Dreamworks CEO: Pay for movies based on screen size

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Bateluer

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
8
0
S

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,197
4
76
That reminds me of when the RIAA was saying you should have to buy a CD and a digital version separately.

It's so asinine. All these things do is punish the honest people. If I own the movie, I should be able to watch it wherever I want.
 
Jaepheth

Jaepheth

Platinum Member
Apr 29, 2006
2,572
25
91
Jesus, what's with all the greed here? It's unattractive

[/Uncle Jack]
 
mmntech

mmntech

Lifer
Sep 20, 2007
17,501
12
0
Bateluer said:
http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/30/5667552/movies-of-the-future-will-be-paid-for-by-the-inch



How about I pay once for the movie, then watch it on any device I own whether it be phone, tablet, monitor, or television?
Click to expand...

But how could they charge you twice for the same film?

The MPAA and movie studios are still out of touch with the digital age. Even the music industry has accepted things for how they are today. Buy a song DRM free and play it on any device. What's so complicated about that. iTunes makes a piss pot of money.
 
A

artemicion

Golden Member
Jun 9, 2004
1,006
1
76
Bateluer said:
http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/30/5667552/movies-of-the-future-will-be-paid-for-by-the-inch



How about I pay once for the movie, then watch it on any device I own whether it be phone, tablet, monitor, or television?
Click to expand...

I think he's proposing an additional period in between the theater release and the DVD release where you could stream it to a device and pay by screen size, so it's an extra option, not a restriction for consumers. I.e., there would be a theater only release, then a pay by screen size release, then the standard DVD/blu-ray/digital release.
 
techs

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
So now the size police will be coming to your house to measure how big yours is?
 
ImpulsE69

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,946
1,077
126
I say we start charging for time on shit movies. How you think they'd like 10 million people sending them bills for their next remake blunder?
 
irishScott

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
artemicion said:
I think he's proposing an additional period in between the theater release and the DVD release where you could stream it to a device and pay by screen size, so it's an extra option, not a restriction for consumers. I.e., there would be a theater only release, then a pay by screen size release, then the standard DVD/blu-ray/digital release.
Click to expand...

That doesn't seem to be what he's saying.

the future of the movie business: paying for films according to the size of the screen you watch them on. After a very brief three-week run in theaters, there would be ubiquitous distribution with a variety of tiers to match each screen size: "A movie screen will be $15. A 75-inch TV will be $4. A smartphone will be $1.99," according
Click to expand...

The studio chief believes "movies are not a growth business" and what's necessary is to "reinvent the enterprise of movies."
Click to expand...

Translation: We need more money, and we're going to do whatever it takes to get more money.




In any case, as others have said, this distribution model is just begging for piracy.
 
D

dighn

Lifer
Aug 12, 2001
22,820
4
81
that'sjust the beginning. next: charge by length of the movie, amount of bass, color depth, number of lens flares
 
crashtestdummy

crashtestdummy

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2010
2,893
0
0
irishScott said:
That doesn't seem to be what he's saying.





Translation: We need more money, and we're going to do whatever it takes to get more money.




In any case, as others have said, this distribution model is just begging for piracy.
Click to expand...

It's not even that, though. It's simply begging for screen mirroring. I never understood Hulu's policy of only allowing access to the Roku/Smart TV apps through a subscription, when I can mirror my browser from my computer on the TV as well.

If he's really talking about charging based on resolution, then Amazon and others already do that, with separate pricing tiers for "standard definition" and "HD". Likewise for renting/buying DVDs vs BluRay. No one seems to really have a problem with those.
 
A

artemicion

Golden Member
Jun 9, 2004
1,006
1
76
irishScott said:
That doesn't seem to be what he's saying.





Translation: We need more money, and we're going to do whatever it takes to get more money.




In any case, as others have said, this distribution model is just begging for piracy.
Click to expand...

It's ambiguous, but I assumed it was an additional option as opposed to a restriction because of the reference to the "brief three-week run." To me, it sounded like they were shortening the theater run and adding a "in-home theater" run with prices based on screen size.

Whether it is feasible or practical is another question, but it sounds like they are trying to address recent trends with people like me, who stopped going to theaters because it's cheaper and more convenient to wait for redbox releases. I'm willing to pay a premium of a couple bucks to watch a movie in my home earlier, but for most movies I'm not willing to pay a premium just to watch it on a theater screen, which involves getting there early to get good seats, paying a premium for snacks, can't pause, gotta deal with obnoxious theater goers, etc.
 
phucheneh

phucheneh

Diamond Member
Jun 30, 2012
7,306
5
0
I don't get the hate. Blame the manufacturers of the devices for making your TV play the same movie as your phone (i.e. either one is likely to be 720p or 1080p). This dude actually seems reasonable.

This is kind of the opposite of pricing versus the cost of the item...prime example of this asinine strategy being books; Maybe a paperback costs a dollar to print. Retail: $8. A PDF download is harder to price, but I'm gonna go with 10 cents as an extremely generous figure for money invested in the servers and bandwidth, plus a little labor for the guy that had to digitize everything and make it an 'ebook.' And that digital version costs...$8. WTF?

LOGICALLY, it makes more sense to price on cost. But no one will do it. I'd take 'pay difference prices for different devices' as at least a respectable goodwill gesture versus 'pay $5 to watch it once on your iPad or once on your TV.'

Now, if I actually had some 'ownership' of the content and could watch it anytime I wanted, this would be more objectionable. But that's not and never will be the case.
 
Ns1

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,420
1,600
126
In any case, as others have said, this distribution model is just begging for piracy.
Click to expand...

It's supposed to do the exact opposite by shrinking the theatrical window

The longer a movie has been out the more likely screeners and the like will hit the internets. So instead of paying $15/ticket for week 1 at the theater, or waiting 4 months until a high quality rip comes out on the torrent site, a user could theoretically VOD an HD rip of a movie on week 4 for "a reasonable amount".

Of course, if the user is willing to watch a piss poor cam video from the torrent site on day 3, there's not much anyone can do about that.

at least, that's the idea.
 
Kaido

Kaido

Elite Member & Kitchen Overlord
Feb 14, 2004
50,699
6,739
136
I have a portable projector...40" to 200". So how's that work? :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom