Search results

But those movies are part of a subscription service that enables you to see other things for less money and for a longer time. Do you really think that enough people will pay $20 to rent The Irishman that studios would be willing to fund it? It went Netflix because the studios didn't think they...

That's true to some degree but looking at just last year's movies, there's stuff like Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood, 1917, Parasite and Little Women that I think wouldn't even exist if there wasn't movie theaters.

It may be coming but it's not bad enough that that's literally all they make yet and I think there being no movie theaters would bring that about quite quickly. Even if it is coming, there's no need to speed it up. :)

My problem isn't the price, it's the result to the industry if it became the norm. There would be no movies except blockbusters because they'd be sure things to get people to spend $20 on.

Even assuming that everyone watches it on their TV, they're still watching on a TV which is hardly a match for a movie theater. Yes, at the movies, people talk or there's sticky floors or high concession prices but the presentation of even a mediocre theater is vastly better than most people's...

Even though it absolutely works out financially, I still think it's a tough sell to get people to pay $20 for a two day rental of a movie that most will watch on an iPad or laptop when they can get a month of Netflix or Disney + for much cheaper with far more choices. And god help movies if...

If they can't get folks like the big movie fans here that are also stuck inside to buy at $20, I don't see any hope for a significant chunk of the general public biting at that price. From the reaction I saw, people were impressed that a new movie was able to be seen at home but if that became...