Best iTunes Movie Deals


Best iTunes Movie Deals, See All the Deals »
Top deals | New deals  
 All countries United States United Kingdom Canada Germany France Spain Italy Australia Netherlands Japan Mexico
Thor 4-Movie Collection (iTunes)
$34.99
 
Californication: The Complete Series (iTunes)
$34.99
2 hrs ago
Old (iTunes)
$4.99
 
Bullet Train (iTunes)
$4.99
 
The Boy and the Beast (iTunes)
$4.99
2 hrs ago
Captain America Trilogy (iTunes)
$24.99
 
Doctor Strange 2-Movie Collection (iTunes)
$14.99
 
Iron Man Trilogy (iTunes)
$24.99
 
Fight Club (iTunes)
$4.99
 
Where the Crawdads Sing (iTunes)
$4.99
 
Unbreakable (iTunes)
$4.99
 
Stanley Kubrick: 7-Film Collection (iTunes)
$34.99
 
What's your next favorite movie?
Join our movie community to find out


Image from: Life of Pi (2012)
Old 05-04-2021, 02:24 AM   #21
dunnbluray dunnbluray is offline
Power Member
 
Oct 2013
420
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chedwiggen View Post
I would love for more studios to join but I don't see that happening anytime soon with all the financial destruction covid caused to studios. Maybe if MA/Disney made it more enticing for them somehow. MA should also try working with smaller studios as well, smaller they are the less they have to pay to join. Grow MA, grow.
It was mentioned STX wanted to join Movies Anywhere and they were denied. Seems like they just care about the big names.

I remember watching an interview when Movies Anywhere initially came aboard. It was asked about other studios joining and if there would be a TV Anywhere version. None of those have come to fruition.

Also, so many movies by the current studios are missing MA status. Warner Bros and Sony have quite a few which aren't even on MA.

I had high hopes for Movies Anywhere but it hasn't grown much except on how many providers it's available on.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2021, 04:45 AM   #22
Chedwiggen Chedwiggen is offline
Blu-ray Guru
 
Chedwiggen's Avatar
 
Sep 2012
-
-
-
-
-
93
Default

That's a problem I have with MA, they don't appear like they're doing anything to grow which makes me feel they'll go the same way as UV in a few years. I mean if you're not bringing in new studios then at least bring in tv shows from the participating studios so there's some type of growth.
  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
dunnbluray (05-05-2021), Foolymagoolz (05-06-2021)
Old 05-04-2021, 08:47 PM   #23
tjritter79 tjritter79 is offline
Power Member
 
Nov 2012
Reading, Pa.
82
3
876
1085
1096
USA

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chedwiggen View Post
That's a problem I have with MA, they don't appear like they're doing anything to grow which makes me feel they'll go the same way as UV in a few years. I mean if you're not bringing in new studios then at least bring in tv shows from the participating studios so there's some type of growth.
Well Covid is prolly the reason, I mean whenever someone or something doesn't reach expectations isn't that the go-to excuse?

Which explains why MGM and Lionsgate didn't/won't budge, they're both knee deep in debt so much so LG was trying to sell their STARZ brand.
Paramount is in a little better place since the "Kholinar refusion" with CBS but I felt joining MA would have brought a LOT more recognition to the Paramount brand had that been coincided with the formation of Paramount+...in the states anyway which is what counts. From that point given the huge archive of Paramount Television, MA getting TV shows seemed the next logical step. But you know, Disney beat UV, so you don't let me in your pool, you cannot play in my sandbox....
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2021, 01:39 AM   #24
dunnbluray dunnbluray is offline
Power Member
 
Oct 2013
420
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vwnut13 View Post
Paramount and Lionsgate get no money from me because they won't port to other platforms.
Sounds like an echo of the UV purists. And you know where UV went, into the abyss.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2021, 02:14 AM   #25
carman carman is offline
Member
 
Jul 2011
41
Default

I have to echo some of the others ... while I do make the occasional Paramount / Lionsgate / MGM purchase ... it's rare .... while all the other MA studios are making a killing off me
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2021, 04:07 AM   #26
SpaceBlackKnight SpaceBlackKnight is offline
Blu-ray Samurai
 
SpaceBlackKnight's Avatar
 
Jul 2018
25
346
20
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dunnbluray View Post

Also, so many movies by the current studios are missing MA status. Warner Bros and Sony have quite a few which aren't even on MA.
The ones not on MA are probably titles they only picked up limited distribution rights to for a period of time.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2021, 12:33 PM   #27
casperuk casperuk is offline
Blu-ray Samurai
 
casperuk's Avatar
 
Jun 2012
20
333
46
161
156
84
56
Default

seeing as MGM have been bought by Amazon, i doubt we'll ever seen them being added to MA now.

Paramount confuses me, as they are massilvy well known and have so many huge titles, adding themselves to MA would make sense and haivng Paramount+ isn't a reason for them not to be part of MA,

Disney+ is a thing and that is making a killing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2021, 12:38 PM   #28
Lee A Stewart Lee A Stewart is offline
Blu-ray Champion
 
Lee A Stewart's Avatar
 
Jan 2019
Albuquerque, NM
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by casperuk View Post
seeing as MGM have been bought by Amazon, i doubt we'll ever seen them being added to MA now.

Paramount confuses me, as they are massilvy well known and have so many huge titles, adding themselves to MA would make sense and haivng Paramount+ isn't a reason for them not to be part of MA,

Disney+ is a thing and that is making a killing.
The MGM/Amazon deal is not complete. It has to pass the Justice Dept who has been looking at Amazon VERY carefully. All Amazon did was take MGM off the table so no one else could buy it. Justice says no - it's back in play - 8 months to a year after the initial offer.
  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
casperuk (08-11-2021)
Old 08-10-2021, 01:23 PM   #29
tjritter79 tjritter79 is offline
Power Member
 
Nov 2012
Reading, Pa.
82
3
876
1085
1096
USA

Quote:
Originally Posted by casperuk View Post
seeing as MGM have been bought by Amazon, i doubt we'll ever seen them being added to MA now.

Paramount confuses me, as they are massilvy well known and have so many huge titles, adding themselves to MA would make sense and haivng Paramount+ isn't a reason for them not to be part of MA,

Disney+ is a thing and that is making a killing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart View Post
The MGM/Amazon deal is not complete. It has to pass the Justice Dept who has been looking at Amazon VERY carefully. All Amazon did was take MGM off the table so no one else could buy it. Justice says no - it's back in play - 8 months to a year after the initial offer.
What Lee says is correct. Let's see Amazon/MGM get approved by the Fed and go from there. If rejected, MGM has already said they may join the Warner/Discovery deal....for LESS money of course. Closer to what Apple offered nearly a year ago.

Popularity doesn't dictate membership in MA, money does. And the three main holdouts (MGM, Paramount and Lionsgate) will have to pay a "premium" to get in. That's the "penalty" for supporting UV all those years and WHY Disney took those who were dissatisfied with how UV worked and its lack of "growth" and decided to form their own "super-locker".

Paramount is the most secure financially of the three, the rest have MASSIVE debt and likely don't have the resources necessary to join/support MA. Paramount+ is simply an "alternative" to MA, and you really cannot fault them, THEY want what their movies generate, and they don't want to share resources with Disney or any of the other MA affiliated studios. If and when Paramount begins to attain the popularity they had in the 80's (they were above Disney if you recall) then perhaps it would be in their best interest to join MA.

Personally, I believed that if they were going to join sooner rather then later, the BEST opportunity was when Paramount + launched (re-launched). The PR and archival push could have been used to create a dual-front promotion of store-front titles (MA) and SVOD (P+). IMO, this was their BEST opportunity to take advantage of that situation...it didn't happen, we don't know why? I fear its now lower on the list of priorities for Paramount going forward.
  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
casperuk (08-11-2021), crackedknee (08-10-2021)
Old 08-10-2021, 07:34 PM   #30
brooks101189 brooks101189 is offline
Blu-ray Ninja
 
brooks101189's Avatar
 
Jan 2010
My Home
102
Default

I'd believe Paramount+ is an alternative to MA but the fact that over 50% of the titles on it aren't even Paramount titles brings that into question.

Peacock and to a lesser extent HBO Max also suffer this issue as well. They have titles owned by their studio, but so much of their catalog is made up of titles they simply license. At least Disney+ is made up of 100% of things they actually own.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2021, 09:13 PM   #31
IndyMLVC IndyMLVC is offline
Blu-ray Count
 
IndyMLVC's Avatar
 
Oct 2010
New York City, NY
212
716
69
738
2
61
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by casperuk View Post
seeing as MGM have been bought by Amazon, i doubt we'll ever seen them being added to MA now.

Paramount confuses me, as they are massilvy well known and have so many huge titles, adding themselves to MA would make sense and haivng Paramount+ isn't a reason for them not to be part of MA,

Disney+ is a thing and that is making a killing.
There shouldn't be any confusion. It's expensive to join and none of the remaining studios see a reason to pay the fees. It's that simple.
  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
bhampton (08-11-2021)
Old 08-10-2021, 09:28 PM   #32
tjritter79 tjritter79 is offline
Power Member
 
Nov 2012
Reading, Pa.
82
3
876
1085
1096
USA

Quote:
Originally Posted by brooks101189 View Post
I'd believe Paramount+ is an alternative to MA but the fact that over 50% of the titles on it aren't even Paramount titles brings that into question.

Peacock and to a lesser extent HBO Max also suffer this issue as well. They have titles owned by their studio, but so much of their catalog is made up of titles they simply license. At least Disney+ is made up of 100% of things they actually own.
You'll have to name some specifics, nearly everything I see is either owned by Paramount studios or Paramount television which later reverted to CBS Television (2006).

If you're referring to the Viacom content, that came together when Viacom bought CBS and merged 20 mos ago?

Any content currently "licensed" was prolly done long before either CBS: AA or Peacock were a "thing". I still see Star Trek and the original Twilight Zone on Netflix.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2021, 09:39 PM   #33
tjritter79 tjritter79 is offline
Power Member
 
Nov 2012
Reading, Pa.
82
3
876
1085
1096
USA

Quote:
Originally Posted by IndyMLVC View Post
There shouldn't be any confusion. It's expensive to join and none of the remaining studios see a reason to pay the fees. It's that simple.
There has to be a "benefit" they derive from doing so. Sony doesn't have a streaming service so they likely benefit more from MA than say Warner, Disney or Universal (who each have streaming alternatives).

From Paramount, Lionsgate & MGM's standpoint, their titles of films/TV shows have various outlets they have financial interests in (Lionsgate with STARZ and Paramount with Paramount+ for example) and they may feel that a membership in MA actually dilutes their current exposure reducing the need to use those means they've invested in. Why pay MA "fees" AND reduce your revenue?
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2021, 09:52 PM   #34
Alan Gordon Alan Gordon is offline
Blu-ray Ninja
 
Alan Gordon's Avatar
 
Aug 2007
Dawson, GA
567
2142
437
1282
1444
2326
1321
41
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjritter79 View Post
You'll have to name some specifics, nearly everything I see is either owned by Paramount studios or Paramount television which later reverted to CBS Television (2006).
  • "The Avengers" (Disney)
  • "The Addams Family" (Animated) [MGM]
  • "Bill & Ted Face The Music" (MGM)
  • "The Hustle" (MGM)
  • "Romeo + Juliet" (Fox/Disney)
  • "Playing With Fire" (MGM)
  • "King Arthur" (Touchstone/Disney)
  • "I Know What You Did Last Summer" (Sony)
  • "Cliffhanger" (Sony)
  • "Arachnophobia" (Hollywood Pictures/Disney)
  • "Rudy" (Sony)
  • "Seabiscuit" (Universal)
  • "Kingpin" (MGM)

Just a few titles listed above.

I'd say 10% of the titles are not Paramount owned. Maybe less, but they do exist.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2021, 09:53 PM   #35
brooks101189 brooks101189 is offline
Blu-ray Ninja
 
brooks101189's Avatar
 
Jan 2010
My Home
102
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjritter79 View Post
You'll have to name some specifics, nearly everything I see is either owned by Paramount studios or Paramount television which later reverted to CBS Television (2006).

If you're referring to the Viacom content, that came together when Viacom bought CBS and merged 20 mos ago?

Any content currently "licensed" was prolly done long before either CBS: AA or Peacock were a "thing". I still see Star Trek and the original Twilight Zone on Netflix.
Off the top of my head, one of the titles featured in the list is Arachnophobia, which is owned by Disney. The site also features several MGM titles (like the Red Dawn remake) a lot of titles from Gravitas Venturas as well as plenty of low-budget direct-to-streaming titles released by no-name studios that aren't owned by Paramount/Viacom - a lot of which are free with ads on Vudu/Tube/Prime Video/etc. It's a genuine mess at the moment. And briefly in the start of it's run, Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle - a Sony title, was on the service.

And no, I'm not referring to the Viacom content. If we're comparing Paramount+ to MA, I'm talking exclusively Paramount titles.

Peacock has a similar situation. It has Universal titles, but also has a lot of Warner Bros, Paramount, Fox, Aslyum titles spread throughout. HBO Max has a ton of Warner Bros titles - but they're also filled with Universal, Fox, Lionsgate, Disney, etc.

A lot of this is due with license deals with other channels and streaming services. Disney+ suffers this same issue - though Paramount+ apparently has some loopholes/deals-in-place allowing them to have Paramount titles like the Mission Impossible films, A Quiet Place and Bumblebee which are currently in deals with FX.

Paramount+ is in no way a replacement or even a competitor to MA. Right now, it's hard to say it's even competing with any streaming service.

Last edited by brooks101189; 08-10-2021 at 09:58 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2021, 10:12 PM   #36
IndyMLVC IndyMLVC is offline
Blu-ray Count
 
IndyMLVC's Avatar
 
Oct 2010
New York City, NY
212
716
69
738
2
61
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjritter79 View Post
There has to be a "benefit" they derive from doing so. Sony doesn't have a streaming service so they likely benefit more from MA than say Warner, Disney or Universal (who each have streaming alternatives).

From Paramount, Lionsgate & MGM's standpoint, their titles of films/TV shows have various outlets they have financial interests in (Lionsgate with STARZ and Paramount with Paramount+ for example) and they may feel that a membership in MA actually dilutes their current exposure reducing the need to use those means they've invested in. Why pay MA "fees" AND reduce your revenue?
Correct. Thank you for backing me up.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2021, 12:41 AM   #37
casperuk casperuk is offline
Blu-ray Samurai
 
casperuk's Avatar
 
Jun 2012
20
333
46
161
156
84
56
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IndyMLVC View Post
There shouldn't be any confusion. It's expensive to join and none of the remaining studios see a reason to pay the fees. It's that simple.
but surely it's within an massive company's marketing budget...

the amount spent by each company on creating their own store front or streaming platform outweights anything that MA would cost IMO.

seeing as Paramount+ isn't doing the numbers of netflix/amazon/disney IMO it would make sense to join MA, just on the marketing alone.

i am surprised that Sony didn't make the PS Store it's go to for all things movies and have that link to MA either.

if you have someone that is deep into an ecosystem like google/apple/xbox/PS, then IMO it makes sense to allow people to spend on your store front and link it to others, and that make people want to spend in your store front before someone elses, i'm more likely to buy from google play/youtube first cos i am an andriod user than i am on itunes. but cos of MA i have the option of both if one is cheaper.
  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
Alan Gordon (08-11-2021)
Old 08-11-2021, 12:47 AM   #38
Alan Gordon Alan Gordon is offline
Blu-ray Ninja
 
Alan Gordon's Avatar
 
Aug 2007
Dawson, GA
567
2142
437
1282
1444
2326
1321
41
Default

Paramount+ seems to be banking more on shortened theatrical windows compared to Disney+'s Premier Access, but in time, I could see more streaming services offering movie purchases, and if that happens, I could see more streaming services being interested in Movies Anywhere.

I'm honestly sorta surprised that Disney+ hasn't become a retailer since coming out with Premier Access, unless they were concerned of ticking off Apple, Amazon, etc.

I still feel it's only a matter of time before Paramount joins. I do find it discouraging that they didn't do it at the same time as the release of the Indiana Jones films, nor do they apparently have plans to support it with the release of the first four Star Trek films.

It does appear that Universal will soon start to really promote Movies Anywhere with their newer covers (similar to older UV releases) which is always good when it comes to putting pressure on studios not currently supporting MA:

  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
flyry (08-11-2021)
Old 08-11-2021, 12:51 AM   #39
Alan Gordon Alan Gordon is offline
Blu-ray Ninja
 
Alan Gordon's Avatar
 
Aug 2007
Dawson, GA
567
2142
437
1282
1444
2326
1321
41
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by casperuk View Post
i am surprised that Sony didn't make the PS Store it's go to for all things movies and have that link to MA either.
Shoot, you'd thinking making Sony BRAVIA CORE an MA supporting retailer would encourage more sales of BRAVIA TVs since people would have larger 4K libraries to take advantage of that service.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2021, 12:59 AM   #40
IndyMLVC IndyMLVC is offline
Blu-ray Count
 
IndyMLVC's Avatar
 
Oct 2010
New York City, NY
212
716
69
738
2
61
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by casperuk View Post
the amount spent by each company on creating their own store front or streaming platform outweights anything that MA would cost IMO.
And what do you base this on? Do you know how much it costs?

I can assure you it's far more than you can imagine just to join, never mind maintain your library there.
  Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > Movies > Digital Movies > Movies Anywhere


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:27 AM.