Cinemark threatens to boycott 'Tower Heist' over VOD experiment

[Chloenator]

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/10/0...od-experiment/

Who in their right mind would pay $59.99 to watch a movie on cable?

[MarkJ801]

It's going to do nothing but promote piracy. The movie will be online in full-hd within hours I'm sure.

I say good for Cinemark to do something to try and stop this idiocy.

[EricJ]

YES!!!
Not to say I Told You So(tm) , but this is, um......EXACTLY what happened the last time Universal tried the "PPV Premiere" stunt back in 1983. And then, it was every national theater chain that boycotted the movie.
(It was the early 80's, you see, and studios were still terrified of the Future Power Of Cable. )

And yet, studios still dream of selling us on the PPV Theatrical idea, because some neato-struck idiot always brings it up when the subject of PPVOD comes up.
Of course, nowadays, studios are flat-out make-or-break neurotic about whether a movie gets into the Top 5 on opening weekend, so will this be the one example that finally teaches them, after thirty years?
I seriously doubt it. The dream is just too darn strong with them. But we can hope.

[jouille]

I heard of this idea earlier in the year on Engadget and I'm dismayed that this "experiment" has made it this far. No one's going to pay $60 to watch a movie that soon after its theatrical debut. Consumers that avoid theaters have demonstrated that they can wait for movies to be available from Rebox or Netflix.

[Moefiz]

$59.99...To see a movie on cable, I think Direct TV charges 29.99 to see a movie a few weeks before it hits the home market..even that is crazy.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by Moefiz

$59.99...To see a movie on cable, I think Direct TV charges 29.99 to see a movie a few weeks before it hits the home market..even that is crazy.

I can't see anyone but a pirate who wants to distribute copies paying that price

[jouille]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

I can't see anyone but a pirate who wants to distribute copies paying that price

I can't see anyone caring about Tower Heist that much.

[Donat96]

I don't even understand why studios keep insisting on the whole VOD crap. No one wants to pay sixty bucks for a badly-compressed movie that you can't even keep. I'm glad Cinemark actually has the balls to try and fight it.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by jouille

I can't see anyone caring about Tower Heist that much.

No, really: Did somebody not look closely and forget that Eddie Murphy was in it??

(The movie was originally titled "Trump Heist", but guess who complained--
After that failed candidate bid, he and the movie deserve each other.)

[Septimus Prime]

Originally Posted by Moefiz

$59.99...To see a movie on cable, I think Direct TV charges 29.99 to see a movie a few weeks before it hits the home market..even that is crazy.

It costs me some $30 to see a movie with my girl, and that's if we don't buy concessions (we usually don't). It's $40 if we go to a nicer theater and watch in 3D, and that's just for two tickets. $60 is a lot, but if you get a bunch of people to chip in, it ends up being a better deal than going to the theaters, so I can easily see people with families opting for this.

Bonus: No stupid jackasses with their bright-ass cell phones out all the time.

[Donat96]

Originally Posted by Septimus Prime

Bonus: No stupid jackasses with their bright-ass cell phones out all the time.

This is actually making sense now.

[Mandalorian]

Originally Posted by Septimus Prime

It costs me some $30 to see a movie with my girl, and that's if we don't buy concessions (we usually don't). It's $40 if we go to a nicer theater and watch in 3D, and that's just for two tickets. $60 is a lot, but if you get a bunch of people to chip in, it ends up being a better deal than going to the theaters, so I can easily see people with families opting for this.

Bonus: No stupid jackasses with their bright-ass cell phones out all the time.

That's one of the smartest ways of looking at this. Another thing would be that they aren't trying to completely overthrow theaters, just release it on both markets simultaneously. Either way, I like my movies on the big screen (and obviously home theater when the time comes ).

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Septimus Prime

It costs me some $30 to see a movie with my girl, and that's if we don't buy concessions (we usually don't). It's $40 if we go to a nicer theater and watch in 3D, and that's just for two tickets. $60 is a lot, but if you get a bunch of people to chip in, it ends up being a better deal than going to the theaters, so I can easily see people with families opting for this.

Bonus: No stupid jackasses with their bright-ass cell phones out all the time.

You bring up a valid point, but I still don't see this as being successful. Maybe with a summer blockbuster (like Transformers 3) you might see people getting together in large enough groups to buy it and make it worthwhile, but even then I seriously doubt it would make enough money to be considered successful. I'm glad to see Cinemark taking they stance they are over this. I hope more chains will follow their lead.

[retablo]

The future is most likely dual platform releases anyway. Someone has to start sometime. Iy used to be a 6 month window between theatrical and home video... now it's 3-4. If people think this sort of thing is never going to happen, then they need to think again.

Besides, it's not as if Regal or AMC (the 2 largest chains) are boycotting. Their 12,000 screens combined can easily take up the slack that Cinemark's 3,800 screens are lacking.

[Septimus Prime]

Originally Posted by Steve

You bring up a valid point, but I still don't see this as being successful. Maybe with a summer blockbuster (like Transformers 3) you might see people getting together in large enough groups to buy it and make it worthwhile, but even then I seriously doubt it would make enough money to be considered successful. I'm glad to see Cinemark taking they stance they are over this. I hope more chains will follow their lead.

Yeah, but baby steps. I doubt the studios would feel secure enough to actually put something worthwhile on this service, since they fear piracy. Personally, I think $60 is too much, but if you imagine a family of four, living in California, for example, it does end up being a cheaper deal than taking the whole family out or hiring a sitter. They also won't have to worry about their kids being a nuisance for others, and they bring in their own food (like, say, a $0.50 bag of microwave popcorn, versus the theater's $8 version of the same thing). The only thing they would be sacrificing here would be the "theater experience," but that's really not a whole lot to let go of if they have everything else going for them.

Really, I do think this type of thing is the future of distribution and will eventually be superior to movie theaters in just about every way with the correct setup and pricing. It just needs to get off the ground before it can get there.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Moefiz

$59.99...To see a movie on cable, I think Direct TV charges 29.99 to see a movie a few weeks before it hits the home market..even that is crazy.

for that price you should have a party and invite at least six people or more to offshoot the average theater ticket price ($10) ... oh wait, that's WHY Cinemark is boycotting by not booking this film.

[Samus Aran]

It's also a Brett Ratner movie. He should pay me $60 to watch his vanilla crap.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Samus Aran

It's also a Brett Ratner movie. He should pay me $60 to watch his vanilla crap.

well that's a given: Ratner IS a complete hack.

[Tony208]

hope VOD fails

[Samus Aran]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

well that's a given: Ratner IS a complete hack.

I don't think he's a hack in the same way that Uwe Boll or Seltzer/Friedberg are. He's just a studio yes-man who delivers whatever the suits tell him to do, without any sense of style or life but at least technically capable.