$29.99 to download a movie early

[Batman1980]

Email
Share
000
Share
1313


The world’s biggest film studios are said to be in talks with the nation's largest cable companies to offer subscribers on-demand access to movies shortly after they run in theaters, and well ahead of their release on DVD.

According to a Bloomberg report, Disney, Sony and Warner Bros. are discussing the possibility with In Demand, a company that’s jointly owned by Cox, Comcast and Time Warner. The studios would like to charge cable customers as much as $30 for premium access to new films. In Demand CEO Bob Benya confirmed the report.

The idea is to drum up a new revenue stream to offset slumping DVD sales, giving customers near-instant home access to first-run films without having to wait for the DVD to come out, and be able to charge more than they currently do for on-demand movies.

In 2009, Sony offered owners of its Bravia TV early access to “Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs” in 2009 for $24.95.

At a conference last week in New York, John Martin, Time Warner’s chief financial officer, said he expects to begin testing the service “later this year” with movies priced between $20 and $30 per viewing.

Disney is expected to begin testing the concept during the first quarter of 2011, according to the report.

Representatives at Disney, Sony and Time Warner were not immediately available for comment.

Source - thewrap.com

[fatediesel]

I would do this if you got a Blu-ray version of the movie when it was released, but not just to watch it once. It could make some sense though for families or groups of people, because it'd be much cheaper and convenient than driving to theaters, spending $50 or more on tickets, and another $30 on food, and then having to deal with inconsiderate people in the theaters. I guarantee the studios are going to get a lot of opposition and threats of boycotts from theater chains over this.

[threefiftyrocket]

I WILL NOT do this for a one time viewing... this is crap. I would rather wait for the blu to come out and have a hard copy that I can watch as many times as I want. I guess it really doesn't matter anyway, I have U-Verse

[detective392]

I would never do this as I hate streaming or downloading things as I like to own a physical copy and I can wait the 4-5 months it takes to get to Blu-ray.

[SquidPuppet]

This seems illogical. If it is successful, wont it cannibalize DVD and Blu-ray slaes?

[fatediesel]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

This seems illogical. If it is successful, wont it cannibalize DVD and Blu-ray slaes?

I don't really know why it would. They would have plenty of copy protections in place so you couldn't record the movie so it really shouldn't be any different than going to the theater.

[ArmyOfDarknessAW]

If this was 10 or 15 years ago when it took a really long time before a movie would come to home video then i may have done this. But as it is now most movies are coming to Blu and DVD in 6 months or less so it's best just to wait imo.

[neos_peace]

I don't see this being comming a regular thing. Only because theyare saying charging the minumum of $20 to watch it just after the theater's. Thats for a one time veiw. Unless ppl have more money they can burn and know what to do with I don't see anyone actaully forking oer the money to so this. To me I think the service providers are btiing off more htne they can chew.

[Jezza]

Can someone please explain to me the logic behind this?

If you're spending that kind of money to own a film for just one day then why not just go to the theatre which is amazingly cheaper in this case, and then on top of that you get to see it on a much bigger screen than in you're own home.

Unless they're filthy rich or have more money than sense, I can't imagine anyone spending that amount of money just to be able to see it sooner and only for one day.

[SDon1969]

I wouldn't do this. I noticed that On Demand had that new movie Monsters ready to go before theaters, and it was $10.99...I didn't even do that!

[detective392]

Originally Posted by Clone Trooper

Can someone please explain to me the logic behind this?

If you're spending that kind of money to own a film for just one day then why not just go to the theatre which is amazingly cheaper in this case, and then on top of that you get to see it on a much bigger screen than in you're own home.

Unless they're filthy rich or have more money than sense, I can't imagine anyone spending that amount of money just to be able to see it sooner and only for one day.

For families this would actually be the cheaper option as today it's over $30 for a family to go see a movie I hear a lot on this forum. One guy said he spent around $50 from tickets and food alone.

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

This seems illogical. If it is successful, wont it cannibalize DVD and Blu-ray slaes?

That is exactly the point. Studios want to cut out the profit that middlemen like the retailers currently get from packaged media. The dream is to sell everything directly as a stream or download for one-time viewings only in the long run. That eliminates the used market and allows them to carry no inventory. Our children will never know what it was like to "own" movies as we do.

[Jezza]

Originally Posted by detective392

For families this would actually be the cheaper option as today it's over $30 for a family to go see a movie I hear a lot on this forum. One guy said he spent around $50 from tickets and food alone.

Really?!?!

Well in the UK it's not that cheap either, but it doesn't seemed to be as much as the US.

I don't think many would take this option over the theatre or DVD/Blu-ray, because of how impractical it is.

[detective392]

Originally Posted by Clone Trooper

Really?!?!

Well in the UK it's not that cheap either, but it doesn't seemed to be as much as the US.

I don't think many would take this option over the theatre or DVD/Blu-ray, because of how impractical it is.

Yeah it get's pretty expensive so I always go alone or with a family member and never get any food and sometimes a water. But yeah most won't take this option over the theater or even waiting for home video.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by ArmyOfDarknessAW

If this was 10 or 15 years ago when it took a really long time before a movie would come to home video then i may have done this. But as it is now most movies are coming to Blu and DVD in 6 months or less so it's best just to wait imo.

The reason most studios are so obsessively starry-eyed about The Download Industry is because most of them are still living 10 to 15 years ago when it was harder to get your movies, and it took a year for them to hit HBO.

Nowadays, with the three-month window, downloading has all but made itself obsolete...And what do you wanna bet THIS idea gets taken over by an invasion of cheapjack micro-indies, just like all the other current download avenues?
(One Magnolia title, and there goes the neighborhood...)

[jj5206]

if it's $20, i could see my family of four using it...it would save us around $8 on tickets and whatever we spend on concessions...also it would be nice if you have a group of friends that want to see the movie, if you had seven or eight friends all pitch in you would end up saving a lot...

but, if there is a movie i really want to see in theaters, i will still go to the theaters...

I like the idea though...

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by fatediesel

I don't really know why it would. They would have plenty of copy protections in place so you couldn't record the movie so it really shouldn't be any different than going to the theater.

I misunderstood. I thought it was download to PC and keep it. Nevermind.

[KingLeonidas300]

Pass.. Would never consider doing this.

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by fatediesel

I would do this if you got a Blu-ray version of the movie when it was released, but not just to watch it once.

Agreed.

[SixSpeedSamurai]

Another display of how out of touch Hollywood is.