Studios are moving forward with plans to make movies available for rental mere weeks after...

By Shawn Knight · 5 replies
Aug 18, 2017
Post New Reply
  1. Movie theaters seem like an incredibly archaic concept in 2017 as nearly every amenity or benefit they once afforded has been nullified – or made worse – by modern technology.

    Large-screen TVs are the norm these days and booming audio systems can be had for very little money. Internet connections are more than fast enough to transfer full-length movies in seconds. Concessions remain extremely overpriced, people still insist on bringing screaming babies to theaters and who wants to be bothered by people that’d rather play on their smartphones than watch a flick they paid money to see?

    Yet, theaters persist.

    I get the argument that films can be more enjoyable to watch with an audience that’s also interested and engaged but let’s be real – theaters only exist these days because that’s the way it’s always been, there’s a lot of money tied up in the industry and piracy is still a problem.

    Movie studios and distributors aren’t yet ready to pull the plug on theaters entirely but they do want to significantly reduce the amount of time it takes for a film to transition from the big screen to your living room.

    Apple and Comcast are forging ahead in talks with studios including Warner Bros. and Universal Pictures on such a plan despite pushback and reluctance from theater chains according to sources as reported by Bloomberg.

    Negotiations, which have persisted for months, involve the creation of a premium movie-download service that would make films available to consumers mere weeks after appearing in theaters for between $30 and $50 each. That may sound like a lot of money (and it is for a single person) but for a family or even a group of friends willing to split the cost, it’s easy to see how this option could be cheaper versus a night out at the theater.

    The quick turnaround would also benefit studios as they could capitalize on hype generated by opening weekends in theaters. As it stands now, a second round of marketing is needed months after a film becomes available outside of theaters.

    Unfortunately, the two sides have been unable to agree to mutually beneficial terms which means a deal likely won’t be reached anytime this year. What's more, cinema chains aren't interested as it'd give people incentive to skip seeing a film in theaters if they know they could watch it at home just a few weeks later.

    There’s also the big elephant in the room named Disney which, according to Bloomberg, isn’t interested in participating in discussions. Disney reportedly contends that its movies need to be seen on the big screen (the fact that it’s also prepping a streaming service for launch in 2019 probably factors into its decision as well).

    In the interim, theaters have more pressing matters to tend to.

    Permalink to story.

     
  2. davislane1

    davislane1 TS Grand Inquisitor Posts: 5,051   +4,084

    Negotiations, which have persisted for months, involve the creation of a premium movie-download service that would make films available to consumers mere weeks after appearing in theaters for between $30 and $50 each. That may sound like a lot of money (and it is for a single person) but for a family or even a group of friends willing to split the cost, it’s easy to see how this option could be cheaper versus a night out at the theater.

    The quick turnaround would also benefit studios as they could capitalize on hype generated by opening weekends in theaters. As it stands now, a second round of marketing is needed months after a film becomes available outside of theaters.


    People are disenchanted with $60 video games that offer 20+ hours of use and fractional resale value. Anybody who thinks $30-$60 for a movie is going to stem or reverse Hollywood's revenue anemia is smoking more dope than Bob Marley during a studio session. If they want money they need to stop producing garbage and return to telling stories.
     
  3. gigantor21

    gigantor21 TS Booster Posts: 45   +51

    Yeah, really don't see how this makes sense.

    You can either see it day 1 at the theater for $15 or less (depending on where you live), or you can just wait until it's on streaming sites or PPV. This approach seems like the worst of both worlds--hardly surprising given how poorly the industry adapts to new technology or changing consumer habits.
     
    lostinlodos and davislane1 like this.
  4. roberthi

    roberthi TS Addict Posts: 289   +69

    $20-$30? I still wouldn't be interested. Part of the problem with movies these days is that many are below average quality in story and acting, yet we pay full price for all of them. Not gonna happen anymore.
     
    lostinlodos likes this.
  5. JimmyMiles

    JimmyMiles TS Rookie

    Christopher Nolan, Stephen Spielberg, and other big creators also support the theaters in this. They want their films experienced on the biggest screens, because they make them with that in mind. However, the complaints discussed in this article are also my own: the courtesy level of the movie-going public is bottoming out, and theater management seems not to care. Even a high-end, boutique style chain near me (EPIC Theaters) offers nice seating and big screens, but it all gets neutralized by not adequately policing the crowd. You've got to hire security who have no problem booting guests who break rules (like cell phone use).
     
    lostinlodos likes this.
  6. lostinlodos

    lostinlodos TS Booster Posts: 135   +22

    Theatres give 90-95% of the ticket price (which is why concessions are so expensive), so how they justify $30, $40, $50?!?
    Now if these were put up on, say, vemo or flixter a few weeks later for $10 I could see a mad dash for streaming and a major cash flow!
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2017
    JimmyMiles likes this.

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...