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

[number8]

http://www.indiewire.com/article/23_...tm_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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.