ssavoy

Premium Member

join:2007-08-16

Dallas, PA ssavoy Premium Member Sounds like a plan Or get a cheap hotel room off-season and buy it for $9.99 on the hotel guide channel.



aaronwt

Premium Member

join:2004-11-07

Woodbridge, VA 778.1 820.3

Asus RT-N56U

Asus RT-ACRH13

aaronwt Premium Member Re: Sounds like a plan said by ssavoy: Or get a cheap hotel room off-season and buy it for $9.99 on the hotel guide channel.

And watch it on a crappy 26", 32", or 40" LCD through the TV speakers in the hotel room? That would not be anywhere close to being worth it.



Thaler

Premium Member

join:2004-02-02

Los Angeles, CA Thaler Premium Member Pass the Bong... ...or whatever these guys are on.



The whole reason to appeal to the home theater market is to save money, not find a new way to blow more of it! Maybe at $20, I could see using such a service...but at $60? It's cheaper to just hit the theater at that price point!



mikedz4

join:2003-04-14

Weirton, WV mikedz4 Member Re: Pass the Bong... I'll go to a movie for $12 plus snacks rather than pay $60 to watch it on tv.



EGeezer

Premium Member

join:2002-08-04

Midwest ·Callcentric

EGeezer to Thaler

Premium Member to Thaler

said by Thaler: ...but at $60? It's cheaper to just hit the theater at that price point! ...





When the market gets non-competitive, vote no and take your dollars with you to spend them on better things. It's even cheaper to tell the media industry to bugger off, then throw a small party for friends, take your spouse to dinner. Rent a canoe at the lake and spend a day away from half-assed commercial media. Go to a high school football game. Hike at a park or other venue with your camera and spend next to nothing for a good time.When the market gets non-competitive, vote no and take your dollars with you to spend them on better things.



cableties

Premium Member

join:2005-01-27 cableties Premium Member Dumb Dumb Even more dumb... If I could accommodate 5 - 6 friends over for a movie night, and each had a great view on the 70" LCD.... that is STILL the same price of theater... and not so much the same experience (audience participation, cellphones, texting/groping teens...)



Wait, that didn't sound right. :P



Wait for it... wait...



FAIL.

rmdir

join:2003-03-13

Chicago, IL rmdir Member Re: Dumb Dumb Even more dumb... You mean texting, groping teens...



jhboricua



join:2000-06-06

Minneapolis, MN jhboricua to cableties

to cableties

said by cableties: If I could accommodate 5 - 6 friends over for a movie night, and each had a great view on the 70" LCD.... that is STILL the same price of theater... That will last until some lifeless lawyer from the MPAA sues you for not having the rights to do a public performance becuase he could see your TV from the sidewalk...



Jeffrey

Connoisseur of leisurely things

Premium Member

join:2002-12-24

GMT -5 Jeffrey Premium Member Umm No $30, 8 weeks late was not a good idea. $60 at the same time sounds worse. Strike two. Your move?

88615298 (banned)

join:2004-07-28

West Tenness 88615298 (banned) Member Re: Umm No The point is for them to say "See we tried apparantly no one is interested" as an excuse to go after "pirates" instead of trying to actually update dying business models.

en103

join:2011-05-02 en103 Member Re: Umm No Exactly. "We're offering a competitive service, and people are still pirating. Go and arrest those pirates. We offered a legitimate service".



Thaler

Premium Member

join:2004-02-02

Los Angeles, CA Thaler to Jeffrey

Premium Member to Jeffrey

I can see their next move: $120, 8 weeks earlier than theatrical release.



cdru

Go Colts

MVM

join:2003-05-14

Fort Wayne, IN cdru MVM Re: Umm No said by Thaler: I can see their next move: $120, 8 weeks earlier than theatrical release.

Why bother. You'd be able to download it for free 8 weeks early as well too.



Anon4523

@mich.net Anon4523 to Jeffrey

Anon to Jeffrey

Well since it's Comcast... Just call the retentions department and tell them you're going to get the movie from Direct Tv for $30... Then they'll magically give you it for $30 a 3 free months of HBO...



thegeek

Premium Member

join:2008-02-21

right here thegeek Premium Member $60 is a bit too much. I'd do it at no more than $40. But I have 5 kids so $40 is a good deal compared to going to the theater. Actually $60 is a good deal in my situation, but for that price I'd rather spend more and watch it in a theater on a much bigger screen.



But for the average family even $40 is too much.

iolaire

join:2001-06-29

Arlington, VA iolaire Member Re: $60 is a bit too much. Yes but are you sure that with more than six people watching that movie in your home its not a public performance?



skuv

@rr.com skuv to thegeek

Anon to thegeek

Yes, it's a bigger screen at the movies, no doubt. But look at how far you sit from the screen at a theater. You certainly don't sit as close as at home.



In an optimal home theater design, watching on your TV should be no less "big" than a movie screen in a theater. It's all about perspective.



I guess you might have a 40" TV at home, and might have a point about that.



But someone with a 50 - 60" TV at home should be able to make the screen look as "big" as the movie screen when you're sitting at the right distance from the screen.



Many people don't get this concept at all... they just know the movie screen is bigger, because look at it. Yet when they turn the corner to go up the stairs and sit down, they're sitting 30 feet or more from that screen, making it smaller in perspective.



AVD

Respice, Adspice, Prospice

Premium Member

join:2003-02-06

Onion, NJ AVD to thegeek

Premium Member to thegeek

said by thegeek: I'd do it at no more than $40. But I have 5 kids so $40 is a good deal compared to going to the theater. Actually $60 is a good deal in my situation, but for that price I'd rather spend more and watch it in a theater on a much bigger screen.



But for the average family even $40 is too much.

just wait until it comes out on blu-ray 6-12 months later.



jester121

Premium Member

join:2003-08-09

Lake Zurich, IL jester121 Premium Member Srsly? A $60 movie at home...



or



A ticket, a tub of popcorn, a soft drink, and two lap dances at the nudie bar on the way home.



Let me think about this before I answer...............................

88615298 (banned)

join:2004-07-28

West Tenness 88615298 (banned) Member $30 maybe $60 no. The idea of eliminating windows is right. The way they are doing it isn't.



Camelot One

MVM

join:2001-11-21

Greenwood, IN Camelot One MVM Re: $30 maybe $60 no. If you actually look at the dates, this is still not an opening day type thing. The first movie opens Nov 4, but you still can't get it for $60 at home until Nov 23. And none of the articles I've found suggest there is a 0 day option on the horizon.

88615298 (banned)

join:2004-07-28

West Tenness 88615298 (banned) Member Re: $30 maybe $60 no. said by Camelot One: If you actually look at the dates, this is still not an opening day type thing. The first movie opens Nov 4, but you still can't get it for $60 at home until Nov 23. And none of the articles I've found suggest there is a 0 day option on the horizon. Well my point is that if it was the same as theater release then $30 might be worth it.



Camelot One

MVM

join:2001-11-21

Greenwood, IN Camelot One MVM Re: $30 maybe $60 no. Right. And thats what most people seemed to think when DirecTV came out with their 8 week delayed option at that price. I myself would be willing to drop $30 to watch an opening day movie at home.

But at twice the price, AND still delayed almost 3 weeks, I think not.

old_wiz_60

join:2005-06-03

Bedford, MA old_wiz_60 Member Seriously? So it didn't work a $30, and now they expect $60 to work instead? Have they been drinking? Snorting coke off of the top of the urinal?

88615298 (banned)

join:2004-07-28

West Tenness 88615298 (banned) Member Re: Seriously? said by old_wiz_60: So it didn't work a $30, and now they expect $60 to work instead? Have they been drinking? Snorting coke off of the top of the urinal?

I consider those different. The $30 was for 8 week delay. This is for "same as theater" release. Both overrpiced. $30 for "same as theater" release might work.



FFH5

Premium Member

join:2002-03-03

Tavistock NJ FFH5 Premium Member Re: Seriously? said by 88615298: Both overrpiced. $30 for "same as theater" release might work.



»www.accessatlanta.com/ce ··· =thbz_hm 19 day delay is not "same as theater" release.

88615298 (banned)

join:2004-07-28

West Tenness 88615298 (banned) Member Re: Seriously? said by FFH5: said by 88615298: Both overrpiced. $30 for "same as theater" release might work.



»www.accessatlanta.com/ce ··· =thbz_hm

19 day delay is not "same as theater" release.



I wrote



"$30 for "same as theater" release might work." What I said is what I meant which is $30 for "same as theater" release might work. I didn't say that a 19 day delay is the "same as theater" release. Try reading what I actually wrote instead of infering what I wrote.I wrote"$30 for "same as theater" release might work." What I said is what I meant which is

menace33

join:2009-06-20

Knoxville, TN menace33 Member Very obtuse thinking This actually works if you're a family of 5 or more. That would equate to a price of 8-12 dollars per person on average. Then you can supply your own concessions and save.



However, this discriminates against the boyfriend/girlfriend or husband/wife or partner/partner where admission would be $30 a person which is ridiculous and absurd. In an economy tight society, this will appeal to a very small and narrow demographic truth be told.



Thaler

Premium Member

join:2004-02-02

Los Angeles, CA Thaler Premium Member Re: Very obtuse thinking Even with a family of 5, it's debatable whether the price difference between an at-home movie viewing vs. theatrical experience is worth the price gap difference. Sure, you may save some money in concession costs (which varies depending on your local ticket costs), but the slim price difference then also nets you the theater viewing & experience.



• For a savings difference of ~$10, we might just want to see it on the big screen anyways.

• For a savings difference of $30 or more, we would definitely think twice about how badly we want to see a particular film in theaters.

travelguy

join:1999-09-03

Bismarck, ND Asus RT-AC68

Ubiquiti NSM5

travelguy Member Re: Very obtuse thinking said by Thaler: the slim price difference then also nets you the theater viewing & experience.



This compared to a private viewing room, leather couch, free concessions and a 55" LCD screen.



Tough decision. Ahh, yes... That would be the couple behind me arguing for 60 minutes about whether or not their "relationship" was going anywhere, the couple in front of me that brought in a 5 course meal in a paper bag and proceeded to eat during the movie, the random cellphone ringtones and subsequent conversations and all the little bright screen lights in the audience as people texted their friends.This compared to a private viewing room, leather couch, free concessions and a 55" LCD screen.Tough decision.



Thaler

Premium Member

join:2004-02-02

Los Angeles, CA Thaler Premium Member Re: Very obtuse thinking Sorry your theater(s) suck? I don't know what to tell you. Bad movie viewing experiences for me have been in the minority of my outings.

Halfdead14

join:2009-03-01

Paso Robles, CA Halfdead14 to travelguy

Member to travelguy

said by travelguy: said by Thaler: the slim price difference then also nets you the theater viewing & experience.



This compared to a private viewing room, leather couch, free concessions and a 55" LCD screen.



Tough decision.

Ahh, yes... That would be the couple behind me arguing for 60 minutes about whether or not their "relationship" was going anywhere, the couple in front of me that brought in a 5 course meal in a paper bag and proceeded to eat during the movie, the random cellphone ringtones and subsequent conversations and all the little bright screen lights in the audience as people texted their friends.This compared to a private viewing room, leather couch, free concessions and a 55" LCD screen.Tough decision. I completely agree that theater viewing has gone down in quality with the age of cell phones and kids that don't have any courtesy for others. However 60$ for a movie two weeks after release is ludicrous and I sure as hell won't be paying that any time soon.

AndyDufresne

Premium Member

join:2010-10-30

Chanhassen, MN Ubiquiti EdgeRouter ERPro8

Netgear R7000

1 edit AndyDufresne Premium Member Destined to fail 1- Tower Heist is the test movie

2- two week delay after opening weekend

3- price two high for a 2 week old movie,about right for a blockbuster to watch with your friends and family



Equivalent of having Tebow come in on blatant running down, defense loads the box and then calling a draw right up the middle and then saying I played him and it didn't work. Just saying.



Nicemove

@telus.net Nicemove Anon Price Now that is $60 to just rent the movie for 48 hours not even own the the film to watch again. I can see the letter now ..



Dear Congress, we have made many attempts to provide customers legal means to watch current movies that are in the theater at reasonable prices, however due to the high amount of piracy these endeavors were thwarted.



As you know any citizen that owns a TV and is not watching our latest flop in the theater must be downloading it illegally. We ask you to move quickly to help our poor starving executives since we will not be able to put out quality films as we have in the past unless there is action from congress. We propose a movie tax that for every film we produce, each person that doesn't watch it in the cinema or pay $60 to watch it at home (they must provide a list of all people who watched with them) will have to pay a $10 tax to cover our losses due to piracy.

Thank you for your quick action on this matter and the check of $2,000,000 is under your mattress.



trparky

CYA! I'm gone!

Premium Member

join:2000-05-24

Cleveland, OH trparky Premium Member Re: Price This just proves that these Hollywood executives are so far out of touch with reality.



mod_wastrel

anonome

join:2008-03-28 mod_wastrel Member OK ) They really don't seem to have any idea as to how much their "product" is worth (or, rather, not worth)... but they surely do seem to have a sense of humor. (How can you not help but laugh out loud at their pricing.) Hmmm, maybe they expect you to invite the whole neighborhood in to watch... sort of like a block party? spotlights... red carpet... yeah, that's the ticket! ($6.50 per with all the popcorn you can eat

Dodge

Premium Member

join:2002-11-27 Dodge Premium Member Re: OK said by mod_wastrel: ...$6.50 per with all the popcorn you can eat ... This is not licensed for commercial viewing, and by going with your idea you are still pirating.



mod_wastrel

anonome

join:2008-03-28 mod_wastrel Member Re: OK "Hey, I'm just selling popcorn. If someone wants to hang-out and watch the movie I"m watching, then... meh."



(I'm sorry... did I really need to add a '/sarcasm' tag to my first post? [apparently])



franknalco

join:2005-01-27

Littleton, CO franknalco Member Who's doing the math? Less than 1/4 of American households are families with children. You can figure that the rest of the households are comparing the $60 fee with a $10 ticket for one or two people. Frankly, most of the movies I've seen aren't worth a discounted matinee admission ticket, let alone $10. For $60, there better be a happy ending.

millerja01a

join:2005-10-03

Durham, NC millerja01a Member No.... End of Line

tmc8080

join:2004-04-24

Brooklyn, NY tmc8080 Member how about nuffin? a failed business model is still a failed business model

let the so-called market decide what's a fair price and be honest about the terms of the "license" given for the media so they can decide knowing all the facts because when you load it up with DRM, gated media standards, and loads of restrictions that calls for a widely different price structure and interest.



otherwise the status quo piracy of the industry content as is will do fine.

jjeffeory

jjeffeory

join:2002-12-04

Bullhead City, AZ 1 edit jjeffeory Member Ha! This is laughable! Wow!

What they're really doing is putting a value on that content. That is what they think it is worth to be put on your home TV versus you going to a theater.



The theater price is higher than I would like as it is and this is just ridiculous.



pnh102

Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty

Premium Member

join:2002-05-02

Mount Airy, MD pnh102 Premium Member Hah $60 bucks for movie? What is this, the 1980s?



cowboyro

Premium Member

join:2000-10-11

Shelton, CT cowboyro Premium Member Whatever these guys are smoking... ...I WANT SOME OF IT!!!



ExitWound

Porsche Snob

join:2001-12-13

Boalsburg, PA ExitWound Member $30 was too high $60 is a steal for Zookeeper II: Zookeepier.



pstewart

Premium Member

join:2005-10-12

Peterborough, ON pstewart Premium Member Wow.. ummm.. dumb! I have spent a fair amount of time travelling which of course includes hotels - (yes for business, before someone wonders what my wife thinks about this lol)



Just this week I watched a movie that is still in theatres or just came out on Bluray - either way it was $13.99 to watch it in the comfort of my hotel room. This is roughly $5 more than going to the theatre to watch it.



I would gladly pay $14/movie *at the most* to watch it at home ... if the hotels can do it then why can't someone do it in residental masses? I would highly doubt there is any subsidy in place by the hotels to reduce the price - I would think they are making a fair margin via LodgeNet and other providers....



MSauk

MSauk

Premium Member

join:2002-01-17

Sandy, UT MSauk Premium Member Re: Wow.. ummm.. dumb! For 20 dollars I would do it. That is basically the price of two tickets, candy.



60 dollars? Man these people are on straight crack