Would you pay $50 to watch first-run movies at home the day they're released in theaters?

[MisterCreosote]

This says it's possibly coming soon:

Studios, Exhibitors Consider Revolutionary Plan for Day-and-Date Movies at Home (EXCLUSIVE)

For me, the answer is wholeheartedly "Yes." I hate going to theaters for anything other than a weekday matinee, and there are very few films I need to see in theaters.

 

[I Should Coco]

A bit expensive, but I like the concept. Get it down to the $20-25 range, and I'm in.

The rare movie I see in a first-run theater — Star Wars Episode VII was the last one — is usually a miserable experience of too-loud speakers, people constantly coming and going from a very long row of seats, and sitting way too close to the screen unless I get there the instant the doors open. Watching Star Wars in a theater literally gave me a headache.

In the long run, the movie industry should like this view-at-home concept, too. Bringing the product directly to fans should help both the movie makers and the viewers. Movie theater owners (mostly huge corporations) are annoying middle men who overcharge for everything, so I have little sympathy for them if this hurts their business.

 

[MisterCreosote]

Far as I can tell, the price is that expensive precisely because of all the concessions they're giving to pissed off theater owners.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Yes, without a doubt. Next question?

 

[The Big Ragu]

So many things working against this getting off the ground. ... but he is trying to bribe the theater chains by cutting them in. ... on a deal that could ultimately put them out of business. I am sure they have to see that. This may be inevitable (or may not be; I really don't know), but at this moment, the theater chains have A LOT of leverage with the distributors. I can't imagine they aren't using their sway to try to squash this idea before it ever it can gain any traction.

 

[Mr. Sunshine]

No.

 

[Dick Whitman]

The market for grown-up movies at the theater has really dried up in recent years, I think, for many reasons. TV is better. Parents are more involved with their kids and go on less dates. When they do, they often go to restaurants. Also, home theaters and vast selections of instantly watchable movies make it worth it to just stay home.

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

My favorite line from the article:

Box office hit record levels last year, crossing $11 billion for the first time in history.

 

[Riptide]

I'm electing not to vote on this issue. It could be a game-changer for this site. #courage

 

[MisterCreosote]

My hunch is this will do good business with a handful of movies per year, and otherwise be useless.

There's a major difference between paying $50 to avoid theaters for Star Wars and doing the same for the latest Adam Sandler comedy.

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

Since you have to pay $150 for the equipment, you'd need to watch 60 movies to make the average price even $52.50.

 

[JohnHammond]

My favorite line from the article:

Box office hit record levels last year, crossing $11 billion for the first time in history.

Everyone here knows that means little since the Fed keeps printing money.

 

[bigpern23]

No. I love the movie-going experience, though I think I've seen a total of three movies in the theater in the past four years (not for lack of desire, just lack of time).

I think $25-$30 is fair, but I wouldn't pay it simply out of support for theaters. As good as my home theater is, it's not an IMAX.

 

[Jake_Taylor]

$50 for a single dude in an apartment or even a couple? Eh, probably not. $50 for a family of five or six? That's not bad at all. You could probably get groups together and have parties for certain releases and the cost would be real bargain.

 

[Vombatus]

No, unless you get enough people over and start an orgy. Got to make it worth $50.

 

[bigpern23]

The interesting part is that they already do this on a small scale and the cost is like $10. I can't think of a specific example, but I know I've seen the option to stream movies that are in theaters on Vudu and maybe Verizon On Demand.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

Verizon on Demand gets them faster than Netflix, but later than theater release premiere. As for the $50 idea, **** no. I don't see enough first-run movies to make that worth my while/

 

[heyabbott]

Verizon on Demand gets them faster than Netflix, but later than theater release premiere. As for the $50 idea, **** no. I don't see enough first-run movies to make that worth my while/

The On Demand is bit of fraud. It first comes On Demand, but only to purchase for $20+. After a few weeks it then becomes available to rent for less than $6. We want to see Brooklyn, but I won't pay 20 dollars to 'own' it. I'll wait for the rental. Or even come to HBO, SHO, CNMAX, TMC, EPIX ...

 

[LongTimeListener]

$50 for a single dude in an apartment or even a couple? Eh, probably not. $50 for a family of five or six? That's not bad at all. You could probably get groups together and have parties for certain releases and the cost would be real bargain.

This is the worst torture I could think of. You'd hear less than 50 percent of the dialogue.

 

[RickStain]

I wouldn't pay $50 to have the actors come play it out for me.