DavidJ

Producer
Joined
Jul 23, 2001
Messages
4,043
Reaction score
732
Points
4,110
Real Name
David
Man, there is no way I'll pay $20 to rent a movie. I understand that movie tickets cost a lot more money than where I'm at, so people might be fine with that price point.
If I’m renting one the whole family can watch, $20 seems quite reasonable. If it’s one for the wife and me, then it becomes a maybe. It is considerably cheaper than the theater in both cases.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peter Keller

Jake Lipson

Executive Producer
Premium
Joined
Dec 21, 2002
Messages
10,134
Reaction score
5,295
Points
9,110
Age
31
Real Name
Jake Lipson
It is considerably cheaper than the theater in both cases.
That depends on where you are in the country and how many people you would have taken to the theater. If you're in NY/LA where prices are really high, then yes, $20 could be a deal. If theaters were open here, I would be able to go for $8.15 for a matinee (or $7.07 if it's the first showtime of the day) and I would have gone by myself. So a rental at $20 is significantly higher than what I would actually pay if I had access to the movie in the theater.

But the other issue here is that we know these won't stay at these prices forever. They will still come out on Blu-ray at some point, probably around the same time that they would have if they had been able to complete a standard theatrical run. At that time, it will no longer be an "in-theater rental," and presumably the price for a rental will go down to normal. So the question is, why pay $20 now if I can wait until May or June or July and then rent the same thing for standard pricing? In order to get me to bite on this, it would have to be something that I feel the need to see right away. None of the movies put out this way this week have been that for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EricSchulz

Robert Crawford

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
47,607
Reaction score
23,699
Points
9,110
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
If I’m renting one the whole family can watch, $20 seems quite reasonable. If it’s one for the wife and me, then it becomes a maybe. It is considerably cheaper than the theater in both cases.
We all have different circumstances as I never disputed the facts that this "at home" option might appeal to other people in which movie ticket prices are much higher than here in mid-Michigan or that a family might be watching these rentals while it's only me and/or one other person doing so in my particular situation.
 

Robert Crawford

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
47,607
Reaction score
23,699
Points
9,110
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
So the consensus here from big movie fans who still spend money to own movies is that $20 for a brand new movie is too high. I wonder how that price will go over with the general public who just watch movies on their iPad as a distraction? I think the theaters are safe.
Not only that, the financial impact on millions of people is going to be felt due to this virus outbreak which means less money available to spend on discretionary items like this "in home" option.
 

Bryan^H

Lead Actor
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Messages
7,062
Reaction score
3,825
Points
9,110
I have a feeling this was in the planning stages before the virus outbreak, and that just propelled the decision roll it out earlier than schedule.

I'm for one think $20 for a 48 hour rental is a steal for first run theatrical features. It is great. Watching a big budget popcorn movie in the comfort of my home on the big screen is a great luxury (with snacks a trip to the cinema including gas money to get there comes out to more money...usually $25 and change). I no longer have to "wait" until it arrives on home video. And you can watch it multiple times, or with friends, and family, all for one price. A massive advantage over theater viewing.

But the double edged sword of this is that I truly feel an imminent danger the lifespan of theaters. I still like the option to watch on a 40' screen for certain films. I don't want to lose that.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Peter Keller

John*Wells

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
1,306
Reaction score
959
Points
1,610
Real Name
John
This is a natural progression isn’t it? I mean, the major studios are owned by large media conglomerates. Wouldn’t they rather do this than have to rent or own and maintain hundreds of brick and mortar buildings , pay high overhead (Utility costs, concessions contracts)
 

Cranston37

Cinematographer
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Messages
2,479
Reaction score
1,647
Points
1,610
Real Name
We'll see ya later, fellas 5/30/20
This is a natural progression isn’t it? I mean, the major studios are owned by large media conglomerates. Wouldn’t they rather do this than have to rent or own and maintain hundreds of brick and mortar buildings , pay high overhead (Utility costs, concessions contracts)
I'm not following your point here - how do the major studios have to maintain hundreds of brick and mortar buildings?

I would argue, and I'm guessing here, that studios can still make more money at the theater. At home you charge one price for everybody watching, whereas the theater you can charge per person. That favors the theater for groups of 2 or more.

Look, as Robert said, this model is attractive to some but not others. For one person a $20 rental might not make sense. But I paid $56.52 for 3 tickets to see No Time To Die and we probably would have spent another $50 on drinks and food at the theater's bar. If I had the option to pay $20 and have a bunch of people over to my house and have fun making martini's, etc, that's probably we'd do.

That example is why the studios probably aren't as excited to go that route as you think.
 
Last edited:

Dalton

Screenwriter
Joined
Aug 19, 2001
Messages
1,199
Reaction score
7
Points
110
Age
50
Location
Rhode Island
Real Name
Dalton
I can't see this being viable long term. Too much revenue will be lost. It's great for the lock down era and I would certainly consider it for certain films I want to see badly .
 

Jake Lipson

Executive Producer
Premium
Joined
Dec 21, 2002
Messages
10,134
Reaction score
5,295
Points
9,110
Age
31
Real Name
Jake Lipson
I think it also depends on what the movie is.

A ~$200 million tentpole like Mulan or Black Widow would not be able to make as much money as a VOD exclusive as it needs to in order to become profitable. Disney budgeted and produced those movies under the reasonable assumption that they would have a theatrical release, so that is what I expect them to do.

Onward, although it will probably draw some people to subscribe to Disney+ when it is placed there next week, is probably not going to be able to recoup its costs because its theatrical release was cut short.

For something that is much smaller budget and has less to recoup, then perhaps a VOD launch could be viable. Disney is putting two more Disneynature documentaries on Disney+ next week, the kind that in prior years would have received a theatrical release for Earth Day and made a relatively small amount of money. Now, those kinds of things can be made and put on Disney+ as streaming exclusives to boost their catalog and make sense for them on that level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ManW_TheUncool

TonyD

Who do we think I am?
Premium
Joined
Dec 1, 1999
Messages
20,319
Reaction score
2,054
Points
9,110
Age
55
Location
Gulf Coast
Website
www.facebook.com
Real Name
Tony D.
The Impractical Jokers movie is appearing on April First.
I love the show but I won’t be paying $20 for tHe movie.
 

dpippel

HTF Premium Member
Premium
Joined
Feb 24, 2000
Messages
9,059
Reaction score
5,793
Points
9,110
Location
Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems
Real Name
Doug
I guess it depends on the release. The Invisible Man, for example, is only HD and 5.1 on every service I've looked at. $20 rental for HD 5.1? I don't think so!
 

Johnny Angell

Played With Dinosaurs Member
Joined
Dec 13, 1998
Messages
12,042
Reaction score
4,010
Points
9,110
Age
74
Location
Central Arkansas
Real Name
Johnny Angell
Way too expensive. Not interested.
 

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

Threads
343,709
Messages
4,687,732
Members
141,011
Latest member
raunahmniti