Would you pay $30 to watch a first-run movie in your home ahead of video release? (1 Viewer)

[Ron-P]

Originally Posted by Adam Gregorich

Hmm I'm the only one who voted yes. We watch a lot more movies at home rather than in the theater due to cost. For my wife and I to go to the movies: $20 tickets, $20 snack bar, $30+ babysitter. I'd save a pile of money by only paying $30 and waiting until the kids have gone to bed. Not to mention what if you made a party out of it and invited friends over to watch? Then it would be a really good value compared to a trip to the theater.


Now I agree that this isn't for every movie, but I could see doing it two or three times a year for certain movies.

This makes no sense to me. If you're so worried about cost why would you just not wait a couple more months and own it (for less then the $30 one time viewing) or rent it? Plus, you cannot add in the cost of snacks when going out to the movies, you have the option of bringing your own.

 

[JeremyR]

Nope.. but then I don't give movie theater's that kind of moolah anymore except for perhaps 2x a year. This year it's going to be a challenge with Green Lantern, Cars 2, Harry Potter, and Captain America. But at least two of those my wife won't care if she sees until it comes out on video so it'll just be me dropping the dough. And our 3 year old will go to Cars 2 with us at a matinee so it wouldn't matter anyway. Part of the experience of going to the movies is why you spend the money, and as much as I love my home theater at home, I only have a 42 inch TV so it just isn't quite the same. I doubt many people have HD screens that exceed 40-42 inches, sure many do here, but not many in the general public. And even if I had a 55 inch screen or 100 inch screen projector, the experience still isn't quite like going to the movies. They need to drop the stupid ticket prices, and test the market to see if people will start going back to the cinemas again.

 

[Ralphie_B]

Originally Posted by Aaron Silverman

Yup. It depends on how many people are willing to pay a premium to watch a disc NOW. There are way too many movies already out there that I haven't seen for that to ever be an issue for me -- it's not like I ever won't have something else to watch.

Ditto. I have a huge backlog of movies I want to watch, and several Blu-Ray discs I own haven't even been opened yet. So I can most definitely wait on new releases.

 

[Edwin-S]

In Canada, Blu-rays are averaging 30 bucks apiece. My purchasing of discs has fallen off a cliff due to that price point, so there is no way I would pay 30 bucks for an early home release that I could only watch once.

 

[Adam Gregorich]

Originally Posted by Josh Steinberg

Adam, those are all really great points -- I'm just curious, based on the studio's plans for this -- would you still be willing to spend $30 for a movie that's already out of theaters (so it's not a choice of going out vs. staying in to see the same film - that's the kind of release timing I personally think would be the only way to justify the price) and will be on Blu-ray/DVD in a month or two, which you could rent or buy for less than $30? (I'm genuinely curious to hear your answer, I'm not making fun of you or anything - just didn't want it to come across that way.)


I'm really curious to see how sales for this work out. Everyone's posted some great theories for both why it would or why it wouldn't be a success, but it'll be interesting to see how it actually goes.

No worries, it didn't. Already out of theaters? No. If we are 3+ months away from home video and its something I really want to see, I would absolutely consider it. I should say that it would have to be an "event type" movie. We have a pretty nice home theater, and if we invited over some other people the cost (to me) is easily justified.

Originally Posted by Ron-P
This makes no sense to me. If you're so worried about cost why would you just not wait a couple more months and own it (for less then the $30 one time viewing) or rent it? Plus, you cannot add in the cost of snacks when going out to the movies, you have the option of bringing your own.

Technically you don't have the option of bringing your own snacks. None of my local theaters allow outside food. If anything that was a conservative cost. Since we already have the babysitter usually we tack on dinner too which makes it a very expensive night, it just wasn't fair to add that into the comparison. Like I said to Josh, if you invite over a bunch of friends and average that cost out per person it's (to me) reasonable, plus I bet I get better picture and sound at home. I can't say how often I would do it, but for the right movie I can see inviting a bunch of friends over and doing this. Value is very subjective.

 

[Adam Gregorich]

I should add that for that price I expect high quality picture and sound. If its typical streaming quality forget it.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Originally Posted by Adam Gregorich

No worries, it didn't. Already out of theaters? No. If we are 3+ months away from home video and its something I really want to see, I would absolutely consider it. I should say that it would have to be an "event type" movie. We have a pretty nice home theater, and if we invited over some other people the cost (to me) is easily justified.

Technically you don't have the option of bringing your own snacks. None of my local theaters allow outside food.

None of the theaters around me "allow" you to bring your own food, but that hasn't stopped me -- I used to feel compelled only to buy what was available, but lately I just started bringing a small shoulder bag with me whenever I go, filled with whatever I feel like, be it a burrito or candy or my own soda. I'll still buy a popcorn if I happen to show up when it's actually being popped, but otherwise, I'll take a pass on that. I guess that's one of the unanticipated benefits of the people running these places not caring about their business - they never bother to check my bag for food.


By the way, I agree that it might be worth the money for an event type movie, but my sneaking suspicion is that those are exactly the types of films they won't offer. Those are the titles that generally do the biggest box office and have the best DVD sales, so I can't imagine them messing with that. I'd love to be wrong, but I suspect we're going to see a lot of stuff like the "Just Go With It" Sandler movie that's being toted as the first release on this service - movies that studio heads think should have been giant blockbusters based on the films following an established formula or having name actors, but that didn't overwhelm at the box office. I really can't imagine seeing the latest Batman or James Bond or Star Trek movie being offered because those are precisely the films that they do their best DVD business on. The more I read about this, and the more I think about it, the more this seems like an attempt to get people to overpay for something that they probably aren't likely to be willing to overpay on, based solely on a "it's not yet on DVD!" sales pitch. And with these releases supposedly coming after a film is out of theaters and shortly before the DVD, it seems more like hotel room pay-per-view (overpriced flicks, weeks before the DVD) than a new or creative business model. If I was a theater owner, I don't know that I'd be outraged about this just yet. For all the filmmakers that signed the protest letter against this concept -- it really doesn't seem likely that any of their films would be the ones being selected for this "opportunity".

 

[Ron-P]

Same here Josh, they don't check any bags so I bring in all our own stuff. I will not pay those ridiculous prices for food, drinks, snacks or popcorn. It's a blatant rip-off. Now, if they were to lower those prices by 50% so they were some what reasonable, I'd support it.

 

[mattCR]

I think the above nails it. I think there are some films that (gasp) are better seen at home then in a theater. But I'm betting those aren't the film we'll see offered. If someone could have told me $30 to see, say, Schindler's List at Home vs. the theater; or several documentaries, or several niche films, yes, I would have chosen to do it. I'm going through "Rabbit Hole" right now, which I saw in the theater.. but it is a MUCH better experience at home. It just is. There are some films like that. I nevere watched "Henry and June" in a theater, a film I enjoy - but it's not a film I would enjoy so much in a dark room with tons of strangers

 

[Matthew Ploor]

This seems like an odd business model to me. I'd think that if you've already waited a couple months since the theatrical release, why not wait a little longer for the cheap rental? If this was done closer to the theatrical release then the 30 bucks might make sense for families, but with this combination of price and timing I can't imagine very many people going for this.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

I just don't eat at the movie theater. Somehow I manage to survive two hours without a snack (although when the popcorn smell gets overpowering it can be tough!).


Adam, you only have a couple of kids, right? The theater by us has a pretty nice day care center off the lobby where you can drop off your kid while you catch a movie. IIRC it's around $10 a head. Maybe there's something similar in your area. Beats $30+ for a babysitter!

 

[Adam Gregorich]

Originally Posted by Aaron Silverman

I just don't eat at the movie theater. Somehow I manage to survive two hours without a snack (although when the popcorn smell gets overpowering it can be tough!).


Adam, you only have a couple of kids, right? The theater by us has a pretty nice day care center off the lobby where you can drop off your kid while you catch a movie. IIRC it's around $10 a head. Maybe there's something similar in your area. Beats $30+ for a babysitter!

You have stronger will power than I have! There are two theaters by us. A 16 plex and a 7 plex and neither have child care. That would be a great idea if they did.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Aaron Silverman /forum/thread/310907/would-you-pay-...r-home-ahead-of-video-release/30#post_3805393

 

[Adam Gregorich]

I have gained two more converts to the dark side in the poll results [insert evil laugh]

 

[Everett S.]

The last movie I saw was Star Trek @ the Philly Imax. That cost me almost $100.00, as there are no theatres near me in Delaware.I took a bus to Philly & then a cab.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Originally Posted by Everett Stallings

The last movie I saw was Star Trek @ the Philly Imax. That cost me almost $100.00, as there are no theatres near me in Delaware.I took a bus to Philly & then a cab.

Ouch. I feel your pain, though - these days if I want to see a midnight opening for something in NYC, I have to take a late commuter train back that's near-ish to my actually line, but not close, so there's an extra $30 cab ride involved with getting home. But I think that particular kind of moviegoing experience is worth the premium, especially when there's a great crowd.

 

[Todd Erwin]

Now that most of the movie theaters in my area, including 2nd run ($2) houses, have converted to digital projection, I find I can have a much better movie-going experience outside the home now. Of course, I still find it much cheaper to stay in and rent a movie on Blu-ray from Netflix or Movie-Q.

 

[Adam Gregorich]

Originally Posted by Toddwrtr

Now that most of the movie theaters in my area, including 2nd run ($2) houses, have converted to digital projection, I find I can have a much better movie-going experience outside the home now. Of course, I still find it much cheaper to stay in and rent a movie on Blu-ray from Netflix or Movie-Q.

That's pretty impressive! Most of the big cineplexes here only have a few theaters with digital projection, forget about the 2nd runs.

 

[WadeLil]

I think this would be a good deal 4 families or couples but not too many individuals.I also think should this gain traction u will start to see the DVD window increase once again.The whole reason 4 d shrinkage in recent years was to capitalize on B.O. AS FAST AS POSSIBLE.But this waters down the need 4 that.

 

[DocCasualty]

This business model is lost on me too and is further evidence of how out of touch the entertainment industry is with their customer base. I might wish to purchase the mega-hit on BD when it eventually is released, however, I certainly will put it on my Netflix queue and wait the extra couple of months and watch it for a fraction of the cost.

I'm fortunate enough to have a 58" plasma and while there are certain films that only the big screen of a movie theater will do justice, I frankly don't care to go to the movie theater any more. I don't have any of these great quality theaters in my neck of the woods anyway. I probably go a few times a year max to the movies because it is much more enjoyable at home.

While I empathize with the theater owners and the loss they would sustain if films became available via other media during the original runs, this would probably net the studios much more money and I predict we will eventually see this. If they were offering opening night release on VUDU for $30, then I'm in.
This is like any other technologic advancement and the new paradigm forces out the old to make way for the new. Every step of the way the studios have bemoaned the new technology as their death knell, going back at least as far as VHS and every new technology has netted them more profits than before. I don't know why they don't see that will be the case here as well.