The Hunt, The Invisible Man and Emma Twitter Watch Parties This Weekend (1 Viewer)

[Josh Steinberg]

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.

I think that’s already happening and was going to happen regardless. The movie theater business as we know it came into existence in a time when that was the only way to view prerecorded visual entertainment. At a certain point, when you can view the same content at home in perpetuity, where the theater is no longer the only opportunity to see something but merely the first of many places something will be shown, that’s going to have an impact.

We’ve also gone from a climate where sequels and story continuations used to be about diminishing returns, to being one of the only ways to get an audience to choose the theater over home viewing.

The midbudget movie has already more or less evolved into serialized television. Ten or fifteen years ago, you’d get movies like “The Queen” - now you get the show “The Crown” which is done by a lot of the same people. I don’t think it’s simply a case of one party forcing a change on another, but more of a symbiotic evolution. When one side tries to force something on the other unilaterally, it usually doesn’t survive long term. So you could say that Marvel movies forced movies like The Queen to television, but I think that’s an incomplete reading of the situation. I think audiences are also saying that if they’re going to become invested in a story and in its characters, maybe the two hour limit is unnecessarily arbitrary. If a movie plays in theaters for a few weeks (or months at best) and then lives on TVs in perpetuity, and if more people will experience something at home, why should the two hour theatrical slot be the format that these stories are conformed to?

We’ve seen similar evolutions before historically. The b-movies of years past and theatrical serials morphed into television. The Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes movies are a perfect prototype for what TV shows would be - hour long episode stories with a recurring main cast and new, unrelated stories in each installment with guest cast members. Old theatrical serials with continuing storylines foreshadowed what was to come with TV as well.

In a way, it’s sort of impressive how long the parameters of what a movie should be stayed fairly static. Some change is bound to happen every now and then.

 

[Robert Crawford]

You have a dedicated home theater. How is it bad to pay $20 for a first run feature minus gas money/expensive theater snacks, and in the comfort of your own home.
You can't "own" the theater going experience either which comes out to practically the same price for one person.


Sorry, I don't understand hate of this idea. It is much better than the $50-$75 "one time" rental that was talked about a couple years ago.
$20, and watch it as many times as you want in two days.

As a site dedicated to Home Theater, the overwhelming negative attitude toward this is wild to me.
I would think more along the lines of a dream come true.

It's simple, many of us have been purchasing digitals from iTunes and Vudu at cheaper prices for years so we feel there is no need to rent these $20 movies when we can just wait a few months or so before purchasing them digitally for half the price. Our disc and digital libraries are overflowing with film titles we haven't watch yet so many of us can patiently wait for our desire price point.

 

[TravisR]

I think that ship has already sailed, honestly.

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.

 

[Cranston37+]

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.

I'll throw this out there for discussion - I think the quality non-blockbuster stories have already transitioned to the episodic TV format rather than the 2 hour movie format, and that's something theaters can't fight...

 

[TravisR]

I'll throw this out there for discussion - I think the quality non-blockbuster stories have already transitioned to the episodic TV format rather than the 2 hour movie format, and that's something theaters can't fight...

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.

 

[Cranston37+]

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.

Just to play devil's advocate (and I hope you know I'm only doing that to foster discussion) - I don't think that's necessarily the case. I mean look at The Irishman (budget of $160 million) and Roma and Marriage Story...

 

[TravisR]

Just to play devil's advocate (and I hope you know I'm only doing that to foster discussion) - I don't think that's necessarily the case. I mean look at The Irishman (budget of $160 million) and Roma and Marriage Story...

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 could turn a profit off of it in the theaters.

 

[Bryan^H]

It's simple, many of us have been purchasing digitals from iTunes and Vudu at cheaper prices for years so we feel there is no need to rent these $20 movies when we can just wait a few months or so before purchasing them digitally for half the price. Our disc and digital libraries are overflowing with film titles we haven't watch yet so many of us can patiently wait for our desire price point.

I understand that. But the convenience not to mention the "wow" factor of having friends, and family over for a summer blockbuster on opening night (Let's say Wonder Woman 1984 with a dozen friends over with good food, and drink) especially for those with a projection/home theater setup is simply amazing as far as I'm concerned.

Like your own private screening in the comfort of your home. $20 for that? Small price to pay.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I understand that. But the convenience not to mention the "wow" factor of having friends, and family over for a summer blockbuster on opening night (Let's say Wonder Woman 1984 with a dozen friends over with good food, and drink) especially for those with a projection/home theater setup is simply amazing as far as I'm concerned.

Like your own private screening in the comfort of your home. $20 for that? Small price to pay.

The number of people that have projection systems is minuscule and wouldn't move the needle much. Even here I think the percentage of people with such systems are in the distinct minority.

 

[Bryan^H]

The number of people that have projection systems is minuscule and wouldn't move the needle much.

Granted, but for those of us that do it is a pretty neat concept.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Granted, but for those of us that do it is a pretty neat concept.

Dude, I'm not disputing that so I don't know what we're really arguing about.

 

[Bryan^H]

Dude, I'm not disputing that so I don't know what we're really arguing about.

Arguing? I'm agreeing with you. I respect your decision why don't want to go there. I'm just making my case why I think it is a good idea. In a perfect scenario that is.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Arguing? I'm agreeing with you. I respect your decision why don't want to go there. I'm just making my case why I think it is a good idea. In a perfect scenario that is.

Again, I'm not disputing that either.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

 

[Bryan^H]

LOL! Without making lengthy posts (which I hate doing) it is sometime difficult to convey the intricacy of the point I'm trying to make.
Sometime it is better just to keep my mouth shut, and do what is best for me

 

[Sam Posten]

ICYMI
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/n...demand-americans-want-pay-more-like-6-1286785

 

[Bryan^H]

ICYMI
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/n...demand-americans-want-pay-more-like-6-1286785

That will never happen, and it is stupid to expect it.

 

[Sam Posten]

That will never happen, and it is stupid to expect it.

I agree. But $20 rentals are not a consumer pleaser.

I went to the movies 35+ times last year, probably the most in my life. A List is the reason for that. An A list monthly sub is at or below the price of these films. I think it went to $25 a month? I haven't paid attention because it's the best value in entertainment whatever it is. That nets me 12 showings a month in Dolby or Imax theater. So no, $20 rentals are nowhere near a good value to me. I have 1000+ movies I have paid to keep for less than that digitally, and double that I own on disk for less than that $20.

$20 rentals are a no go for me. If you enjoy em, more power to you.