Studios Contemplating Offering $30 Home Rentals for Movies in Theaters
Would you pay $30 to see a film at home three weeks after its release? Variety says that's the current discussion in Hollywood as film studios contemplate more ways to get people back into movies. The issue is a bit more complicated than you would think, as antitrust laws prevent studios from collaborating on one solid deal, which will only mean every movie will depend on its studio. While Fox and Universal's $30 is the most attractive option so far, Warner Bros has suggested a price as high as $50 for home rental! Obviously, there's some out of touch bigwigs in Hollywood.
There's also an issue regarding what exactly a $30 rental would dictate that studios have yet to address. For example, would I be able to pause the film if I have to go to the bathroom? Is the rental a 24 hour period or is it a watch once and done kind of thing? If I haven't seen a film three weeks after it's been in theaters...do I really want to pay $30 to see it?
If you want a system like this to work, you have to offer something better than what's currently available on the market. Right now I can rent a film out on Blu-Ray for $6.00 for 48 hours on my DVR...so why the hell would I pay $30 to see a film that, in my mind, feels just as new as the one that's been out of theaters for months? This is coming from a guy who doesn't have kids though, and if I had kids, I would much sooner pay $30 and have a pizza night at home than spend close to $70 getting everyone tickets and snacks at the theater.
Maybe there's something I'm missing here, what's your take on the situation? Would you pay $30-$50 for a new release to be broadcasted at your house? What would it take to justify that amount?