Cinema only costs me £8-£10 for 2 tickets, I have a 2for1 deal with my home insurance. I never buy cinema food and drink either.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Hollywood Pushing for iTunes to Rent Major Films Just Weeks After They Debut in Theaters
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Honestly between Netflix, HBO and Amazon I have enough to watch
I do too, and we almost always find something on Netflix, HBO, Amazon or rent video on Prime for 6 bucks or so if we want to watch something. The $50 home theater might be fun for a novelty, but I couldn't see the appeal of it long-term when I could go to my locally-owned theater that has several microbrews on tap, has a connecting (fairly decent) restaurant, better amenities, a bigger screen, and better sound than my home along with brand new films that aren't several weeks old
I like to host and cook for friends and family, and I have a nice place. It's actually a good time, in a nice intimate setting.
You should try it sometime.
I do too, and we almost always find something on Netflix, HBO, Amazon or rent video on Prime for 6 bucks or so if we want to watch something. The $50 home theater might be fun for a novelty, but I couldn't see the appeal of it long-term when I could go to my locally-owned theater that has several microbrews on tap, has a connecting (fairly decent) restaurant, better amenities, a bigger screen, and better sound than my home along with brand new films that aren't several weeks old
And that is why the theaters are having issues. Not that things come to online too fast. Cell phones, toddlers in 10 pm shows making noise are other reasons
Wait 3 months for a movie that just came out? You must not have school age kids
You do realize waiting puts you in a minority these days?
This instant gratification generation wants it all and they want it now and they want it for FREE!
My way of watching movies is now all home based. Can't stand the prices at the theater's or misbehaving crowds.
Make a nice dinner, bottle of beer, feet up on the couch and stop the movie when nature calls.
I can make it louder or softer as I like.
All works really well. Just make sure the TV screen you buy is BIIIIIGGGG!!
Last edited:
Doesn't live in a big city. Tickets in LA are at least $10 and that's before ups for 3d, IMAX etc. then there's snacks. And parking. A movie date can easily be $50
For $50 I would want the option to watch the movie more than once before it expires with more than 24 hours to do so, as there is always some sort of intrruption at home, especially if viewed with friends or family.
Better yet, that $50 allows me to not only rent the video but also applies a discount on the purchase price when released for sale.
Better yet, that $50 allows me to not only rent the video but also applies a discount on the purchase price when released for sale.
I think ultimately the only major selling point for theaters is screen/sound and most screens in theaters are not good enough to easily outperform a decent home setup.
I get Chris Nolan's theory on getting people to the movies is that shooting with IMAX film cameras allows a theater to give a different experience that you can't duplicate at home since a true IMAX movie projected at 70mm is a different way of seeing a movie. Problem is it's too expensive and difficult to shoot moves that way. Maybe someday if tech advances far enough they could come up with a true digital medium format camera to rival IMAX film. You're probably talking about 12k to 18k camera.
To quote myself:
"I think I paid $12 for an IMAX ticket, and maybe $14 for IMAX 3D. If they tried charging more than $10-11 for a regular, non-matinee ticket around here, the theater would be out of business.
Man, that $10/mo Moviepass subscription look so much sweeter now."
I live in NYC. $15-20 for a regular movie is the norm. A bit less in the outer boroughs. $10 moviepass is an absolute steal here.
Everything is relative. Most commenters balking at $50 in here are not the target audience. Everyone I know thinks $50 is fair because they all have kids and don't want to travel to cinemas and wait in line to pay for overpriced concessions. Or they're older like my parents and can afford to pay $50 for two just they don't have to bother with movie theaters.
Apparently, judging by what I have read in this thread, twice the price of similar tickets for a film at Leicester Square Odeon… and those are expensive.
Unless they are also spending a shed load on food…
I sincerely feel sorry for the poor ignorant souls that will pay these premium prices, obliviously lost to the wind of illusory energy, hopelessly attracted to the worthless gaudy baubles of gross consumerism. Even from a materialistic viewpoint, although technology has made vast advances in recent years, the real quality of the content is proportionately worse.
In the last 5 years I've gone to the theatres 3 times. EACH TIME, I had something that completely ruined the experience.
I had a group of teenagers having their own dialogue - when I turned around to let them know it was bothering me, they threatened to fight me. Another time, I had a kid who was tapping his foot, when I turned around, his dad encouraged him to keep tapping and laughed at me loudly. He did this throughout the entire movie.
I'm done with theatres. DONE. I'm not blowing $13 a ticket x2 (for my wife and I) for a ****** experience.
I will GLADLY WAIT until it comes out on Apple TV and pay the $6.99 for rent to watch in the privacy of my own home where *******s like those people in the theatres don't exist.
-----
$50 a MOVIE?! LOL. ...... LOL. Ahahahaha. I can't justify the $20 to BUY a movie I will only watch once - I have to wait the 2? weeks it takes to be available for rent at $6.99. Ok, I can see how this works for big families, but it is just the wife and I.
At this rate, I'll just wait till it comes out on Netflix. Some of Netflix' original content is far better than what passes for movies today.
The only difference between what you do now and what you can get at home is a waiter/waitress interrupting the movie (that you cannot pause btw) to bring you your food and wine. If you have a 60"+ 4k screen at home with a decent sound system cranked up and sit less than 6 feet away from it, you have just bested the movie going experience by every measure.
I know, but I'm just wondering why you would pay the $50 and not just wait 3 months. I would understand it, if you had to wait a year. Economically, I know it's cheaper than taking a family to the movies. But if you are going to watch a movie at home what difference does it make if you watch it a few days after a film releases vs. waiting a little longer and saving a lot more money? The experience will be exactly the same, only difference being you see it earlier and being charged a premium. Of course the same argument can be said about seeing it in a movie theater, but supposedly the movie theater is a "premium, better, experience."
This will have NO impact on piracy. Pirates are thieves that just like to make excuses for being thieves. They would just say "$50 is way too much," "It's not available fast enough," "Not in a format I want," "Hollywood still doesn't get it," blah, blah and come up with a million excuses to continue to steal.
[doublepost=1503067219][/doublepost]
then teach them patience. that's the problem with the current generation (sounding like my parents). they are spoiled and think they should have everything they want, when they want it, how they want it and for the exact price they want it - usually free, or they'll just steal it, excuse me, "Pirate it."
I stopped going to the theater when it costs $30 for 2 people (just tickets in the city, no food). It's way too much.
If by the sticks, you mean the middle of Cincinnati, sure. Tickets for Dunkirk tomorrow (Saturday) range from $6.55 (early bird) to $11.75 (adult prime time). That's for a normal screen with reserved seats in "Luxury Loungers." XD screens are $2 more. Real 3D is a few $ more on top of that. Parking is free. We do buy popcorn: $7? But we always bring in our own drinks and candy. (When they start searching bags, we will stop going.)
Married with two teenagers here. I still think $50 is absurd.
That sounds similar to Cincinnati prices.
Pricing for PVOD will be tough considering online pricing has to be uniform (at least by country), whereas physical movie theatre pricing varies so widely.
Thanks for your prayers but I think they'll pull through OK. It's a market economy so many are happy to pay these fees if it means they can avoid much more fees. When you add up expense of bringing a family to movies in the city you are looking at hundreds of dollars for 2 hours of entertainment. Others don'[t have families but they place a premium on their time and have the money so they will benefit too.
Yep, I grew up in the days when stuff wasn't available on Home Video for almost a year, if AT ALL. And now people complain about waiting 2 - 3 months. SMH.
Yeah, if it worked like other rentals, and you could rewatch within the designated time - and like someone else mentioned, maybe a slightly extended viewing window (48 hours would be outstanding).
The discount is a pretty neat idea, that could work relative to the rental price / studio ... I'll put it this way: if I could've rented the new Spiderman movie for $50 the weekend after the US opening, watched it a couple of times over 48 hours, and then owned it on digital for $10-15 when it's released, I would've done that with _zero_ hesitation.