Changing the movie release model.

[toef]

Originally Posted by mikejet

There was an interesting report on NPR yesterday about how Hollywood wants to change the movie release model. Instead of you buying a movie, then renting or buying it again later, you pay a higher premium your rights to it. So say you buy a high price ticket then later can download the movie for free. Also, the delay from theater to download would be weeks instead of months.

With movie sales declining Hollywood seems to be looking for more profitable ways to make money. What are your thoughts?

Also, studios are pushing to shorten the time between a movie being in theaters and when it hits other forms of media.

Mike, were you listening to KCRW? I listen to a show they have about the movie industry, but in podcast form (since I'm on the East Coast).

What I find weird is that a few months ago, some other model seemed to be all the rage. That one was something like:

1) Theatrical release
2) Exclusive rental release
3) Regular retail release

The Brothers Bloom is an example of that idea. It's been out for rental for a while now, but you can't buy it in any stores in the US until January. I'm not really sure what the idea behind that model is, other than to protect movie rental businesses (like Blockbuster) since they are a huge purchaser of movies.

I imagine if Blockbuster went out of business, losing their sales would hurt the studios far more than losing a couple of sales from people who would've blind-bought a particular movie, but instead were forced to rent it, and decided it wasn't worth owning anymore.

This whole premium ticket thing seems like a bad idea. The only way I think it's worth paying extra, is if I know going into it that I'll probably want to see it again. But if that's the case, and I'm in a rush to see it again, I'd rather see it again in a theater, than to wait a few weeks to watch an online version on my computer. And I doubt they're going to let me download a 20gb HD version.

And speeding up the time between a theatrical release and home video release will only anger the movie theater companies, and I don't think that's in the studios' best interest.

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

you would think that a miracle just happen for then

I am not that much in a hurry and specialy not paying more in order to get 2 months before everyone else.

I know what you mean, I remember finding Blood Diamond like 2 weeks early lol, you'd have thought I just found boardwalk to match my park place for the mcdonalds monopoly game lol.

[mikejet]

Originally Posted by toefer

Mike, were you listening to KCRW? I listen to a show they have about the movie industry, but in podcast form (since I'm on the East Coast).

Yes it was The Business on Mondays! KCRW is my local NPR station.

[toef]

Originally Posted by mikejet

Yes it was The Business on Mondays! KCRW is my local NPR station.

Lucky.



I also listen to The Treatment, another KCRW show.

[mikejet]

Monday through Friday I listen to KCRW going to and from work. I was going to goto the Halloween ball they had but it was a bit expensive. They sponsor several clubs and venues here in Socal so it's pretty sweet. I need to become a member.

[sfmarine]

Originally Posted by fatediesel

If they changed the movie release model it would kill all theaters. Hardly anyone would go to the theater if they knew they could watch it at home a month later. Theaters would shut down in every town and the film's box office would drop greatly.

Very good point.

[mikejet]

Theaters are already dying though. I think the days of the multiplex are going to come to an end and theaters will have to cater to more unique viewing experiences.

[P@t_Mtl]

Anyone think maybe it might not be a bad idea to reduce the numbers of movies being release each year? Most movies do cost a lot to make and by making too many of them their is only a limited amount of people that will go see them, specialy when you check how much it cost for a family of 4 to see a movie in theater.

[mikejet]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Anyone think maybe it might not be a bad idea to reduce the numbers of movies being release each year? Most movies do cost a lot to make and by making too many of them their is only a limited amount of people that will go see them, specialy when you check how much it cost for a family of 4 to see a movie in theater.

Yeah it pisses me off that for my wife and I to watch a movie at IMAX at night it's over $30 bucks. That's just wrong. I could buy the Blu-ray for less. Plus that doesn't include food/drinks/parking.

If I goto the Arclight for a regular show, it's $14 per person. Plus $2 for parking. They have a bar there too so I would probably have a drink or two.

[Steve]

I don't think I care for this idea. I would not buy such a 'premium ticket' and I'm also not willing to pay more than about $20 for the blu-ray release, even if it is early. As long as I would still have the option at the theater to buy a regular ticked I would be OK if they did it though.

[Propellarhead9]

I wouldn't mind if they made it optional. Like you go see the movie in theaters and then they give you the option to buy a download code for X amount of dollars on your way out.

I would also only like it if the download was 1080p or 720p at the least.

[jadedeath]

I prefer having a physical disk thanks.

Paying for rights for things is a slippery slope to stupidity.

What's to say that Hollywood wouldn't then change their mind, {and the price} later on? All of the honest consumers would be forced to either a} become dirty downloaders and try to get it for free, or b} pay stupid prices for movies.

I have {and will continue to do so} buy most of my movies second hand from retailers like Blockbuster {previously viewed} or shops that buy movies from people.

Where would that model go? Where would the sales on movies go? Downloading the rights to things is {by far} the single dumbest thing I've ever heard of.

There are other problems than the ones I outlined above, which is that the second hand shops would take a massive hit financially and eventually have to close their doors due to no disks being bought/sold, which would destroy a part of the economy that we actually NEED right now, we don't need more layoffs/stores closing their doors, suggesting a plan that WOULD do that in the long run is asinine.

Then there's the simple matter of hard drives, nobody has a couple TB hard drives kicking around which is what you would need for the average movie lovers collection to be digitized at 1080p. The more movies you buy, the more space you will need.

So what happens when the studio changes their mind and deletes files like Google did?

What happens when your hard drive crashes? If my Blu-Ray player goes down I can go out and get a new one without having to spend hours re-downloading all the stuff that I got before which may {or may not} have a price tag attributed to it. Wherein when I get the new Blu-Ray player, I simply pop a disk in and start watching the movie that I had before the crash.

Same thing goes for games, as mentioned over-and-over in the other thread. There are serious problems with this type of model, and those problems are only going to get bigger, not smaller.

Logan

[Uniquely]

Something similar is already happening on Zune HD. I saw several movies that you could rent before their release date for 1200 points.... which works out to about $15 I think.

The plan as described just doesn't seem like a great idea though. It seems like the intent is to draw people back to the theaters, instead of having them wait to rent or buy the dvd/blu releases. Making the movies MORE expensive..... even with the bonus of being able to download it again later for free.... just doesn't seem like the way to accomplish that.

[toef]

Someone had an idea, and I don't know where I heard it (maybe an older episode of The Business), but the idea was that maybe people who make movies need to adopt some sort of model from musicians. Sure you make a movie that people can go buy and watch, but they still like the idea of seeing the people who made what they're enjoying.

So the same way people go see a band play live, even though they could listen to the CD at home, maybe directors or writers could travel around to theaters for events, to talk about the movies before/after screening it.

But even then, I don't know who that really appeals to, other than people who probably care enough about movies that they go see movies multiple times in theaters already.

[Batman1980]

The truth is this is a bad time for movie studios. Sure the numbers aren't taking that big of a hit yet but if the recession doesn't let up soon the money won't be coming in as much and less movies will get made. I'm easy, generally I'll see something if I like the premise, who made the movie or if I'm attracted to one or more of the girls in it.

[Zvi]

I wouldn't pay higher price for the movie unless I was sure I'd like it. it's lke buying a cat in a bag.

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by toefer

Someone had an idea, and I don't know where I heard it (maybe an older episode of The Business), but the idea was that maybe people who make movies need to adopt some sort of model from musicians. Sure you make a movie that people can go buy and watch, but they still like the idea of seeing the people who made what they're enjoying.

So the same way people go see a band play live, even though they could listen to the CD at home, maybe directors or writers could travel around to theaters for events, to talk about the movies before/after screening it.

But even then, I don't know who that really appeals to, other than people who probably care enough about movies that they go see movies multiple times in theaters already.

They kinda have that already with film festivals.

Plus, trucking people around the country for a screening of the film is likely to add a cost to the production which would hurt the bottom line.

Logan

[Marquoz]

This kind of idea would only be good for a single person and not a family. Lets pick an arbitrary number and say $6 for the free rental within a couple of weeks. For a single person, it's not really a free rental but an early rental of the movie. That's a wash if they enjoyed the movie and actually want to see it again at home without having to go to a movie theater and pay full price.

Now with a family of four, that rental has just become $24. The higher ticket prices would affect the entire family, and having 4 free rentals isn't really that good unless you watch the movie for an entire week or two over and over.

I could see myself doing this with rare blockbusters where I want to see it again very soon without having to shell out another $20ish to see it in the theaters. Unfortunately though, those movies are few and far between. Most movies I see once in the theater, and I am content waiting a year or two for the prices to drop before I buy it since the movie just wasn't that good.

[mikejet]

The other half of the equation is shortening the release time from theaters to BD/DVD.

On Demand is really taking off though. A lot of people use it and it's great.

I would love a movie to be available On Demand and at Best Buy a few weeks after opening in a theater.

This model isn't just about digital downloads.

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by mikejet

The other half of the equation is shortening the release time from theaters to BD/DVD.

On Demand is really taking off though. A lot of people use it and it's great.

I would love a movie to be available On Demand and at Best Buy a few weeks after opening in a theater.

This model isn't just about digital downloads.

I still wouldn't suggest that.

Why would people go out to theaters to see a movie if they only have to wait a week or two after it hits theaters?

For smaller movies that are trying to make their money back as soon as they can, it works, for bigger Blockbusters it doesn't.

Let me put it like this, how much money would the Dark Knight have made if people knew that they just had to wait 2 weeks to see it after it came out of theaters?

Logan