Bay, Emmerich, Ratner, Cameron, Jackson, Del Toro, etc petition against early VOD

[number8]

http://www.indiewire.com/article/23_top_filmmakers_decry_premiu m_vod_in_open_letter/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed


Lately, there’s been a lot of talk by leaders at some major studios and cable companies about early-to-the-home “premium video-on-demand.” In this proposed distribution model, new movies can be shown in homes while these same films are still in their theatrical run.

In this scenario, those who own televisions with an HDMI input would be able to order a film through their cable system or an Internet provider as a digital rental. Terms and timing have yet to be made concrete, but there has been talk of windows of 60 days after theatrical release at a price of $30.

Currently, the average theatrical release window is over four months (132 days). The theatrical release window model has worked for years for everyone in the movie business. Current theatrical windows protect the exclusivity of new films showing in state-of-the-art theaters bolstered by the latest in digital projection, digital sound, and stadium seating.

As a crucial part of a business that last year grossed close to $32 billion in worldwide theatrical ticket sales, we in the creative community feel that now is the time for studios and cable companies to acknowledge that a release pattern for premium video-on-demand that invades the current theatrical window could irrevocably harm the financial model of our film industry.

Thoughts?

[D_Davis]

I'd understand the argument against the new practice more IF it had to do more with preserving the theatrical experience of seeing a film in a theater, on a huge screen, in an environment designed for such an experience.

I can understand directors who make big spectacle films wanting people to see them under certain viewing conditions. It's like musicians who make music to be listened to on headphones or something.

If it's just in issue of money, F them.

Things are changing - learn and adapt.

[DavidSeven]

It's bound to fail anyway. Is anyone here willing to pay $30 for PPV to see something a couple months before it hits DVD? That's three months of Netflix or 30 Redbox rentals. I don't see this price point being attractive to anyone. It will flop harder than Blu-Ray.

[Ezee E]

It's bound to fail anyway. Is anyone here willing to pay $30 for PPV to see something a couple months before it hits DVD? That's three months of Netflix or 30 Redbox rentals. I don't see this price point being attractive to anyone. It will flop harder than Blu-Ray.
Agreed. Nobody even pays that for DVDs.

[Russ]

It will flop harder than Blu-Ray.
Blu-ray's a flop?

I haven't seen any articles refuting that claim, but I do know that for many of us who have upgraded to blu players, and are presented with a title for purchase in both formats (DVD and Blu-ray), I'm going to go with blu every time. I thought that was the status quo now, but maybe I'm wrong?

[DavidSeven]

Blu-ray's a flop?

I haven't seen any articles refuting that claim, but I do know that for many of us who have upgraded to blu players, and are presented with a title for purchase in both formats (DVD and Blu-ray), I'm going to go with blu every time. I thought that was the status quo now, but maybe I'm wrong?

It's a flop. People don't buy physical media anymore. Those that do continue to buy DVD for the most part. There's a carve out for film-geeks and video-philes, but common people aren't building Blu-Ray collections like they did with DVDs seven years ago. Studios are desperately looking for ways to make money beyond the theatrical window because the DVD revolution is over and the BluRay revolution never got started. Hence, this short-sighted "premium VOD" plan.

[D_Davis]

And there are even a lot of us film buffs with huge DVD libraries not switching over. I've double and triple dipped enough.

[DavidSeven]

It used to be that you would go to someone's home or apartment, and one of the most prominent things on display would stacks or shelves of DVDs. The studios sold the public on the notion of a DVD as a collectible item. That enthusiasm doesn't exist for consumers in the Blu-Ray market. For one thing, people were unwilling to double-dip on titles they already owned because BR players were backwards compatible and DVDs still had "good enough" video quality. Secondly, they got the pricing all wrong. They offered BR discs at $20-30 when DVDs were priced at $10-20 for at least a few years before that. A slightly crisper picture is not worth a $10 premium on price to most people. The experience of watching a movie at home is still essentially the same, which is why the price point chosen for the proposed "premium VOD" baffles me.

Watching something two months earlier is not worth a $29 premium when it's essentially the same two-hour experience as an evening with Red Box. Studios can charge premiums at the theater because it's a different experience -- people pay a premium for the "getting out of the house" experience. What retard is going to pay $30 for Rio on PPV when they can stream Toy Story 3 or some other library title from Netflix for an average cost of < $1.00? You can't convince me that the desire to see new releases over old titles is worth that much more.

[Dukefrukem]

It's bound to fail anyway. Is anyone here willing to pay $30 for PPV to see something a couple months before it hits DVD?

Fuck no. But the price point makes sense doesn't it?

$30 for a movie I can watch with my wife and kid in the comfort of my own home, with my own food, versus.. what is it now... $10 a ticket + gas + food?

[number8]

Fuck no. But the price point makes sense doesn't it?

$30 for a movie I can watch with my wife and kid in the comfort of my own home, with my own food, versus.. what is it now... $10 a ticket + gas + food?

This is the whole idea behind it. The price point is this way because they're targeting households, not bachelor movie fans like the lot of youse. If the average family is a family of 4, then it's $7.50 a person.

The movies they're talking about here are mainstream studio movies, the Friday-night-out kind of movies. That's why theater chains and these big names are petitioning now, even though premium VOD like this already exists for IFC and Magnolia releases. The target audience for a service of those movies is not cutting into the weekend market, so there's no objection there from NATO.

And speaking of which, those IFC/Magnolia movies rent for $9.99 or lower, because they are targeted at single viewers, not families.

[D_Davis]

I recently paid $10 or $15 (can't recall) to watch 13 Assassins on demand from Amazon the weekend it opened in Seattle. Totally worth it. Didn't have to go to theater, deal with people on cell phones and talking, expensive snacks, and I could watch it while drinking beer.

[D_Davis]

It used to be that you would go to someone's home or apartment, and one of the most prominent things on display would stacks or shelves of DVDs. The studios sold the public on the notion of a DVD as a collectible item. That enthusiasm doesn't exist for consumers in the Blu-Ray market. .

That's so true. In my new place, I've moved most of my DVDs into my bedroom so they aren't in display in the living area. I'm almost embarrassed now by how many I still have, even after selling a ton.

[number8]

I recently paid $10 or $15 (can't recall) to watch 13 Assassins on demand from Amazon the weekend it opened in Seattle. Totally worth it. Didn't have to go to theater, deal with people on cell phones and talking, expensive snacks, and I could watch it while drinking beer.

I don't care much about studio's revenue, but if you think about it, it does create an unfair advantage for the consumers, especially when we're talking foreign/independent releases, which are clearly in need of money.

Recently, I was going to see the Bill Hicks documentary when it opened in theaters with two other people. Here in New York, it would have been $10.50 a person for the tickets alone. Instead, I rented the movie off the PS3 store for $6.99 and had the two of them buy me food and beer. We saved money, but the movie lost significant income.

[D_Davis]

Yeah - but would you all have paid $10.50, plus parking, snacks or whatever, or would you have skipped it? Also, I'm sure there is some money be given to the content creator/publisher by the content delivery system. Right? I mean, there have to be deals between these companies.

[number8]

Yeah - but would you all have paid $10.50, plus parking, snacks or whatever, or would you have skipped it?

I gave an example where we were literally planning on a day where we're all free to go out and see it, and then I accidentally saw it on the PS store. We go out and see movies often, so it's not like it wasn't going to happen anyway. We just stumbled into a cheaper alternative and opted for it to save money.


Also, I'm sure there is some money be given to the content creator/publisher by the content delivery system. Right? I mean, there have to be deals between these companies.

Well, yes, but if we're talking about the percentage of the gross, I meant that $31.50 vs $6.99 was a significant difference enough that the filmmakers took in less money from us.

Ultimately, though, I always prefer a theatrical experience, anyway. To give an inverse example, I could've saved money on seeing Super (and see it a week earlier too) if I'd rented it on the PS3, but I chose to go see it in a theater opening day instead. I just know that most consumers won't feel the same way.

[D_Davis]

Fair enough, and I see your points.

I guess for me, it comes down to disliking the theater experience these days. I mean, if I want to, I can fire up my projector and I have a 100'' screen in my living room, so I've got that going for me.

I also look at it as a time/money investment.

[number8]

I think the comparison I would make is, like... it's so much cheaper, easier and more comfortable for me to use my coffee machine to make myself coffee and enjoy a cuppa on my couch on a Sunday afternoon, but I still very much like going to the coffee house around the corner and enjoy sitting there for an hour or two.

[D_Davis]

I think the comparison I would make is, like... it's so much cheaper, easier and more comfortable for me to use my coffee machine to make myself coffee and enjoy a cuppa on my couch on a Sunday afternoon, but I still very much like going to the coffee house around the corner and enjoy sitting there for an hour or two.

I like that sometimes, but I almost always prefer to have it at home. I also don't have a Macbook or iPad, so people look at me weird.

I will however go to bars for beer - but mainly because they have beers on tap that I can't get in stores.

[Irish]

The studios sold the public on the notion of a DVD as a collectible item.

They sold because they were cheap and good quality. The same level of some sales never happened with VHS, for the opposite reasons (low quality, high price on initial release).

Duke's right. This'll go over big with people who live in rural areas or just about anyone with kids.

[Dukefrukem]

I recently paid $10 or $15 (can't recall) to watch 13 Assassins on demand from Amazon the weekend it opened in Seattle. Totally worth it. Didn't have to go to theater, deal with people on cell phones and talking, expensive snacks, and I could watch it while drinking beer.


I did the same thing for Rubber, Hobo With a Shotgun, Super and the Vanishinging on 7th Street. All pre-theater releases for about $9.99. That's acceptable. And in HD no less. Win win.

[Dukefrukem]

Ultimately, though, I always prefer a theatrical experience, anyway. To give an inverse example, I could've saved money on seeing Super (and see it a week earlier too) if I'd rented it on the PS3, but I chose to go see it in a theater opening day instead. I just know that most consumers won't feel the same way.

It's hard to prefer a theatrical experience today when there are so many douches who ruin the experience for everyone in the theater. I saw Hanna in theaters, sat in the 2nd row of the stadium seating section, and there were STILL 4 people in front of me playing on their iPhones through the whole fuckin movie. Fuck them up their ass.

[Dukefrukem]

I think the comparison I would make is, like... it's so much cheaper, easier and more comfortable for me to use my coffee machine to make myself coffee and enjoy a cuppa on my couch on a Sunday afternoon, but I still very much like going to the coffee house around the corner and enjoy sitting there for an hour or two.


I like that sometimes, but I almost always prefer to have it at home. I also don't have a Macbook or iPad, so people look at me weird.

I will however go to bars for beer - but mainly because they have beers on tap that I can't get in stores.

For some reason I chuckled to myself thinking of number8 as one of these guys:

http://familyguycutaways.com/images/Pictures_Online/Family_Guy_2_guys_in_Starbucks .gif

[Raiders]

I'm happy that Davis can have a digital projector and (I'm guessing) digital surround sound. I don't. What I do have is a dishwasher, washer/dryer, pets, restless wife (who because at home feels no need to stay still), street noises and the lack of ability to at any time before sundown create a very, very dark environment. This all inclusive of my 50" TV sitting about 14 feet away.

All these are inconveniences not found at the theater. Oh sure, there is children and people on cell phones, but maybe I am just blessed with generally non-rude people but during the film I notice very little disturbance. So, I'll pay $10 and have a nice time out with my wife and/or friends. I don't think the theater experience is dead yet, particularly for big-budget films. Smaller stuff should probably migrate some more to VOD because even if the consumer cost is on average half per person, I would bet that the increased availability and exposure would make up the difference and perhaps even more than make it up.

Also, Duke, have you considered adding the words "low" and "high" before your signature ratings and changing the name to "My Ten-Day Film Forecast?" Think about it.

[Dukefrukem]

Also, Duke, have you considered adding the words "low" and "high" before your signature ratings and changing the name to "My Ten-Day Film Forecast?" Think about it.

:lol:

I'm updating them as we speak! Since MC has been blocked at work for the past month or so (which is where my grading sheet has been) I could only update my MC sig at home. Since I don't remember the exact grade I gave it, I put in the range.

But that's a cute idea that I might do for a while.

[D_Davis]

I don't have surround sound. Doubt I ever will. I'm not an audiophile.

[Raiders]

I don't have surround sound. Doubt I ever will. I'm not an audiophile.

OK, but you do understand that many people want the quality of sound to match the quality of image, right?

[DavidSeven]

Fuck no. But the price point makes sense doesn't it?

$30 for a movie I can watch with my wife and kid in the comfort of my own home, with my own food, versus.. what is it now... $10 a ticket + gas + food?

I know what they're thinking. I've known about premium VOD for a while now. But I still say people pay $10/ticket to get out of the house on a Friday night and not necessarily for the movie itself. In terms of "getting out of the house experiences", it's still a cheaper alternative to going to a bar or a fancy restaurant. Watching a DVD at home is not a perfect alternative to a night out at the movies. In terms of the proposed premium VOD, people have perfect alternatives at home that offer the same experience for much cheaper. They can gather the kids around and watch a Netflix stream, a Redbox rental, or an older cable VOD for literally a fraction of the price. Maybe watching something "newer" is worth that much more to someone else, but I say you have to be a moron to pay $30 for the same "sit on your ass at home" experience as a Redbox rental.

[D_Davis]

OK, but you do understand that many people want the quality of sound to match the quality of image, right?

OK. Did I ever state anything to the contrary? You sound kind of bent out of shape about things.

[Raiders]

OK. Did I ever state anything to the contrary? You sound kind of bent out of shape about things.

I'm secretly a corporate shill for Paramount Studios.

[Ezee E]

I know what they're thinking. I've known about premium VOD for a while now. But I still say people pay $10/ticket to get out of the house on a Friday night and not necessarily for the movie itself. In terms of "getting out of the house experiences", it's still a cheaper alternative to going to a bar or a fancy restaurant. Watching a DVD at home is not a perfect alternative to a night out at the movies. In terms of the proposed premium VOD, people have perfect alternatives at home that offer the same experience for much cheaper. They can gather the kids around and watch a Netflix stream, a Redbox rental, or an older cable VOD for literally a fraction of the price. Maybe watching something "newer" is worth that much more to someone else, but I say you have to be a moron to pay $30 for the same "sit on your ass at home" experience as a Redbox rental.
Yep. It's baffling that this is even being attempted. $10, sure. I'll still try and see it in the theater myself, otherwise I'll just rent it from netflix a few months later.

[Watashi]

Considering at my theater, let's say two adults and two kids come see a movie around 4. That's 35 dollars just for the tickets. It's about another 30 dollars for the popcorn and sodas.

And that's IF they go during the matinee. If they go after 5, the tickets will cost around 40 dollars. That's ten dollars more expensive than just staying at home.

This is mostly for families anyway.

[Ezee E]

Kids see movies on opening weekends anyways. Sixty days after and they've already forgotten.

[Watashi]

Kids see movies on opening weekends anyways. Sixty days after and they've already forgotten.
60 days after release? I didn't see that part. That's stupid. Most movies are out of theaters by then.

[DavidSeven]

I still say part of what people pay for is the experience of taking your kid to out to a movie itself. It's like taking your kid out for ice cream when there's ice cream in the freezer. number8's example of going to the coffee shop even though you have coffeemaker at home works too.

The only way this gains traction is if they day/date premium VOD with the theatrical release date. At least people would be able to factor the cultural and marketing hype into their internal calculation. 60 days is too far out to charge that much. At best, this ends up completely ignored. At worst, they cannibalize the box office of major films. I don't see the upside.

[Ezee E]

Releasing this 60 days after is basically just doing a month before the DVD comes out anyways in most cases also. So you missed it in the theater, and you're going to pay $30 when you can rent it on the redbox for $1 in a month?

Really, there's so many bad things about this that I'm surprised it's even existing.

[soitgoes...]

I can see a movie 2 months after first release, with 19 of my closest friends for $30, by going to my local second-run theater.

[Skitch]

It's hard to prefer a theatrical experience today when there are so many douches who ruin the experience for everyone in the theater. I saw Hanna in theaters, sat in the 2nd row of the stadium seating section, and there were STILL 4 people in front of me playing on their iPhones through the whole fuckin movie. Fuck them up their ass.
This is my problem as well. I've said before, and I'll say it again: if studios want to make more money in the theaters, start throwing the douchebags out of them.

I stopped just being made about it though. I've left the theater after 3/4ths of the film, demanded my money back. Everytime I've gotten a refund. I don't act like an asshole. I calmly explain to the manager that I want a refund, because they aren't removing disruptive people. I've done this half a dozen times in last year.

The last time I did, during Tron: Legacy, I explained to the manager how kids were buying tickets for other shows, and taking the 3D glasses out of the recycle bin in the theater. I told him there were two groups of kids screaming profanitys at each other from front to back of the theater. They even kicked a trash can over and rolled it down the isle. He told me I should have come and got him because he would have yelled at them, and if I would have come and got him again, he wouldve thrown them out. I told him I would have had to leave the theater twice? I'm sorry sir, but that isn't my job when I'm paying these prices.

Make them pay. Hopefully it sends a message.

[number8]

Here's the thing, though. The reason why they're choosing 60 days is because they don't want to cannibalize the box office. That's why they'll never do first-run. The prestige of big opening BO is too high to fuck with.

And the reason they're not putting the price tag lower than a DVD/Blu-ray list price is because they don't want to release what is essentially the same product a month early at a lower price. That would be fucking with DVD sales numbers.

But this way? There's a possibility of it being ignored, but there's no real downside to it. It's not exactly a "stupid" move if there's no risk in the gamble.

[Ezee E]

The only time I ever see disruptive people in the theater is if its opening weekend, at like 8-10 pm ish. Even then, it's really not that bad. Where do you people live? Or maybe it's the movies I"m seeing.

[DavidSeven]

But this way? There's a possibility of it being ignored, but there's no real downside to it. It's not exactly a "stupid" move if there's no risk in the gamble.

Except the gamble of pissing off distributors and filmmakers by sending the implicit message to audiences that ticket prices are too high and that the theater experience can be replicated at home.

[number8]

If they sit near me, I usually politely but sternly ask them to be quiet or put away their phone. "It's shining at me and I can't watch the movie." It annoys them, but they usually comply

I used to be obnoxious, myself, by demanding that they be quiet, and it could backfire. I once told a guy down the row to shut the fuck up, and he yelled at me to fuck off and started talking louder, so I lost my temper and screamed at him that he's being an asshole, until a third party chimed in and said we're disrupting the movie. That was really embarrassing.

[Ezee E]

Higher cost of promotion for one.

[number8]

Actually, you know what's the fucking worst? Going to see a movie and YOUR FRIENDS are the ones who won't fucking shut up. Years ago, I went to see a movie with these two girls for the first time, I was just getting to know them, and they were talking to each other THE ENTIRE TIME. Non-stop. I had no idea what to do. I could feel other people's dirty looks piercing me. I never went to see another movie with either of them again.

[Skitch]

If they sit near me, I usually politely but sternly ask them to be quiet or put away their phone. "It's shining at me and I can't watch the movie." It annoys them, but they usually comply

I used to be obnoxious, myself, by demanding that they be quiet, and it could backfire. I once told a guy down the row to shut the fuck up, and he yelled at me to fuck off and started talking louder, so I lost my temper and screamed at him that he's being an asshole, until a third party chimed in and said we're disrupting the movie. That was really embarrassing.

Similar experiences have led me to relax as well. I reexamined what I was doing, and said "You know what? Its not my job to police the theater." Plus, with the 'cinema rage' thing around...well...I'd feel really dumb getting shot by some douche for telling him to shut his fucking mouth or cell. :)

[Ezee E]

Actually, you know what's the fucking worst? Going to see a movie and YOUR FRIENDS are the ones who won't fucking shut up. Years ago, I went to see a movie with these two girls for the first time, I was just getting to know them, and they were talking to each other THE ENTIRE TIME. Non-stop. I had no idea what to do. I could feel other people's dirty looks piercing me. I never went to see another movie with either of them again.
Yeah, this happened once. Same exact situation. One of the girls wanted to watch the movie (A Serious Man) but the other friend hated it, and kept trying to get the other friend to talk. When she stopped talking, she went for the phone and started texting, and then sighing every five minutes.

I was glad when someone did tell her to shut up and go see some kids movie.

I never did see a movie with that one again either. I even told her I wouldn't.

[Mysterious Dude]

I couldn't get my mom to stop talking to me during Mission Impossible II. I don't think she liked it.


The only time I ever see disruptive people in the theater is if its opening weekend, at like 8-10 pm ish. Even then, it's really not that bad. Where do you people live? Or maybe it's the movies I"m seeing.
I went to see Ajami, and there were only two other people in the theater. One of them was reading the subtitles out loud to himself. I finally asked him to stop talking. He apologized and complied, and the movie ended one minute later.

[Watashi]

You waited until the end of the movie to tell him to shut up?

[Watashi]

I always go to the last showing on a weekday. There's no one there usually.

[Mysterious Dude]

You waited until the end of the movie to tell him to shut up?
I'm shy about telling people to shut up. It took a long time for me to gather up the courage.

[Ezee E]

I'm shy about telling people to shut up. It took a long time for me to gather up the courage.
Well at least you got a minute.

Seriously though, it's an entire theater with no one in it, if you're afraid to tell someone to be quiet, there's gotta be a place you can move to that won't be within listening distance.

[Dukefrukem]

If only every theater experience was enjoyable as my Snakes on Plane experience.

[bac0n]

Personally, this has no appeal to me, at all. If I'm gonna wait 2 months to pay 30 bucks to watch something once, I may as well wait another 2 to spend 10 15 dollars less to buy the blu-ray watch it any time I want to, and with better fidelity to boot.

[Dukefrukem]

If Inception was out of theaters, and this option was available, I'd probably pay the $30 for it and then buy it on Blu-ray the day it was released.

[Scar]

If Inception was out of theaters, and this option was available, I'd probably pay the $30 for it and then buy it on Blu-ray the day it was released.

Not I. I'd find a better use for that $30, especially if I'd already seen the movie in the theater.

[Dukefrukem]

Not I. I'd find a better use for that $30, especially if I'd already seen the movie in the theater.

But I saw it in theaters, thrice!

[Irish]

I still say part of what people pay for is the experience of taking your kid to out to a movie itself. It's like taking your kid out for ice cream when there's ice cream in the freezer. number8's example of going to the coffee shop even though you have coffeemaker at home works too.

The only way this gains traction is if they day/date premium VOD with the theatrical release date. At least people would be able to factor the cultural and marketing hype into their internal calculation. 60 days is too far out to charge that much. At best, this ends up completely ignored. At worst, they cannibalize the box office of major films. I don't see the upside.


Except the gamble of pissing off distributors and filmmakers by sending the implicit message to audiences that ticket prices are too high and that the theater experience can be replicated at home.

I think audiences already know that the theater experience can be replicated at home.

The coffee shop is a bad example. Humans are social, and you get a psychological benefit out of being around people even if you're not directly interacting with them. That's why people go to coffee shops to work or read when they could just as easily stayed home (to be sort of "alone together").

Movies are a different beast. You're sitting in the dark, nobody (hopefully) talks, and the most you can see of anyone is the back of their head. I'd wager you don't get much social benefit from that. (Which is why, I suspect, outside serious film fans and diehard loners, people do no go to the movies alone).

I don't think the studios care too much about pissing off distributors. Oh, sure, they might have to walk on egg shells in the short term but anybody who watched Netflix vs Blockbuster or Amazon vs Borders play out knows where distribution is going.

This is just the first experiment of its kind. What they're trying to do is capture the interest of people who never would have gone to the theater in the first place, for whatever reason. That's an additional sale for them, at arguably to no loss to the theater chain. (A kind of commercial spin on the old piracy argument).

What I don't get is why anybody in the film industry would huff and puff about it. The names at the top of this thread just made a mind boggingly stupid Jack-Valenti-VCR-Boston-Strangler level statement.

[number8]

Humans are social, and you get a psychological benefit out of being around people even if you're not directly interacting with them.

This is why I go to movie theaters.