Universal, Warner Bros. Talking to Theater Owners About Offering Films in Homes Early

[Himmel]

Universal and Warner Bros. are having discussions with theater chains about possibly limiting the amount of time between a film’s theatrical release and its debut on home entertainment platforms.

Bloomberg first reported that studios had engaged in talks with exhibitors about shortening the period of time in which films are exclusively on the big screen. The studios are looking for ways to bolster home entertainment revenue, which is suffering from an 18% decline in DVD sales. The talks are the clearest sign yet that windowing, the industry term for the amount of time a film is in theaters, is going to be hotly debated in the coming months and that a major change in release patterns could take place as early as next year.

Spokespeople for Warner Bros. and Universal confirmed that the studios are having discussions with theater owners about shortening release windows, but offered no additional comment. In a presentation this week at the Credit Suisse conference on technology, media, and telecom, Warner Bros. CEO Kevin Tsujihara said that he was having “constructive conversations” with the exhibition community.

The studios have yet to determine whether or not the films will be just higher-priced rentals or will be available for purchase. Bloomberg reported that the time frame being weighed is two weeks to a month and that the price being considered is between $25 and $50. Insiders say that the price is likely to be on the higher end of that range and that a month delay between a film’s theatrical opening and its home entertainment bow is the most likely scenario. Theater owners would get a cut of the revenue in exchange for agreeing to the new windows.

http://variety.com/2016/film/news/un...ws-1201931478/

[imsounoriginal]

Two weeks to a month? Can't imagine theater chains will be cool with that, even if they get a cut.

[The Debts]

Didn't Universal try doing this back in 2011 with Tower Heist and it blew up in their face?

[LordRaymond]

Sounds like an awful idea.

[cinemaphile]

Honestly, while I personally love going to the theater, the writing is on the wall. It's only a matter of time until movies are available on demand the same time they hit theaters, or after a very short window. Already many independent films that get very limited releases debut on demand at the same time. Eventually I see this expanding to include most films - at least the more mid-range action movies, dramas and comedies. The big blockbusters I can see them holding out on.

and while I always thought I would be against the idea, I actually think it will be a good thing. With home theater technology and the quality of the home experience having progressed so far past 25" tube tv's with stereo sound playing VHS tapes, the home experience would be just fine for most movies (and without the crazy concession prices!)
Save the theater trips for the event films. The blockbusters, the big epics, etc... Studios could easily pick and choose which films to hold for theaters, they don't have to do all or nothing. Would theaters be ok with it? Of course not. But they may not have a choice.

[L.J.]

Seems most films now only play around three weeks now anyway. There's so many new ones out each week.

[Rory]

Let me get this straight, I'll be asked to pay as much as $50 to stream a movie that's already been in theaters for a week or two, and part of what I pay goes to the theater owners because I choose NOT to attend their venue?

That doesn't seem right to me. Given that most films today are forgettable junk that I mostly choose not to bother going to a theater to, and don't even look forward to seeing at home... I guess I can just ignore this.

I just stick with buying classic movies on disc. The new stuff can just age for a while.

[kemcha]

This will never fly. Theater owners are always protesting any change in the movie theater business and they aren't likely to consider this one either. I seem to recall some some studios wanting to stream movies directly into homes for $50 per film at the same time that the movies are shown in theaters and movie theaters raised Holy Hell about it. It didn't work then and it sure as Hell ain't gonna work now.

Movie theater owners are as resistant to changing their business models as Hollywood is to changing their antique dinosaur-like business models.

[sandman slim]

This is a horrible idea, every single time they come up with it.

[Monterey Jack]

Remember, back in the day, when 80's blockbusters like Ghostbusters, Beverly Hills Cop and Raiders Of The Lost Ark were still playing in first-run theaters up to a YEAR after they were released? And the VHS tape wouldn't come out until eighteen months later? As much as I love my Blu-Ray collection, I miss the days when I'd go back for second, third and even fourth viewings of great movies in the theater. Nowadays, due to a combination of the ever-shrinking theater-to-home window and ever-swelling ticket prices, I can rarely justify seeing a movie theatrically more than once, even if I absolutely loved it.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

You can already do this with certain rental download services for the ultra-rich. They have been hawking these mega buck systems at CEDIA.

Even though the movie rental is hundreds of dollars, the quality is commercial cinema quality and required commercial-grade equipment in a licensed screening room.

If this idea ever caught on, why would the studios plunk down money for fancy Dolby Atmos mixes and higher resolution special effects, 4k workflows, and whatnot as the installation base would shrink far more than the commercial venues. Don't think they wouldn't want to start shaving costs where they thought nobody would care.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Monterey Jack

As much as I love my Blu-Ray collection, I miss the days when I'd go back for second, third and even fourth viewings of great movies in the theater.

I too have tons of fond memories of seeing films multiple times in second and third run theaters but I wouldn't even think about going back to those times.

Do the windows seem a little too short sometimes? Yeah, maybe.

But I'd hate to go back to 18+ month long windows of the good ole days.

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

You can already do this with certain rental download services for the ultra-rich.

You can also do it in a lot of hotels for around the price of a theater ticket.

[ZoetMB]

The studios seem intent on committing suicide. You kill windows, you kill theatres (which are already in decline). You kill theaters, then every movie has the cultural impact of "direct to video".

They want this because they think it improves cash flow and it reduces marketing costs because they only have to market once. But it's disastrous for the business in the long term. But most CEO's only look at the next quarter.

NYC used to be the #1 theatrical market in the country. I don't know where it stands today, but in spite of some recent theatre openings, NYC has lost almost 31% of the theatres and 16.7% of the net screen count since 2001. It's also lost 20% of the net seat count since mid-2012, much due to the installation of lounge seating.

Home video, cable, streaming, etc., are all certainly incredibly wonderful in many ways, but it's also had negative impacts. For the most part, it's killed theaters that played vintage films. And it's killed the ability of theaters to play films more than a few weeks which has given films far less cultural impact. When films like Lawrence of Arabia or Star Wars played in theatres for a year, that was a lot more fun, IMO. Films were also given a chance to build an audience. They'd open in fewer theaters, build up word of mouth and then expand as they found an audience. Today, if a theater doesn't have a great opening weekend, it's gone by the following Friday or it's just moved down to the tiniest screen in the multiplex where it will hide for another week or two.

I think theaters have played this wrong. Especially with all the consolidation is the business, theater owners could have kept longer windows if they refused to play any film that was going to have a short window or punished other films from the same studio. Instead, they let it happen and have responded to smaller audiences by ripping out seats and putting in lounge seating. But I suppose as long as studios can constantly supply new product, they don't care that much.

[A Sith Lord?]

Going to a movie theatre is an American Pastime that will last far longer than any of us on this planet.

Barring any catastrophic human event, people will still be going to movie theaters regardless of a straight-to-dvd phenomena.

[WilsonBros]

Originally Posted by The Debts

Didn't Universal try doing this back in 2011 with Tower Heist and it blew up in their face?

There was talk of this being offered in the UK, where subscribers would get a set-top box and would pay about £35 ($40-ish) to see a brand new movie on the weekend of theatrical release.

The box itself was to have been uncrackable (yeah...) and impossible to record from in analogue form. Each movie would have only been viewable once, and the delivery system to the box was supposedly uncrackable, too.

Nothing came of it, naturally.

[L.J.]

To me a solution on this, have the studio and theater make enough changes that $2 can be knocked off the ticket price. I would spend more than I do now at the theater if it was a little cheaper. Now we have what a 3 month window after release berore it hits the shelf. Am good with that, sometimes its good to have that time to let a film at the theater simmer in you before buying it. Almost sounds like their trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

[kemcha]

The thing is, movie studios are looking in every direction to squeeze even more money out of their releases, without realizing that they could end up destroying the movie theater owners. I seem to recall a number of years ago about how Hollywood even wanted more of the box office revenue from theater owners and franchise chains and another scheme where movie studios wanted movies streamed to home customers while they were being screened in movie theaters.

Both times, the movie theaters balked and protested the movie studios by boycotting their movies (movie theaters threatened to not show their movies in their theaters over this). It was a disaster for Hollywood. I know the one boycott involved Hollywood wanting to stream a movie into homes as part of a test market and movie theaters boycotting the move by refusing to show the movie in their theaters. At the final hour, the movie studios relented and the movie ended up being shown.

This is nothing more than movie studio greed and has nothing to do with getting these films faster to the fans of these movies.

[headphones]

The pricing is downright ludicrous. But I'm totally for the idea of of releasing them on bluray earlier. Movies stay in the theaters only for a few weeks, and then it's placed in escrow for months where nobody can see it.

[TommySyk]

Going to the cinema is a magical experience. If this happens, people will stop seeing films in theaters in favor of seeing them at home. And that would ruin the whole thing entirely.

[Arch Stanton]

This is inevitable. The cinema really is dying.