$30 for PPV? Sure Hollywood.
Home › Forums › MissingRemote Playground › $30 for PPV? Sure Hollywood.
- This topic has 23 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 2 months ago by George L. Schmauch Jr..
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 28, 2010 at 6:07 pm #25703
TBH I think they are crazy to charge pretty close to what it costs to have the theater experience w/o actually giving you the theater experience. Just another example of how content owners don’t understand the good they are selling.
Unreal.
September 28, 2010 at 6:18 pm #28070id almost pay extra to not have the theater experience!
September 28, 2010 at 6:22 pm #28071Unless you’ve got a serious HT install it would be really hard to match the theater.
September 28, 2010 at 7:25 pm #28072[quote=”DavidStein”]
id almost pay extra to not have the theater experience!
[/quote]LOL! Well, now you can! ;D
September 28, 2010 at 7:27 pm #28073[quote=”babgvant”]
Unless you’ve got a serious HT install it would be really hard to match the theater.
[/quote]I could very easily invite my nieces and/or nephews over to get the talking, phone ringing, glaring phone screen, distracting experience. Oh wait, that’s not what you meant. 😉
September 28, 2010 at 7:36 pm #28074I’d like to have some of whatever they’re smoking.
September 28, 2010 at 7:51 pm #28075I can think of a couple movies that I would have paid $20-30 to watch at home rather than the theater.
September 28, 2010 at 8:03 pm #28076In PPV quality, sometime after they were in theaters but before they make it to disk?
Why not wait a couple more weeks and pick up the BD w/ extras and better PQ/AQ for less $?
September 28, 2010 at 8:21 pm #28077Some people just can’t wait. These movies will only be available via the HDMI port on PPV enabled cable boxes so you can’t just hook up a HD-PVR and copy the movie. You will need an HDfury as well.
September 28, 2010 at 11:35 pm #28078There’s an audience for any product. Just have to wonder if there are enough impatient agoraphobs to make it worth their while.
September 29, 2010 at 12:04 am #28079I don’t watch PPV at today’s prices so I certainly wouldn’t pay extortionist prices to see one. At this rate, Hollywood is going to start charging as much for a movie as professional sports teams charge to watch a live sporting event at a stadium. Did I mention that I no longer pay for tickets to see the Orioles, Capitals, or Ravens unless someone passes along some free tickets? I refuse to help pay for ridiculous salaries to overpaid athletes so why should I do the same for movie stars and greedy studio execs?
I have no problem waiting an extra 30-60 days to see a movie released on Blu-Ray. Anything I rent could end up copied and sitting on my server for up to 12 months before I get around to watching it, if ever. Of course, once they get watched they get deleted because I rarely have time to watch a movie the first time let alone multiple viewings. I never buy movies on disc for that very reason. Heck, I’ve still got DVDs that I received as gifts years ago that are still in the shrink wrap.
I don’t feel compelled to watch any movie as soon as it’s released. I figure if it’s good enough to watch now it will still be good 12 months from now. Having enough material to satisfy my viewing habits has never been an issue in my household. In fact, I relish the times when all of my shows go into reruns just so I can get caught up and maybe watch an occasional movie or two.
September 29, 2010 at 1:03 pm #28080I don’t think I will ever make use of this, I’m not a particularly big movie watcher so outside of some stupid jason statham movies i dont make it a point to see movies when they come out.
but considering that movie tickets in philly are like $9 even for a matinee I can see this being potentially cost-effective. Consider a family of 4 going for a matinee on a children’s movie. thats 28$ just in ticket costs and now you dont have to worry about getting everyone in the car and to the theater, can pause the movie if your children need something, have your choice of must less expensive food, etc.
Alternately, imagine someone who is wealthy and has a home theater whose experience exceeds the average theater. Wouldn’t you rather pay a bit extra to see a movie.
In short, while I won’t be paying for it I can see the utility and am glad that the service exists. (slipper slope arguments about the analog hole notwithstanding)
September 29, 2010 at 2:14 pm #28081I would agree with you if it was available while the movie was still in theaters but since it is for a time frame between when it leaves the theater and is released on home video I just can’t see paying the same cost for a single viewing vs owning the media in just a few more weeks.
September 29, 2010 at 2:24 pm #28082I didn’t realize that the time frame was after the movie was no longer in theaters. I misread the original blurb as saying it would be released _after_ it was released in theaters but not necessarily before it had stopped being shown in theaters.
that does change the math.
September 29, 2010 at 5:04 pm #28083Yes it does. Especially when you consider that in that same time frame the budget theaters that show movies at the end of their theatrical run will let you in for only a buck or two and won’t make you take out a 2nd mortgage to buy a soda and some popcorn.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.