Cinemark threatens to boycott 'Tower Heist' over VOD experiment

[csdot]

im personally threatening to boycott 'Tower Heist' over it looking horrible.
good luck getting people to spend 60 bucks on that..

[Col. Zombie]

Originally Posted by csdot

im personally threatening to boycott 'Tower Heist' over it looking horrible.good luck getting people to spend 60 bucks on that..

That!!

[Walts Ghost]

Originally Posted by Samus Aran

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.

I agree. I actually enjoy most of Ratner's movies, and Red Dragon is actually a damn good movie. He's basically just a studio yes-man, but he isn't really a hack, at least in my opinion. I enjoy all three Rush Hour movies as well.

As for this plan, I think it's just going to fall on its face, so I'm just going to ignore it until it goes away.

[jtwise]

If it didn't work with Harry Potter spectulation, why would it work with a lesser known film?

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Walts Ghost

I agree. I actually enjoy most of Ratner's movies, and Red Dragon is actually a damn good movie.
As for this plan, I think it's just going to fall on its face, so I'm just going to ignore it until it goes away.

Although Red Dragon was helped along by the Incredible Hulk factor of Edward Norton making anything look good by taking it seriously, in combination with the Lord Voldemort factor of Ralph Fiennes making anything look good by taking it seriously.
And yeah, I cut X-Men 3 a little more slack than it probably deserves, but I should probably watch it again.

As for this movie....well, if I just ignored it, that would take away the fun of laughing at watching a cherished studio/industry dream crumble in their faces. But I'll ignore it TILL then.

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.

And if your six friends are too cheap to pay you $10 each to watch the movie (which is technically illegal), then you might just be forced to wait and invite them over to watch the BLU-RAY RENTAL for FREE....

Bonus: No cellphone jackasses, etc., etc., and just about every other single solitary option that VOD provides, plus bathroom breaks.
(But...you really going to invite them over to watch "Tower Heist"???? )

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by EricJ

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

Oh, I'm sorry, I correct myself:
It's an Eddie Murphy AND Ben Stiller movie.



(I'm guessing, like they did 30 years earlier, Universal wanted to use something "generic" to be niche-free and cover all possible demographic markets--
Well, as for "generic", they, um........certainly appear to have picked the right one. )

[datlocolatino]

I hate to jump to conclusions, but much like Snakes on a Plane, I can look at the title and pretty much decide if Im gonna like it. :/

But yeah, if this flies (which Im 95%) sure it wont, that means theaters will eventually be closing don. And I LIKE having a theater in my neighborhood.

[Taipan]

Good for Cinemark!

Shame on the rest of the theaters if they don't plan on boycotting the film too.

[X400]

$60 eh

could see that as an option for "movie night" with the guys or something

but the whole idea of watching movies with the guys @ home is cuz its cheap and we get a bunch of movies

it could work though but I dont think theatres should be worried nor do i think the industry should be banking on this


seems like it would be very niche

[Chloenator]

National Amusements Joins 'Tower Heist' Boycott

[Moleman1138]

This VOD right after theatrical release is ridiculous. I know movies don't have that long of a wide theatrical lifespan (4 weeks) before they start really dropping off. The video rental stores declined thanks to streaming services. And theaters don't need to be next thanks to advancing technology.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Moleman1138

This VOD right after theatrical release is ridiculous.

Yeah, but give 'em a break, they're trying to ease into it--
Everyone who ever thought PPV/VOD Is Neat has had one single dream in mind, shining above all the rest. Any discussion of "Is VOD the Future(tm)?" will sooner or later head in one direction.
Yes, the "Hey, think someday we'll ever be able to VOD a movie the same day it opens in theaters?"

That's the one they tried thirty years ago, you may remember, and had all the theater chains boycott the movie. (Funny coincidence, ain't it?)
Nowadays, they think they're too "smart" to barge right in and use that same strategy again, so now the studios will try to make VOD look neato by selling us on "Shrinking windows"...Problem is, they keep having to up the ante by staying ahead of the real shrinking windows for DVD releases.
First it was, how'd you like to watch a movie two months after its theatrical run, ahead of the DVD?...Sheesh, hotels get 'em two months ahead.
Then, well, how about six weeks?...Well, doesn't really sound too rushed, that's about when the DVD is announced.
Okay, how about THREE weeks?
If that goes over, then two weeks, then (they believe)...hey, how about this idea?--VOD'ing a movie the weekend it premieres!
By this time, they figure, we'll have "gotten used" to the idea, and it'll seem like the "natural progression of the industry"...They hope.

Thirty years, people. Thirty years, and six home-theater formats. They HAVEN'T....GIVEN....UP.
That's how neurotically rooted the idea is in the studio subconscious, no matter how many failures they run up against. It blinds them to everything else.

[djgeneral]

People are forgetting that if you get 10 friends you can have a movie party and each person chips in a portion of the money.

This is a great idea for those who all want to gather in a location and watch movies.

[Walts Ghost]

Universal Drops ‘Tower Heist’ Early VOD Experiment in Response to Theater Boycotts

Last week, Universal Pictures revealed that it would be releasing the Brett Ratner comedy Tower Heist on VOD for $59.99 just three weeks after its November 4 opening in Atlanta and Portland, Oregon. The move immediately sparked outcry from exhibitors across the country — Cinemark, the U.S.’s third-largest theater chain, quickly announced that it would not be showing Tower Heist in any of its 3,800 theaters, and several smaller chains including Galaxy Theatres, Regency Theatres, and Emagine Theatres followed suit this week.

Now it seems the exhibitors have won the standoff, as Universal has agreed to drop the VOD experiment.

The Tower Heist outcry was the latest development in an ongoing battle between studios and exhibitors over VOD release dates. Earlier this year, theaters also protested a deal between DirectTV and four studios to bring certain movies to VOD 60 days after their theatrical premieres for $29.99 apiece. The studios’ push toward earlier home video release dates follows a continuing pattern over the last several years to shrink the theaters’ windows of exclusivity, and some exhibitors saw the Tower Heist experiment as a breaking point. “We just feel it’s a time to draw a line in the sand,” said Galaxy Theatres president Rafe Cohen. “This is virtually a simultaneous release that we don’t think will be helpful to anyone. We’re standing on principle that it’s best to preserve the theatrical window.”

Variety broke the news of Universal changing their plans today. With so many theaters refusing to show the movie, Universal stood to lose quite a bit of money by testing this model at this time. However, the studio hasn’t ditched the experiment so much as postponed it. In a statement, Universal called the development a “delay” to its “planned premium home video on demand… experiment.”

Exhibitors, on the other hand, were thrilled with their victory. “[The National Association of Theatre Owners] would like to thank Universal for responding to various theater owners’ concerns and cancelling the PVOD test it was contemplating,” said NATO president/CEO John Fithian. “They have been engaged with individual exhibitors on this test, and while it was something that many theater owners could not ultimately support, the open and collaborative nature of the dialogue is appreciated.”

On the one hand, it’s understandable that exhibitors are frustrated with having such a large chunk of the exclusivity period taken away from them. On the other, as many have pointed out, they may be better off spending their energy finding ways to improve the theatergoing experience than forcing studios to hold on to the old models. The studio’s hope with the Tower Heist release wasn’t to cannibalize ticket sales, but rather to reach audiences that might otherwise not be inclined to visit theaters — whether because the showtimes aren’t flexible enough or because getting away for several hours at a time is too difficult. Exclusivity is already far from the only reason people visit theaters; in this day and age, if all a viewer wanted was to see something for free, he or she could easily download an illegal copy off the Web.

Source

[EricJ]

Ah, yes, Clueless Studio/Industry Home-video Myth #3:

Exclusivity is already far from the only reason people visit theaters; in this day and age, if all a viewer wanted was to see something for free, he or she could easily download an illegal copy off the Web.

(Reality Check: ...Anybody ever actually TRY to find a Seat-O-Vision theater bootleg?
Not that anyone who keeps an eye on disk release calendars would have the inkling to, but seriously, anyone wander into the back alleys of the net and actually find a pirate-torrent site that isn't a scam for Euro19.95 a month? Oh, you can?--Good, now find ten of your friends and co-workers who do, since "everybody"'s obviously doing it.
And if you did, how desperate would you have to be to actually watch one? If I wanted to see big silhouettes of front-row theatergoers walking in front of me, I'd watch a Tex Avery cartoon.)

[threefiftyrocket]

nice..............

[DiscoDan]

a wise boycott, i think, but I don't know what they'd have to worry about. Would someone really spend $60 to watch this at home? Who is their target audience? Fabulously rich recluses?

[BLUEGRASS]

Originally Posted by DiscoDan

a wise boycott, i think, but I don't know what they'd have to worry about. Would someone really spend $60 to watch this at home? Who is their target audience? Fabulously rich recluses?

+1

$59.99 for a movie? Gee....I wonder why this failed?

I can justify spending $60 on a collector's edition of a movie or a big box set, but there is no way I would ever spend that kind of cash just for a movie by itself.

[The Theory]

Originally Posted by EricJ

Ah, yes, Clueless Studio/Industry Home-video Myth #3:


(Reality Check: ...Anybody ever actually TRY to find a Seat-O-Vision theater bootleg?
Not that anyone who keeps an eye on disk release calendars would have the inkling to, but seriously, anyone wander into the back alleys of the net and actually find a pirate-torrent site that isn't a scam for Euro19.95 a month? Oh, you can?--Good, now find ten of your friends and co-workers who do, since "everybody"'s obviously doing it.
And if you did, how desperate would you have to be to actually watch one? If I wanted to see big silhouettes of front-row theatergoers walking in front of me, I'd watch a Tex Avery cartoon.)

Speaking of reality-checking...

1. Most copies of movies floating around on the internet while said movie is still in theaters are NOT seat-o-vision bootlegs. I am not intimate enough with the proccess to really know where they come from, but the quality is along the lines of "you wouldn't know it wasn't a legit viewing experience if it didn't keep flashing 'do not copy' on the screen".

2. I have quite a few non-techy friends who have no trouble finding these downloads and sharing them. Either the P2P sites/clients they're using are fairly easy to find, or the whole "word of mouth" thing does the trick.

Does everybody download? Of course not. But to imply that few people aren't downloading movies still in theaters because of quality issues or an inability of knownig where to look? Wrong.

[MrFattBill]

I remember seeing "For Your Consideration" flashed on something I was watching many years ago....I bet that was a cam

Bill