# Now you can order movies for $30



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

rich584 said:


> No more "family nights". My son doesn't like what we watch and my granddaughter is too young to appreciate the shows we watch. Kinda miss those nights.
> 
> Rich


Well, now you can order movies for $30  instead of $6. I love how DirecTV always does the complete opposite of what you would expect.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> Well, now you can order movies for $30  instead of $6. I love how DirecTV always does the complete opposite of what you would expect.


The $30 movies are movies at the same time as the theatrical premier. It is not new. Been done before and done by more than DirecTV. Amazon has done them as well.

The $30 same as premier is exactly what I expected as it has been test marketed and talked about for quite some time now.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> The $30 movies are movies at the same time as the theatrical premier.


Nope, it's well after the theatrical premiere (60 days) but before the DVD is released.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> Well, now you can order movies for $30  instead of $6. I love how DirecTV always does the complete opposite of what you would expect.


I know the lemmings will go for the $30 movies, but I won't. I never order any PPV movies, no matter the cost. I can't wait to see if they (D*) can pull this off. I expect to receive my first coupon for a "free" $30 movie in a month or so, which I'll promptly rip up just as I do with the other "free" coupons.

We can't have BBCA in HD, but we can have $30 movies? Have they lost their minds? :nono2:

Rich


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

rich584 said:


> I know the lemmings will go for the $30 movies, but I won't. I never order any PPV movies, no matter the cost. I can't wait to see if they (D*) can pull this off. I expect to receive my first coupon for a "free" $30 movie in a month or so, which I'll promptly rip up just as I do with the other "free" coupons.
> 
> We can't have BBCA in HD, but we can have $30 movies? Have they lost their minds? :nono2:
> 
> Rich


Regarding $30.00 movies. Lost their minds, no. Lost their focus, yes. There is definitely a target audience for $30.00 movies and profits to be made. And in the world of business profits are what it'a all about.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

MysteryMan said:


> Regarding $30.00 movies. Lost their minds, no. Lost their focus, yes. There is definitely a target audience for $30.00 movies and profits to be made. And in the world of business profits are what it'a all about.


Target audience? I'm the target audience. You're the target audience. The *FAN* is the target audience. The "other" Rich is the target audience. Do any of us really expect to spend $30 for a PPV movie? I sure don't.

Rich


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

rich584 said:


> Target audience? I'm the target audience. You're the target audience. The *FAN* is the target audience. The "other" Rich is the target audience. Do any of us really expect to spend $30 for a PPV movie? I sure don't.
> 
> Rich


Target audience #1: Familes with small children. Do the math. Gas prices at $4.00 a gallon and rising. Ticket prices at the theater. Food and beverage prices at the theater. Far more economical for them to stay at home and rent the movie for $29.99. Not to mention as I have posted elsewhere it's a lot easier transporting livestock then small children. Target audience #2: Those with the attitude of "having to be the first". Target audience #3: Those who can well afford to spend $29.99 on a PPV.


----------



## slapshot1959 (Jan 24, 2006)

I'll never spend the $30 for a movie, just don't need to see it that bad.

I'll wait for the dvd, or if I really want to see it I'll go to the theater,just like before. 
Most of the buzz for a movie is upon initial release, within the first week. After that, sometimes it becomes an afterthought or at least dies down a lot,especially towards the 60 day mark, so it becomes less of a "must see" event.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Can a mod merge with this thread? http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=190735


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

MysteryMan said:


> Target audience #1: Familes with small children. Do the math. Gas prices at $4.00 a gallon and rising. Ticket prices at the theater. Food and beverage prices at the theater. Far more economical for them to stay at home and rent the movie for $29.99.


I gave up on going to the movies. Can't pause them, can't rewind them to catch something you've missed, can't FF thru the boring parts, the floors are sticky and then there's the bedbug issue. But I see your point.



> Target audience #2: Those with the attitude of "having to be the first".


That's something I don't want to be!



> Target audience #3: Those who can well afford to spend $29.99 on a PPV.


That would be the four of us I used as an example. Are you gonna pay that much for a movie? I'm not. Yeah, the four of us can surely afford to do it, but, geez. It's bad enough that I pay $114 a month for the Premiere service.

Rich


----------



## matt (Jan 12, 2010)

What channel are these on?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slapshot1959 said:


> I'll never spend the $30 for a movie, just don't need to see it that bad.
> 
> I'll wait for the dvd, or if I really want to see it I'll go to the theater,just like before.
> Most of the buzz for a movie is upon initial release, within the first week. After that, sometimes it becomes an afterthought or at least dies down a lot,especially towards the 60 day mark, so it becomes less of a "must see" event.


At the moment, I have five BD players, a PS3 that plays BDs, and I own one BluRay disc, _Avatar_. One. I can't see any reason to buy them when I can get them from NetFlix. I don't want a library, I've already got a library of DVDs that I spent way too much money on.

Rich


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> Can a mod merge with this thread? http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=190735


Let's let them both run for a bit ...


----------



## xzi (Sep 18, 2007)

If I had a bunch of people over and we decided we wanted to see a new movie but not spend $12/ticket, I'd order a pizza and a $30 movie why not? People spend $59 for MMA what's the difference?

Besides, you have options:
- See it when it comes out for full price at a theater
- See if shortly after for $30 in your home theater
- See it after that for $6 on PPV
- See it after that for $1 at Redbox
- See it way after that for free on TNT

Looks like everything it lined up just like it should be, I mean it's not like they're charging $30 to see an old movie. Relax...


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Check out this spin, in my local paper. Can you believe it? Calling it a price decrease?

http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/consu...r-soon-offer-more-movies-is-there-a-downside/


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

JeffBowser said:


> Check out this spin, in my local paper. Can you believe it? Calling it a price decrease?
> 
> http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/consu...r-soon-offer-more-movies-is-there-a-downside/


"A penny saved is a penny earned"......Ben Franklin


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

MysteryMan said:


> Target audience #1: Familes with small children. Do the math. Gas prices at $4.00 a gallon and rising. Ticket prices at the theater. Food and beverage prices at the theater. Far more economical for them to stay at home and rent the movie for $29.99. Not to mention as I have posted elsewhere it's a lot easier transporting livestock then small children. Target audience #2: Those with the attitude of "having to be the first". Target audience #3: Those who can well afford to spend $29.99 on a PPV.


1. I have two kids under 10. I will NEVER spend $30 on a PPV movie. Never!
2. "Having to be first" means going to the theater.
3. I can afford MANY $30 PPV. Why would I when I can get better A/V quality for less than $30 and keep it for more than 48 hours?

Sure some will buy it. However, it will NOT be a cash cow.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

JeffBowser said:


> Check out this spin, in my local paper. Can you believe it? Calling it a price decrease?
> 
> http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/consu...r-soon-offer-more-movies-is-there-a-downside/


The article was poorly titled and written. :lol: DirecTV and other companies offering this aren't doing to decrease subscription prices. It's like the author mistakenly took Changs quote, "DirecTV is looking into lowering its monthly $30 price for premium on-demand videos," as saying, "DirecTV is looking into lowering its monthly...price..." :lol:


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

DIRECTV Hat Off; Personal Opinion Here.

In my house, it is over a 60% savings.

Took my family of 4 to the movies about 3 weeks ago:
$40 Just for the admission tickets (We are $12 for adult, and $8 for kids)
$30+ For concessions (4 Drinks, a pop-corn, 1 box of candy, preztle bites)
~1 gallon of gas = $4.25

Now factor in the time (we left about 30 minutes before show start, and got home about 15 minutes after show ended)
---------

So if a title that me and my family are intersted in:
1) Get to watch it on our schedule, not a movie theater's schedule
2) We can watch it while eating a real meal (dinner theater), or snacks and drinks that way cheaper (aka 12 pack of cola is only $2 on sale, and popcorn we have in the pantry already)
3) Economy of scale... If anyone else in my extended family and friends want to see the same movie, costs what $1 or $2, for the extra beverage or snack

I have 55" LCD, 7.1 Surround Sound, and 3 bathrooms (with a pause button).
And typically a better seat. 

And... if we really like it, we can watch it again in the next 48 hours, instead of in the theaters again and pay...

So I understand where everyone is coming from "They lost there mind"... wait for Optical Disk, Rental. Yes, that is always an option, and one that I use regularly. But there are some movies, that we would like to see earlier then 6+ months down the road, but we dont' want to go on opening weekend.

Obviously this model isn't for everyone, but with nearly 19 million subscribers....

So IMHO... I have seen the articles from the Director's, Producers, and Theaters....
They need to understand, that their industry and rapid income level has to change to in today's economy.
Maybe the Theater owners will start to realize that charging $12 for a ticket and $8 for $0.05 of Coke, just isn't going to last much longer.

People's home theaters are starting to RIVAL and in many case eclipse that of the local theater.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Hutchinshouse said:


> 1. I have two kids under 10. I will NEVER spend $30 on a PPV movie. Never!
> 2. "Having to be first" means going to the theater.
> 3. I can afford MANY $30 PPV. Why would I when I can get better A/V quality for less than $30 and keep it for more than 48 hours?
> 
> Sure some will buy it. However, it will NOT be a cash cow.


I disagree. Look at how much the PPV market has expanded in the past year.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

MysteryMan said:


> I disagree. Look at how much the PPV market has expanded in the past year.


Example:

I wasn't able to go see Harry Potter #7 in the Theaters...
I watched the kids, when the family went... and didn't want to go see it alone.

I don't want to spend $25 on it on BluRay right now, knowing that when #8 is released... there is going to be a killer collector set of all 8.

I will be spending the $6 on the PPV Saturday night, so I can see the movie, and not have to wait for HBO Premium channel release.

(Same is true for Tron... It just isn't a movie I am going to watch over and over and over, so can't justify the $25 Disc)


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

It's a matter of time, simply put. To wait a few more weeks for the cheaper option makes eminent sense.

As for theaters, my local theater has an upstairs section, it's for adults only, reserved seating with love seats for two, and you can eat your dinner there, have wine, beer, whatever you want. Now, THAT'S the way to see a movie, if you don't want to wait. 



Earl Bonovich said:


> DIRECTV Hat Off; Personal Opinion Here.
> 
> In my house, it is over a 60% savings.
> 
> ...


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

JeffBowser said:


> It's a matter of time, simply put. To wait a few more weeks for the cheaper option makes eminent sense.
> 
> As for theaters, my local theater has an upstairs section, it's for adults only, reserved seating with love seats for two, and you can eat your dinner there, have wine, beer, whatever you want. Now, THAT'S the way to see a movie, if you don't want to wait.


It's not always "weeks"... some titles it can be months.

And yes... the Title is going to be a major factor in the decision (As it is when considering going to the theater's)... But chart that XZI put up, spells it out pretty well.

Like Kung Fu Panda II and Cars II, we will be in the theaters opening weekend. But some of the other summer titles, we won't be...

-----

We have some of those theaters here as well, but it is upwards of $40 each, and depending on the movie you have to make reservations.


----------



## zimm7778 (Nov 11, 2007)

"Earl Bonovich" said:


> DIRECTV Hat Off; Personal Opinion Here.
> 
> In my house, it is over a 60% savings.
> 
> ...


But if you have waited 60 days, can't you wait another 30 or so for it to be released on DVD and spend $15-$20 buying it? Then you can watch it as often as you want.

I have no problem with the model of $30-$40 for a ppv movie if it's available within a week or so of it hitting the theater. 60 days later, the chances are I've forgotten I ever wanted to see it to begin with and won't remember again until I see the commercial for the DVD.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Wow, that's steep. Ours is $18 a ticket for "Premiere", add on a $4 "online surcharge" to avoid standing in lines, and it's $22. That includes, however, unlimited popcorn and valet parking. I'd pay nearly any amount, however, on the rare occasion we do go to the theater, to avoid the teeming masses and the first-come first-served dog-eat-dog world of open seating. Once you've experienced reserved seating and room to spread out, it's really hard to go back.

Anyway, as for waiting, I've always been one to wait, I simply don't care when I see a movie, if at all. I recognize that there are those that think vastly differently about that, so.....



Earl Bonovich said:


> -----
> 
> We have some of those theaters here as well, but it is upwards of $40 each, and depending on the movie you have to make reservations.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

We all watch movies differently and this idea is just another option. For example, some people have no issue stopping a movie & finishing it later. Personally, I don't see a big deal over the 24 hour rule some people don't like. Although, I understand why those with kids don't like it because time is different when you're a parent. I won't start a movie & finish it later.

Another difference is whether some enjoy owning movies. My library is like 10 movies, most were gifts, and none have been watched twice or more. I'm a 1 n done movie watcher, so buying movies is silly to me. Although again, I see why others do.

So, some will find this option useful while others won't use it. It's our time & money and we can spend it how we please...Thankfully, the option's there.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

zimm7778 said:


> But if you have waited 60 days, can't you wait another 30 or so for it to be released on DVD and spend $15-$20 buying it? Then you can watch it as often as you want.


Lately... I haven't been purchasing movies as much as I used to.
(I used to drop $100-$150 a month on movie purchases).

We just purchase titles that we want to keep, and will watch often enough.
The one and done titles, for me, are where I consider PPV. (like my example of Tron:Legacy)

But that is just it, a lot of titles are not just 90 days from theater release to DVD. Especially popular titles. Look at Harry Potter for example, it was nearly 6 months.

That 60 day mark would would have been right in January, when there are big snow storms, nothing on, and people want something fairly new to watch...


----------



## KK in CT (Jul 13, 2010)

Maybe I'm missing something here. If you've already waited to see the movie until it's in the cheaper 2nd rate cinemas, why all of a sudden would you have the need to see it then at your home for a premium price? Your wait time at that point is already half over and the cost benefit has been reduced or eliminated depending on how many tickets you would be purchasing at the 2nd rate theater. 

I could see some families doing this if it was available on theatrical release date (which the studios would never allow) but after you've gone two months without the need to see the movie, it seems to me the urge is gone that would instigate you deciding to add an additional $30 plus taxes on your next bill. Especially with all the complaints we see each year when D* adds $3 to our bills. 

The kids I know are interested in the latest movie releases, so after two months their "need" to see the latest movie has moved on to just that, the latest movie. Not the one that came out two months ago. Plus, for them, it's all about the experience of actually going to the theater. "Hey kids, lets wait two months till that movie comes to our home tv" Kind of like a hamburger at home isn't the same to them as going to McDonald's. Maybe not the best analogy, but you get the idea. 

Sure, there will be some that will bite at this, but it can't be that many. Even if your current monthly bill is $100, that would be adding 30% to it. Just seems like it would be a tough thing to justify for a lot of families in this economy. 

For those who want this service, I'm happy for you. Although not personally out of my price range, I don't see the benefit in it for my family.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

KK in CT said:


> Maybe I'm missing something here. If you've already waited to see the movie until it's in the cheaper 2nd rate cinemas, why all of a sudden would you have the need to see it then at your home for a premium price? Your wait time at that point is already half over and the cost benefit has been reduced or eliminated depending on how many tickets you would be purchasing at the 2nd rate theater.


Around here... 2nd tier theaters are all but gone. I think I know of one that is left about 30 miles away... Hardly worth the drive.

Same argument could be made on why movies stay in theaters for 3 months, why not just have it for a weekend or two and then off to optical disc.

To me... it would be like waiting for a sale...

2 months down the road, we can enjoy a fairly new movie (one that many people haven't seen and haven't spoiled for us yet), at more then half the cost.

Sure we could wait another 2-3 months for the Optical disk, or another 6 months for the Premium channel, or another 9-12 for the Television debut.

But there are times (Even with over 200 channels, and a DVR)... that frankly there is "nothing on", and when you have a chance to sit as a family to watch a movie together....

At the end of the day, it is an option for people... and in between option between release weekend, and optical disk release.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Hutchinshouse said:


> 1. I have two kids under 10. I will NEVER spend $30 on a PPV movie. Never!
> 2. "Having to be first" means going to the theater.
> 3. I can afford MANY $30 PPV. Why would I when I can get better A/V quality for less than $30 and keep it for more than 48 hours?
> 
> Sure some will buy it. However, it will NOT be a cash cow.


There are more questions then that. There is a market for this. Think about it. If a movie ticket is $8 and then its another $3 for 3D and you have 6 people in the family going to the movie is it cheaper to go and get food and drinks or stay home. Not to mention I dont see it stated anywhere if these will fall under the 24 hour rule. I stated in the other thread though, my daughter had 8 other girls stay over for a slumber party for her birthday in Feb and I would of paid $29.99 for the Justin Bieber movie for them instead of trying to take them all to the theater.

The movies probably will autodelete after 24 hours but at that price that stinks.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

In case anyone is curious, here's 2010 top 10 films and release dates:



Rank | Movie | Theatrical Release | Disc Release
1 | Toy Story 3 | June 18 | November 2 
2 | Alice in Wonderland | March 5 | June 1 
3 | Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 | November 18 | April 15
4 |Inception | July 16 | December 7
5 | Shrek Forever After | May 21 | December 7
6 | The Twilight Saga: Eclipse | June 30 | December 4
7 | Iron Man 2 | May 7 | September 28
8 |Tangled | November 24 | March 29
9 | Despicable Me | July 9 | December 14
10 | How to Train Your Dragon | March 26 | October 15


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Earl Bonovich said:


> *But there are some movies, that we would like to see earlier then 6+ months down the road, but we dont' want to go on opening weekend.*
> 
> Obviously this model isn't for everyone, but with nearly 19 million subscribers....


Not to mention in smaller towns like mine we dont get all the movies. Especially not opening weekend. Sometimes we get some movies 2 months after the fact or not at all. Our theater has 4 movies going at a time and sometimes they dont change the list for 3 weeks straight. There is a market for this for sure. Smaller towns, larger families, movies in 3D that you can see at home not in 3D to save money, theater is far away, parties, get togethers, etc.

Dont forget that sometimes the UFC events are held at theatres for like $20 a seat. Thats cheaper then $54.95 in HD at home. As much as some dont want to admit it there is a market for this. Its kind of like a family plan on a cell phone. If you had one line you would not want the family plan. If you had 4 or more phones you would want it as it would save you money versus each person have their own account at full price.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

KK in CT said:


> Maybe I'm missing something here. If you've already waited to see the movie until it's in the cheaper 2nd rate cinemas, why all of a sudden would you have the need to see it then at your home for a premium price? Your wait time at that point is already half over and the cost benefit has been reduced or eliminated depending on how many tickets you would be purchasing at the 2nd rate theater.
> 
> I could see some families doing this if it was available on theatrical release date (which the studios would never allow) but after you've gone two months without the need to see the movie, it seems to me the urge is gone that would instigate you deciding to add an additional $30 plus taxes on your next bill. Especially with all the complaints we see each year when D* adds $3 to our bills.
> 
> ...


Thats only partially true. Like I said there are a lot of people that dont live in the large cities where they have all movie options. There are alot of family movies these days that people want to see. Smaller theaters can not play them all. Also its not cost effective to change movies every week at the theaters either in small towns. You have to pick the movies that will get people in. I remember here our theater kept Paul Blart Mall cop playing for at least 2 months and we only have 4 screens. There was alot of other movies that could of played in that time frame. Generally most movies here stay 2-3 weeks and get changed.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Another option doesn't hurt and if you never use it then it never impacted you. I would rather do this than go to our theatre with the family. It's cheaper, more convenient, and I like my setup more than I like a theatre.


----------



## anleva (Nov 14, 2007)

KK in CT said:


> Maybe I'm missing something here. If you've already waited to see the movie until it's in the cheaper 2nd rate cinemas, why all of a sudden would you have the need to see it then at your home for a premium price? Your wait time at that point is already half over and the cost benefit has been reduced or eliminated depending on how many tickets you would be purchasing at the 2nd rate theater.
> 
> I could see some families doing this if it was available on theatrical release date (which the studios would never allow) but after you've gone two months without the need to see the movie, it seems to me the urge is gone that would instigate you deciding to add an additional $30 plus taxes on your next bill. Especially with all the complaints we see each year when D* adds $3 to our bills.
> 
> ...


I agree with you. Here I can see a newly released movie for 6/8.25 dollars. The 60 day old movies that DirecTV will be showing are in the discount theater at that point for 2/3 dollars (along with discount concessions). Or I can wait another 60 days and get it for $1 from Redbox. Just doesn't make any sense for me to pay $30 for it.

I just checked, "Just Go With It" is in the local discount theater. $2 matinee, $3 prime. If I was so inclined I would go there. If not I would watch one of the many movies I still haven't seen but want to see for cheap with Redbox or Netflix.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

anleva said:


> ...
> 
> I just checked, "Just Go With It" is in the local discount theater. $2 matinee, $3 prime. If I was so inclined I would go there. If not I would watch one of the many movies I still haven't seen but want to see for cheap with Redbox or Netflix.


That movie is $1 for matinee & $1.50 at our local (15-20 minutes) theaters here. :lol:


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

sigma1914 said:


> In case anyone is curious, here's 2010 top 10 films and release dates:


<< Snipped bits out >>

Is this by gross in theatres?

FWIW*, few of those movies hold any interest for me.

* That, plus five bucks will get you a cuppa coffee.........


----------



## anleva (Nov 14, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> That movie is $1 for matinee & $1.50 at our local (15-20 minutes) theaters here. :lol:


Wow, heck of a deal there.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Here's Swanni's take on the $30 movies...*Link*.

I realize it's probably not the conspiracy that Phil thinks it is, but it is an interesting view that he has.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> << Snipped bits out >>
> 
> Is this by gross in theatres?
> 
> ...


_Inception_ was good, I think. I've usually got to watch Matt Damon's and Leonardo's films two or three times to figure out what the things are really about.

Aside from that, those were really the top ten of 2010?

Rich


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

MysteryMan said:


> Target audience #1: Familes with small children. Do the math. Gas prices at $4.00 a gallon and rising. Ticket prices at the theater. Food and beverage prices at the theater. Far more economical for them to stay at home and rent the movie for $29.99. Not to mention as I have posted elsewhere it's a lot easier transporting livestock then small children. Target audience #2: Those with the attitude of "having to be the first". Target audience #3: Those who can well afford to spend $29.99 on a PPV.


I took my wife and two boys to the movies the other day. I haven't been to a movie theater in AGES, but I had a customer give me some coupons and so we went.

The matinee for 2 adults and 2 kids was $31.

A large popcorn and large drink was $12 - we got 2 of those. A box of candy was $5.

All in all, we were in for $60+ to take 4 of us to the movies. (Well, sort of. I had $75 in gift cards, so it didn't cost me a thing, and we bought more junk at the snack bar than we normally would have!)

But still, tickets were $31. And my oldest has a food allergy, so we have to be careful about what food we buy. If we can watch a movie at or around release time for $30, with refreshments that we already have around the house, I would on occasion, consider it. Once a year, maybe twice.

There's certainly a market there.


----------



## KK in CT (Jul 13, 2010)

"rich584" said:


> Here's Swanni's take on the $30 movies...Link.
> 
> I realize it's probably not the conspiracy that Phil thinks it is, but it is an interesting view that he has.
> 
> Rich


Interesting. If they were available roughly the same timeframe as the theatrical release then I think they would get more takers. But at 60 days out they will definitely have to lower the price to make this worth while for them to even offer, assuming they are paying the studios a hefty up front cost to offer these movies earlier than the competition. Depending on what they're paying, it seems like they would need quite a lot of people to buy each movie just to break even at the $30 price point.


----------



## awblackmon (May 20, 2009)

Some 30+ years ago, HBO wanted to open a new cable satellite service. It was called Premier. They wanted to show new release movies the same week/month as movies in the theater. Of course it was going to be at a premium price for this service, but they were going to try it out. Showtime took them to court and stopped the new service from starting up.

Fast forward and now Directv wants to do it but everything is way after the theater release. For me, to late on the dates Directv wants to have this service to offer me. In Boise we have several budget theaters. My favorite one has digital surround in all theaters. They get the films six weeks after release at first run theaters, eight weeks if the film is doing well at the first run theaters. The ticket price is $3.00. I can order a regular size popcorn and regular size of soda for $3.50. So my wife and I can go out for $13.00. If I ask my Mom to go with us and I pay her way add $6.50 more. I have no kids at home. 

Directv won't be getting much business from me, BUT if they reduce the price, have it come out the same week, if not day, as the theater, I will be pushing the buy button. My home theater is a great venue for films. If they insist on the delay of release, then they have to have a price near what the local budget theaters have. Until then, I am not going to be a premium pay per view customer.


----------



## jahgreen (Dec 15, 2006)

Might be worth it to me. Less expensive, plus I could avoid the boorish louts at the theater who insist on talking on their cellphones, narrating every minute of the movie, repeating the dialog, loudly slurping their drinks, bringing crying babies to the theater, and wearing so much perfume that I can't breathe. And that's only a partial list.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> << Snipped bits out >>
> 
> Is this by gross in theatres?
> 
> ...


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_in_film#Highest-grossing_films



> Please note that following the tradition of the English-language film industry, these are the top-grossing films that were first released in the United States in 2010. The top ten films of 2010, by worldwide gross in United States dollars, as well as the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, and Australia grosses...


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

KK in CT said:


> Interesting. If they were available roughly the same timeframe as the theatrical release then I think they would get more takers. But at 60 days out they will definitely have to lower the price to make this worth while for them to even offer, assuming they are paying the studios a hefty up front cost to offer these movies earlier than the competition. Depending on what they're paying, it seems like they would need quite a lot of people to buy each movie just to break even at the $30 price point.


I just think people are missing the mark here. There is a market for this. Look at that list for release dates on dvd. There are a lot of movies that are not on DVD 6-9 months. Waiting 90 days is not that bad. Not to mention hotels have done this for years. People are on the road and pay anywhere from $11.99-$15.99 for a movie that has not been released to DVD yet.

Like I said earlier there, this is a lot similar to cell plans for a family. This would not tempt a person with no kids or just an individual couple probably but a family that will save money it will. Really if the family has more then 3 members it will definitely save you money. I have a family of 4 so I would consider doing this from time to time. Popcorn and Coke at home is much cheaper then the $10 the theater charges. For that price I could by a case of Coke and a box or popcorn and enjoy the movie at home which is a lot more comfortable then the movies. Like I said this is not for everyone.

There are a lot of things out there that just make sense to most people but not to others. My parents sub to Netflix but wont dare get a movie from RedBox because they don't want to use their credit card at a machine. How different is that?

I know people here that have pre-paid smart phones that are $45 a month unlimited data, talk & text and others that pay $130 for a single smart phone plane thats not unlimited but its with an actual provider and not pre-paid. To each their own. Look at it this way, at the higher price point its not like they need as many people to order one for it to be a success.

Different strokes for different folks. While I respect your opinion and this option does not work for you it will in fact work for others. If it was not for people having different needs we would not have half of the great products and services in this world that we have grown accustomed to.


----------



## KK in CT (Jul 13, 2010)

joshjr, I would agree with you 100% if this was available at the same time it was released in the theater. But it won't be available until after it's out of the main theaters. So really you're not saving the cost of going to the theater at that point since you've waited too long to see it there. The theater is no longer an option. At that point you're actually paying a premium to D* for the opportunity to see the movie after everyone who saw it in the theaters and before you can see it on blu-ray or DVD. It's basically like you're buying the blu-ray disc at full price a few months before it's available to the general public, but the disc becomes unusable once you watch it. 

To give a somewhat similar analogy, if you want to travel from NYC to LA, and you find a flight but decide it's too expensive, once the flight takes off you're opportunity to save money on the cost of the flight is gone because you can no longer purchase that experience. The only way you can technically "save" on the plane fare is if you actually purchased that seat at a lower price. So you decide you want to take a train instead of drive, which will cost you a premium over driving but will get you there faster than the car but slower than the plane. You are then actually paying more for your choice between two options. You've already ruled out the plane. Admittedly not a perfect analogy. My point is the theater experience for a particular movie is an intangible good. Once the movie is out of the theater that's it. You can't save on that experience. The $30 PPV is a different experience. I would have a hard time finding a kid who thought it was just as fun to watch a movie at home as it is to go to the theater.  

I don't see where this would be geared toward those trying to save money, when it's offered at such a high premium. Once it's offered either very close to theatrical release date or for about half the $30 fee, I would then agree it's more geared toward those that don't think twice about how much it costs to go to the theater. 

I guess for me, I figure once I've decided the movie is not worth it to see in the theater (which for me is usually the case) I've already made the decision to wait for Netflix to have it. At that point I don't care if I have to wait two months or six months. 

For those that desire this new service from D*, I'm happy you got it. I think any additions they give us are good. Especially new HD!! But it really is a different experience than the theater entirely. Otherwise, with most consumers having a DVD or blu-ray player, why would anyone go to the theater anymore?


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

KK in CT said:


> joshjr, I would agree with you 100% if this was available at the same time it was released in the theater. But it won't be available until after it's out of the main theaters. So really you're not saving the cost of going to the theater at that point since you've waited too long to see it there. The theater is no longer an option. At that point you're actually paying a premium to D* for the opportunity to see the movie after everyone who saw it in the theaters and before you can see it on blu-ray or DVD. It's basically like you're buying the blu-ray disc at full price a few months before it's available to the general public, but the disc becomes unusable once you watch it.
> 
> To give a somewhat similar analogy, if you want to travel from NYC to LA, and you find a flight but decide it's too expensive, once the flight takes off you're opportunity to save money on the cost of the flight is gone because you can no longer purchase that experience. The only way you can technically "save" on the plane fare is if you actually purchased that seat at a lower price. So you decide you want to take a train instead of drive, which will cost you a premium over driving but will get you there faster than the car but slower than the plane. You are then actually paying more for your choice between two options. You've already ruled out the plane. Admittedly not a perfect analogy. My point is the theater experience for a particular movie is an intangible good. Once the movie is out of the theater that's it. You can't save on that experience. The $30 PPV is a different experience. I would have a hard time finding a kid who thought it was just as fun to watch a movie at home as it is to go to the theater.
> 
> I don't see where this would be geared toward those trying to save money, when it's offered at such a high premium. Once it's offered either very close to theatrical release date or for about half the $30 fee, I would then agree it's more geared toward those that don't think twice about how much it costs to go to the theater.


Sorry, but that analogy doesn't hold any water for me. I can see the movie in the theater and pay $50 for my family of 4 or I can wait 6 weeks and pay $30. I've absolutely saved money. I can save $20 by delaying my experience a matter of weeks. And if the movie isn't that important, I can save even more by delaying my experience that much further.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

Let's get real here. The issue isn't $30 for a major release that you can see at home early.

The issue is that they're charging $30 for an ADAM SANDLER flick! Charging Cadillac prices for a Yugo!


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> Let's get real here. The issue isn't $30 for a major release that you can see at home early.
> 
> The issue is that they're charging $30 for an ADAM SANDLER flick! Charging Cadillac prices for a Yugo!


For you a Adam Sandler flick may be a Yugo. But he does have a fan base and I'm sure they will feel differently. "Home Premier" is in it's infancy. In time there will be a much wider selection of films to choose from.


----------



## Crow159 (May 23, 2007)

awblackmon said:


> Fast forward and now *Directv* wants to do it but everything is way after the theater release. For me, to late on the dates *Directv* wants to have this service to offer me. In Boise we have several budget theaters. My favorite one has digital surround in all theaters. They get the films six weeks after release at first run theaters, eight weeks if the film is doing well at the first run theaters. The ticket price is $3.00. I can order a regular size popcorn and regular size of soda for $3.50. So my wife and I can go out for $13.00. If I ask my Mom to go with us and I pay her way add $6.50 more. I have no kids at home.
> 
> *Directv* won't be getting much business from me, BUT if they reduce the price, have it come out the same week, if not day, as the theater, I will be pushing the buy button. My home theater is a great venue for films. If they insist on the delay of release, then they have to have a price near what the local budget theaters have. Until then, I am not going to be a premium pay per view customer.


I think it needs to be stated that this is not Directv's fault, it's the movie studios offering this service for Directv to provide to it's customers. Directv is not setting the release window nor the pricing.

The studios are trying to generate new revenue while also not upsetting the theater owners and this is the best they could come up with. I believe it will fail, but it will not be Directv's fault.


----------



## Sim-X (Sep 24, 2009)

So what channel are these on?


----------



## KK in CT (Jul 13, 2010)

"Sharkie_Fan" said:


> Sorry, but that analogy doesn't hold any water for me. I can see the movie in the theater and pay $50 for my family of 4 or I can wait 6 weeks and pay $30. I've absolutely saved money. I can save $20 by delaying my experience a matter of weeks. And if the movie isn't that important, I can save even more by delaying my experience that much further.


The only problem with that argument is that once you wait the 60 days you're no longer purchasing the same experience. You're not buying a trip to the theater for $30, you already passed on the trip to the theater. You're now just purchasing a very expensive PPV movie to watch at home. I'm guessing for the majority of D*'s customers, their at home set up doesn't come close to the same experience as going to a theater.

Let me use another analogy. You can choose to take your kids to a fancy water park while on vacation. Or you can pass due to the cost of tickets and go home and swim in your pool that has a small water slide. Sure you're saving money, and technically the kids still get to use a water slide, but not the same experience.

I guess my point is it's impossible to save on the cost of something that you're not buying. Yes you're choosing not to spend the money, but you're certainly not receiving a discount on the theater experience. You're buying a lesser product at a lower price.

You can look at it the other way too. If you're "saving" money by waiting the 60 days, then using the same logic you're losing money by not waiting another 60 days. At least at that point it is the exact same experience, just at a date in the not too distant future. If you've already waited two months, and the goal truly is to save money on the exact same experience, why wouldn't you wait for the regular PPV or the blu-ray release? Maybe that's what I really don't get. Once you've already decided you have no problem waiting to see the movie, and the goal is saving money, why would you pay almost 6 times what you normally would pay for a PPV movie to not have to wait?

I was trying to find some people yesterday who would take advantage of this service. All of them that i spoke to are with young kids who are always looking to save money. When I first told them about the movies being offered 60 days after theatrical release they were immediately all for it. They all said what a great feature to have Every one of them. But when I told them it would cost them $30, they all looked at me like I was nuts. Not one of them were at all interested after that. They all said the cost was at least twice what they would even consider paying.

I don't really care if this service succeeds or fails. I'm just fascinated at how some would justify paying so much to watch one movie one time on their tv at home. What reasoning they use.


----------



## mluntz (Jul 13, 2006)

I can see this as a possibility if it's within a week of it opening at the theater. The 60 day thing is what bothers me. Just doesn't justify the cost.


----------



## mluntz (Jul 13, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> In case anyone is curious, here's 2010 top 10 films and release dates:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow! I only watched 1 of those movies. Inception. Great flick, but you have to watch it 2 or 3 times to really understand it!


----------



## mluntz (Jul 13, 2006)

You know there is another way of looking at this. My wife and I very rarely get out of the house. For us, trip to the movies is considerd a way of "treating" ourselves to something.

This might be a way of how some families look at this PPV model.


----------



## susanandmark (Feb 15, 2007)

KK in CT said:


> The only problem with that argument is that once you wait the 60 days you're no longer purchasing the same experience. You're not buying a trip to the theater for $30, you already passed on the trip to the theater. You're now just purchasing a very expensive PPV movie to watch at home. ...
> 
> Let me use another analogy. You can choose to take your kids to a fancy water park while on vacation. Or you can pass due to the cost of tickets and go home and swim in your pool that has a small water slide. Sure you're saving money, and technically the kids still get to use a water slide, but not the same experience.
> 
> ...


Pretty much my feelings exactly.

"Just Go With It" will be released on DVD/Blu-Ray on June 7, according to Amazon, which is offering the DVD for $15.99 and the Blu-Ray for $24.99 as of today &#8230; prices likely to come down as the release date nears. (As someone who occasionally pre-orders from them, I've found that's usually the case). By the week of the films release, I'd be surprised if the Blu-Ray is any more than $20.

As someone with a small child and a dedicated home theater (theater seats, 106" screen, 1080p projector, etc.), I SHOULD be the market for this, according to all the DirecTV press releases and arguments here, but honestly, even if I liked Adam Sandler, which I don't, though I suppose I might someday see this movie on HBO, the price point is just out of control.

Cheaper than taking a family of four to the movies and buying snacks? Sure. But, again, it's a TWO MONTH wait. That's significant when you're selling the "exclusive, newness" of a product, as DirecTV is here. (I've already talked about the "hotel argument," and why that works and this doesn't, in another thread, so won't repeat myself.)

And the 48 hour watch window is, frankly, ridiculous. Even if I really, REALLY wanted to see "Just Go With It," or any movie, I'd buy the Blu-Ray and watch at my will, with better sound and picture quality. If it turns out I didn't love it, and never want to watch it again, you can resell that Blu-Ray for about half the cost of purchase via Amazon Marketplace or half.com and still be WELL in the black vs that $30 one-time, 24-hour pay per view that you are WATCHING IN THE EXACT SAME ENVIRONMENT. Even if you keep the movie, but never watch it again, you're still way ahead $$$ ways.

Arguing it's a "savings," on any level, just doesn't fly, for all the reasons the quoted poster stated. A convenience? Maybe. But a deal? Not even close.

I don't have a philosophical issue with DirecTV offering this service, I just don't see it being anywhere near successful and, far from a cash cow, expect it will be giant money-sucking dud, with a lot of wasted PR dollars and negotiating/set-up funds wasted by a company that will then, of course, pass the expense of their uh-oh onto to us, the consumers. In that last, I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but definitely fear I'm not.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

susanandmark said:


> As someone with a small child and a dedicated home theater (theater seats, 106" screen, 1080p projector, etc.), I SHOULD be the market for this, according to all the DirecTV press releases and arguments here, but honestly, even if I liked Adam Sandler, which I don't, though I suppose I might someday see this movie on HBO, the price point is just out of control.
> 
> ...
> 
> I don't have a philosophical issue with DirecTV offering this service, I just don't see it being anywhere near successful and, far from a cash cow, expect it will be giant money-sucking dud, with a lot of wasted PR dollars and negotiating/set-up funds wasted by a company that will then, of course, pass the expense of their uh-oh onto to us, the consumers. In that last, I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but definitely fear I'm not.


This is one of those things that will be 100% driven by the market .. If we find the conditions change to be "better" (read: cheaper and/or sooner), then yeah, perhaps they missed the mark on the first round. If we're looking back at this a year later and things are pretty much the same, then they probably did hit the mark on the first round. Prices will be what people will pay and by "people" I mean enough people to make it worth DIRECTV's while to do and be profitable. If the price point is too high, it will either go down or DIRECTV will discontinue because they can't get it cheap enough.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Sim-X said:


> So what channel are these on?


1100


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

susanandmark said:


> << Snipped bits out >>
> I don't have a philosophical issue with DirecTV offering this service, I just don't see it being anywhere near successful and, far from a cash cow, expect it will be giant money-sucking dud, with a lot of wasted PR dollars and negotiating/set-up funds wasted by a company that will then, of course, pass the expense of their uh-oh onto to us, the consumers. In that last, I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but definitely fear I'm not.


DirecTV is not a regulated utility, and hence, their passing onto us the "costs" of "mistakes", market research, satellite launches, dividends to shareholders, etc. isn't automatic by any stretch. It all has to fly in the free market.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

susanandmark said:


> I don't have a philosophical issue with DirecTV offering this service, I just don't see it being anywhere near successful and, far from a cash cow, expect it will be giant money-sucking dud, with a lot of wasted PR dollars and negotiating/set-up funds wasted by a company that will then, of course, pass the expense of their uh-oh onto to us, the consumers. In that last, I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but definitely fear I'm not.


I don't see how it is a money sucking dud. They are offering it through the standard method in On Demand, so there is no real cost there. They are probably only paying the studio based upon actual purchase, so no additional cost there (unless they pay more than what they get for the first few purchases, which I doubt). There is some advertising money involved but the side benefit of advertising On Demand and DirecTV having something new and shiny probably pays for that and I doubt they added commercial time, just focus some ads towards this rather than the standard PPV release of another recent movie. Little to no cost there.

All they have to do is reset the expired time on the movie from the standard film (which is probably just meta data as they have this mechanism on every On Demand feature, even "free" ones) and change the price (which is always adjustable anyway).

This is a no risk venture for everyone. If it doesn't sell, it doesn't sell. No lost costs, really.

So, relax. Try to stop worrying about everything causing you pain in the end. Not everything does.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

KK in CT said:


> You can look at it the other way too. If you're "saving" money by waiting the 60 days, then using the same logic *you're losing money by not waiting another 60 days*. At least at that point it is the exact same experience, just at a date in the not too distant future. If you've already waited two months, and the goal truly is to save money on the exact same experience, why wouldn't you wait for the regular PPV or the blu-ray release?
> 
> I don't really care if this service succeeds or fails. I'm just fascinated at how some would justify paying so much to watch one movie one time on their tv at home. What reasoning they use.


Some movies dont come to DVD for 9 months. Thats hardly another 60 days. If I was guessing I would say that on average its more like 7 months after Theatrical Release before most movies come to DVD. You are also talking like most people go to the theater for the theater experience. If the movies were offered at the same price to us on PPV the same day do you honestly think as many people would go to the theaters to watch it? It would be more convienant to watch it on our schedule and not have to deal with crowds, lines, excessive concession prices, disruptive people in the theater.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

I'm a movie fan. If I can see it 60 days before the Blu-Ray release AND I want to see it bad enough, I will pay the $30. Of course, this is coming from someone with a job. Things would be different if I'm not working.

Much of the time, going to the theater for me is a hassle. With a complete home theater with 106" projection system, surround sound and now 3D (using the projector), going to the theater is less of a draw for me.

I like this idea and I hope the selection of movies gets better.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

If they only could detect how many people are watching. I won't pay $30 for me as I would watch alone. If I had a party of people, maybe.


----------



## susanandmark (Feb 15, 2007)

joshjr said:


> If I was guessing I would say that on average its more like 7 months after Theatrical Release before most movies come to DVD. You are also talking like most people go to the theater for the theater experience. If the movies were offered at the same price to us on PPV the same day do you honestly think as many people would go to the theaters to watch it? It would be more convienant to watch it on our schedule and not have to deal with crowds, lines, excessive concession prices, disruptive people in the theater.


You'd guess wrong. The "industry standard" for theatre to DVD is currently four months. Some as short as three months from debut to disc, some as long as six. Seven would be basically unheard of.

And, yeah, LOTS of people go to theatre for the experience. Be it just getting out of the house and "doing something" or the big screen, popcorn and sticky floors, going to the movies is a long-standing American tradition and a nationwide past time.

We can already "watch it on our schedule" with big screens, DVRs, DVDs, premium channels, etc. and yet movie theatres are going strong, with some of their best box office receipts in history reported in the last three years.

EDITED TO ADD: And this is coming from someone who has been to one movie--a freebie, at that--in the theatre in the past five years and would be happy to never go again, but who attended movies every week, sometimes multiple times, through most of my teens and early 20s. While we had a VCR and rented movies regularly, it didn't replace going to the movies, and I don't think it would have even with the far superior sound and screen set-up we now have. Going to the movies was very much about the experience of, if nothing else, going out of our house--especially as a teen; still a HUGE percentage of the theatre-going audience.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

susanandmark said:


> We can already "watch it on our schedule" with big screens, DVRs, DVDs, premium channels, etc. and yet movie theatres are going strong, with some of their best box office receipts in history reported in the last three years.


I agree with you on that. To make the experience a little extra special, my wife and I now go and see movies in theaters with full bars and pizza. Makes it a little extra special.


----------



## scorpion43 (Mar 16, 2011)

$30 to watch a movie on a lets say 150" home theater screen 60 days later :nono:
$15 to watch a movie on a HUGE,BIG ,ENORMOUS movie theater screen on opening day :hurah:


i'll take the $15 movie on a HUGE,BIG ,ENORMOUS movie theater screen on opening day everytime


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

KK in CT said:


> I guess my point is it's impossible to save on the cost of something that you're not buying. Yes you're choosing not to spend the money, but you're certainly not receiving a discount on the theater experience. Y*ou're buying a lesser product at a lower price.*
> 
> I was trying to find some people yesterday who would take advantage of this service. All of them that i spoke to are with young kids who are always looking to save money. When I first told them about the movies being offered 60 days after theatrical release they were immediately all for it. They all said what a great feature to have Every one of them. But when I told them it would cost them $30, they all looked at me like I was nuts. Not one of them were at all interested after that. They all said the cost was at least twice what they would even consider paying.
> 
> I don't really care if this service succeeds or fails. I'm just fascinated at how some would justify paying so much to watch one movie one time on their tv at home. What reasoning they use.


I'm buying the exact same movie that I would see in the theater. Only I don't have to put up with anyone else's crying kids, or sticky floors, or snack bar prices that border on criminal. Frankly, the theater experience isn't all it's cracked up to be, IMO - which is why the movie a few weeks ago is, I think, the second time I've been to a theater in the last 3 or 4 years.

As to your second part... having thought about things for a day... _maybe_ 60 days is too long from theatrical release to make this worth while. I'm not sure - it's been a while since a movie came out that I really wanted to see... Next time that happens, I won't pay for the theater, and I'll see if 60 days down the road I still really want to see it. If I do, $30 is not that big a deal to me. If, on the other hand, after 60 days my excitement has waned, I'll just wait for it to come to the redbox around the corner.

For this to work, it has to be close enough to when it's in the theater that people still feel like they're getting the theater experience without the theater. Too long and it will (as you've pointed out) feel like an overpriced PPV.

If they can find that point in time, I can definitely see the market for something like this. If they can't find that sweet spot - or aren't allowed to show it in that time frame - then people will have trouble justifying that price.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> Personally, I don't see a big deal over the 24 hour rule some people don't like.


I could deal with it a lot better if they used the old Blockbuster model. Rent today and keep it until midnight tomorrow or similar.

The only time my wife and I get to watch movies at home is usually when our daughter is sleeping over somewhere. So lets say we start a movie at 9:00pm and at 10:15 she calls and wants to come home. Good chance we won't finish it that night and no way to finish it before 9:00pm the next night.

So relax the 24-hour rule a bit to maybe a 36-hour rule. If I am intent on copying the movie, I am going to buy it at 2 in the afternoon and have a copy ready before I going to watch it at 9.

As for the $30 PPV, my daughter's birthday is in a couple of weeks and she is having a slumber party. If they have a kid friendly movie that is not yet available on DVD and the girls want to watch it, sure. I can't see my wife and I doing it for $30 as there are enough movies already out on DVD/BR we haven't yet seen.


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

susanandmark said:


> You'd guess wrong. The "industry standard" for theatre to DVD is currently four months. Some as short as three months from debut to disc, some as long as six. *Seven would be basically unheard of*.


According to the list posted earlier in the thread, How to train your Dragon was only a week short of 7 months. Not that it necessarily changes the rest of your assertion...



susanandmark said:


> Cheaper than taking a family of four to the movies and buying snacks? Sure. But, again, it's a TWO MONTH wait. That's significant when you're selling the "*exclusive, newness*" of a product, as DirecTV is here. (I've already talked about the "hotel argument," and why that works and this doesn't, in another thread, so won't repeat myself.)
> 
> ...
> 
> Arguing it's a "savings," on any level, just doesn't fly, for all the reasons the quoted poster stated. A convenience? Maybe. But a deal? Not even close.


The key is the exclusive, newness, as you pointed out. Time will tell if 60 days is too far away from the movie release. It is a two month wait.. but it's also two months (or even more) sooner than you could see it if you wait for the DVD.

IF I can get a movie close enough to "theater timeline" without having to deal with the theater, I could justify $30 as a savings... pretty easily, in my mind. What I can't say with any certainty is whether 60 days is a close enough timeline to justify that.

Obviously several here don't think it's close enough to the release date. I just don't know because there aren't often movies that I have any pressing desire to see. Certainly there haven't been any in the last few years...

It all comes down to the timing, in my mind... and eventually we'll either see this service continue as it is - meaning that there are enough people who think the timeline is good enough to justify the premium - or we'll see the service change (or go away) which will tell us that the timeline is too long and people are willing to wait for the DVD release.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

Herdfan said:


> So relax the 24-hour rule a bit to maybe a 36-hour rule. If I am intent on copying the movie, I am going to buy it at 2 in the afternoon and have a copy ready before I going to watch it at 9.


 The story I read in the LA Times says that this feature will have a 48-hour window for viewing instead of 24. That's about the only good part I see...


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

For what it's worth our friend Swanni has a article on the $30.00 VOD. The article states DirecTV executive vice president Derek Chang as saying the new $29.95 VOD is in a testing window with a testing price point. DirecTV may lower the $29.95 VOD and offer movies sooner than 60 days if buy rates are low.


----------



## KK in CT (Jul 13, 2010)

"Sharkie_Fan" said:


> I'm buying the exact same movie that I would see in the theater.


yes, you see the same movie. But on a much smaller screen, with less quality sound, 60 days later. It's simply not the same thing. Ask any kid if watching something on TV is the same thing as seeing it in the theater. For a majority of families, it's probably on a 50" screen or less, with 2 channel stereo sound. And they've waited 60 days for that. Why not wait another 60 days or so and get it on regular PPV for a fraction of the $30? Again, if the object is to save money, then not waiting for the regular PPV goes directly against your objective. The only thing your gaining is a shorter wait. Is 6 times the price really worth that? I would bet not to most people.

So what you're basically arguing is that watching Avatar in 3D at home is the exact same thing as watching it in 3D at the theater?? I don't think so. Speaking of which, for most this obviously won't work for most with 3D movies. Which seems to be the direction of where most new movies are going,...


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

KK in CT said:


> yes, you see the same movie. But on a much smaller screen, with less quality sound, 60 days later.


Maybe for you, but not for everyone. Yes, my 126" screen is technically smaller than the one in the theater, but when I sit 12' away, the experience is much more engrossing than in a theater. The quality of the picture is almost always better as well, and I can assure you that the 7.1 sound is equal to what I've heard in any commercial theater. Don't make assumptions based on your own gear.



KK in CT said:


> So what you're basically arguing is that watching Avatar in 3D at home is the exact same thing as watching it in 3D at the theater??


In many cases, it's better, especially if you have good equipment.

Here's one snipet from the latest issue of Home Theater Magazine where they reviewed 3D projectors:

"Compared to the soft, unfocused 3D presentation I saw theatrically, this was like seeing a whole new movie" (regarding Tangled in 3D on the JVC DLA-X7)

And it's not an isolated quote.

Regardless, paying $30 for a PPV is absurd.


----------



## rock819 (Mar 13, 2007)

For me I can wait to own it on bluray Plain and simple I will not pay $30 to watch a movie one time especially when bluray offers better picture/sound quality and usually when it comes out on bluray they are on sale and sometimes you can end up getting 2 bluray disks for close to the same cost as renting it on directv at a $30 cost NO THANKS directv I can wait its not a big deal to wait. I hate going to the theater standing in line watching a movie with complete strangers and kids being loud or crying not to mention there are no theaters in my city I would have to drive an hour to a theater so..... I would say like many others have IF it was available to watch same day as theatrical release I MIGHT CONSIDER watching it but I would invite another couple or friends over and split the cost of it just like I do with wrestlemania


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

spartanstew said:


> Regardless, paying $30 for a PPV is absurd.


While I will agree that paying $30 for a PPV is absurd and I wouldn't do it, I should remind you that some pay as much as $80+ for a PPV event.


----------



## anleva (Nov 14, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> Maybe for you, but not for everyone. Yes, my 126" screen is technically smaller than the one in the theater, but when I sit 12' away, the experience is much more engrossing than in a theater. The quality of the picture is almost always better as well, and I can assure you that the 7.1 sound is equal to what I've heard in any commercial theater. Don't make assumptions based on your own gear.
> 
> In many cases, it's better, especially if you have good equipment.
> 
> ....


But isn't quality then the more important factor than cost or getting it 60 days earlier for the videophile?

I wouldn't think videophiles, who are obviously very discriminating when it comes to selecting high-end home theater equipment, would choose inferior source material regardless of cost. They have invested a lot to make their home theater an equal to or superior experience to the movie theater. Why would they compromise with lossy audio and lower quality video than what they could have on Blu-Ray. Doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

I know many of you don't like him, but I found this to be interesting.

DIRECTV's $30 VOD: What the Media Isn't Telling You.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

fluffybear said:


> While I will agree that paying $30 for a PPV is absurd and I wouldn't do it, I should remind you that some pay as much as $80+ for a PPV event.


Yep, also absurd.



anleva said:


> But isn't quality then the more important factor than cost or getting it 60 days earlier for the videophile?
> 
> I wouldn't think videophiles, who are obviously very discriminating when it comes to selecting high-end home theater equipment, would choose inferior source material regardless of cost. They have invested a lot to make their home theater an equal to or superior experience to the movie theater. Why would they compromise with lossy audio and lower quality video than what they could have on Blu-Ray. Doesn't make sense to me.


Very true. I rarely watch a movie for the first time on anything other than Blu Ray.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

TheRatPatrol said:


> I know many of you don't like him, but I found this to be interesting.
> 
> DIRECTV's $30 VOD: What the Media Isn't Telling You.


His "big secret" wasn't even a secret...there have been mentions that a HD-DVR is required. Swanni used his big boy calculator to figure the percentage of subs with HD-DVRs.

Thanks for telling us what only you know, Swanni.  Tool.


----------



## KK in CT (Jul 13, 2010)

"spartanstew" said:


> Maybe for you, but not for everyone. Yes, my 126" screen is technically smaller than the one in the theater, but when I sit 12' away, the experience is much more engrossing than in a theater. The quality of the picture is almost always better as well, and I can assure you that the 7.1 sound is equal to what I've heard in any commercial theater. Don't make assumptions based on your own gear.
> 
> In many cases, it's better, especially if you have good equipment.
> 
> ...


Not making assumptions based on my own gear? I have a great setup. But I bet most D* subscribers looking to "save money" do not, so that experience will be far from the theater. Even fewer have a good projector, and fewer still in 3D. Again, for their assumed target audience of those trying to save money, it's not an equivalent experience.

Besides, no matter how great your equipment is at home, although you may get the movie in 1080P via D*, you definitely aren't getting lossless sound. So in that case it's less quality then both the theater and the blu-ray.

I think were both on the same page about any $30 PPV as absurd.


----------



## awblackmon (May 20, 2009)

I may not have lossless sound, or as great an image as at the theater, but some of the things I have to put up with at the theater that take away from what could be a better experience except for the rudeness of others... Well, perhaps I may consider seeing a new release at home on my 83 inch 7.1 theater. BUT, it will have to be sooner, and a bit cheaper before I do participate in the premier pay per view offering.


----------



## Eddie501 (Nov 29, 2007)

The absurdity of this didn't really hit me until I saw it on my DVR today. $30 for some Jennifer Aniston/Adam Sandler formula-com that came out around Super Bowl weekend? hahahahaha.

I guess I thought they would at least come out of the gate with an 'event' movie of some type.


----------



## susanandmark (Feb 15, 2007)

awblackmon said:


> I may not have lossless sound, or as great an image as at the theater, but some of the things I have to put up with at the theater that take away from what could be a better experience except for the rudeness of others... Well, perhaps I may consider seeing a new release at home on my 83 inch 7.1 theater. BUT, it will have to be sooner, and a bit cheaper before I do participate in the premier pay per view offering.


Ahh, but that, and other comments (cell phones, crying babies, etc) are a reason not to go to the theater AT ALL. And, heck, I even agree with most of them ... Which is why I don't go to the movies, and don't miss doing so.

No one "needs" to see a movie at all, let alone within a specific time frame. This isn't registering to vote from home, or doing your taxes online--where something necessary but onerous is made easier and more convenient by doing it at your leisure and without going out--this is a slight (very slight) variation on the wide array of at-home movie options we already have ... At a price that just about everyone agrees is pretty outrageous.

I think my main "argument" with this line of debate is that the idea that $30 is a "bargain" by extrapolating movie tickets and snacks for four or six is simply a fallacy. The REAL comparison, barring a day and date theater-matching release, is to buying a Blu-Ray or renting any other pay-per-view movie from your sofa, neither of which is new (or news). Compared to that existing and established entertainment option, the cost is simply outrageously prohibitive for all but a teeny, tiny sliver of folks who don't care or are just curious.

I just can't imagine a scenario in which this isn't a colossal failure ... UNLESS, the real purpose is to "test the waters" with theater distributors and eventually (slowly) transition into a common home/theater simultaneous, or nearly so, release model for more (most) films. Meaning: if they want to slow play the movie industry like a lobster who doesn't know he's cooking until the water boils.

Until then, arguments about theater vs home and which experience is better/preferable have very little weight, as do the cost comparisons to theater tickets, etc. Those were cogent when "home video" (in all formats) first debuted, and it was well proven there is a place for both. This distribution model changes absolutely NOTHING about that, as far as I can see.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

Eddie501 said:


> The absurdity of this didn't really hit me until I saw it on my DVR today. $30 for some Jennifer Aniston/Adam Sandler formula-com that came out around Super Bowl weekend? hahahahaha.
> 
> I guess I thought they would at least come out of the gate with an 'event' movie of some type.


IMHO, $30 for anything starring Adam Sandler is money wasted..


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

fluffybear said:


> IMHO, $30 for anything starring Adam Sandler is money wasted..


Not to mention 7,200 seconds of your life gone forever unless you take your knitting to the movies with you.


----------



## KK in CT (Jul 13, 2010)

"awblackmon" said:


> I may not have lossless sound, or as great an image as at the theater, but some of the things I have to put up with at the theater that take away from what could be a better experience except for the rudeness of others... Well, perhaps I may consider seeing a new release at home on my 83 inch 7.1 theater. BUT, it will have to be sooner, and a bit cheaper before I do participate in the premier pay per view offering.


Since D* doesn't broadcast lossless sound, you wouldn't be missing out on that by purchasing their PPVs. That's a reason why the PPV is not as good as the blu-ray version (if you can wait a little longer for it). Even so, if they put these movies out when they release in the theaters AND lowered their price significantly, then more customers might bite. Until then you're just buying a PPV at 6X the price because you just can't wait any more than the 60 days you had no problem waiting already.


----------



## Sea bass (Jun 10, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> DIRECTV Hat Off; Personal Opinion Here.
> 
> In my house, it is over a 60% savings.
> 
> ...


Definite saving, similar experience recently. After factoring in tickets, snacks and transportation to and fro it was $60+...I'd rather spend the $$$ and watch at home on my 55"!


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Sea bass said:


> Definite saving, similar experience recently. After factoring in tickets, snacks and transportation to and fro it was $60+...I'd rather spend the $$$ and watch at home on my 55"!


But......

Why not wait a bit longer, save even more, and get a better experience (Blu Ray PQ and AQ)??

Even from a cost perspective, it makes no sense.


----------



## Go Beavs (Nov 18, 2008)

spartanstew said:


> But......
> 
> Why not wait a bit longer, save even more, and get a better experience (Blu Ray PQ and AQ)??
> 
> Even from a cost perspective, it makes no sense.


I completely agree. Patience is a virtue here. You can wait a little longer, get a better viewing experience, and own the movie for the same or less.

But I do have to say the debate in this thread is a little silly. Who really cares if DIRECTV is trying to charge $30 for these movies... If you don't like it, don't rent it. It's pretty simple. The market will dictate if this is a worthy avenue; it will either work or not and DIRECTV will either keep it at $30 or change the price based on the demand for the product.

There's really no need to get worked up over this IMHO.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> But......
> 
> Why not wait a bit longer, save even more, and get a better experience (Blu Ray PQ and AQ)??
> 
> Even from a cost perspective, it makes no sense.


If you wait long enough you can most likely get a hard copy for $5-10.

It's simply a matter of when you want it and what are you will to pay for the convenience of having it at that time.


----------



## SPACEMAKER (Dec 11, 2007)

All this whining about how horrible it is to go to a movie but I very rarely have anything but a great time at the theater. No one talks, no kids cry, no phones ring and no one texts.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

I have a friend that goes at 5pm, and buys a ticket at the multiplex for a movie, then when its over, he goes into the next theatre and watches another movie, then goes into another one and watches a third movie. Leaves out about midnight. Multiplex doesnt care, as he buys some of their expensive food. He seems to enjoy it. Goes once or twice a week. No way would he pay $30


----------



## Rob (Apr 23, 2002)

Davenlr said:


> I have a friend that goes at 5pm, and buys a ticket at the multiplex for a movie, then when its over, he goes into the next theatre and watches another movie, then goes into another one and watches a third movie. Leaves out about midnight. Multiplex doesnt care, as he buys some of their expensive food. He seems to enjoy it. Goes once or twice a week. No way would he pay $30


Maybe multiplex's should sell an all-day-ticket good for all the movies. As long as you don't leave the theater and don't bring your own food in. $15 to watch 3 to 5 movies in a day. Might get people into the multiplexes, that don't usually go to more than 1 movie every couple months.

Of course, peak days Friday, Saturday Nights, etc, ,the promotion would not be on.


----------



## KK in CT (Jul 13, 2010)

"Go Beavs" said:


> I completely agree. Patience is a virtue here. You can wait a little longer, get a better viewing experience, and own the movie for the same or less.
> 
> But I do have to say the debate in this thread is a little silly. Who really cares if DIRECTV is trying to charge $30 for these movies... If you don't like it, don't rent it. It's pretty simple. The market will dictate if this is a worthy avenue; it will either work or not and DIRECTV will either keep it at $30 or change the price based on the demand for the product.
> 
> There's really no need to get worked up over this IMHO.


I'm not sure anyone is getting worked up over this.... I for one am kind of fascinated by the fact that some will buy a PPV movie for 6 times what the normal price would be in the near future and justify it to themselves by saying they're saving money. Seems more like a very high premium to pay if you've lost the will to wait any longer...


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

TheRatPatrol said:


> I know many of you don't like him, but I found this to be interesting.
> 
> DIRECTV's $30 VOD: What the Media Isn't Telling You.


Is this *part* true?:

"But what the media isn't telling you in these stories -- in fact, no newspaper or web site has reported this fact until now -- is that DIRECTV's 'Home Premiere' is available to only about six percent of the satcaster's audience. That's right, six percent.

DIRECTV has decided to only offer the Home Premiere films -- the first one is Adam Sandler's Just Go For It -- on its DIRECTV Cinema VOD service, *which requires an HD DVR connected to a Broadband Internet network to order*."

Is DIRECTV really downloading Home Premiere films via the internet connection?


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

I assumed thes Premiere PPVs would be one of the movies pushed to our DVRs from the satellite, but I can't verify that (maybe someone else can).

I definitely wouldn't take Swanni's word for truth.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

Hutchinshouse said:


> Is this *part* true?:
> 
> "But what the media isn't telling you in these stories -- in fact, no newspaper or web site has reported this fact until now -- is that DIRECTV's 'Home Premiere' is available to only about six percent of the satcaster's audience. That's right, six percent.
> 
> ...


From what I can tell, it is not true. I have 2 movies ready to go right now. Cedar Rapids and Just Go With It. Both of these have been PUSHED to my dvr(s). I did not initiate the download. I show no logs of any bandwidth being used to download these via my internet connection.

So, at least in my personal case, swani, as usual, is spouting a bunch of bovine fecal matter. :nono2:


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

I have them on disk as well. They are not pushing those via Internet. Swanni does not understand tech and got confused.


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

RobertE said:


> From what I can tell, it is not true. I have 2 movies ready to go right now. Cedar Rapids and Just Go With It. Both of these have been PUSHED to my dvr(s). I did not initiate the download. I show no logs of any bandwidth being used to download these via my internet connection.
> 
> So, at least in my personal case, swani, as usual, is spouting a bunch of bovine fecal matter. :nono2:


Yeah, that didn't make sense to me. I doubt they'd push via ethernet. Just thought I'd ask.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

Yeah, it wouldn't make sense to me for these to be On Demand PPV. To me the biggest purchasers of these PPVs are probably going to be rural people who don't have access to high speed internet or have to drive a long way to get to a theater/redbox/blockbuster, etc.


----------



## KK in CT (Jul 13, 2010)

"RobertE" said:


> From what I can tell, it is not true. I have 2 movies ready to go right now. Cedar Rapids and Just Go With It. Both of these have been PUSHED to my dvr(s). I did not initiate the download. I show no logs of any bandwidth being used to download these via my internet connection.
> 
> So, at least in my personal case, swani, as usual, is spouting a bunch of bovine fecal matter. :nono2:


Interesting... So where can I find these on my DVR so I can delete them? I would hate for my 2 year old to start playing with the remote and accidentally purchase one of them. Somehow she once managed to record about 8 hours of the information channel. That was funny, but purchasing one of these $30 movies would not be as humorous.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

KK in CT said:


> Interesting... So where can I find these on my DVR so I can delete them? I would hate for my 2 year old to start playing with the remote and accidentally purchase one of them. Somehow she once managed to record about 8 hours of the information channel. That was funny, but purchasing one of these $30 movies would not be as humorous.


You cannot delete them (they are on D*'s portion of the drive.) However, you can reduce your spending limit to not allow purchase of this (or any) ppv.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

Just set a parental code lock, and require it to be input for any PPV purchases. I would assume you already have a parental code lock in place to keep her from seeing some programming anyway.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

fluffybear said:


> While I will agree that paying $30 for a PPV is absurd and I wouldn't do it, I should remind you that some pay as much as $80+ for a PPV event.


I gave up on PPV events after they topped ~$40. Not even worth it. Often you can find live recaps on the internet, or the whole thing is posted on youtube .


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

anleva said:


> But isn't quality then the more important factor than cost or getting it 60 days earlier for the videophile?
> 
> I wouldn't think videophiles, who are obviously very discriminating when it comes to selecting high-end home theater equipment, would choose inferior source material regardless of cost. They have invested a lot to make their home theater an equal to or superior experience to the movie theater. Why would they compromise with lossy audio and lower quality video than what they could have on Blu-Ray. Doesn't make sense to me.


I'd call myself "mid range" in the HT market. Definitely not "hi end". I prefer 1080i/p source material, but at a certain point I say "well, this is good enough unless I'm willing to pay an extra $10 or whatever". I've caught up on a bunch of movies the last few months, and I don't think I've enjoyed any of them enough to justify $6, not to mention $30. Actually, thats not entirely true. The Next Three Days was worth $6.


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

KK in CT said:


> I'm not sure anyone is getting worked up over this.... I for one am kind of fascinated by the fact that some will buy a PPV movie for 6 times what the normal price would be in the near future and justify it to themselves by saying they're saving money. Seems more like a very high premium to pay if you've lost the will to wait any longer...


I find it interesting that you find waiting 60 days to see it from the time it's in the theater to be such a long time, but waiting another 60 days is "the near future".

It's all a matter of perspective, and what one wants to get out of it. You say that you're not getting the same experience by watching a movie at home. I agree - I'm getting a better experience. I, personally, don't see any benefit to seeing a movie at the theater that I can't get at home.

Again, this isn't something I"d do with great regularity, but on the rare occasion that a movie came out and the whole family wanted to see it sooner rather than later, I can see waiting 60 days and paying $30 for the whole lot of us rather than going to the theater. Or, when the kids have friends over, and we have a group of 10 that wants to watch said movie. I can see plenty of scenarios where this _could_ make sense, depending upon ones needs and specific situation.

It's not for everyone - clearly you don't find a use for this. Some of us do. The market will determine whether enough of us see a use for it or not.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Eddie501 said:


> The absurdity of this didn't really hit me until I saw it on my DVR today. $30 for some Jennifer Aniston/Adam Sandler formula-com that came out around Super Bowl weekend? hahahahaha.
> 
> I guess I thought they would at least come out of the gate with an 'event' movie of some type.


I liked Jennifer Aniston on Friends, but her movies are usually pretty much a crap fest. I ended up making it 1hr through Just Go With It and didn't watch the last 30 minutes.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Sea bass said:


> Definite saving, similar experience recently. After factoring in tickets, snacks and transportation to and fro it was $60+...I'd rather spend the $$$ and watch at home on my 55"!


I don't think I've bought snacks at a theater for about 20yrs. I just don't really need to eat when I'm watching a movie. I guess if you are the type that needs snacks, then the $30 PPV is definitely a savings.

Spending $70 to take a family to a 2hr movie seems absurd to me.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

SPACEMAKER said:


> All this whining about how horrible it is to go to a movie but I very rarely have anything but a great time at the theater. No one talks, no kids cry, no phones ring and no one texts.


I suppose that's one advantage of living in Mason, MI. 

I go to the senior matinee here on the West Coast and get the same benefits.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> I have a friend that goes at 5pm, and buys a ticket at the multiplex for a movie, then when its over, he goes into the next theatre and watches another movie, then goes into another one and watches a third movie. Leaves out about midnight. Multiplex doesnt care, as he buys some of their expensive food. He seems to enjoy it. Goes once or twice a week. No way would he pay $30


I have enough trouble finding one movie that I want to see at a multiplex, let alone three. Also, my body is not longer set up for watching six hours of movies in a row.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Davenlr said:


> I have a friend that goes at 5pm, and buys a ticket at the multiplex for a movie, then when its over, he goes into the next theatre and watches another movie, then goes into another one and watches a third movie. Leaves out about midnight. Multiplex doesnt care, as he buys some of their expensive food. He seems to enjoy it. Goes once or twice a week. No way would he pay $30


We did this as teens and in college...Well, correction...We _tried_ do this. Sometimes we were successful, but it's hard not to get caught when one person (me) in the group REALLY sticks out due to his wheelchair. :lol:


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

I'm just sitting on the sidelines being curious as to how the pricepoint holds up.


----------



## KK in CT (Jul 13, 2010)

"Sharkie_Fan" said:


> I find it interesting that you find waiting 60 days to see it from the time it's in the theater to be such a long time, but waiting another 60 days is "the near future".
> 
> It's all a matter of perspective, and what one wants to get out of it. You say that you're not getting the same experience by watching a movie at home. I agree - I'm getting a better experience. I, personally, don't see any benefit to seeing a movie at the theater that I can't get at home.
> 
> ...


I don't find either wait to be that long? I'm against paying a high premium instead of waiting. I almost always just wait for the blu-ray to come out and get it from Netflix. I don't do it for the savings though. The blu-ray quality is superior to D* PPV quality. If you want the best experience at home thats the way to go. There really aren't many movies I feel the need to see in the theater. Maybe one a year. I'm with you that my home theater is a better experience than the movie theater. Maybe it's because I have a backlog of movies in my Netflix queue that I don't feel like a $30 PPV is a good option?


----------



## KK in CT (Jul 13, 2010)

"hdtvfan0001" said:


> I'm just sitting on the sidelines being curious as to how the pricepoint holds up.


Any idea if D* will actually release some figures once their first movie offering has expired? Would be interesting to see. I'm also interested to know if D* has to put up any money to the studios at first, regardless of how many showings they sell, or if they really only pay the studio a portion of each $30 fee they collect.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Sharkie_Fan said:


> I find it interesting that you find waiting 60 days to see it from the time it's in the theater to be such a long time, but waiting another 60 days is "the near future".


The way I work, is that if I don't see it in the theater by the opening Friday, or at the very latest opening Saturday, I'll probably just wait to see it at home unless I'm really pushed. Once a movie is a week or so old, its no longer worth it to see it in the theater IMO. If its like a month or two old, I'll generally flatly refuses to see it in the theater anymore. Its all pyschological .



Sharkie_Fan said:


> It's all a matter of perspective, and what one wants to get out of it. You say that you're not getting the same experience by watching a movie at home. I agree - I'm getting a better experience. I, personally, don't see any benefit to seeing a movie at the theater that I can't get at home.


If you have a projector with a huge screen, I guess so. I have a pretty good sound system and I've sometimes been at the movies where the sound is screwed up and it takes 10 minutes for someone to go complain and for them to fix it, so I'm good with the sound I have at home. I only have a 50" TV at home, so a theater is a bit nicer.



Sharkie_Fan said:


> Again, this isn't something I"d do with great regularity, but on the rare occasion that a movie came out and the whole family wanted to see it sooner rather than later, I can see waiting 60 days and paying $30 for the whole lot of us rather than going to the theater. Or, when the kids have friends over, and we have a group of 10 that wants to watch said movie. I can see plenty of scenarios where this _could_ make sense, depending upon ones needs and specific situation.


Yeah, there are a lot of scenarios I didn't think about that make sense. Generally I consider 60 day old movies "old" and I don't want to waste much money on them, but I realize not all people are that picky .



Sharkie_Fan said:


> It's not for everyone - clearly you don't find a use for this. Some of us do. The market will determine whether enough of us see a use for it or not.


I find a lot of the services on DTV ridiculously overpriced. I dunno, maybe I come off like I'm cheap or something lol, and I'm really not. I spend my money on other things (and sometimes I go overboard). Its rare these days to find a movie I think was "AWESOME" and worth the money. If I'm going to come out of a theater thinking "that movie sucked", thats not going to get me into the theater.

If I'd have spent $30 on "Just Go With It", I probably would be pretty hesistant to pull the trigger again. I saw it for practically free and still thought it sucked.


----------



## Serra (Jan 8, 2011)

MysteryMan said:


> Target audience #1: Familes with small children. Do the math. Gas prices at $4.00 a gallon and rising. Ticket prices at the theater. Food and beverage prices at the theater. Far more economical for them to stay at home and rent the movie for $29.99. Not to mention as I have posted elsewhere it's a lot easier transporting livestock then small children. Target audience #2: Those with the attitude of "having to be the first". Target audience #3: Those who can well afford to spend $29.99 on a PPV.


Yea, $30 seems to be a total suck price, but it is about half of the cost of a movie for me. Plus, when I go to the movies, I normally have dinner afterwards. That puts the cost around $90. At that price $30 does seem like a real deal....

However, I would rather just wait for it to come out on Netflix (release + 60 or whatever)


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

Ok, I gave the $30 rental model a whirl over the weekend and watched Battle: Los Angeles (good movie by the way).

After clicking the rent button, it gave me a pretty heavy handed copy protection notice along with a warning that the recording is watermarked. It also required the use of HDMI (I tried component just to see what happens).

The PQ and sound was fine. It's about what you would expect from satellite. Not as good as Blu-Ray but still pretty darn good. Full 1080p and Dolby Digital.

They really should lower the price to $20. $30 is definitely too steep for most people (even for me but you know I had to try it  ).

Don't know if I will do this again at this price point but it was still fun seeing the movie weeks before the Blu-Ray release.


----------



## KK in CT (Jul 13, 2010)

"Chris Blount" said:


> Ok, I gave the $30 rental model a whirl over the weekend and watched Battle: Los Angeles (good movie by the way).
> 
> After clicking the rent button, it gave me a pretty heavy handed copy protection notice along with a warning that the recording is watermarked. It also required the use of HDMI (I tried component just to see what happens).
> 
> ...


Interesting. I just checked and that movie is scheduled to be released on Blu-ray on June 14th. I didn't think they were offering movies at that price point within 3 weeks of their release on disc?


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Chris Blount said:


> a warning that the recording is watermarked.


That is very interesting to me. I wonder if the DVR is generating a watermark that would allow the recording to be traced back to you, or if it's just a general watermark that shows it came from DirecTV's Home Premiere service.


----------



## lacubs (Sep 12, 2010)

Chris Blount said:


> Ok, I gave the $30 rental model a whirl over the weekend and watched Battle: Los Angeles (good movie by the way).
> 
> After clicking the rent button, it gave me a pretty heavy handed copy protection notice along with a warning that the recording is watermarked. It also required the use of HDMI (I tried component just to see what happens).
> 
> ...


Battle: Los Angeles is already on Netflix


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

lacubs said:


> Battle: Los Angeles is already on Netflix


No it's not.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

lacubs said:


> Battle: Los Angeles is already on Netflix


Looks like you can queue it on Netflix but can't watch until July.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Chris Blount said:


> Ok, I gave the $30 rental model a whirl over the weekend and watched Battle: Los Angeles (good movie by the way).
> 
> After clicking the rent button, it gave me a pretty heavy handed copy protection notice along with a warning that the recording is watermarked. It also required the use of HDMI (I tried component just to see what happens).
> 
> ...


I agree that the price point seems wrong. Either much sooner after release in theatres for $30 or $10-$20 for a 2 month wait. Feels like the concept is good, just needs tweaking on the pricing and timing. 

And yes, it is a good movie. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Jeremy W said:


> That is very interesting to me. I wonder if the DVR is generating a watermark that would allow the recording to be traced back to you, or if it's just a general watermark that shows it came from DirecTV's Home Premiere service.


Without answering directly, I can suggest don't try selling copies... 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Without answering directly, I can suggest don't try selling copies...


I see.  Considering the horsepower in the DVRs, it certainly can't be anything too complex. I imagine it's a very small overlay of some sort, although I'm sure I'll never get confirmation.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

Copied over from the WSJ rumor thread

Here is how I would price it.

0-14* days theater only
14*-30 days out $30 with a $5-10 rebate/coupon off the blu-ray release.
30-60 days out $20 with a $5-10 rebate/coupon off the blu-ray release.
60-120 days out $10 or not available until DVD/Blu-ray/general PPV release.

I can see myself doing 1 in the 14-30 day window every other month or so. There have been a fair amount of movies that I would like to see, but after dragging myself home after a day of work, I just don't have the desire to drive to theater, wait for it to start, etc. 

Just being able to pause a movie during one of the bladder buster movies would be worth a few bucks as well. 

Theater exclusivity could be extended on attendance numbers. Blockbusters would get to stay longer, duds, well you know. :grin:


----------



## lacubs (Sep 12, 2010)

Jeremy W said:


> No it's not.


i was think of Battle of Los Angeles


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

RobertE said:


> Just being able to pause a movie during one of the bladder buster movies would be worth a few bucks as well.


Have you tried this: http://runpee.com/

They also have an app for iPhone and Android phones that will vibrate at the prescribed time.


----------

