ie8 fix
madison

Get ready to pay $50 to watch a new movie in your home

By | August 13, 2010, 5:26am PDT

Summary: It’s long been rumored that movie studios are looking to bring new releases into your living room while they’re still in theaters (or before they come out on DVD). That appears closer to fruition, as the studios have been in talks with pay TV operators like Time Warner Cable and DirecTV about offering newer flicks [...]

It’s long been rumored that movie studios are looking to bring new releases into your living room while they’re still in theaters (or before they come out on DVD). That appears closer to fruition, as the studios have been in talks with pay TV operators like Time Warner Cable and DirecTV about offering newer flicks on demand, with trials possibly starting this fall.

Don’t break out your microwave popcorn yet. These “new” movies will still have been in theaters for 30 days before reaching your TV, so don’t confuse “new” with “just released.” Other titles may start being available 60 days after they’ve been in theaters.

Then there’s the matter of pricing. Films that have been out 30 days will cost $50 to view from the comfort of your home, while slightly older flicks will be available for $24.99. The studios will probably point out that a family of four going to the movies typically spends more than $50 when you factor in concessions with ticket prices. Still, there’s a huge psychological barrier to dropping $50 all at once, especially for a movie that may already be gone from theaters and flushed out of your memory (until it comes out on regular on demand for $4.99). Plus, you really need a roomful of people watching in order to make the economics work to your benefit.

Disney CEO Bob Iger says that “There are people who we believe would like to see movies sooner than later and would pay a premium price to do that.” A couple of months from now, he may be able to put that theory to the test. Will he be proven right?

[Via Yahoo News]

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Sean Portnoy is a freelance technology journalist.

Disclosure

Sean Portnoy

Sean Portnoy is a freelance technology journalist; currently, all work that Sean does is on a contractural basis. Sean has also written corporate communications documents for CA.

Sean does not accept gifts from companies he covers. All hardware products he writes about are purchased with his own funds or are review units covered under formal loan agreements and are returned after the review is complete.

Biography

Sean Portnoy

Sean Portnoy started his tech writing career at ZDNet nearly a decade ago. He then spent several years as an editor at Computer Shopper magazine, most recently serving as online executive editor. He received a B.A. from Brown University and an M.A. from the University of Southern California.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
66
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Get ready to pay $50 to watch a new movie in your home
JSullivan00 5th Sep
@VisitUrans I really hope you're weren't being serious when you equated an MMA fight to a street fight between gangs. Mixed martial arts is a combat sport just like boxing and the UFC just signed a deal with Fox so some events will be airing for free on basic cable. Now you won't have to go down to your local street corner for some good entertainment.
J.S. - 180 MMA Training
0 Votes
+ -
Would be Disney.
HypnoToad72 Updated - 13th Aug 2010
Still, it'll get to the point where the $50 "premium" (for less-than-premium material, let's be honest) will become the normal price.

Wait and see...

Never mind a 700MB download won't have even remotely similar quality as a 50000MB blu-ray disc... or 7000MB standard-def DVD for that matter...
0 Votes
+ -
Not a damned chance...
BitTwiddler 13th Aug 2010
There is no way in hell I'm paying $50 to watch a movie. These people are utterly insane!
@BitTwiddler - nobody's perfect... grin
0 Votes
+ -
Same here
Economister 13th Aug 2010
@BitTwiddler

On top of that, most new movies are crap.
0 Votes
+ -
It won't work this way, but ....
kingtj 13th Aug 2010
@BitTwiddler
I can actually see it for a first-run, new release. Imagine throwing a party where part of the entertainment includes showing a new blockbuster film on your big-screen TV? If you can get 20 people to come over and they each pay $2.50 towards it, there's your $50 right there. Plus, you're surrounded by good company/friends instead of a bunch of strangers in a theater. If they did this right, they'd also let you pause the movie any time during any part of it.
@kingtj I expect they will have verbiage in the agreement saying you cannot use for commercial purposes, no wait! It's already there in the FBI warning the movie industry has put in all media. You would be breaking the law I expect if you charged your guests to defer the $50 cost. Hollywood and Disney can go the way of the Dodo for all I care when they try shenanigans like this, think DIVX another failed exploitation,...er technology.
@kingtj
I can see this benefit the way you point out, but I can't see that price for a family of 4 or 5. I don't care what the theaters charge, I always wait for the dvd download torrent.
Hmm, it will be a big entertainment budget battle... you could spend $49.95 to watch MMA (or just go down to your local gang neighborhood and wait for rivals to beat the crap out of each other and then start shooting..), or if this first run option was in place, you could have paid $49.95 to watch first run "Land of the Lost" or "Clash of Titans" (rather than waiting until they are in the crap $5 DVD bin at Walmart.) This is a very, very, very hard choice what to do with my money...

Thank heaven we all have another choice to look stupid...
0 Votes
+ -
Charging your friends?
boomchuck1 16th Aug 2010
@kingtj If you can get 20 people to come over and they each pay $2.50 towards it, there's your $50 right there.

Are you kidding me? You would actually charge your friends money to come watch TV at your house? Sorry, but if you were my friend and you asked me to bring anything other than chips and beer to come watch TV I would have to take a bye on that.
@VisitUrans I really hope you're weren't being serious when you equated an MMA fight to a street fight between gangs. Mixed martial arts is a combat sport just like boxing and the UFC just signed a deal with Fox so some events will be airing for free on basic cable. Now you won't have to go down to your local street corner for some good entertainment.
J.S. - 180 MMA Training
0 Votes
+ -
@BitTwiddler I'm with you. Insane doesn't even begin to describe it. They expect us to start charging admission? And who says I have a bunch of kids living at home, anyway. There are 2 of us...$25 each??? I think not....
0 Votes
+ -
Most movies in theaters
HollywoodDog 16th Aug 2010
@BitTwiddler ... aren't worth watching for free. No way in hell. I'll watch it six months later for free, or near free.
After all, anyone that really wants to watch that new movie will either wait to go to the theater or download it before it gets to the theaters.

If I really want to watch a new movie, I'll go to the theater. Otherwise, I'll wait for Netflix.
I can see a movie on a Saturday Morning for $5 at AMC and a "family of four" is only $20. Now if this was at night lets jack prices up to the unreasonable $9 (which movies should be cheaper at night considering I have to put up with all the loud rude "children"). That is only $36. No way I am going to pay for concessions there, I will go to Walgreens before hand and get snacks there. Total cost of those for the family $10. Now I am up to $46 still lower than $50 and I have already paid for snacks.

Then we all know when a movie doesn't do half decent they won't keep it in theaters that long. I mean I have seen movies that came out in June already on DVD. So I can pay $50 now or $1 later and rent it at RedBox and even keep it longer.

They are in the right mind in delivering content sooner to people, but again they fail to see the big picture and just want to find a way to grab more money out of less people's pockets, instead of keeping things at a reasonable price and getting more profit in the long run from more consumers.

3+2=5 and so does 4+1, but eventually that smaller ratio of demand to supply will cause the RIAA and MPAA to whine more about piracy and other dumb things instead of coming up with sound business plans.
0 Votes
+ -
@psheehan3@...

Riiiiight... remember when cd's were gonna be cheaper than cassettes? I would way rather pay $10 for a cd (with jacket and inserts) than cheaper itunes or alternative. If they charged $10 per disc they it would be a huge step in restoring order to the music industry and possibly bring back the Tower Records of the world.

I can't believe the MPAA if walking in their footsteps... How do these people still have jobs!
As a single recession battered person no way in hell.
0 Votes
+ -
@edkollin Took the words outta my mouth.
@lelandhendrix@... since I had to take a pay decrease at work because of the recession, I can't even afford to go to the theatre, much less pay $50 for a movie. Total insanity on the part of upper management of these corporations. Why not just give the middle finger salute to their average-joe customers!
0 Votes
+ -
I'm not going to pay $50 either for a movie in the comfort of my own home. The matinee is only $6.50, plus I get a bigger screen and better sound system.
There is NO way I would pay $50 to watch a movie at home.

I go to movies primarily to enjoy big budget special effects on a 50 foot screen in 564.31 surround sound. That's what I pay for. Anything and everything else is in my Netflix queue.
0 Votes
+ -
@alsw
Indeed!
Besides, if I go to the theatre and find a movie is not worth sitting through (The Other Guys, The Last Airbender etc.) I can leave and get my money back.
$50.00 for a movie? me thinks not...
If they charged $10 or $15 would they get more than 4-5x as many buyers? I think so, aren't most movies attended by couples? It seems like it. At $50, a family of four would barely break even with going to the theater.
@Bookmark71 I agree, at $10-$15 it would do at least 4-5 times better and probably more. I personally hate going to the theater because I hate paying the outrageous prices to sit in a crowd of people let alone I can't pause it if I want to get up for something. I pretty much always wait until they come out on DVD and have a decent surround system with a 10" screen that in my living room is pretty much the equivalent to the screen at the theater. At $50 that is almost 4 months of pretty much as many movies as I can watch with Netflix. If it were $10-$15 for a movie that have been in the theater for a couple of weeks I could see doing this from time to time or maybe even a couple of time a month but at $50 it's just not going to happen. The execs behind this just don't have a clue.
LOL. $50!! Ok, 1st off, with download limits and surcharges, 50 wouldn't cover it. And I would lose my internet for a period of time due to me going over my 10gb limit for the month.
But I agree, it costs $50+ most times we go to the movies. Tickets and snacks.
No, for all the above reasons plus...I want to get OUT of the house.
They get the $50...the theater gets NOTHING. And I have to make my own popcorn. Sounds like a rip to me. Only the bored and well heeled are buying into this needless product. I foresee a short life span for this idea, and a morphed product to recoup the loss and retain the access to the home to pump more product at the tired and well worn wallet of Americans.
0 Votes
+ -
it just means ...
stevejg61 13th Aug 2010
it just means it will be on the torrrent sites a lot quicker
0 Votes
+ -
$50? Can I haz cheezburger too?
zclayton2 13th Aug 2010
NT
0 Votes
+ -
Sure...
Wolfie2K3 13th Aug 2010
@zclayton2
But you has to cook it yourself...
Ha, no chance. Current cinema pricing is already excessive (especially with their grossly overpriced "snacks"). During the last couple of years, the only movie that I made an effort to see on the big screen was Avatar 3D (last winter when I was stuck in Seattle due to massive snow in Dallas). Otherwise, DishHD and Netflix completely satisfy my need for video entertainment.
HA $50.00 not going to happen in this household! They're nuts!
Just when I think they can't give these pirates any more fodder than they already have, they pull this one.... BRILLIANT!!! Bravo!
@frankz00

This was also my first thought. They're going to give every wanna-be pirate in the world the opportunity to create an excellent copy for $50, then ensure usually honest people will buy the pirated copies using the price-gouging as the internal justification for the purchase.

These companies are their own worst enemies!
A complete ripoff! And to bring it out in a recession? These studio execs that make these decisions make probably $1-5 million/year, and they are utterly out of touch with reality.

Everyone keeps mentioning a 'family of four'. Well last I checked, kids are cheaper. AMC is $6 for matinee, or $11 adult, $8 child for regular. So a family with 2 kids would pay $24 matinee, or $38 primetime. And you get the full theatre experience, and don't have to wait a month.

Bottom line - $50 is a gigantic ripoff. Unless they want to include 2 large pizzas and trimmings delivered to the house!
0 Votes
+ -
$5 bucks sure. $10 maybe. $50 are you kidding? The movie industry is on crack if they think we are going to pay $50 just for the convenience. As it is movie prices are way more then they should and the theater doesn't get 1/2 of the movie take.
0 Votes
+ -
I am proud to report...
garthasuarus@... 13th Aug 2010
That my family of 2 pays $20 to go to a movie (free popcorn, $1 sodas and a 1/2 gallon of gas)...and it gets us out of the house for the afternoon. (Thank you Mr. Harkins).
The movie studios pricing model is seriously whacked.
0 Votes
+ -
@garthasuarus@...

It's not whacked if you have a family of 6 and getting everyone even together much less out of the house together for an afternoon is a near impossibility.

The problem with that, however, is that I don't think enough people fall into that category to make it a profitable venture.
0 Votes
+ -
What a splendid Fantasy
2chuck@... 13th Aug 2010
$50 for an in the theaters movie, and it doesn't even involve a Sports Event or Porn? Good Luck with that. They shouldn't count on me as one of their customers for any of the above.
0 Votes
+ -
Not for a month old movie
Michael Kelly 13th Aug 2010
For a brand new release that I really want to see and with a minimum of 5 people willing to watch, then it would be worth my while. But if I've waited a month to see it I can wait three more until the BD or DVD comes out.
Well, I could see it if you were being SOLD the movie for
$50.. maybe. While I don't know how much it will cost to
deliver the movie, I do know that Movie theaters take half
the ticket price as their compensation. Sometimes a bit
less at the opening for a "hot" movie, but those are not
that frequent.

In any case, after 30 days people will already know if a
movie is worth seeing or not. More importantly, 2 months
later they will be able buy most movies on blue ray for
that price or less. Certainly within 6 months as the
studios want to take advantage of the value of the ads
they paid for to get people to go see the movie.

In any case, the market for what they suggest is very,
very small. Likely too small for it to be worth the costs
involved. There is too small an advantage for the
consumer to mess with this. Right now you can buy for
less, trade, lend, resell the disk immediately and have
value returned. Having a short window to view a movie
instead of ownership with the ability to transfer = fail.
I think that the movie companys are missing the point of going to the movies. The point is, it is a chance to get out of the house. How many had a first date that they took to the movies? You don't want to invite some one to your house for a first date, it might not work out and you don't want them to know where you live! We need to support our local businesses in these hard ecomonic times.
0 Votes
+ -
Single people get the shaft again
rle11wb@... 13th Aug 2010
The "family of four" rationalization is not reality. I realize most people don't care, but the number of people who live alone, particularly the elderly, is staggering. I have no spouse, no children, no relatives. I use the Internet for entertainment because I can't afford to go out, including to the movies. Again, I realize most people don't care; that's way our society is. I can't afford to pay $10 or more for a movie and I can't afford cable. So $50 to see a movie in my home? Not going to happen.
Par of going to the monvies is a night out of the home.
0 Votes
+ -
$50
trm1945 13th Aug 2010
The studios can claim they get $50 per viewer so the actors say "We want ten times what we used to get." The public says "We want movies that are ten times better than the crap we put up with now." See, $50 a movie is a good thing. Everyone benefits automatically.
For $20 I can take the whole family to the drive-in, at least in the summer months. For about $35-40 I can take them to the theater and see it on an 80 foot screen. Or, for $50 I can watch it at home on my 32 inch screen? I don't think that's ever going to happen. I have a hard time justifying the $4.99 for the OnDemand movies. happy
0 Votes
+ -
Why bother?
aureolin 13th Aug 2010
Mr. Iger has made a very common mistake - not understanding who his competition is. The competition for in-home movies is *not* the theater, it's cable and DVD's.

If someone wants to see a first run movie right away they're going to pop for the theater. Those who're a little more patient wait for the movie to hit the DVD distribution channels. Often that's not very long. The real question is whether those people who will wait for a movie to come out on DVD will pay $50 to see it now or $15 (or less if they rent it) to see it later. Remember, this market segment is already characterized by patience - and by frugality. They won't pay $50 when they can do what they're currently doing which is to wait and get it cheaper.

Fundamentally, this is not going to fly. Not at $50. To make this work, the price of the early release needs to be competitive with DVD's not the theater.
We already pay this much or more for pay-per-view sporting events.
The $50 seems like someones dream and not what the average person would be willing to pay.
0 Votes
+ -
Great idea - insane pricing
Keeping Current 13th Aug 2010
I would love to see new releases on my home theater but the is NO way in heck I'll pay that price. Ticket prices to go to the movie theater would be ~$25 for my family so the ONLY way I would consider this option would be if it were priced $20.
0 Votes
+ -
A gold mine to be had
bartly 13th Aug 2010
Be sure to keep the names of any people who sign up for this service. They have money and will buy anything I think. Owing the database would be a gold mine.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix