Would you pay a premium to see a current movie at home?

[Flint]

The movie industry is on the verge of changing their distribution model to bring new movies to VOD services as soon as seven days after theatrical release. The current model is to wait at least 90 days in most cases.

If given the option to watch s new movie at home after paying, say, $30, while it is still relatively new at the local theater, would you do that?

The studios are banking that many people will choose that route.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

I think the price will be quite a bit higher than $30. While I don't remember the exact amount, the reporting I heard on this left me with the impression that the cost was quite steep, definitely aimed at the upscale showcase home theater crowd.

 

[Batman]

I'd be willing to pay up to about $50 to watch a new release in the comfort of my own home.....if I didn't have the theater I do, I doubt that I would. But sure to avoid the drive, people, subpar concessions I'd do it in a heartbeat. The only thing that bothers me at home is that I think people and family would be more likely to urge me to hit pause to answer the phone, take a piss, etc. and that would grow old pretty fast.

 

[Flint]

The Wall Street Journal said the prices being considered range from $30 to $50.

 

[Haywood]

I would be all over that, depending on the movie and the price.

 

[Towen7]

$50 to rent a new movie makes sense for a family of four or five. Since my wife and I are empty nesters it makes much less sense for us unless we're entertaining.

 

[PaulyT]

Meh. Who cares about seeing current movies? I'd rather buy a BD later for $20-$25 if it's something I'm really interested in.

 

[Deleted member 133]

For a few movies every year, I love to go see them when released, in a big theatre.

For the rest I can wait until they are released on disc - and in most cases much longer than that (like Netflix, etc.). Once I built up a good-sized backlog of unseen releases, I've never been short of things to watch.

Besides, I spent a good part of three decades collecting movies for my retirement. And now that I am retired... I have thousands of truly classic titles to choose from.

In addition, feature films have had to compete for my viewing attention: there are multiple very high quality (production values and acting) TV series that I follow. So much so that's it's sometimes difficult to fit in a feature film more than once every couple of weeks.

Jeff

 

[Randy]

Quite simply no. I will wait. That's part of the reason the investment in HT pays off for me.

As a matter of fact I was getting ready to go on a rant about the cost of concert tickets. Movie tickets, concert tickets, sporting events its all gone crazy.

 

[Akula]

$30? Eh... no. $20-25, sure. But that's pretty much what I'd pay at a theater. $30 is really pushing it. Any more than that, LOL NOPE. Not for just two people. There's a precious few where I'd pay that, but it would be with more family members present (so the per-person price drops) and the name would usually involve the words "Star Wars."

If I'm not paying to go see a movie, it's usually because that movie is not worth that kind of money to me. For $20 I can just buy the thing when it comes out. There's very few movies where I'm all that hot and bothered to see them soon. When we go to the theater it's usually a mix of "we want to see this one" and "we've got the time and no real ideas on how to blow it." Only very rarely is it "We MUST see this."

 

[hawk52]

Simple answer NO F,ING WAY.

 

[CMonster]

Since our go-to theater serves alcohol, we almost always enjoy a crappy, over-priced bottle of wine with each movie so it'd probably be worth it just to watch at home.

 

[Batman]

A movie outing for a family of 4 to IMAX including food is easily $100+. At our more local IMAX knockoff theater with reserved seating and food is ~$75 or so....so at times it would make sense if it's a flick we want to see as a family. It's certainly not a model I would utilize for EVERY new release.

 

[Botch]

The only thing that bothers me at home is that I think people and family would be more likely to urge me to hit pause to answer the phone, take a piss, etc. and that would grow old pretty fast.

Collect all phones upon entrance (like they do for our TS briefings) and issue diapers. Done!

 

[Botch]

The last movie I saw in a theater (not counting Don Cheadle's Miles Davis premiere at last year's Sundance Film Festival) was the first Spiderman film. I can hit the "free film" channels on Mr. Roku and watch hundreds of never-seen-before films, and all the spoilers you guys wrote 20 years ago I've forgotten!

 

[CMonster]

The last movie I saw in a theater (not counting Don Cheadle's Miles Davis premiere at last year's Sundance Film Festival) was the first Spiderman film. I can hit the "free film" channels on Mr. Roku and watch hundreds of never-seen-before films, and all the spoilers you guys wrote 20 years ago I've forgotten!

Just wait 'til you find out that Darth is Luke's (and Leai's!) father; I'm so excited for you!



Edit: Spoiler alert...

 

[Botch]

you bastid.

 

[MatthewB]

At least he didn't tell you that the Titanic sank. Man that one really surprised me.

 

[mzpro5]

No. Like others I can wait. I have a very good rental store in my area and I can rent a movie for $2-$3. Doesn't bother me that I have to wait 3 months. On the rare occasion I want to see a new release I will go to a matinee where cost with the senior discount is about $10.00. I don't buy their overpriced concessions so I don't have that cost.

 

[Haywood]

Theater tickets where I live run in the $12-13 range for a "regular" showing (3D and IMAX cost more). Throw in popcorn and drinks and a movie outing for the family can easily run $75. We only go to the movies a handful of times each year and I enjoy getting out once in awhile, but having a $30 option to watch from home would be appealing once in awhile.