been an April Fools joke.

Jeremy

A dumb and desperate idea.

snowmaiden

I don't see how this could be cost effective unless you had at least 4 adults watching. (No matter how much people act like they are, popcorn and candy are not mandatory purchases, you know.)

Tester

NO!
HELL NO!
FUCK NO!

Any questions?

I hope those dickheads from the studios are reading this.

Hiedi

Oh Hell No.

I'm dirt poor. I'm pretty much living pay check to pay check. I'm lucky to get my $9.21 an hour and even luckier I've got to keep my 36 hours a week. As the sole income for a family of 5, Netflix is our one and only splurge for the month. Only reason my internet hasn't gone is because I work as a customer service rep for a city owned phone company and one of the only perks they give us, besides my paycheck is free internet service. My family hasn't set foot inside a movie theater in nearly 9 years and it's probably been close to 8 years since we set foot in a movie rental store.

This is a stupid and retarded idea. I'd rather give Netflix $30 and watch 15-20 movies than pay $30 for one movie.

Instaflicka Podcast

I can see this being a decent idea if you have a big family or have a bunch of friends over, as it would be more economical than going to the movies, plus you can eat/drink whatever you want while you watch.

That being said, no one in their right mind will actually use this. If you are wanting to watch a movie 2 months after it begins at a theater, you might as well wait the extra month or so for it to come onto DVD and then buy it (still cheaper than the rental cost) or rent it. This is ridiculous and shows how out of touch some companies are from the consumers they serve content to.

Michael C

$30 are they serious for a two month old movie. I wouldn't pay $30 for a chauffeur to take me to the movie on the first day with my own private screening.

I will stick my Netflix. There are enough movies out there to watch until the new movies show up on Netflix. $30 = 4 months of streaming. no thanks.

Love how Comcast called Netflix the rerun channel. Every movie on Comcast is a rerun from best i can tell.

andyg8180

I'd pay the price of a movie ticket... $10... ESP since i cant own it.... $30... yea okay....

Angie

Obviously most of you are not understanding that this is not for individuals. As a single person this is of no value to me. However for a family who has to pay approx. $8 per person to see a film, it would have value. It would be nice if they had a cheaper option for us single adults/couples but that's pretty much impossible.

Eban

Guys guys guys... It's April 1st today, I guess it's an april fools :)

The CoffeeMan

Yeah, this is for the most part a family type of thing. I know someone who lives with her mom, her dad, her three siblings, her grandma, her grandpa, aunt, aunt's boyfriend of the month, and three kids in a four bedroom (rolls eyes) appt. Now, while those living conditions aren't exactly ideal, here in Wichita, the theatres available are the Warren Theatres (possibly the best in the nation). Ticket prices for adults are $9, (12 for 3D) and $7 for children (10 for 3D). So yes, I can see how pooling money together to watch a movie on a home theatre could definitly be a cash saver. Not to mention that an iMax movie ticket in 3D is $15, X2 for me and my girlfriend, is $30, plus another 15 for soda and popcorn is $45. When did the movie become more expensive then the dinner????

Jorge

We have two theaters about 5 miles away from home that charge 1 buck for movies 3 months after their theatrical release. So hell no!

Brandon

I don't think this is as bad of an idea for consumers as some of the people above are saying. I think you just have "sticker shock" at the seemingly high price.

As Angie pointed out, single adults and childless couples would only consider this for a movie that was not playing in their town or maybe if they wanted to have a big movie night where like 7+ people get together and watch the film on the (relatively) cheap.

That said, I can see it being compelling to families who want to let their whole gang see the hot new movie. $30 is definitely cheaper than 5 movie tickets for a big family and if they find out they can get cool points with their friends by inviting them over to watch it too, they will definitely be pushing their parents to buy in. Also, I could see some couples who cannot ever get free babysitting doing this as it could be a cheaper option with all costs included.

That being said, I agree that there are few movies that someone is willing to wait 8 weeks for but unwilling to wait 12-15 weeks for until DVD release. I wonder how people would react if you rose the price to $40, but you would get a copy of the DVD when it released in addition to a 48 hour rental. (kind of like the Amazon free VOD rental of some DVDs you buy now).

Furthermore, at the 8 week price point, many of the things that people might be willing to pay $30 to see will be going to the "dollar" theater soon.

Last but not least, theater owners are going to balk at this and probably shut it down either way. The reason is because despite the fact that films are not grossing much after 8 weeks, what they do gross is very profitable to the theater. To my understanding theaters typically have to give a percentage of the ticket price as a licensing fee. This percentage is very high (75-90%) in the first week, and tapers down pretty low later in the run. As a result, for big films that would be attractive for people to rent after 8 weeks, the theater is losing out on the potential to make some decent cash if even half of those people came in.

Moom

I assume there are a few people crazy and rich enough for this, but it’s hard to imagine more than a handful of people would use this. While the people in the movie industry have not been as shortsighted as the people in the music industry in terms of recognizing the changes the digital age would bring to their industry, it almost seems as if they’re trying to get to that point. (I do have to wonder if this is an April Fool's prank...that's how crazy it sounds.)

bill

$30 for a 2 month wait?! hah. wait another month and it will be on blu-ray.

I'd pay $15 for an HD VOD on release day.

GK Chesterton

By 8 weeks the movie will have already made it to second run theatres with discount ticket prices. I think this is really just about moving the "Overton window" on pay-per-view prices so that the normal overinflated prices look more reasonable when compared with $30.

mrkwst22

No, and Hell no!

Bob E.

Thanks to the 2 people above who get it.

$30 is NOT a lot of money. It's the MSRP on blu-ray discs. The 8 week window is the problem, not the price. Newsflash to the industry - it's not new if it's 8 weeks old! Opening day would see a lot of business at $30. Probably too much for the theater owners. 8 weeks is just what they are calling it, video-on-demand, but without the "premium" label.

Mrmanmac

I couldn't read the article because i have no desire to sign up for Variety magazine or even give them my email address to read it.

Besides the possibility of being an April Fools Joke, in which case i can see where an incredibly stupid idea like this would be published.

But........ If the studios were to gang together to offer their own subscription service for first run movies they might have something. I would consider paying 30 bucks a month to view newer releases, as long as they werent holding any of them back, there were enough studios involved, and they released all the old stuff that is not currently on Netflix streaming.

Nahhhhh that will never happen. The studios are to greedy to ever offer the consumer a reasonable value.

FurryGuyJeans

Want Premium Video on Demand? Not a chance.

Pay $30 for the privilege to watch something 8 weeks after a theatrical run? A snowball has a better chance of lasting a year in H*ll than my forking over $30 for anything over than multiple DVD rentals.

ts

What's not being discussed here is why are they doing this now? A desperate and belated attempt to compete in a new world using old ideas is my guess. Yes, I do think there would be those that use a service like this. Whether it would be enough to make the experiment worthwhile or sustainable is another question. The studios are trying to remain relevant and profitable in the 21st century. They don't like all this darn change messing with their revenue streams. Personally I don't think they are making very many good movies anymore. For the past few years there have only been one or two gotta-see movies where it used to be a half dozen or more. I'm not completely sure why this is, but I think we may be on the verge of a new era how movies are financed, produced and released. That's a whole different discussion, but it ties together why the studios are so desperate I think. I for one, will never pay $30 two months after release, and I have a big family.

JCL

No 'april fools joke'!

I worked 30 yrs in theatre mgmt. 1950s-80s. The early years,'studios' goal was to entertain and make money, it than became only 'money'.

They really do believe the old Barnum saying: "one born every minute".

mike

only way id even consider $30 is if we could catch it no later than 1 week after initial release....even then i'd have friends split it with me :p

Phillip

I can't even keep track of the release schedule anymore. A movie is released when it comes out on Netflix. That's where I get my info on new movies these day.

If I eventually notice something I wanted to see that DIDN'T come out on Netflix, then I just download it. These stupid windows don't do anything.

If there's something I've been tracking before it even made it to theater and I'm excited enough about the experience, then I go to the theater. But I certainly wouldn't pay extra to get it at home for the same experience (probably worse) I'd get from Netflix.

kk

wait ... doesnt DirecTV & Comcast & Dish offer the movies at home already via VOD? Whats the difference between this and what they are now proposing? The article says they are partnering with DirecTV, comcast etc. And the VOD on those services is way cheaper .. about $5 per movie.

I guess the only difference is .. sooner? available 8 weeks after release vs day of DVD release.

scJohn

This might make since for families. But for single people, couples, date night, no way. The studios seem to think/hope/pray that this is the replacement revenue stream for DVD sales. Let's see, Blue-ray was going to the savior. Followed by pay per view. Followed by digital sell thru and followed by digital rentals.

ivan drago

april fool?

InstaFlicka Podcast

This is all kinds of stupid.

Why the F would I pay three times what I pay for all the movies I want on a monthly basis for one movie?

JC

No I would not be interested in paying 30 bucks to see a movie. I can't think of a movie that would be worth that kind of money to see.

I would just wait to see it on Netflix or my cable provider through buying premium channels....duh. I am already paying for "movie services".

I say FAIL.

KC Smith

$30 is too much for something that'll be in general DVD release 30 days later, sorry. Stopped going to movies because of the expense - family of four, tickets plus concessions was $60 the last time we went. I love going to the theaters and have yet to make the jump to HDTV, so we do make it out maybe once a year for something really compelling - but Cars and Wall-E were really the last two movies we went as a family to see.

IND

A lot of these comments essentially say 'who would do this' when the post says exactly who they think would do it - people with families, as an alternative to going to the theater. So if you're not thinking of it in this way of course you won't be interested. Even if you have 2 adults and two kids you'll probably come out ahead because I doubt anyone takes the kids to the movies and only ends up paying for tickets.

I'll bet there are a lot of families that would do this - I know when I was a kid I would have tried to talk my parents in to it for a movie I wanted to see rather than wait another month or whatever. Also, as a single person I think 'why would I do this' when it come to *any* PPV, but it's clearly a money maker.

Mike

Opening day for $30 would seem very reasonable. Four people and you are already saving money, just three and you are breaking even.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Sponsors

Third-Party Netflix Sites