3 ms·
I'm sad to hear this honestly, I was hoping for this to fail to hasten studios accepting that straight-to-digital is the future. Charge me $50 per movie to watc
by Touche 9y ago
I'm sad to hear this honestly, I was hoping for this to fail to hasten studios accepting that straight-to-digital is the future. Charge me $50 per movie to watch them from the comfort of my home, please.
- ac29 9y agoThat's existed for a while, but the price is a little eye-popping: $35k for the hardware and $500/rental. There doesn't seem to be much written about it online since 2016, so its possible its defunct or nearly so. http://www.primacinema.com/ http://www.primacinema.com/
- Touche 9y agoIIRC to even buy that you have to have a home theater. They come to your house and inspect to make sure it meets their standards. So yeah, it's not just the price, it's essentially a status product; meant only for the super-rich to show off that they have a home theater.
- krapp 9y ago>Charge me $50 per movie to watch them from the comfort of my home, please. Studios are probably too afraid of piracy to accept that - theatrical distribution is an effective means of restricting content distribution and of quality control.
- Touche 9y agoYou are probably right, but I'm not sure it's rational. Given the correct pricing to compensate for that, they can still make more money that they make today. I believe I read that the average person sees 2 or 3 movies per year at the theater. Imagine how many they might purchase from home.
- manmal 9y agoWhoa $50 would be way too much. 20 perhaps.. not sure I‘d sacrifice the full experience and awesome sound system at that price.
- Touche 9y agoYou have to consider that likely more than 1 person will be watching the movie, so based on average ticket prices they'd be taking a loss (vs. the theater) at only $20. I don't know what the price would be, but my guess would be that it would be a lot.