Comcast Wants To Smash Theatrical Window Once and For All
Filed under: Distribution, Home Entertainment
In the future we will all be lazy, immobile slobs. And the movie theater industry will die because of us. As we continue to have more and more options for home entertainment, and less tolerance for the nuisances of social experiences, this future could be a certainty. Executives at Comcast, the nation's largest cable television company, seem to want us to go in that direction more than anyone. A longtime supporter of day-and-date releases -- its deal with IFC Films is actually quite good for independent film distribution -- and a recent tester of another video-on-demand download service, Comcast would apparently be fine with us never going to the cinema or video store again. No, not even for the summer blockbusters. Speaking at an annual cable trade show in Vegas, the company's COO, Steve Burke, proposed an idea for tentpole movies like Spider-Man 3 to be made available through a pay-per-view service during their opening week. The price would, of course, be extremely high: anywhere between $30 and $50 (still cheaper than many PPV sporting events).
The scary thing is that, according to Burke, a number of studios are interested in the proposal. Yeah, obviously they are. The high-priced option should barely affect the box office numbers, because tentpoles are typically accepted by audiences as movies that need to be seen in a theater. If anything, the service will likely add more money into Hollywood's pockets, as many of the people who are so lazy or bothered that they can't make it to one of Spider-Man 3's 4000 screens will be happy to fork over the fee. Plus, for every person who would have gone to the theater, but instead stays home to watch the movie on their television, the studio gets a percentage of $30-$50 rather than a percentage of $6-$13. Sounds good. Just imagine if half of those who saw Spider-Man 3 over the weekend paid about 5-times as much to see it. Surely the theater owners will have a lot to say about this idea, but as usual, they unfortunately won't have any good solutions to competing with such a plan. All they can hope for is that the majority of moviegoers prefer their blockbusters on a big screen.
Tom Cruise and J.J. Abrams Reunite for 'Mission Impossible 4'
'Big Top Pee-Wee': The Original Benicio Del Toro Wolfman
Spin-ematical: New on DVD and Blu-ray for 2/9
Watch This: Brilliant Oscar-Nominated Short 'Logorama'
Chris Nolan to Lead 'Superman' Reboot!?
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
5-08-2007 @ 1:55PM
Hoover said...
I see one flaw with this: $10 gets a ticket for one person, but $30 gets a television for any number of people.
I saw Spider-Man 3 with 6 people. We gladly would have pooled together $30, picked the person with the biggest TV, and invited several others.
I like the idea. The theatre experience has become miserable the last few years. I remember when it was part of the fun of seeing a movie. Now it's just something you endure for the few movies that you can't wait for on DVD.
Why endure cellphones, loud misanthropes, and amorous high schoolers when you could fork over $50 and tell your buddies to bring over some Rolling Rock?
Reply
5-08-2007 @ 2:01PM
Jette said...
One thing to consider, though: House parties. If it cost, say, $50 for Spider-Man 3, and a dozen of my friends all decided to congregate at whoever's house had the biggest-screen TV, it would cost us each $4-ish to see the movie, instead of paying $8-10 each at the theater. But that's assuming that all 12 of us would actually pay to see the movie in a theater.
On the other hand, I could see PPV working very well for second or third viewings by fans who saw the movie the first time in a theater on opening weekend.
Comcast just bought Fandango, which sold a whole lot of tickets for Spider-Man 3 last week -- by encouraging theatergoers to watch a tentpole movie on PPV, wouldn't they lose money from advance ticket sales?
Reply
5-08-2007 @ 2:12PM
Joby said...
Man I'd love to see something like this rolled out in the UK.. Having a 16 month old child, and parents who live a way a way, it's impossible to get to the cinema.
I'd gladly pay our cinema entry fee's to watch the movie over PPV.
Reply
5-09-2007 @ 9:16AM
Michael said...
I completely agree with the watch party idea although the average family of four will also benefit from this. A trip to the local cinema usually sets me back anywhere from $25 to $35 anyway - and that's if I don't go to the Alamo Draft House and have pizza and a pitcher! There are definitely films I would rather stay at home and sacrifice the cinema experience simply because of the crowds. My home theater (while not the same as seeing it in a real theater) is still better than most of the theatrical experiences I would have here in Austin and I don't have to fight the noise, crowds or overpriced refreshments. As put off as I was seeing that $30-$50 pricing, it's actually beginning to look a lot more favorable the more I think about it. Now, throw in a 1080p HD broadcast and you would seriously have some competition for the theaters!
http://www.myspace.com/scoobarama
Reply