Audiences have never had faster, cheaper access to movies in history. So why are people complaining about a $20 rental? Because we forgot what movies used to cost.
This was a really well-written piece, Jeff. Thank you for all the effort you put into this and for the insights you offered.
It is a sad reality that most folks expect movies watched at home to be ridiculously cheap, or even all of them bundled into the one or two subscription services they have at any given time. I'm not sure how we counter that trend. If it can even be countered.
But I believe platforms like Netflix have cheapened the perceived value of movies by casual fans. Films are a lot less glamorous for it. They've become little thumbnails that you can access instantly anytime you want. Not even a trip to the video store is required. And they're all included in a low monthly price.
I'm not saying it would be better if no one had digital home access to movies, but the low-price subscription model really affects people's perceptions.
I wish more casual filmgoers understood, as you described well in this article, how much effort, money, and a wide variety of people it takes to make a film. Whatever we can do to move people's understanding in that direction will be good for the industry.
I agree with you. I prefer having a mix: I go to see some films in the theater (usually independent, smaller films at our local theater), big blockbusters in a theater, but I also subscribe to several services, and buy physical media (for the movies I love). Waiting for sales (Criterion 50% off or Black Friday sales), allows me to get blu-rays or 4Ks under $15. That's an amazing deal. I also agree that we're in the best of times for movie watchers!
This was an excellent post that put things into context. I think the folks who grew up with Netflix as a one-stop shop, with almost every movie available with a monthly subscription, got spoiled. As you point out, it is important for the people who bring these movies to life to get paid their fair share. I saw PHM four times in IMAX because I loved the movie so much. I am willing to wait for it to come out on 4K and add it to my physical media collection.
I couldn't agree more, I remember renting VHSs because purchasing them outright cost so much... I think the convenience of streaming has tricked people into thinking the art itself should be cheaper.
Worth noting: I took my family of 4 to see Project Hail Mary on opening night (not a matinee) at a Cinemark here in Austin, and the total cost was $45.46, which is probably a little higher than the nationwide average. In the video store era, the stores where I lived (SF Bay Area) charged $2 tor $3 per rental. Still not cheap, but you seem to have vastly exaggerated the costs of movie tickets and video rentals.
More to the point, while I agree in part with what you write, my overall feeling is that while things are in some ways better today, the net changes since the video store days are worse. There are many reasons I believe this to be true, but the one that I think is most relevant to your article is this:
I don’t want or expect movies to be free, but I honestly cannot remember the last time a film I wanted to see was included with any streaming service. At some point I noticed this, and I started keeping track a little over a year ago. Every time I want to watch a specific film I look to see where it is streaming, and 100% of the time the film requires an extra fee on top of the subscription to watch.
Even if I paid $200+ a month to subscribe to the 10 most popular streaming services, I would still have to pay a additional rental fee for every single film I want to watch.
That's the streaming model. Load your service with lots of free films that are either garbage films no one wants to watch, along with a handful of big name films that everyone has already seen, then keep every film worth watching behind a second paywall.
People complaining about the $20 rental fee, are primarily impatient whiners. Everyone knows that eventually the rental will come down to $5.99 or less, and eventually free on a service. Sooner on a service connected with the studio. Like Warner Brothers and HBO. I had to build up my home theater because I had to relocate where I live and hours away from a top flight IMAX theater . Just rented Project Hail Mary for $20. I understand the cost. People will pay the $20. They can afford it. Also, how many are watching it with you? Those are potential dollars that would be directed toward the theater and studio. Not to mention the popcorn and pop. Now, back to the home theater. Hail Mary has a superb sound design and if you catch the movie w/o it, you won’t know that you are missing half the movie. There are long stretches w/o dialogue. It’s definitely a movie that I will add to my library.
Yes. One thesis for films (and books) is they are either worth watching (or reading) many times or not at all. So with the rental/purchase prices being so close together for digital, I'll choose purchase almost always because it's easy enough to know if a flick is not for you. The exception is waiting for the 4K UHD to release because many times is such a given (waiting to see Alien Romulus and Sinners was hard but worth it!). I think it's important like you said that going to theaters isn't always an option and arguably a less attractive one for many as etiquette seems to have shifted (something fundamental happened post-pandemic, I'm not sure what). For physical media, imo we're in a golden age right now with 4K UHD, whether it's channels like yours acting as a guide or how companies like Sony/Paramount/Warner/Criterion/Arrow/Studiocanal are shipping so many great films on the format. I picked up The Andromeda Strain, The Third Man, and Outland recently, and they are the best they have ever been—could not be happier.
This was a really well-written piece, Jeff. Thank you for all the effort you put into this and for the insights you offered.
It is a sad reality that most folks expect movies watched at home to be ridiculously cheap, or even all of them bundled into the one or two subscription services they have at any given time. I'm not sure how we counter that trend. If it can even be countered.
But I believe platforms like Netflix have cheapened the perceived value of movies by casual fans. Films are a lot less glamorous for it. They've become little thumbnails that you can access instantly anytime you want. Not even a trip to the video store is required. And they're all included in a low monthly price.
I'm not saying it would be better if no one had digital home access to movies, but the low-price subscription model really affects people's perceptions.
I wish more casual filmgoers understood, as you described well in this article, how much effort, money, and a wide variety of people it takes to make a film. Whatever we can do to move people's understanding in that direction will be good for the industry.
I agree with you. I prefer having a mix: I go to see some films in the theater (usually independent, smaller films at our local theater), big blockbusters in a theater, but I also subscribe to several services, and buy physical media (for the movies I love). Waiting for sales (Criterion 50% off or Black Friday sales), allows me to get blu-rays or 4Ks under $15. That's an amazing deal. I also agree that we're in the best of times for movie watchers!
This was an excellent post that put things into context. I think the folks who grew up with Netflix as a one-stop shop, with almost every movie available with a monthly subscription, got spoiled. As you point out, it is important for the people who bring these movies to life to get paid their fair share. I saw PHM four times in IMAX because I loved the movie so much. I am willing to wait for it to come out on 4K and add it to my physical media collection.
What a great read. Well said 👏
I couldn't agree more, I remember renting VHSs because purchasing them outright cost so much... I think the convenience of streaming has tricked people into thinking the art itself should be cheaper.
Worth noting: I took my family of 4 to see Project Hail Mary on opening night (not a matinee) at a Cinemark here in Austin, and the total cost was $45.46, which is probably a little higher than the nationwide average. In the video store era, the stores where I lived (SF Bay Area) charged $2 tor $3 per rental. Still not cheap, but you seem to have vastly exaggerated the costs of movie tickets and video rentals.
More to the point, while I agree in part with what you write, my overall feeling is that while things are in some ways better today, the net changes since the video store days are worse. There are many reasons I believe this to be true, but the one that I think is most relevant to your article is this:
I don’t want or expect movies to be free, but I honestly cannot remember the last time a film I wanted to see was included with any streaming service. At some point I noticed this, and I started keeping track a little over a year ago. Every time I want to watch a specific film I look to see where it is streaming, and 100% of the time the film requires an extra fee on top of the subscription to watch.
Even if I paid $200+ a month to subscribe to the 10 most popular streaming services, I would still have to pay a additional rental fee for every single film I want to watch.
That's the streaming model. Load your service with lots of free films that are either garbage films no one wants to watch, along with a handful of big name films that everyone has already seen, then keep every film worth watching behind a second paywall.
People complaining about the $20 rental fee, are primarily impatient whiners. Everyone knows that eventually the rental will come down to $5.99 or less, and eventually free on a service. Sooner on a service connected with the studio. Like Warner Brothers and HBO. I had to build up my home theater because I had to relocate where I live and hours away from a top flight IMAX theater . Just rented Project Hail Mary for $20. I understand the cost. People will pay the $20. They can afford it. Also, how many are watching it with you? Those are potential dollars that would be directed toward the theater and studio. Not to mention the popcorn and pop. Now, back to the home theater. Hail Mary has a superb sound design and if you catch the movie w/o it, you won’t know that you are missing half the movie. There are long stretches w/o dialogue. It’s definitely a movie that I will add to my library.
Yes. One thesis for films (and books) is they are either worth watching (or reading) many times or not at all. So with the rental/purchase prices being so close together for digital, I'll choose purchase almost always because it's easy enough to know if a flick is not for you. The exception is waiting for the 4K UHD to release because many times is such a given (waiting to see Alien Romulus and Sinners was hard but worth it!). I think it's important like you said that going to theaters isn't always an option and arguably a less attractive one for many as etiquette seems to have shifted (something fundamental happened post-pandemic, I'm not sure what). For physical media, imo we're in a golden age right now with 4K UHD, whether it's channels like yours acting as a guide or how companies like Sony/Paramount/Warner/Criterion/Arrow/Studiocanal are shipping so many great films on the format. I picked up The Andromeda Strain, The Third Man, and Outland recently, and they are the best they have ever been—could not be happier.