quote:

---

Exclusive: DirecTV will launch premium VOD service Home Premiere next week to coincide with the Easter and spring break holidays.
Despite threats from theater owners, satcaster has closed in on a list of films to launch from Warner Bros., Sony, Universal and Fox when video-on-demand venture is formally announced early next week.Comedies, including Sony's Adam Sandler laffer "Just Go With It," Fox Searchlight's "Cedar Rapids" and Warner Bros.' "Hall Pass" are the first to bow, along with U's thriller "The Adjustment Bureau."

Home Premiere will offer titles 60 days after they've bowed in theaters -- that's about a month before films typically become available on DVD, Blu-ray and day-and-date on traditional VOD. The pics will rent for $30 for 48 hours.

DirecTV and studios declined to comment on the launch plan.

Comcast and other cablers are expected to offer premium VOD options in certain cities, while DirecTV tests the waters with an exclusive nationwide rollout.

The introduction of premium VOD is clearly timed to the Easter holiday next weekend and spring break vacations when families are gathered.

The $30 price point has long been considered one that may appeal not necessarily to individuals but to groups that can't make it to a theater, hold viewing parties or are seeking to save on concessions.

After seeing a 21% uptick last year, studios have been eager to figure out new ways to grow the VOD rental biz, including more day-and-date releases with disc bows.

Before that, most films became available on VOD 45 days after a DVD hit store shelves. The final plans for the introduction of VOD are being made on the eve of an April 15 deadline exhib chain Regal Entertainment and Cinemark Holdings, the nation's No. 1 and No. 3 exhibitors, imposed on studios to provide a list of upcoming films that would be earmarked for premium VOD so that theaters could consider pulling trailers and other marketing materials.

The chains, along with AMC Entertainment, don't want to be used to promote films that will eventually be available at an earlier date to consumers who may opt to wait and watch a film at home rather than make a trip to the local megaplex.

On Thursday, the National Assn. of Theater Owners distanced itself from some exhibitors' threatened boycotts of films offered on premium VOD.

The org "does not and could not encourage its members to engage in any boycotts of any movies distributed by any company," the NATO statement said.

NATO, the world's largest exhibition trade organization with more than 30,000 screens in the U.S. alone repped by its members, responded to reports that the org sanctioned exhibs dropping WB's "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2" from their lineup on July 15, saying, "NATO cannot and will not make those decisions for (its members)."

In a statement released on June 16, 2010, NATO prexy-CEO John Fithian had said, "Individual theater companies must and will make decisions about release window changes in their own company's interest." The org said its position has not changed.

Contact Andrew Stewart at andrew.stewart@variety.com

---

quote:

---

TVPredictions.com
DIRECTV Questions $30 VOD Plan; Surprised?
By Swanni

Washington, D.C. (April 21, 2011) -- DIRECTV today is scheduled to launch a VOD service that will charge $29.95 per viewing of movies made available 60 days after their theatrical release.

And the satcaster is already questioning whether it will work.

Derek Chang, a DIRECTV executive vice president, said yesterday that the satcaster may lower the $30 price -- and offer movies sooner than 60 days after their theatrical release if buy rates are low.

“We’re testing a price point and testing a window in the early days of this product, and we’ll see how it takes,” Chang, DIRECTV's's chief of content strategy and development, told Bloomberg News. "Down the road, if the window gets tweaked and changed, I think we all cross that bridge when we get to it.”
DIRECTV is scheduled to launch the 'Premium VOD' service today with the Adam Sandler comedy, Just Go With it, which was released in theaters on Feb. 11.

The 'Premium VOD' concept has been floated for months as studios explore ways to generate new revenue to counter declining sales of DVDs. But the idea is controversial because of its price -- and because movie theater owners say it could hurt their attendance if people know they can watch a movie at home just 60 days after its theatrical release. Normally, studios wait at least three months before offering theatrical films to home video.

However, rather than seek to appease theater owners, Chang's comments will likely heighten concerns that the studios and their TV provider partners are ultimately aiming to bypass the theater.

Chang told Bloomberg that theater owners are overreacting because films rarely perform well in theaters 60 days after their initial release. However, even if that's true, if DIRECTV decides to show films 30-45 days after the initial release, theater owners would have more reason to worry, particularly if DIRECTV lowered the $30 price.


Swanni Sez:
Commentary:
Okay, I said it last week. The studios' initial plan for 'Premium VOD' is just a teaser, purposely designed to generate a low buy rate to diminish concerns that it will hurt movie theater attendance. Seriously, $30 to watch a movie at home? Who is going to do that? No one -- and the studios and DIRECTV know it.

Chang's comments reveal that's there a more realistic plan in place behind the scenes. The studios eventually want to release box office hits on VOD on the same day they are available in the theater. They have calculated that, in the long run, this will generate more revenue than the current distribution model.

But to get to that point, they will have to work the program in slowly, to downplay media coverage of theater owner protests. Over the course of time, it won't seem like a big deal that a new film is released to VOD 30 days after its theatrical release. And then a bit later, it won't seem like a big deal when it's released on the same day of the theatrical debut.

And it won't seem like a big deal when the price of the VOD offering is just a bit higher than the theater price.

Theater owners, you have a right to be concerned. The studios are gunning for you and they are happy to take their time to get you.

---

 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-21-2011, 12:31 PM:
 
And the less theaters that are running 35mm prints, the better for the studios. They just assume all of those small theaters that don't bring in a ton of money go away. It is not worth their effort when they can simply service those small towns via VOD. People in small towns won't have any problem waiting a week or two when they weasel the delay time down. Plus in the end, the studios will make MORE MONEY by cutting out the middle man.

The ONLY way to stop it is if the big 5 all get together and flat out refuse to play movies that will be released via VOD and actually stick with it. Threats won't work. They must actually NOT PLAY THE MOVIE. If they don't, it is doomsday for the entire cinema exhibition industry.

The problem here is that in the end, the big chains will cave as the studios call their bluff.

As far as NATO's advice to not make a stink about this to the studios...
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-21-2011, 01:13 PM:
 
I agree. Fithian should have stormed the stage during Warner Bros. presentation at CinemaCon and said, "What the fuck is this, guys?" There should have been a lot of shouting at CinemaCon and there was none. I personally was quite surprised about that.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-21-2011, 01:33 PM:
 
NATO apparently doesn't realize if the theaters disappear they disappear too.

I keep hearing how the movie studios are pushing this VOD thing to make up for declining DVD sales.

News flash: it is 100% the fault of the movie studios on why DVD sales have declined and continue to do so. They made it happen. All of the choices made in content, pricing, distribution and release timing were their own.

The Hollywood studios played along and let Redbox and Netflix ruin much of the video rental industry. They let stores like Wal-Mart reduce the profit window on disc sales down to a limited time. Their own greedy attempts at forcing viewers to buy rather than rent only made the problem worse. I don't rent movies on Blu-ray nearly as often as I used to since more and more are these "rental" specific discs with no features, forced trailers/commercials and not even any f**king chapter stops. Might as well wait for the movie to just show up on HBO. I'm buying movies on Blu-ray less often as well, part of that goes to not being able to test drive the full retail disc via video store rental. By the time the movie has showed up on HBO it's so old and played so often on cable I have little desire to buy the damned thing, even when the Blu-ray is priced at $10 or less! And this doesn't even get into the generally shitty, derivative quality of so many movies. Way to go Hollywood!


Studios did all of those things by thinking only of the short term fast buck. Short term gain, long term loss.

Basically the track record for Hollywood studios "creating more revenue" is not really very good. Extreme ticket price inflation through digital 3D and fake IMAX is padding any gains made lately. Reflecting on the long series of bad decisions how do these guys rationalize this VOD thing will be a good decision? What is their proof this plan will actually work?

It has to inspire laughter when studios think they're going to create more revenue with this plan. Do they think the American public has both unlimited leisure time and unlimited money? Have they considered how leisure time spent gaming, social networking and doing other things have negatively affected the movie industry? Have they considered how moving the movie business to TV only might make matters worse for them? When I'm in a movie theater the movie has my undivided attention. I'm far more likely to get distracted while watching at home, or watch only part of the movie or not even bother at all. I'm not pinned down in one spot at home like I am in the theater.

In the current environment of rising prices for food, fuel and other living expenses watching movies in theaters or at home is seen more and more as a luxury item that can be cut. Americans who have jobs may be working longer hours to make up for those living cost price hikes, leaving less time to watch movies. In past economic downturns the movie business has done well. Somehow I think the current situation is a bit different.

I don't think the studios' plan, particularly the eventual day and date scenario between theatrical and VOD release, is going to create any greater revenue for the movie industry. I think the opposite will happen. With day and date VOD the losses will happen in a terrible way these bean counters can't foresee from being ignorantly out of touch.

The brick and mortar video stores are dying and perhaps beyond being saved. I think Redbox won't survive either in the long run. I don't even know how the company can make a profit now. There is no bringing back the video stores once they disappear. Might as well try opening a video game arcade. That's one revenue source out of the way.

Movie theaters won't survive a day and date release scheme with VOD. Quite a few may fail with a 30 day window. Some will fail in a 60 day window (bargain, 2nd run). The theatrical side of the movie industry generates a lot of revenue, at least several billion dollars per year in the US alone. In 2010 more than $2 billion in sales came from tickets for 3D movies. Without the movie theaters much of that revenue will be GONE. Movie studios won't make up that lost revenue by doing more to hype VOD, movie streaming and disc sales.

Satellite providers like DirecTV and Dish Network have only so much bandwidth capacity on their "birds" in orbit. That means only so many movies can be pushed via their service.

ISPs like AT&T are rolling out bandwidth caps and overage fees in May that will make the practice of streaming movies considerably less appealing. If I had to watch a SD quality version of a movie just to stay safely under the bandwidth cap I wouldn't bother watching at all.

It may not apply to DVD so much, but many customers who buy movies on Blu-ray have already seen the movie in the theater. Without theaters there will be no more of those double dip sales. I don't "blind buy" many movies on Blu-ray at all. For the shelf space they consume the movies must be ones I know I'm going to watch at least several times or more. I might buy a game for my PS3 or some music "from the cloud," but I'm not going to do that with movies, particularly when the quality is inferior to Blu-ray.

In the end, the movie studios will be stuck marketing their wares to cable TV networks and PPV services from various cable/satellite providers. Retail disc-based sales will fall into the toilet without the marketing punch the theatrical release provides. The whole thing is like a series of dominoes. As they topple one by one (video stores, DVD sales, movies theaters, etc.) the movie studios won't realize until it is too late that they themselves will be the last domino to fall.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-21-2011, 03:11 PM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

NATO apparently doesn't realize if the theaters disappear they disappear too.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

NATO apparently doesn't realize if the theaters disappear they disappear too.

---

quote:

---

Maybe NATO's leaders aren't like that,

---

quote: Jonathan M. Crist

---

All of the studio executives with whom I’ve discussed this issue...

---

quote:

---

more than 97 percent of a film.s theatrical gross is earned within the first eight weeks of release

---

quote: Jonathan M. Crist

---

only 3 percent of the audience watches a film after it has been in theaters for eight weeks

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

The danger is that a lot of people just don't care where they see a movie. They just want to see it.

---

It is truly unfortunate that so many cinema owners have this poor attitude.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-23-2011, 05:25 PM:
 
This is going to be hotel room VOD all over again. It would be SO EASY for someone to pirate that movie it isn't even funny. I'll bet within a couple of days of the VOD release it will be all over the torrent sites. (There has to be someone on these boards up on how to find torrents...check for me please and let us know.)
 

---

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 04-24-2011, 07:16 AM:
 
Brad, I had a quick look online and 'Just Go With It' is already available as a torrent. The copy is what is called an 'R5' so I guess about screener DVD quality, have never downloaded one myself. Not sure I would pay $30 just to see that film in HD.

My personal worry is that something comes on premium VOD before we release it theatrically in the UK, it inevitably gets pirated at HD quality, and we lose out at the box office.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-24-2011, 12:07 PM:
 
That's been my big complaint about the 60 day window. Other theatrical release platforms are going to be severely hurt by it. Bargain/2nd run in North America and international release would lose customers.

My guess is the studio bean counters and their bean counters bosses in the parent global media companies want a movie production to pay for its production costs as fast as possible. Narrowing release windows or even eliminating time differences between them are a big part of the game. Movie studios borrow a lot of money to fund various productions and pay interest on those loans until the loans are paid back in full. They want to pay as little interest as possible. They would probably like the same advertising campaign to cover both theatrical and home video release rather than having to do two separate advertising blasts for theatrical release and then home video 3 or 4 months later.

The time is long gone where a movie could be released in theaters, go through various theatrical release platforms and still have several months or more pass before it appeared on video. Back then it could take a movie as long as a year or more to go from theatrical release to home video. Now the 1 year time span can see a movie do its theatrical run, video release, appearance on premium cable and then broadcast or commercial cable TV.
 

---

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 04-25-2011, 11:19 AM:
 
From his comments, I would imagine Kenneth Ziffren would think that putting a Redbox outside a movie theater would be a really good idea.

I've long held the belief that far too many movie theaters have relied on their exclusivity as a crutch. Many theaters don't deserve the opportunity they are being given by the studios, and for a larger number of reasons, studios are getting more aggressive about taking that opportunity away. This is something I've been predicting for years, even though it could mean the decline of my own publication that I have dedicated a large portion of my life to.

What Ziffren doesn't seem to understand is that the tightening of the home video release window affects the perception in people's minds about how long they'll have to wait to see the movie if they don't go to a theater to see it.

When a person sees a TV commercial for Fast Five, I think they make a value judgement about whether the movie is worth seeing in the theater, or waiting until it's available for home viewing. Using the 100-day window, the movie won't be in stores until the beginning of August, and might not be available on Redbox or Netflix until the beginning of September (I think people will use the earlier date in their heads, and when it shows up in the Best Buy ad, they think about whether it's worth buying, or putting it on their Netflix queue and waiting another four weeks).

What kind of assistance is NATO providing its members, if anything? Are they producing information about how to attract more people, how to improve the moviegoing experience, and distributing information about approaches that have and haven't worked for other theaters? Are they doing anything beyond posturing in a few press releases and quotes in the media?

If they aren't, that's a shame. Lacking that, hopefully there can be some grassroots efforts on the part of theaters in forums like this (however, if there are, I haven't seen many to date).
 

---

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 04-25-2011, 12:30 PM:
 

quote: Jonathan M. Crist

---

As previously speculated, DirecTV will charge a household $29.99 to view a film in HD and turn over 80 percent of that “box office” to the studio. Statistics compiled by nonpartisan research firms reveal that more than 97 percent of a film’s theatrical gross is earned within the first eight weeks of release; in fact, check the April 1-3 box-office chart, and you’ll find that none of the films earning more than $1 million has lasted 56 days. Thus, the exercise should have only a limited impact on a film’s performance in theaters.

---

quote:

---

DirecTV CEO Says $30 Price for Premium Films Is ‘Too High’
By Alex Sherman - Sep 22, 2011

DirecTV (DTV) Chief Executive Officer Michael White said demand for films offered for rental just eight weeks after their theatrical release has been “small” because the price of $29.99 per movie is “awfully high.”

DirecTV, the largest U.S. satellite-TV provider, began offering some Hollywood studio films on demand in April for $29.99 after 60 days. Historically, pay-TV providers had waited 90 to 120 days before airing movies on television.

The service is part of an attempt by studios to harness pay-TV as they seek new ways to sell movies and counter shrinking DVD sales. Few customers will purchase the premium rentals unless the quality of the movies improves and the price comes down, White said in an interview.

“They’re priced too high for consumers,” White said. “We didn’t choose that price, but that’s where the studios forced us to be.”

DirecTV Executive Vice President Derek Chang said in April the El Segundo, California-based company would consider renegotiating with studios on price if customers didn’t embrace the service. The early offerings, which have included “Just Go With It” and “The Adjustment Bureau,” have sparked criticism from theater owners, who are concerned they will lose revenue to home-viewers.

Sony Corp. (6758), Universal Pictures, Warner Bros. and Twentieth Century Fox have agreed to release certain films in the early window. Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. will offer the Taylor Lautner film “Abduction” on pay TV three months after its release for $6.99.

DirecTV hasn’t released sales figures for the $29.99 titles. Comcast Corp. (CMCSA) and Dish Network Corp. (DISH) have also said they’ve negotiated with studios for on-demand movies with a shortened window.

DirecTV fell 59 cents, or 1.4 percent, to $41.02 at 4 p.m. New York time on the Nasdaq Stock Market. The shares have risen 2.7 percent this year.

---

quote:

---

...because films rarely perform well in theaters 60 days after their initial release.

---

When I started working in theatres in 1996, it was common for a movie in my small town to still be playing strong 4-5 weeks after the initial release, and the bigger movies could often go 8+ weeks with no problem. Now we are lucky to get 3 weeks out of most tent poles and typically only have 4-5 films a year that warrant 5 weeks.

What's changed in that time? Primarily the window between theatrical release and home video. In 1996 it was the norm for movies to 6+ months between theatrical and VHS release. Now it averages about 3 months. I see a connection there.

I also feel like there is far more emphasis placed on the opening day/weekend than there was 15 years ago. Maybe this can be partially attributed to the growth of the Internet and the need to have everything instantly. This year Harry Potter DH2 set a new single day/weekend mark of $91 million/$169 million respectively.

And I have a feeling that Twilight Breaking Dawn will take this to a whole new level of absurdity on November 18. Given the rapid expansion of digital in the last 6 months, far more theatres will have the ability to show Breaking Dawn on multiple screens than ever before. For this reason, I have a feeling the opening day for Breaking Dawn might reach as high as $120 million with as much as $60-$70 million from midnight showings.

Granted, Twilight is not the typical fan boy release. The absolute need to see the film the first possible moment is like nothing I have ever seen. I'm sure others are already starting to be pestered about when tickets will go on sale. While it won't hurt the fans to wait another month to buy their tickets, at least theatres can take advantage of that demand to help their cash flow situation in October.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 10-05-2011, 10:55 PM:
 
Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water . . . See what happens now that Comcast owns Universal

Tower Heist on VOD Three Weeks After Theatre Debut

In an audacious move that could shake up the way Hollywood has done business for decades, Universal Pictures plans to make its upcoming Eddie Murphy action comedy film "Tower Heist" available through video-on-demand just three weeks after it debuts in theaters Nov. 4.

But that convenience will come with a hefty asking price -- $59.99 -- that many cash-strapped consumers will balk at in the current economic slump.

The proposed test, which will be offered in Atlanta and Portland, Ore., to approximately 500,000 digital cable subscribers of Universal’s corporate parent, Comcast Corp., marks the first time a major studio movie will be available to watch in-home while still playing in thousands of theaters.

A person with knowledge of the "Tower Heist" release strategy who was not authorized to discuss it publicly confirmed the details for The Times. Spokeswomen for Universal and Comcast declined to comment.

If enough people take advantage of Universal's offer without a significant drop in box-office receipts, other studios could adopt similar strategies in the future. Such a development would end the industry's long tradition of imposing a delay of several months between when a movie is shown in theaters and when it is accessible on television screens.

Studios are looking to such experiments as a way to shift their age-old business models and generate additional revenue that can help compensate for plunging DVD sales that have been undermining movie economics over the last several years.

Universal's move is likely to infuriate theater owners, some of whom were informed of the plan this week after more than a year of discussions on the topic. The cinema industry has reacted angrily to any attempt by studios to shrink the traditional "window" of 90 days between the time a movie debuts in theaters and when it's available for home view.
Executives at the nation’s three largest theater chains -- AMC Entertainment, Regal Entertainment and Cinemark -- were outraged
in the spring when four studios including Universal worked with satellite television distributor DirecTV on a test that made certain movies available for video-on-demand 60 days after they premiered in theaters for $29.99.

Spokespeople for the three companies did not return calls or declined to comment.

Many studio executives considered that test a bust because minimal promotion and relatively unpopular films such as "Sucker Punch" and "Paul" created a tepid consumer response and little data to evaluate.

That probably won't be the case with "Tower Heist," which also stars Ben Stiller and Matthew Broderick and is one of the highest profile releases of the fall. With the picture still in theaters it will benefit from word-of-mouth if it's a hit, along with a theatrical marketing campaign still fresh in the public's mind that will be supplemented with advertising in the test cities to promote the VOD test.

While the test probably won't be broadly popular, Universal is betting it will appeal to certain families and groups of friends who are eager to see "Tower Heist" but don't want to drive to a theater and pay for multiple tickets along with popcorn and drinks.

That's precisely what theater operators fear, at a time when attendance is already down. They have argued that so-called "premium video-on-demand" will shift consumer behavior, encouraging people to wait to watch a movie at home rather than seeing it in theaters a few weeks earlier.

Universal is assuring exhibitors that they will be compensated if "Tower Heist" ticket sales are lower than expected during the premium VOD test. Whether studio and exhibition executives can agree on what box office grosses would have been, however, remains to be seen.

If cinema owners are angry enough about the strategy they could threaten to not play "Tower Heist" in the two test markets when they debut on VOD or, potentially, at all. Such a response, if shared by most exhibitors, could even force Universal to alter or cancel its plan.

The studios seem committed to establishing a premium VOD business, however, and will probably launch similar offerings down the line with or without theaters' cooperation.

Universal and Comcast selected Atlanta and Portland for the test because they were seeking midsize markets that have a certain number of digital cable subscribers and moviegoing patterns similar to other cities where premium VOD won't be available. The companies believe that will make it easier to compare the results.

The "Tower Heist" plan would mark the most significant collaboration to date between Universal and its corporate parent since Comcast acquired media conglomerate NBCUniversal early this year. It represents a bold but risky step by Universal Pictures Chairman Adam Fogelson, NBCUniversal Chief Executive Steve Burke and Comcast Chief Executive Brian Roberts as they position their company on the leading edge of one of the most controversial issues in the entertainment business.

To fend off potential complaints that it is favoring its owner, Universal will offer other cable and Internet companies the chance to release "Tower Heist" via video-on-demand at the same time and on the same terms as Comcast.
 

---

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 10-06-2011, 09:07 PM:
 
The game of creep mouse is apparently back on. Seems like the studios are hell-bent to ultimately kill the exhibition end of the business.

Another little test- short window/high price. What will the next test be?
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 10-07-2011, 10:23 PM:
 
in regard to 'Tower Heist' I'm hearing that Cinemark is considering boycotting/not booking it for their chain.

from EW.com

It has recently been announced that Universal Pictures plans to offer the Eddie Murphy comedy Tower Heist to digital cable subscribers in the Atlanta, Georgia and Portland, Oregon markets three weeks after the film opens in theatres. Over the past year Cinemark has continually voiced its concern to Universal and other studios regarding any early-to-the-home “premium video-on-demand” during the theatrical release period, which averages just over four months. Movies are designed to be exhibited in today’s state of the art digital theatres which enhances awareness of the film and maximizes downstream distribution. Many artists and business professionals in our industry have expressed similar concerns about early-to-the-home premium video-on-demand offerings as evidenced by the Open Letter From The Creative Community On Protecting The Movie-Going Experience released earlier this year.
Cinemark recognizes and acknowledges the changing technological landscape and related challenges that Universal and the other studios are facing in the in-home window. Keeping in mind the best interests of the creative community, the studios, exhibition and the consumer, we have welcomed direct discussions between Cinemark and each of the major and independent studios, including Universal, regarding distribution concerns. Cinemark has urged Universal Pictures to reconsider its market test of this product. If Universal Pictures moves forward with its Tower Heist premium video-on-demand offering, as announced, Cinemark has determined, in its best business interests, that it will decline to exhibit this film in its theatres.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 10-08-2011, 11:58 PM:
 
Well, we've always knew what kind of w----s the studios were, but now all we need to do is settle on a price. (Oblique reference to a Bernard Shaw quote.) Louis
 

---

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 10-09-2011, 01:38 AM:
 
Ironically, Tower Heist director Brett Ratner was one of the directors who signed an open letter to the studios earlier this year coming out against early VOD releases. Despite his production company being a part of the team who helped get the movie made, Ratner claims he was not consulted about this move.
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 10-09-2011, 10:16 AM:
 
The $30 experiment failed, so now they are trying $60? I don't know anyone who will pay that. The studios are scared to death of losing control of the release process. They don't want to have happen to movies what has happened to the music business with iTunes. I hope this experiment fails and fails quickly.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-09-2011, 12:05 PM:
 
This is just a game. They know this is going to fail. The price is so high that hardly anybody will buy it, and the boxoffice will still be good because the movie looks like a hit. So the studio will just use this failed experiment as "proof" that PVOD doesn't hurt the boxoffice, and that will be their excuse to movie PVOD closer to the release date and/or lower the price.

Once they reach a combination that DOES hurt the boxoffice, then the whole movie industry will be screwed. It's not just the exhibition industry; everyone will make far less money, especially the studios.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-09-2011, 01:11 PM:
 
Yup.
 

---

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 10-10-2011, 09:54 PM:
 
First they came for the carbon arcs, and I did not speak out—
because I did not use carbon arcs;
Then they came for the reel to reel projectors, and I did not speak out—
because I did not use reel to reel projectors;
Then they came for the union projectionists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a union projectionist;
Then they came for the 35mm film, and I did not speak out—
because we were already transitioning to digital projectors
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak out for me & I was out of a job...
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-10-2011, 10:19 PM:
 
Well, at least you can have another career as a poet.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-11-2011, 11:03 AM:
 

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

Once they reach a combination that DOES hurt the boxoffice, then the whole movie industry will be screwed. It's not just the exhibition industry; everyone will make far less money, especially the studios.

---

This is something the movie studios fail to realize. Without commercial movie theaters the major movie distributors such as Paramount, Columbia, etc. would be nothing more than TV networks without a TV channel. Basically there would be no reason for those major movie studios to even exist. Plenty of TV networks are already doing the TV job.

Major movie studios would drop to the level of mere production company status since without theaters they would no longer have any need for any sort of booking and distribution apparatus. As production companies they would be horribly bloated and high priced -just asking for some bean counters to come in and fire a hell of a lot of people.

Parent companies such as Viacom aren't going to keep around a superfluous distribution network at a studio like Paramount; Viacom already has the whole TV thing covered. They can put together their own TV movie deals with leaner, meaner (and cheaper) independent production companies.

It's oddly funny in a way how these guys (both the suits in the global media parent companies as well as the people working in the actual studio) are working very hard to put the movie industry out of business.

There's a number of camps who would actually be happy to see the American movie industry screw itself out of business. The more puritanical segments of American society would not be sorry to see the movie industry fail since they find so much of the industry's output morally offensive. Competing movie industries in Europe, Asia, India etc. might possibly go on and perhaps even prosper in the void left by a failed American movie industry. I can't help but wonder if some of those forces are at work to deliberately undermine the American movie industry. Putting commercial cinemas out of business would really do the trick. In terms of worldwide business and global projection of popular culture, America's influence on the rest of the world would be greatly diminished without its movie industry.

IMHO, big chains like Regal, Cinemark, etc. need to start sticking it to Hollywood studios by refusing to play certain movies they release, particularly these VOD scheme releases. The majors in Hollywood are not the only ones producing movies. There are other content sources. It's obvious the movie theaters need to diversify and force Hollywood to earn those theater screen bookings. Right now major Hollywood studios feel they are entitled to those screens and can dictate any terms they like for playing content on them.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 10-11-2011, 09:06 PM:
 
It's over kids. Everybody...out of the pool!
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 10-12-2011, 11:28 AM:
 
But it doesn't have to be. Exhibition has ALWAYS had much more power than they actually ever exhibited (no pun intended). One of the larger chains refusing to play a tentpole release will hurt a studio badly; get two of the three big chains to refuse and that would easily bring a studio to its knees. All of them doing it together and they could demand anything they wanted -- 6 month VOD...8 month to video.

Why haven't they? Greed; it's always been the criminal here, no exhibitor willing to go all the way to the cliff and forego the $$$ of a potential BO hit. Without theatres, all a studio becomes is a producer of Made For TV Movies. And we know how well THEY do. When was the last time any network ran a MFTVM? Oh, OK, I take that back -- Hallmark Family Movie once a year with ratings at the bottom of the Nielsen chart. If that's what they want to become, so be it.

And I totally agree with Bobby that there are segments of the population who have a disdain for Hollywood's output -- you know, those who consider themselves the "moral elite" and who want to keep the rest of us in line -- and with the ebb and flow of politics, they happen to be on the ascension at the moment and so it wouldn't be a big a surprise to find out they were instrumental in expediting Hollywood's decline.
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 10-12-2011, 02:39 PM:
 
The Trades report that Universal Studios abandoned it's controversial plan to release "Tower Heist" on VOD Test Wednesday afternoon.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-12-2011, 02:53 PM:
 
Yep, we got an email from NATO saying that. Don't worry though, they'll figure out some other way to screw us.
 

---

Posted by Jenn Jennings (Member # 6455) on 10-12-2011, 04:56 PM:
 
This is why I started to make a movie about it, but sadly it won't be on film for reasons like this http://www.theasc.com/asc_news/News_Articles/News_374.php

if you want to know more about my project and possibly help here is a link to my campaign:
http://igg.me/p/40793?a=239872&i=shlk
 

---

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 10-13-2011, 12:41 AM:
 
Jen's link to the ASC, yep it broke my heart when I read it yesterday

Birns & Sawyer Camera Auction

ShareThisOctober 11, 2011

Birns & Sawyer, Hollywood’s longest operating Motion Picture Camera Rental facility will auction off its entire 16 and 35mm Film Camera inventory October 19th. Motion Pictures are no longer being captured on film in sufficient numbers (according Birns & Sawyer Owner William Meurer) to warrant keeping any film cameras.

Known by filmmakers for over 50 years, Birns & Sawyer has been at the forefront of Motion Picture Camera Technology since 1954. Life Still Photographer Jack Birns founded the company in 1954 along with fellow War Veteran Cliff Sawyer. The company was instrumental in introducing the German-made Arriflex line of 16 and 35mm cameras that offered more mobility than US-made Mitchell cameras that had become cumbersome and outdated. As motion picture production expanded filmmaking into more and more practical locations, lighter designed Arriflex cameras gained in popularity on films like Easy Rider, Bullitt and many others that rented production cameras and lenses from Birns & Sawyer
 

---