Would You Pay $30 For an At-Home, One-Time Movie?
By Harry McCracken | Monday, September 27, 2010 at 11:22 am
Bloomberg’s Ronald Grover and Kelly Riddell are reporting that Sony, Warner Bros., and Disney are exploring the idea of letting consumers watch movies at home, shortly after they leave theaters and before they’re available on DVD and from services such as iTunes, Amazon Video on Demand, and CinemaNow. The movies might be available via cable companies and/or on game consoles, and the price the Bloomberg story mentions is “as much as $30.”
That sounds like a boatload of money given that you can rent Avatar for $3.99 or buy it for $14.99 right now. I suppose that the studios hope that folks will compare the $30 price to the cost and effort involved in hauling a family of three, four, or more down to a theater and paying for tickets, popcorn, and drinks.
And…well, $30 still sounds like a lot for a movie you can watch only at home, and only once. $15 might be more in my personal ballpark.
Your take, please:
5 Comments
Read more:
5 Comments For This Post
September 27th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
I think that the only way for this to really work would be to provide movies that ARE currently in the theater. Then, people like me that have a nice home theater setup and would consider watching a movie at home vastly superior to watching one at a movie theater may consider it worthwhile to pay $30, especially if there are 4 or more of us watching the movie.
Not counting on it, though.
September 27th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
I'd rather spend $7 (geezer price, and no parking cost) and support Rocky's Rose Theatre and RoseBud Theatre. (You two can have a 2-screen house in a 100 year old building–Rocky does a great job with it in Port Townsend.
September 27th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
I voted definitely not given the votes provided. However, if I could purchase (yes, purchase, meaning to keep and re-watch) the movie through a reasonable service (iTunes, Unbox, etc…) then I would consider this. It would depend on the movie of course. There's a big gab between theatre-to-DVD for most movies, and those that don't live long in the theatres that have a strong following (such as Scott Pilgrim vs the World) might benefit from such a model.
September 27th, 2010 at 3:34 pm
Uhh, no. $30 is ridiculous.
September 27th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
To see a movie currently in the theatre cost me $10/adult and $8/kid. For my family that’s $36. Add on a few soda, popcorn, nachos, etc and we are over $60. Watching in the theatre is a movie rental on someone else’s time schedule.
So, yes. I would pay $30 to see the movie at home immediately after it leaves the theatre.
Harry — come one. Saying it’s over priced because you can buy it for $14 six months after it leaves the theatre is missing the point. I could argue that i could see it for free from the local library a few years later when someone donates it.