pliny the elder at 2011-10-15 17:02:51:
I'm sure he's a smart, nice guy, but under no circumstances whatsoever would I ever pay $60 to see any movie with Ben Stiller in it.
Paul Cera at 2011-10-15 17:17:33:
There has never been a movie, EVER, that I would pay $60 to watch in my home. Not three weeks later. Not the same day. Not even three weeks before the theatrical release. It astonishes me that these morons could be clueless enough to think people would be interested at those kinds of rates. If I really want to see a movie so pants-pissingly badly, I will go see it in a theater. There are only about 10-15 movies a year nowadays that motivate me to visit a theater. For all the rest, I'll wait for the DVD.
Nick Oleksiw at 2011-10-15 17:17:35:
WTF?! $60? What genius came up with that figure?
Nick West at 2011-10-15 17:55:34:
I think the idea was you split the cost with other VODers. I think that $60 bones bought three viewings. But, no, I wouldn't pay it.
Jay Finnigan at 2011-10-15 17:58:44:
pretty standard strategy by comcast here. now they just have to peel everyone off the ceiling and wait for them to land somewhere between $25-$45. the real question here should be "what WOULD you pay to see a movie via VOD three weeks after it debuted?
Paul Cera at 2011-10-15 18:42:31:
The only people I can imagine paying $60 for an in-home viewing is parents hosting a slumber party. A bunch of girls who just HAVE to see the latest Bieber/Twilight/whatever movie, and the parents give in. Does anybody seriously believe there would be even ONE household that would pay $60 (or $6) to have a viewing party for a Stiller/Murphy movie? Did Universal do any market research? I suppose a relative handful of extraordinarily wealthy people might pay $60 for a VOD movie, but...well, I am a spoiled rich kid (twenty-something now) with a trust fund that for all practical purposes will never run out no matter how long I live, and yet I'd never pay $60 simply because I don't like getting ripped off and I don't like doing stupid things.
James at 2011-10-16 03:53:20:
What I find most perplexing is the figure being batted around when James Cameron and Brett Ratner first voiced their opinion on how stupid premium VOD would be was $29.99. And they decided to push forward at twice the price. I'm not for premium VOD at all. However, I do think there is a significant amount of people who would use this feature. Families. Parties. Social get togethers. Even at $60.00 -- that's only the price of 5 tickets. The problem with premium VOD isn't whether or not there are people who would use it and find it cost effective. The problem is that premium VOD directly competes with theatrical box office. It is not a new revenue stream. Unlike DVDs/BluRay in which many consumers will view the movie in the theater AND purchase a copy for home viewing -- premium VOD replaces brick and mortar theaters. The only way for premium VOD to be a net gain across the board and be viable as a new source of revenue is if audiences wanted to see a film 1) in the theater, then 2) on premium VOD, before purchasing it 3) on DVD for home viewing. This may be just me, but I don't think most audiences are willing to pay twice to see the same movie. At best premium VOD is a zero net gain. At worst, it undermines brick and mortar theater, which will crush premium VOD for event films and blockbusters. It's show "business." Why does it take the creatives (Cameron, Ratner) telling businessmen that this is just plain bad business?
Atlanta at 2011-10-16 11:18:40:
Bad business indeed. Change is a-coming, studios trying to stay ahead of it, but doing so in short sighted ways. Being jerks with theaters (this $60 mess, the 3D glasses thing... gee you think execs don't believe in 3D anymore?), their partners in the movie experience? Makes no sense. From a consumer perspective, no connection to backend reality, my thought is 6 months of theater, 6 months of dvd/etc, and inexpensive download year after release. Overriding goal, get everyone to see every movie, make movies a huge part of everyone's life, what fleshes out our shared mental real estate, and what we long for when we're bored or need inspiration or a good time with friends.
Atlanta at 2011-10-16 11:45:29:
And I'd charge cheap (by studio measure), $8-10 for movie tickets, and same for dvds, and $2-3 for download. Make movies affordable, so they remain a vital part of people's lives. If studios aren't addressing the economic reality in this country, that incomes have stayed flat for years, that everyone is struggling (except the 1%), they will kill the movie experience as it becomes less and less woven into our everyday experience.