1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

WSJ - Movie Theathers Mad at Rumored D* Deal

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by cforrest, Apr 1, 2011.

  1. Gocanes

    Gocanes AllStar

    77
    1
    Jul 15, 2007
    But why wouldn't you wait another 30 days and save another $25? By the 60 day mark most movies aren't even in theatres anymore. As I said earlier. Why would you pay more to have the exact same at home viewing experience (and you could have a better one renting a blu-ray) just to see something a few weeks sooner?
     
  2. Aridon

    Aridon Mentor

    186
    22
    Mar 12, 2007
    Here is the problem with this. If you really want to see a movie you are going to go see it in the theater inside if the 60 days. Some movies are just better there, though imo not many.

    If you can wait 60 days the majority are not going to pay $30 to see it. Buy and rent? Sure. Just rent? No. most are going to wait for dvd/netflix, cheaper ppv or movie channels.

    I'm sure someone will be willing to pay for it. I doubt it will be many and I doubt it will become a driving source if profit for d*or the makers.
     
  3. larry55

    larry55 Legend

    181
    0
    Jun 3, 2010
    d need to get in the real world.hell freeze over before i pay 30.00 to watch a movie on tv.
     
  4. billsharpe

    billsharpe Hall Of Fame

    2,652
    64
    Jan 25, 2007
    Southern...
    I balk at even $4.99 PPV movies.
     
  5. paulman182

    paulman182 Hall Of Fame

    4,839
    3
    Aug 4, 2006
    Wow, I can only imagine how often I would have used this when the kids were little.

    A housefull of pre-teen girls watching "Tangled" at home, the day it opened in theaters, with no concerns about transportation, snacks, bathroom visits, etc.

    This could be big for certain movies.
     
  6. MysteryMan

    MysteryMan Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    8,323
    460
    May 17, 2010
    USA
    +1......It's easier transporting livestock than small children. There's definitely a market for this. Especially for couples with small children.
     
  7. Crow159

    Crow159 Member

    526
    16
    May 23, 2007
    The bolded is not the case. These movies will not be on PPV the day of the release in theaters. It will be 60 days after theater release.

    If it were closer to the theater release, I might be inclined to get one every once in a while. If I can wait 60 days to see a movie, I can wait another month or two for Netflix or Redbox.

    Not knocking Directv, I can see some people buying these, I just won't be one of them.
     
  8. Hutchinshouse

    Hutchinshouse Hall Of Fame

    4,632
    0
    Sep 27, 2006
    +1

    I have two kids (with one more on the way). I'll never buy a $30 ppv. Same rule applies. Why spend $30 when you can spend less for the better a/v quality blu-ray?
     
  9. SaLance

    SaLance AllStar

    65
    0
    Apr 3, 2011
    Congrats!!! I have 4 kids, and I would definetly consider Livestock easier to move! :D Same note though, I don't see myself paying $30 unless I got a discount on the Blue Ray, like a $30 discount :lol:
     
  10. Hutchinshouse

    Hutchinshouse Hall Of Fame

    4,632
    0
    Sep 27, 2006
  11. sigma1914

    sigma1914 Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    14,583
    369
    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    From the article:
    I'm shocked how low the results were for same day as theater PPV release. I'd pay $10 for same day PPV.
     
  12. Hutchinshouse

    Hutchinshouse Hall Of Fame

    4,632
    0
    Sep 27, 2006
    Our economy is jacked right now. Gas prices are going through the roof. I’m not too surprised by the numbers.

    However, $10 bucks wouldn’t be too bad for “same day as theater PPV release”. However, if that ever happened, most theaters would go belly up.
     
  13. pfp

    pfp Whatever

    1,559
    0
    Apr 28, 2009
    $5 more than PPV is lower than some theaters single ticket price.
     
  14. CuriousG

    CuriousG Mentor

    42
    0
    Nov 23, 2006
    I would take issue with the results of the polling done for the above article only because people will say one thing until actually given an opportunity for something. Recall all the negativity surrounding Apple's iPad prior to its release based solely on what people thought it might be or do. How'd that turn out for the naysayers (you can check the iPad stats for yourself, but suffice to say it has been a huge success for Apple).

    That is not to say I think the proposed/rumored premium PPV service will be successful. It won't. The issue is not the amount of money, but the release window. $30 is easily doable for a premium PPV service if the release window is within a week or two of theatrical. As has been pointed out by others that actually go to movies, $30 for a first run film is not bad based on the prices of the theatrical experience. At our local cineplex, even making the "before 6pm" matinee, the tab for me an my wife would be $14.00 to get in the door and another $15-$17 for two drinks and a large 'corn.

    Now, I happen to have a fairly decent home theater (106" screen, high quality 1080p projection, 9.2 surround), so I don't give up much by watching at home as far as "impact", and gain quite a lot by forgoing the noisy patrons, the lack of a pause button, etc. $30 for the latest Harry Potter flick at my house a week or so after initial release? Absolutely. 60 days after, or only a month or so before the Blu-ray? Not a chance.
     
  15. RobertE

    RobertE New Member

    8,024
    0
    Jun 9, 2006
    Here is how I would price it.

    0-14 days theater only
    14-30 days out $30 with a $5-10 rebate/coupon off the blu-ray release.
    30-60 days out $20
    60-120 days out $10 or not available until DVD/Blu-ray/general PPV release.

    I can see myself doing 1 in the 14-30 day window every other month or so. There have been a fair amount of movies that I would like to see, but after dragging myself home after a day of work, I just don't have the desire to drive to theater, wait for it to start, etc.

    Just being able to pause a movie during one of the bladder buster movies would be worth a few bucks as well. :)
     
  16. grassfeeder

    grassfeeder AllStar

    63
    0
    Jan 24, 2011
    a tiered system like this would be by far the best way to approach this. I can certainly see more value if priced like this. they're more likely to get $20 from me this way - $30 - not happening!
     
  17. Christopher Gould

    Christopher Gould Icon

    991
    16
    Jan 14, 2007
    +1
     
  18. Gocanes

    Gocanes AllStar

    77
    1
    Jul 15, 2007
    The problem with this plan is that it will put Movie Theatres out of business and that will put the movie making industry out of business. There is no model that can support the budgets that movies take to make without having a boxoffice gross. What will happen is that once theatres are out of business the studios will continue to bring in a lower and lower amount per set of eyes that watches a movie. Nobody will finance $100 Million plus budgets and "movies" will end up being made like TV series (effects, editing, music). Movies as they have been known for a long time will cease to exist.

    Even if your plan ONLY cost theatres 15% or so of their business it would force them out of business.

    What the studios are trying to do with this plan is increase their home video revenue which has been killed by netflix and redbox. It's not going to work because netflix and redbox have devalued the product at home. Why would somebody buy a dvd or blu-ray when it can be rented for $1? How many movies are worth watching over 10 times? The only ones worth it are the "babysitter" kids movies that a kid will watch five thousand times to keep them out of parents hair.

    If the studios want to gain more revenue with premium VOD type offerings, the thing to do would be to delay the DVD/Blu-ray release back to the 8 months to a year timeframe. Then make a premium VOD window that starts around 3 months after theatrical release. At that point the VOD would be $30 and it would gradually decrease each month until you get down to the normal $6 PPV price and then have the DVD/Blu-ray release. This way there'd be some kind of reason to pay $30. The current plan makes no sense. The consumer choice is a PPV for $30 today or wait a month and it's $1. There is no sales pitch that can make that seem like a good deal.

    The studio's problems are caused by Netflix and Redbox and once the DVD and Blu-ray are released there is nothing they can do to stop those companies. If they don't sell them wholesale disks, Netflix and Redbox will just buy them retail. You don't have to rent the copy many times to pay back the investment.
     
  19. CuriousG

    CuriousG Mentor

    42
    0
    Nov 23, 2006
    I would point out the same thing was said of the VCR. The reality of that situation was home video actually increased the interest in movies and theaters entered a new "golden age" of attendance about 20 years ago that had not been seen since the fifties. People see home video as a convenience while theater going is an activity. For the most part, one does not replace the other.

    Premium PPV would fall under the "convenience" category, albeit a relatively expensive one. That would limit it to niche status, but another revenue stream none the less.

    IMO, of course.
     
  20. hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    ....and the DVD....and the Blu Ray....and the DVR...and so on.... :shrug:
     

Share This Page