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.

[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:

[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.