Would You Pay $30 to Watch a Theatrical Release at Home?

[Brian Damage]

The same-day-as-theaters video-on-demand release scheme that's recently been embraced by IFC Films and Magnolia Pictures (and occasionally a few other, smaller outfits) is the best thing since Tivo. I'm an avid and frequent user. Yes, I know: movies are meant to be seen on a movie screen, etc. In principle I agree. But the choice between schlepping to a low-rent arthouse halfway across the city to watch, say, Red Cliff, and sitting on my couch and watching it in glorious HD on my 52" screen (for the same price) is, I'm not really embarrassed to say, a no-brainer. This weekend, I watched the underrated Survival of the Dead in the comfort of my apartment. A few weeks ago, The Human Centipede.

The mainstream theatrical release model is pretty entrenched, but given the rapidly expanding capabilities of home theater (3-D TV is practically here), it's not surprising that studios and distributors beyond the indies would be hankering to experiment. And so it is, according to The Wall Street Journal. The latest proposal: theatrical releases in your home after 30 days, for $20 to $30 a pop. So, instead of going to the theater to see Clash of the Titans last weekend, you could have waited until Memorial Day and watched it at home, adding $30 to your cable bill.



The economic arguments for movie audiences are pretty straightforward. For most people the scheme is an intermediate option between theatrical release and traditional "home video." $30 is more than a movie ticket, but you pay it once, not per-person -- there's obviously a great deal of appeal for families. You don't pay a fortune for snacks. If your goal is to save money, of course, you wait a couple more months and get the film on Netflix, or pay half the price to own the DVD. If you are excited to see the movie, you venture to the theater on opening weekend.

Theater owners are understandably perturbed, believing that this brand of "premium" VOD will cannibalize ticket sales (and of course concessions). It's not a fundamental change, but it is a radical tightening of the home video window, which theaters will fight tooth and nail on the theory that if you can see a movie at home 30 days from now, you are less likely to go to the theater than if you have to wait six months. I think the central question is whether this is true. Do people value the theatrical experience, or do they go to the theater because they don't have any other way to see the movie?

It's not clear. Theatrical grosses have increased despite more widespread piracy and shrinking DVD windows. On the other hand, I can say with certainty that if I could watch a movie on DVD 30 days after theatrical release, my theater-going behavior would be affected. on any given day, I would choose to watch 90% of movies at home rather than in a theater (assuming I could do so in HD). What about you? And what do you think of the specific proposal on the table -- thirty dollars and thirty days?

http://www.cinematical.com/2010/05/2...lease-at-home/

[catlover79]

In a word, NO!!!

[Marvo301]

Originally Posted by catlover79

In a word, NO!!!

Same here! And by the way not all of us have a 52 inch TV at home either!

[catlover79]

Originally Posted by Marvo301

Same here! And by the way not all of us have a 52 inch TV at home either!

I certainly don't!

[steevo]

For that amount of money, the actors better perform it live in my living room.

[Retro4Life]

Nope, no way.

I still use the 23 inch set my parents got me after I graduated college in 1986. That should tell you about my ability (and willingness) to pay 30 bucks for a home viewing!

[Number 9 Dream]

Nah, there's something about the theatrical experience that I just love, especially if it's a movie I'm dying to see. The smell (and taste!) of buttery popcorn, the booming sound, sharing the experience with others (as long as no one talks during the movie! ), and the ride home, discussing the film with family/friends, are aspects I really love about the theater. Granted, I suppose you could simulate the experience at home, but in my opinion it's not the same. And I don't go to the movies all the time, either; only when a really good horror or blockbuster movie comes out and I have the bucks to shell out

[catlover79]

Originally Posted by steevo

For that amount of money, the actors better perform it live in my living room.

[Sterling Holobyte]

Nothing that Hollywood puts out could propel me to spend that amount of money. PU

[comedyfreak]

Nope me either, no way.

[catlover79]

Originally Posted by Sterling Holobyte

Nothing that Hollywood puts out could propel me to spend that amount of money. PU

My sentiments exactly. I wouldn't even pay 30 cents!!!

[MickeyMac]

Originally Posted by catlover79

In a word, NO!!!

Same here. Movies are so sh*tty right now, I wouldnt take this if they offered it for free.

[biffbronson]

This reminds me of the Michigan J. Frog cartoon: No takers until the "Free Beer!" sign went out. For $30, I think most people would expect a little more than a single, likely mediocre movie in the home... Maybe they'll come in ahead of time and install a sticky floor for you!