Cannes: Another Jewelry Heist? $2.6M Necklace Missing After … 
‘Hangover III’ With Weak $11M Wed/Thurs Kicks … 
Specialty B.O. Preview: ‘Before Midnight’, … 
2012-2013 Season Network Rankings: CBS Sweeps In Final … 
Full 2012-2013 TV Season Series Rankings 
TOLDJA! Paramount Pocketing $190M From Disney For Marvel … 
‘Good Morning America’ Hits 19-Year Viewership … 
MGM Buys ‘Modern Family’ Producer Ben … 
‘Fashion Police’ Writers Chant On Picket Lines: … 
Universal Makes Seven-Figure Deal For ‘The School For … 
Steven Soderbergh Will Interrupt Retirement To Direct And … 
Cannes: EOne Announces Itself As Player In U.S. … 
Will LIN TV Stations Go Dark On Time Warner Cable? 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Modern Family’, ‘Law … 
Hammond On Cannes: Paramount’s ‘Nebraska’ … 
Hot Trailer: Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s ‘Don … 
Hammond On Cannes: A New Day Comes To The Fest As HBO and … 
Cannes: Fleming Reflects And Finds Talented Trio A Breath … 
Hot Trailer: ‘Man Of Steel’ 
CBS Wins Season & Ties Sweep In Demo; ABC Tops Adults … 
Cannes: Weinstein Co Acquires Keanu-Reese Sci-Fi Pic … 
Is Tower Heist worth $59.99 to view in your living room at home just 3 weeks after it debuts in theaters on November 4th? For that exorbitant price, I’d want an ironclad guarantee that Brett Ratner’s movie is going to make me laugh and cry and applaud – not to mention have Ben Stiller and Eddie Murphy watch it with me – or give me my money back. What’s going on here is a little video-on-demand experiment which Universal Pictures is trying with parent company, cabler Comcast, in just two midsize markets: Atlanta and Portland. The Los Angeles Times broke the news this afternoon. About 500,000 of Comcast’s digital cable subscribers can opt to buy. Universal will be watching whether box office receipts fall off in those cities. Right now the relationship between exhibitors and studios is completely dysfunctional because of Big Media’s many moves to shrink the traditional 90-day window between the time a movie debuts in theaters and when it’s available for home view. But I’m told Universal Pictures chairman Adam Fogelson has been working hard to calm the theaters about this latest salvo which comes not long after four studios including his made DirectTV deals to put in place video-on-demand 60 days after they premiered in theaters for $29.99. Now it’s 3 weeks for $59.99. Is $99.99 far behind?
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ...
If I had social anxiety disorder, a kick-ass home theater sytem and I felt like pissing away sixty-bucks, I’d definitely buy it.
You win.
When it’s same day, talk to me then. 3 week later @ $60 is just stupid.
It’s aimed at big family groups around Thanksgiving. You’ve got a group of 8-12 people, but you don’t want to pay for $10 tickets and over-priced concessions and fool with parking? $60 starts to sound like a pretty good deal.
Says the guy who thought of the idea. That group of 8-12 people will never choose to order the movie, even if they want to see it. Be real. Even if it’s opening night, you don’t want to pay 60 bucks for something you watch at home, that can be replaced by a dollar rental of an older movie.
What a stupid pricing structure. To make that pay off, you have to assume I’m going to watch that film with 5 adults in the room. Which I’m NOT. EVER. Once again, Hollywood is made of Fail.
Seriously $60 for a pay-per-view movie… and just yesterday I was complaining about “Transformers: Dark of the Moon” going for $6. Personally I don’t see many of these highly prices PPV films really making it worth it for the average viewer – especially in this economy. This will only make movie on gigantic blockbusters such as “Harry Potter,” “Twilight” and “The Hobbit”…
No.
For $60 bucks Eddie better introduce the film in person.
“For $60 bucks Eddie better introduce the film in person.”
And for 100 bucks, he DOESN’T introduce the film in person.
That made my day.
wow, this must be a real turd…
I’d never pay $60 for anything on my tv unless I wad guaranteed Mike Tyson was going to bite someone’s ear off.
Who the hell would pay this ridiculous amount?? It is bad enough that it costs $14 to see a movie. If you want to see it that bad see it in the theater.
Can they get any greedier.
It won’t even cost that much when it’s released on BD and DVD in say February..
If Ben Stiller and Eddie Murphy did a live performance of it in my living room, I still wouldn’t pay that much for it.
In this economy, $59.99 is ridiculous, $29.99 would be a more reasonable price, while $4.99 would be the optimal price!
And people were complaining about Netflix going up a few dollars. I’d rather spend that $59.99 towards have both Netflix DVD and streaming than waste it on ONE movie. And most movies suck these days so it’s not worth the gamble without a money-back guarantee!
LOLOLOL….’nuff said
Let’s see how it goes. Cool experiment
right why would i spend $60.00 when i can see it for 7.25 durring the day
I feel like a price point of $35 would be better. The equivalent price of three people going to the movies. If you have 6 people watch it and split the difference it equates to a theater experience for half the price for each person. Now if they could throw in that you’d own the movie as well then it would clench the deal.
Still don’t see why film companies don’t reward those who see the film in theaters with some sort of discount on purchasing the film on DVD or digital download after the fact.
Hey, Universal, experiment THIS!
This is going to grey the line between home viewing and exhibition. Multi-seat home theaters are not uncommon these days, and I would guess that viewing parties may becoming more frequent – with any terms and conditions being virtually unenforceable. That this could shift the revenue away from theaters is undeniable; whether it might generate more or less overall revenue is – at this time – a matter of speculation.
I think even then I’d pass.
If it’s a destination movie — one that you were planning to organize a whole group of friends/family to see in theaters — and you have a stellar home theater, this might be worth it. If five or more people who were going to pay $12 to see it can now (I assume) pause and rewind if they miss something, take bathroom breaks, eat and drink whatever they choose, or even, should it be that kind of party, watch it naked… it’s worth the money. The odds of that being true for more than a handful of households per film, though, is mighty low, so I can’t imagine it working as a long-term strategy at that sort of pricing.
it’s a ratner movie. the man who single handedly destroyed the x-men franchise and is responsible for 3 rush hour movies. i wouldn’t pay 60 cents for this steaming pile.
GOOD LUCK!
This is dumb.
If someone is already going to wait 3 weeks and spend $60, they might as well wait another couple months and just buy it or stream for much less.
A 3-week old movie isn’t a PPV sporting event, and pricing it comparable, if not more, is ridiculous.
My wife and I just had a baby, so the ability to go to the movies together is something we won’t be able to do for a while. Having said that, I’d pay $19.99 to see a movie two or three weeks after it’s theatrical run. It’s cheaper than going out and we can see it together– however, $60? No way. Not worth it. Theatrical movies are about the theatrical experience. “Tower Heist” isn’t a movie that I’ll gather my friends together at my house to see. Maybe if I lived two or three hours from the nearest theater and had a 66″ TV with a Bose system… MAYBE. But not “Tower Heist”.