Should Home Video Have a Six-Month Window?
 

Back in the 1980's most theatrical films had a six-month window between the theatrical release date and the Home Video release.

Nowadays that window has shrunk to three months or less.

With studios desperately looking for ways to increase box office revenue, would going back to the six-month gap help the industry as a whole?

From a financial standpoint, I get that it is better to cash-in on the home video revenue in three months rather than waiting six months but are they shooting themselves in the foot by releasing titles too quickly?

Any thoughts?

Re: Should Home Video Have a Six-Month Window?
 

i like the way it is now. i can't often get to the movies so these shorter and shorter windows works nicely for me...

Re: Should Home Video Have a Six-Month Window?
 

You just answered your own question - from a financial standpoint. That's all they're interested in. A 6 month delay to home video just delays that.

Re: Should Home Video Have a Six-Month Window?
 

Movies don't have long theatrical runs anymore.

1. fast to home video
2. companies want their new movies showing
3. people don't have the time or money, its cheaper to wait it out and have it in your collection
4. I believe to be the biggest killer, Opening weekend/holiday/midnight numbers. The companies, media and fans are to blame for this. Everyone wants to be part of that huge number, then after that movies just die. Look how people will talk about a comic book movie for years, then even when its good after a week or so its on to the next thing.

With the way the world is, I'm glad they come out to buy so fast. Just like Oldboy stated, we as a family can't make it or just afford to go when they are shoving movie after movie out. And half the time it becomes a bad experience with how people act.

Re: Should Home Video Have a Six-Month Window?
 

Well yes & no. When physical media was king naturally the studios wanted to tap that revenue as quickly as possible but did they compromise theatrical revenue in the process?

As the window became shorter and shorter and the quality of home video became better and better, the question became "Why see a film at a theatre when I can wait three months and see it at home?"

If the studios were to push the home video release dates back to six months, would more people be inclined to see the movie in a theatre?

Would those who had seen the film during its theatrical release be more inclined to view the film a second time after six months but may not be as interested after only three months?

Re: Should Home Video Have a Six-Month Window?
 

Only if they go back to building GOOD theaters- with at least 500 seats each and proper 2.35 screens with side masking, and revise the digital projection standard so that 2.35 are either anamorphic or the native aspect ratio, not letterboxed in a 1.85 frame the way they are now. Theaters here are pretty much dead to me.

Re: Should Home Video Have a Six-Month Window?
 

I can say a longer window wouldn't make a difference to me. Once I've decided I'm not seeing a movie in the theaters, I don't really care if it takes 3 months or 6 months to get to home video. I'll see it when I see it.

I actually wouldn't be surprised if the window shrinks even more over the next decade. Personally I'd be willing to pay a premium to see a film on or within 2 weeks of its theatrical release if it meant doing it in the comfort of my own home theater and avoiding the idiots to who ruin the theater experience today.

Re: Should Home Video Have a Six-Month Window?
 

The sooner the better.

Re: Should Home Video Have a Six-Month Window?
 

I like the shorter window.

So many movies come out week after week, month after month, that I only have time to see maybe 3 or 4 per month in the theatre. When I'm not working, I can't spend all my free time going to the movies. I would get nothing done and it wouldn't be productive use of my time.

The shorter window lets me see some of the lesser profile non-blockbuster movies that don't really need a big screen experience.

I know the folks here with families, it's a burden to try to see a non-kids movie and try to make arrangement for someone to look after the kids etc.

Re: Should Home Video Have a Six-Month Window?
 

I don't know about Chicago, but the theatre going experience here in So. Cal has actually improved a lot in recent years.

Edwards and AMC theatres here recently did some massive re-modeling and it's now assigned seating with reclining chair seats and leg rests, which are very comfortable. Refreshment stand has improved and now some theatres have a bar. I know AMC and Harkins has bars.

Harkins theatres just opened up here and they have a staff babysitter/child's play area where they will look after your small kids for only $8 so you and the missus can go see an adult movie without the distraction. I don't know how many families utilize this, but this IMO is fantastic. I absolutely hate it when families bring in small children to R rated movies because they probably can't find a sitter for the kids.

Re: Should Home Video Have a Six-Month Window?
 

The only AMC near me in the west burbs is in the highly entitled suburb of Naperville. Lots of super annoying fucks and their kids there.

My favorite theater was taken over by Regal and it is noticeably dumpier since. If it had stayed AMC and had assigned seating I'd go more. I saw a ton of movies there from 2000-2012 but lately it's nothing but dirty theaters and technical problems. I have a small stack of free passes because of the multiple issues they've had with presentations.

Re: Should Home Video Have a Six-Month Window?
 

No. Absolutely not.

Four of my favorite films of this year (Everybody Wants Some, The Neon Demon, Popstar, and Sing Street) all flopped during their theatrical releases. With delaying home video releases by double the time frame, those films will have been completely removed from the public's memory and will ensure another death rather than a second chance at life. While I'm not a fan of bringing the films to digital services anywhere from two-to-four weeks prior to their physical release, I'm just glad that the window between theaters and home video is at the shortest its ever been.

Re: Should Home Video Have a Six-Month Window?
 

I think another thing that would kill making the window longer is the rampant piracy. A longer window just gives the pirates longer to sell their wares (or for people to download them for free).

Re: Should Home Video Have a Six-Month Window?
 

Again, does the theatrical-run apathy come from the fact that people know they can quickly catch-up on it on video?

If people know they'll have to wait six months encourage them to go to the theatre more often?

The simple answer for die-hard fans is of course "the sooner, the better" but in terms of the average movie watcher, does it hurt home video sales by releasing them within three months?

Those who saw a film in the theatre probably feel it's too soon to bother seeing it again three months later = no sale. If they enjoyed the movie, would they be more likely to want to revisit it after six months have passed?
It's probably more likely.

Re: Should Home Video Have a Six-Month Window?
 

Considering how many people would walk into Blockbuster wanting to rent movies on their theatrical opening weekend, they really need to strike while the iron's hot. With that kind of attention span, they don't want to wait any longer than they have to.

Re: Should Home Video Have a Six-Month Window?
 

And again that speaks volumes about how crappy and overpriced the "theatrical experience" has become for most people. There's been many recent movies I've seen at home that I would have LOVED to have seen at a GOOD theater, but those just don't exist here anymore.

Big movies like "The Sound of Music" played for over a YEAR at some theaters, and even into the 1990s there were a few films that had enough staying power to keep showing for several months. Nowadays they're announcing the disc release date even BEFORE movies start showing in theaters.

Re: Should Home Video Have a Six-Month Window?
 

No - the people who don't go to the theatre as often are probably those who are sick of the TALKING, TEXTING, CHOMPING and SEAT KICKING that is rampant and out of control nowadays - a longer window won't change the fact that people don't respect the 'theatre experience' like they used to...even on opening night with all the diehards, there are still a few idiots who'll pop out there phone to check facebook or TAKE A PICTURE OF THE GODDAMN SCREEN to tweet out.

I have a large group of friends who love movies and in the last 5 years this type of behaviour has killed it for them - they only see like 5 movies a year and will wait for the rest...no matter the theatrical to home video window - not worth the hassel to them.

Re: Should Home Video Have a Six-Month Window?
 

Jesus, do you guys go to some ghetto movie theatres? :lol:

Maybe it's because I go to mostly matinees, but I've never experienced any of that obnoxious behavior.

As I said a few posts ago, the theatres in my area are actually quite nice now and it's actually a quite pleasant experience. Last movie I saw in the evening was Captain America: Civil War. I saw it at a Harkins Theatre in a packed house and everyone was quiet and respectful during the 2+ hours.

Re: Should Home Video Have a Six-Month Window?
 

The scope of distribution has accelerated dramatically over the past few decades.

For instance, a film like "Top Gun" opened in May of 1986 on two screens in the city of Vancouver and I think it expanded to four screens later in the summer. There were two evening shows and a matinee on Saturday & Sunday, all of which sold-out for weeks and weeks.

When it finally arrived on video in March of 1987, it was still playing in one first-run theatre.

A similar big studio "tent-pole" film will open on 35 screens, 5 showings per day/per screen and play for maybe 6-8 weeks. A month later it arrives on home video.

With the current model, there is no need for "staying power". If it's not a runaway hit in the first weekend, it's gone.

There's no room for a film to develop an audience such as Ghost, Sixth Sense or even Titanic which didn't really have a huge opening weekend considering how much money it ended-up making.

With DVD revenue being so lucrative, it helped solidify this model. If a movie bombed, it didn't matter as much because the money could be recouped with DVD. That's not the case any longer.

Re: Should Home Video Have a Six-Month Window?
 

No!!

If that is the case go back to VHS since that is what Hollywood wants since they want people to pay more money to see a movie in the theater and not have a good experience at home.

They won't allow blu-ray recorders which is stupid.

Re: Should Home Video Have a Six-Month Window?
 

Neon Demon is released on BD in September.

Re: Should Home Video Have a Six-Month Window?
 

God no, I remember waiting forever to see something when I missed it at the theater. What we have now is ideal IMO.

I would like to see them test out a few "Day 1" theatrical/home Ultra 4K releases though. Would be interesting to see how that would do with a new format.

Re: Should Home Video Have a Six-Month Window?
 

The short home video window also means it will coast off the movie's theatrical marketing campaign.