http://www.cinematical.com/2010/05/24/would-you-pay-30-to-watch-a-theatrical-release-at-home/
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?
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?
hno:
