Comcast trying to secure in-theater movies for on-demand. For $30-50 each.

Oh, you're gonna love this one. So, those familiar with Steven Soderbergh's work know that last year he did a triple-release film called Bubble, which hit theaters, cable, and DVD all at once; definitely a novel idea for getting your media to as many people as possible -- but at what price would this become tantalizing for studios to consider it on a mass-consumer release, like Spidey 3? Comcast, which is working on securing movies currently in theaters for VOD, seems to think that it should cost $30-50 per screening. Per. Screening. Ok, considering some Pay-Per-View event prices, that's not unrealistic if you have a crowd over and charge admission (but we're fairly sure they'll also propose installing a webcam in every VOD user's home to count the eyeballs watching, and sue if it's more than a couple). But greater problems than large private showings face the model: the theater industry is positively fuming about the idea of simultaneous release, making all manner of threats against movie studios that are considering joining up. Don't worry though, somehow we have a feeling not too many people are going to go the BYOT (bring your own theater) method and lay down fifty friggin bones for some DRM laden one-shot viewing of a new movie.

[gennove @ May 14th 2007 6:08PM]

Going to the theater movie for 2 20 dollars.

Popcorn, soda & water down nacho cheese 50 dolars.

Staying home inviting friends over sitting your favorite chair with true class munchies PRICELESS.

Yeah it does sound like a lot but anything to avoid the pesky audience at theaters that some how feel like if they pay 9 bucks to watch the movie they can be loud inside the theater.

And lets be realistic nothing but beats your favorite chair......

[randy @ May 14th 2007 6:09PM]

Great. Now we don't have to download those terrible cams.

[Modoc @ May 14th 2007 6:15PM]

Well I would probably be willing to pay $25 or even $30 for a brand new release, but ONLY if it was in HD. If you think about it, you wind up paying that much or more for 2 people to go to the theater if you buy any refreshments. I think it's a great idea, as going to the movie theater is just an awful experience anymore.

[Travis @ May 14th 2007 6:17PM]

I completely disagree. I hear you regarding a price comparison, but part of that price you're paying for is the experience of 'going out' for the evening. If I sat at home, it would feel just like any other rental movie...not the same feel. There's certainly anticipation and excitement when you see a big blockbuster on the silver screen. The experience alone is worth paying for.

I usually have my fiance hide munchies in her purse anyway...hehe

Travis

[jbc @ May 14th 2007 6:17PM]

it would be easily worth it to avoid the retards at the theater, between the spanish lady translating the whole movie on the fly for her 80 year old mom, or the parents who let their 4 year old run around during grindhouse, or the fat bastard who laughs like he's gonna piss himself even when it's a serious scene... hell i'd pay $50 easy.

[Stephan @ May 14th 2007 6:23PM]

Uhm, besides the illegal way of doing things, there is already a way of doing this with something called patience and blockubuster/netflix.

[Ryan @ May 14th 2007 6:31PM]

I suggested an idea similar to this a while back...but like the Soderbergh idea, it would be just for a limited time frame. I'd suggest opening weekend only. Perhaps even just a limited number of sales over that weekend or each day.

I'd easily pay $30 to watch some new releases in the comfort of my home. $50 is pushing it, but still might be tempting. I'd only make such a purchase occasionally. But I hardly ever go out to the cinema anyway, so any sale from me is a bonus.

HD is a must; start at your convenience is a must; pause feature is a must.

[Aaron @ May 14th 2007 6:32PM]

Being a home theater nerd myself I do enjoy watching movies at home however, $30-50 for a single viewing is too pricey for me. I also feel that it is impossible for my crappy apartment to have sound as good as a movie theater and not have angry neighbors. For a man like myself with a $6000 home theater I can't beat a nice DLP theater for picture and audio.

[dave @ May 14th 2007 6:35PM]

Now, your telling me i could sit at home, drink my beer, cook my own food, pause the movie while i have a cigarette or take a leak. For 50 bucks, count me in. Anything to avoid the movie theatres. I rarely go as it is. This would free up all the time it takes me to dload and burn them, haha.

[OneAboveAll @ May 14th 2007 6:37PM]

I knew this was coming. I was talking about this to co-workers a few years back. $25 and you have me sold. HD is a plus. I took my son to See Spiderman 3 this weekend, just about had it out with 2 different people who had to ruin the film. I would enjoy this in the comfort of my own home, my basement has already been turned into a home theater, with leather home theater seating as is, with 103 inch screen. Home sweet home...

[Jon @ May 14th 2007 6:48PM]

Great idea but where I am in the midwest, still too costly vs. going out to the theatre. I would prefer watching @ home on the Plasma HD but not at the price Comcast is talking about. I'll go to the theatre or wait for the DVD.

[Basic @ May 14th 2007 6:50PM]

While $50 is comparable to a night at the theater.. if paid for your home, it doesn't include the food and drink.. so the price goes up, depending on what you eat/drink. Beyond that, the majority of people don't own expensive theater systems. I think the price is way too high. Hell, that's more than it will cost to BUY the movie when it is released on DVD.

Why can't they just charge the same $7-9 per ticket that theaters charge and cut out the middle-man there? They would still make more than just using the theaters. $30-50 just seems to be a bit too greedy for my tastes. In fact, since it is likely that the quality of the sound at my home is lower than that in the theater, I would expect to pay less than going to the theater. Bah.. too stupid greedy for me..

Now.. if they throw in a DVD of the movie when it is released along with that price, I might consider it.. but then again, I almost never want to own a movie without having first seen it...

[jason @ May 14th 2007 6:51PM]

i'd totally do this. and i don't even have a high def television. sometimes i just want to see a new movie the day it comes out, yet i don't want to wait in a line.

the theater experience? yeah, i'll get that when it comes to the dollar theater.

[Evan @ May 14th 2007 6:58PM]

What if they made it like $100/month for unlimited releases? I'd pay $100 a month to watch new movies every Friday. $50 a month just seems like a lot considering that a lot of movies that come our are complete shit.

[Adam Mabe @ May 14th 2007 7:00PM]

Unless I get a copy of the movie on Blu-Ray when it comes out in that price I won't be a taker. I don't buy anything in a movie theater. I spend $16 on a pair of movie tickets. Make it compete with that and I might be interested. I see no way to justify that pricing scheme. It can't cost them much to run that....I mean they already have all the VOD stuff anyways. They don't have to pay rent/upkeep on a whole movie theater. They don't have to hire 30 high school/college kids to run the theater. All they have to do is hire couple tech guys and designate some area in one of their substations. Someone is being greedy. Big suprise.

[John Stracke @ May 15th 2007 11:00AM]

"Unless I get a copy of the movie on Blu-Ray when it comes out in that price I won't be a taker." -- Actually, that suggests a better idea: release the DVD (HD-DVD, Blu-Ray) simultaneously with the movie, *but* charge extra (say, $50 instead of $20). Customers who are willing to pay can see the movie early, the studios don't have to give Comcast a cut, and customers can pause, zoom, whatever their DVD player supports, without having to figure out Comcast's VoD system.

[John Stracke @ May 15th 2007 11:16AM]

"Unless I get a copy of the movie on Blu-Ray when it comes out in that price I won't be a taker." -- Actually, that suggests a better idea: release the DVD (HD-DVD, Blu-Ray) simultaneously with the movie, *but* charge extra (say, $50 instead of $20). Customers who are willing to pay can see the movie early, the studios don't have to give Comcast a cut, and customers can pause, zoom, whatever their DVD player supports, without having to figure out Comcast's VoD system.

[Haggie @ May 14th 2007 7:04PM]

Future Comcast Error Message:

"Comcast OnDemand First Run Movies are only viewable by two (2) persons simultaneously. Comcast has determined that xx people are in the room viewing your television. When the number of viewers has returned to two (2) people, the movie will resume playing."

[L'Emmerdeur @ May 14th 2007 7:14PM]

Sign me up. Cab fare + 2 tickets in Manhattan are $40, and that's not including having to buy tickets weeks in advance and arrive at the theater an hour before the movie and stand in line. And fight for seats. And smell the horrid stench of nachos and putrid hot dogs. And watch freaking commercials. And shush the talking idiots. And have to sneak in decent drinks and munchies. And miss 10 minutes for a bathroom break. And freeze to death because it's 10 degrees. And the floor is sticky. And my coccyx just fell out of my butt because this seat was designed for a zebra.

[thumbs @ May 14th 2007 7:24PM]

30–50 isn't that bad. Tickets alone for two in chicago are almost thirty. Add snacks to that and 50 isn't far off. If you ask me, 5-10 dollars not to have to deal with an opening week crowd is well worth the price. Plus the convenience of restrooms, better quality snacks/drinks, and the ability to split the cost with more people makes this offer quite interesting.

[nVidiot @ May 14th 2007 7:38PM]

"Why can't they just charge the same $7-9 per ticket that theaters charge and cut out the middle-man there?"

2 reasons:

How would they charge per person? Not many people (some) go to the theater alone. You could pay $7 at home and have 5 people watch the movie with you.

Aside from that the studios are partners with the theaters... cutting them out completly doesn't make them too happy.

Have to keep the price high to make up for the number of people that may be watching the movie + the cost to Comcast for all of the bandwidth + to make sure this isn't used by tons of casuals to avoid the theater.

Personally I think this is a great idea.. I wouldn't use it often since I have the patience to wait for an HD-DVD or Blu-ray release.. but if I was bored enough I'd do it.. I've got a nice home theater.. alcohol.. other "refreshments" ;)

[4ham @ May 14th 2007 7:58PM]

I've said it elsewhere and it bears repeating. This is great for moviebuffs who are either bedridden or cannot sit down for long periods due to spinal conditions. And the whole Blockbuster/Netflix argument? It blows. Really. When a movie you've been dying to see is coming out, but while everyone is amped out seeing it friday, you know you have an extra 6 months of wait. Add in the fact you can PAUSE, and REWIND, it's perfect. No more, "What was that?" or "Gotta Hold it, it's almost over."

[charlie @ May 14th 2007 8:07PM]

Yeah, as long as they're streaming in HD, I could definitely see this working out. I know my family would have probably paid $40 to see new movies at home a dozen or more times.

[Dustin Frazier @ May 14th 2007 8:13PM]

The easiest way would be to just release it for sale the same time it's in theaters. It's just my opinion but I feel that in the age of digital and home theater, forcing people to go to a theater to see a new release is a little old school.

[saccorator @ May 14th 2007 8:32PM]

I think it is a great idea. Every now and then, I will get into a conversation about Video On Demand and some makes the statement -"It's just a matter of time before we will be able to get a movie release On Demand". So it seems like Comcast is listening to what people want. Of course, there will be a price to pay, but there are many of times where I lose the "window of opportunity" to get to a movie theater due to work commitments, family, friends, routine chores, being too tired, not wanting to sit with a bunch of kids with cell phones in a theater, not wanting to only have crappy food choices at a theater, etc. Personally, I would rather view the charge by Comcast as a true convenience charge and not that crap that Ticketmaster calls a convenience charge...especially when in this case, it would be truly convenient to watch a movie release in the comfort of my own home with the audience and food selection of my choice.

[bobartig @ May 14th 2007 8:52PM]

This would be great for big blockbuster launch parties with friends, you know, the kind where you get a dozen or so people together to go anways, and someone has to stand in line for seats 2 hour early.

Just take those dozen people over to whoever has the best home theater, pot luck some real food, and enjoy first run movies with friends and food and none of the crap that opening night brings.

That would be worth $50 bucks easy. I'd gladly foot the bill and have a bunch of friends over, if I had a slightly larger place.

This is of course assuming you have some pause/resume function, along with at least 1080i HD streaming and dolby digital sound.

[Sam @ May 14th 2007 9:05PM]

I would be all over this as long as its in HD (and not overcompressed). At $25 definitely. $50 if a lot of friends wanted to come watch. I wouldn't be surprised to see variable pricing based on expected demand by the studio. But I doubt the theaters will let this happen anytime soon.

[Paul @ May 14th 2007 9:19PM]

Average family is 2 parents 2 kids, at the theater now that is $40 just for the tickets, and the little brats are going to want some popcorn or soda so tack on another $20.

For the average family I can see this taking off quite well.

Most groups of friends have one person with a nice HDTV and surround sound. get a bunch of people over, add some beer and you have an experience that is probably better than the theater..

The only types of people this doesn't really work out for is
1) A couple who want the "special feeling" of "going out" (here is a tip, if you are "going out" and doing something that you can easily do at home.. it isn't "going out", treat your woman right and take her to experience something she cant do at home)
2) the people who would rather wait until it is on DVD anyway so they are going to bitch at any option

[Joshua Walters @ May 14th 2007 9:31PM]

Cable theater movie, $30 + DVD Recorder $100 = Perfect Bootleg.

Seriously, I know people who sell VCD Quality bootlegs for $10! They could sell 3, and have their cash back! Heck, one guy sold 15 copies of Spidey 3 already!

[Steve @ May 15th 2007 12:32AM]

aww this is potentially the best thing comcast ever did! i'm planning my parties now, $5 cover gets you in, fed, and screened! who's comin over!


finally glad to be a commie

[MarkM @ May 15th 2007 3:47AM]

First poster echoed my inital thought when I read the headline. The movie pirates are gonna have a field day over this one.

[Jazmin @ May 15th 2007 5:26AM]

Hate the idea. As it is, people are already getting extremely socially inept. More things to keep people secluded at home are not necessary.

Going to the movies is an experience, the huge screen, the darkened lights, the simultaneous reaction of the audience, etc. Watching a movie in your home is very mundane and has a totally different feel. Not to mention that movies are being released on DVD and to Pay-Per-View faster than ever.

And anyone who is still buying food at the concessions that isn't popcorn or nachos, I'll have to call you amateurs. Go to store (Target especially) in the candy line and get your movie size candy at a fraction of the cost to take with you to the theaters. And buy a six pack of soda bottles for less than one drink at the theater costs. Come on, it's not hard, just get inventive.

Also, what exactly would stop Comcast from raising the prices to more than the proposed amount and stop theaters to counteract their lost sales by raising movie tickets to even more than they are now? Leave well enough alone. And Comcast doesn't service the entire country. If you really like this idea, I think a time period could be in effect, like 6-8 weeks after the release date, then it could be available on VOD.

[Brad @ May 15th 2007 7:10AM]

I have a decent home theater and I'm willing to wait six months or more for the title to release on BluRay or HD-DVD at a more affordable price.

Paying $40 to $50 for a single movie is absurd.

[David Lewis @ May 15th 2007 8:37AM]

This is the wave of the future! A night at the movies can easily cost $150 to $200 when you figure cost of dinner, babysitter and gas + the cost of the movie. Do this 2X per month and you could easily justify the cost of a $20,000 home theater installation. (A 5-year home equity loan @ 8.5% interest rate = $410/month payment).

Read more about it at http://www.allht.com/contents.php?content=front_projection

Now consumers aren't stuck with old DVDs!

Dave
http://www.ALLHOMETHEATERS.COM

[tainted @ May 15th 2007 9:17AM]

"A night at the movies can easily cost $150 to $200"

I'm pretty sure that most people do not skip their car loan for the month in order to go to the movies for a night...

[mike k. @ May 15th 2007 9:29AM]

It seems they're targeting the emergence of the home theater with projector setups. It'd have to be HD.. but I could see myself getting a bunch of people over if I had an HD project and a 100 inch screen on my wall to watch a movie that was new in theaters now. 50 bucks would be a solid price for that.

If you don't have that sort of setup, they're not marketing this to you..

In the end comcast is probably doing this for future, to set the groundwork for when the whole home theater thing is more prevelant. Though thats assuming that everybody has the space available. No matter how cheap good HD projectors get, you still needs the space, and real estate is always going up. No matter what.

[Alex Roca @ May 15th 2007 9:41AM]

I have a 2 year old daughter. My wife and I would use this service from time to time since we can't easily go out to the movies. Forget the price, it can be a hassel finding a baby sitter. $50 would be worth it.

[Jake @ May 15th 2007 10:35AM]

No thanks, as 1 peewee herman once said "I'll leave your floors sticky"

[MagusDF @ May 15th 2007 12:31PM]

Absolutely no interest in paying more for a 1 time screening of a movie than the damn disc(in any format). Make it the price of a DVD and HD quality and I’m game. I cant see many people paying more than ~30 for a single screening of a new release unless they either get unlimited replays or the price drops waay down.

[RyanTV @ May 15th 2007 4:57PM]

I'd totally be down to pay 25-30 bucks for newly released movies... tickets for my wife and I to go to the movies = $20, so I'd pay a couple extra bucks to be able to watch the flick in my own home theater and not have to deal with the screaming kids, stinky old people, and assholes on their cellphones.

being able to pause the film to take a leak would be awesome!

[snowglyder @ May 15th 2007 7:55PM]

$50 isn't bad if you think about taking out a family with 2 or 3 kids. Maybe it's good incentive for those folks to stay home and clear the lines and noise levels in the theater. That could be good for the ones still interested in seeing the movie on the big screen.

[corey @ May 16th 2007 2:28AM]

this wont work because everyone will find a way to tape it and put it on the net :)

[James @ May 18th 2007 9:28PM]

They lost me when the prices went over ~6 bucks per ticket. I haven't been to a theater since then, not when I can Redbox a DVD for a dollar or hit the library for free. I just don't understand people who think it's worth more to go sit through a 2-hour movie than to buy a decent sit-down dinner at a middle-of-the-road place like Applebees or whatever. I just laugh and shake my head every time I go past a theater now.

The sad part? I worked at a theater the whole time I was in high school. We made all our money on the concessions, which can only lead me to believe the ticket prices we're seeing now are 100% the studios' fault. I can't wait for the Great Content Provider Crash to come.

[Cory @ May 26th 2007 10:20AM]

I really hope this happens so we can get decent rips on the internet, i've grown tired of those shitty cam rips.