# Rent Movies: Studios Say Prepare to Wait...



## space86 (May 4, 2007)

> For those who like renting movies, Hollywood may soon have a message: Prepare to wait.
> 
> In an effort to push consumers toward buying more movies, some major film studios are considering a new policy that would block DVDs from being offered for rental until several weeks after going on sale.


http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-dvd23-2009oct23,0,1148449.story

Mod Edit: The amount copied from the LA Times has been reduced to protect their copyright. Check out the rest of the story at the latimes link above. (Tom Robertson)


----------



## space86 (May 4, 2007)

Red Box was great now what?


----------



## dorfd1 (Jul 16, 2008)

space86 said:


> Red Box was great now what?


at least you can still stream the film or order it via ppv.

according the post the studio want to delay the renting of the physical media.


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

If I can wait 6 months from theater to Netflix, I can certainly wait 6 months and 3 or 4 weeks. There is nothing released to DVD that increases my sense of urgency to purchase instead of waiting.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Quite a change from the days where a movie was available for rental for months before the selling price was dropped from $79.95 (in 1980s dollars.)


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Quite a change from the days where a movie was available for rental for months before the selling price was dropped from $79.95 (in 1980s dollars.)


Wow! I forgot about those days. Even the "sale" price was rather inflated.


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Quite a change from the days where a movie was available for rental for months before the selling price was dropped from $79.95 (in 1980s dollars.)


I was thinking the same thing. Either way, I buy movies I want to buy and watch over and over. I would not be more inclined to buy a movie just because it was going to be another month or so before I'd get it from Netflix - it's just gonna take that much longer for it to show up in my Queue, which I'm sure will still be plenty full of other movies.


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

MikeW said:


> If I can wait 6 months from theater to Netflix, I can certainly wait 6 months and 3 or 4 weeks. There is nothing released to DVD that increases my sense of urgency to purchase instead of waiting.


Exactly!


----------



## phat78boy (Sep 12, 2007)

How about offering a legitimate download of the movie a few weeks before the DVD release? When the movie is put on DVD/Blu-ray, its already in digital form so there really isn't any extra work to be done from that aspect. You cut out the delivery/manufacturer middleman and thus save a good chunk of money in the process.

In fact, if you are really scarred about handing out digital copies of your movie (stupid, I know), partner with content providers and use their already established distribution methods, such as On-demand or PPV. You have to split the pie a little, but it cuts the worries about infrastructure or illegal copies.


----------



## space86 (May 4, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Quite a change from the days where a movie was available for rental for months before the selling price was dropped from $79.95 (in 1980s dollars.)


Is it true that when DVD first came out they were over 50 dollars?


----------



## Fontano (Feb 7, 2008)

space86 said:


> Is it true that when DVD first came out they were over 50 dollars?


The original Video Tape rental structure, the movies were priced so high, to encourage rentals.

One of the very first Same Day Purchase/Rent titles was Home Alone.
I remember many people opting to buy the movie for $15 more, then waiting for a copy to be avialble to rent.

DVD's took a LONG time to make it to the rental market.

When some of the very first DVD's were out, they were only available via nich retailers. And yes, they were on par with $30 ish each.

I remember joining SamGoody's reward program, to help get the price down when I was buying the first 6 months worth of titles (during the DiVX days)

I don't remember many reaching $50, but they most certainly are not the sub-$20 that we have today during release week. As at the time I was purchasing all the titles that were being released. It was only about 6 or so every two weeks. And I know was wasn't dropping $300. $100 probably as I had money to burn back then.


----------



## Fontano (Feb 7, 2008)

To add to the point, I have almost stopped purchasing movies, until they are on their second or third editions.

Take Transformers for example. I have the HD-DVD version.
Transformers 2, I am renting it, because they announced Transformers 3.

When that one comes out, I will look for a 3-movie box set on Blu-Ray, unless they announce transformers 4. 

Similar thing with SpiderMan, Shrek, Harry Potter, since I know there are going to be more, I am just watiing for the complete set. Same with many of my favorite TV shows right now. I am just waiting for a complete set (like Simpsons, Law and Order, and a few others)

I got bit with my Stargates, have season 1-8 in the BIG boxes, and 9-10 are only available in slim. They don't offer just the cases for 1-8, so I can replace them. So I haven't purchased 9-10 yet.


----------



## space86 (May 4, 2007)

Fontano said:


> To add to the point, I have almost stopped purchasing movies, until they are on their second or third editions.
> 
> Take Transformers for example. I have the HD-DVD version.
> Transformers 2, I am renting it, because they announced Transformers 3.
> ...


I remember when Stargate SG1 first started it was on Showtime with no commercials.


----------



## redfiver (Nov 18, 2006)

phat78boy said:


> How about offering a legitimate download of the movie a few weeks before the DVD release? When the movie is put on DVD/Blu-ray, its already in digital form so there really isn't any extra work to be done from that aspect. You cut out the delivery/manufacturer middleman and thus save a good chunk of money in the process.
> 
> In fact, if you are really scarred about handing out digital copies of your movie (stupid, I know), partner with content providers and use their already established distribution methods, such as On-demand or PPV. You have to split the pie a little, but it cuts the worries about infrastructure or illegal copies.


Aren't PPV's already available before DVDs? I'd pay for a 'premium' fee to get more movies via Netflix's Instant Watch, and sooner. Not a per movie fee, nor something super expensive, but a reasonable amount to see more movies available via Instant Watch. This would be especially good as the quality of streaming movies get better.


----------



## dorfd1 (Jul 16, 2008)

redfiver said:


> Aren't PPV's already available before DVDs? I'd pay for a 'premium' fee to get more movies via Netflix's Instant Watch, and sooner. Not a per movie fee, nor something super expensive, but a reasonable amount to see more movies available via Instant Watch. This would be especially good as the quality of streaming movies get better.


only in hotel rooms.


----------



## photostudent (Nov 8, 2007)

Well the studio's plan to delay rentals would be a real boost to piracy market. I doubt they have thought of that.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

MikeW said:


> If I can wait 6 months from theater to Netflix, I can certainly wait 6 months and 3 or 4 weeks. There is nothing released to DVD that increases my sense of urgency to purchase instead of waiting.


My thoughts exactly. I haven't been to a theater in close to 10 years, so I'm very accustomed to waiting for DVD's to be available. Another couple of weeks is no big deal, and if it's a movie I'm really dying to see, odds are I'd be purchasing it anyway.


----------



## jeffshoaf (Jun 17, 2006)

Increasing sales is pretty simple - just reduce the price!


----------



## Movieman (May 9, 2009)

Honestly not sure if this would even fly. Blockbuster, Hollywood Video, etc. pay for these rights that almost certainly upfront costs so the studios have more of a guarantee than waiting for the purchase of DVD's. I know when I worked for Blockbuster when I was a kid there was much more of a rush to get the movies rented out rather than the sale of the movies. I guess times may be changing but I think its a mistake with all the technology that is out there right now.


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

I RARELY actually buy a movie. I see little point in shelling out $15-$30 (Even more in some cases) for something I'm going to watch once.


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

phat78boy said:


> How about offering a legitimate download of the movie a few weeks before the DVD release? When the movie is put on DVD/Blu-ray, its already in digital form so there really isn't any extra work to be done from that aspect. You cut out the delivery/manufacturer middleman and thus save a good chunk of money in the process.
> 
> In fact, if you are really scarred about handing out digital copies of your movie (stupid, I know), partner with content providers and use their already established distribution methods, such as On-demand or PPV. You have to split the pie a little, but it cuts the worries about infrastructure or illegal copies.


Are they going to offer it in FULL 1080p with 24 bit, 192 kHz Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio? At 48 Mbit/s? And how long is this going to take to download?


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

photostudent said:


> Well the studio's plan to delay rentals would be a real boost to piracy market. I doubt they have thought of that.


I think this plan shows that they "think" very little and when that does occur it's more of a knee jerk reaction thing. I have a Netflix subscription and very rarely do I add new Hollywood releases to my queue.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

This won't affect us at all. We used to rent VHS movies, but we don't rent DVD/BRD. Like Stuart, I remember when buying a VHS movie could cost $80. My wife loved the movie Edward Scissorhands after we watched the rental, so I went to but it for her, and ended up paying $80 for Blockbuster to order it for me. 

When we switched to DVD, I rented a few movies, but found several problems. First of all, since DVD was new back then, the rental stores didn't have many copies and new releases were almost impossible to get. Another major problem was that the discs would be scratched and dirty and not play well at all. I finally decided I'd rather pay ~$20 to buy the disc with no worries instead of $5 to rent it with these issues. 

Now that new release DVD's often sell for under $15, it's a no-brainer. My DVD/BRD collection has grown to nearly 1,000 movies and I will continue to buy discs until that's no longer an option (and then I will be sad).


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

Fontano said:


> The original Video Tape rental structure, the movies were priced so high, to encourage rentals.


That's not quite the *entire* story.

Hollywood was originally VERY much AGAINST rentals. They priced movies high because they figured that only the rich would have these newfangled video machines. I'm talking 1980 here (when we got our first one - over $1000, wired remote, 12 manual tuners, practically diesel-powered with push-buttons that you had to almost sit on to work, the RCA VDT-650 if memory serves).

Now I can only speak for how things rolled out in our neck of the woods (Southern NH). There was one video store that opened up. Other than some specialty electronics stores (Lechmere, Cuomo's, etc), they were the only place to get VCR-related stuff. Blank tapes were a lot bigger seller.

But we did buy some movies and they cost $80 apiece.

I'd gotten friendly with the owner of "The Video Station" and they looked very carefully at rumblings that Hollywood was going to sue everyone who rented movies to the public. Hollywood's position was that the $80 tape was for non-commercial use. Heck, they didn't want anyone to be able to buy them in the first place but they figured rich people had disposable income and they could get some of that while pricing it out of the hands of the middle class so that they would keep buying movie tickets.

You have to remember what the Hollywood model was back then. In 1977, when Star Wars opened on Memorial Day weekend, it was STILL showing in FIRST RUN theaters until around Thanksgiving! Even in Nashua, we still had a couple of "second run" theaters.

So here we are, 30 years later and Hollywood still doesn't "get it".


----------



## ibglowin (Sep 10, 2002)

This will do nothing but piss people off and make bitorrents more enticing than rentals......


----------



## space86 (May 4, 2007)

New DVD's so you can still rent old movies?


----------



## phat78boy (Sep 12, 2007)

kevinturcotte said:


> Are they going to offer it in FULL 1080p with 24 bit, 192 kHz Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio? At 48 Mbit/s? And how long is this going to take to download?


If they put together a good digital copy, lets say 15GB. However, if they stream it like there is talk of doing over a channel....then it wouldn't matter how big it was.



redfiver said:


> Aren't PPV's already available before DVDs? I'd pay for a 'premium' fee to get more movies via Netflix's Instant Watch, and sooner. Not a per movie fee, nor something super expensive, but a reasonable amount to see more movies available via Instant Watch. This would be especially good as the quality of streaming movies get better.


Actually, most PPV are only available after the DVD has been released for a couple weeks. There are exceptions of course.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

I don't rent and don't buy.
Studios need to pull their heads from their backsides and realize that the technologies they spend millions to fight could be their future, rather than their demise.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

space86 said:


> Is it true that when DVD first came out they were over 50 dollars?


The first handful were $49.99 during test-marketing in Spring 1997, but by 1998, when players ($1000) first hit the CE showrooms, the typical price was $34.99 for new releases and $29.99 for catalog titles. Those prices were common for the first couple of years at retail stores, but by 2000, when players dropped below $300, the prices of the discs started coming down, especially for catalog titles. The death of DIVX (the DRM-heavy "rental" DVD format, not the MPEG4-based video codec) and the beginnings of DVD rentals also helped.


----------



## sorentodd45 (May 12, 2009)

As long as this doesn't affect the premium channel "window", then it doesn't bother me. 90% of my "rental" DVD's are from the local library (which I can borrow for free).


----------



## Getteau (Dec 20, 2007)

Put me in the doesn't affect me either camp. We usually go to the Blockbuster/Hollywood Video 1 or 2 times a year. Even going that seldom, I'll be darned if we can ever take back the movies on time. So a $5 rental always costs me $10 because I'll bring it back late. So more often than not, we just buy stuff from Wal-Mart/Best Buy/Amazon for a little more than what it would have cost me to rent and return late.


----------



## redfiver (Nov 18, 2006)

Getteau said:


> Put me in the doesn't affect me either camp. We usually go to the Blockbuster/Hollywood Video 1 or 2 times a year. Even going that seldom, I'll be darned if we can ever take back the movies on time. So a $5 rental always costs me $10 because I'll bring it back late. So more often than not, we just buy stuff from Wal-Mart/Best Buy/Amazon for a little more than what it would have cost me to rent and return late.


This is why Netflix is so great. Don't have to remember to return anything and less than $10 a month.


----------



## 4HiMarks (Jan 21, 2004)

redfiver said:


> This is why Netflix is so great. Don't have to remember to return anything and less than $10 a month.


Assuming you watch more than one or two movies a month. If it's more like one every 2 or 3 months then $20-30 per movie makes purchasing a very cost effective option. And you never have to return it, ever! But that's only for something we're going to watch over and over, or has a bunch of "extra features" on the disc.

But the truth is, there is so little coming out of Hollywood that is worth paying to watch any more. If they produced a quality product, the market for it would materialize almost by magic. Sales, rentals, fannies in theater seats. All of them would spring spontaneously out of the ground like Spartans sown from dragon's teeth.


----------



## jdh8668 (Nov 7, 2007)

photostudent said:


> Well the studio's plan to delay rentals would be a real boost to piracy market. I doubt they have thought of that.


Especially with torrent sites getting quality copies (not the ones where someone shot the screen with a digital camera, but copies of the soon to be released dvd)out on the net 2 to 3 months before the dvd comes out. Good copies of the new Star Trek movie have been out since late summer.


----------

