Hacker News Reader

Comment by dylan604 | Hacker News Reader

They were able to do this because there were no viable options with Corona keeping the theaters closed. Doubtful people would be willing to pay that rental fee if they could have gone to the theater instead. However, $30 for a mom/dad/2-kids is still way cheaper than going to the theater. For people that hate going to the movies, this could be a new acceptable norm.

View on HN

> For people that hate going to the movies, this could be a new acceptable norm.

I'd pay $30 right now to see Tenet in 4K Dolby Vision/Atmos via streaming.

Streaming such a high fidelity movie seems like a waste. Seeing the difference between a UHD 4K Blu-ray and a stream of the “same quality” it’s almost night and day.

I do have most Nolan films in 4K Bluray but Tenet isn't available yet. Before buying the physical media I'd be more than happy to see it via streaming with acceptable quality.

On the other hand, if the cost of streaming it as a rental is as high as the physical media copy...

Totally. But as a Nolan fanboy I really want to see Tenet and wouldn't mind paying extra to see it before the physical release.

Id actually recommend watching it at home. Without subtitles that film is difficult to watch in a cinema.

Or if you have 3.1 (or better) stereo set up, you could probably just turn the center channel higher relative to the rest to increase dialog (which is usually on the center channel).

Would be great if HT receivers had a mode to do that without having to manually increase and decrease the C channel.

If you can afford a comparable display and sound system to a Dolby certified cinema then $30 means a lot less to you than the typical viewer

If you can't afford $30 then what is wrong with waiting until you can?

If you can't afford $30, then you never will.

Nothing! But the point I'm making is that Dolby Cinema isn't appreciable for most consumers' home theaters and that price point might be a bit different for someone who has a home theater with the capabilities and has spent the time/money calibrating it.

You don't need super high end gear to appreciate Dolby Vision. LG OLED displays are not that expensive these days.

I think they are that expensive. The cheapest OLEDs are around $1500, which is a lot of money for a lot of people.

Lets say you need an income of at least ~$30k to reasonably afford a $1000-2000 TV. I would argue that is a little low to afford a TV of that price, but at 30k that would be around a month's take-home pay. Doable I guess.

That's a tiny fraction of world population than can even possibly buy that TV, and only a fraction of those that can will. Even in rich countries, a large number of households wont have it. Dropping a grand+ on a TV would be considered a high-end luxury to the vast majority of the world's population.

Not sure what your point is or why you'd go on this tangent about who can or cannot afford an OLED TV.

My point is simply that OLED TVs are much less expensive than they used to be. Only 4-5 years ago you had to spend over $5,000 to get one.

The reason your confused is that your point is orthogonal to the discussion that was being had, but the other poster is still trying to have that discussion.

If you can't afford $30 then what is wrong with waiting until it's not $30.

Unless of course single people are not a family of 4 and should not have to pay extra because of that.

Hmmm, I spy an opportunity for Amazon to use their home drones to offer discounted prices if there's ever only one person watching.

Even as a single person, $30 sounds cheap for the movies with the expense of travel to the theater, ticket prices, snacks, etc.

Matinee showings tend to be around $6-8. $5 of snacks and per-mile total costs of around $0.40/mile, for a 10-mile round trip, still only bring that up to around $15-17.

Plus an hour of travel/prep time.

And matinee is cheap because it's an inconvenient time.

I like to think I live in a pretty affordable city and that just sounds insane to me. I can find $5 matinees of old movies on slow days but a new release will still cost me $12/ticket and $18/ticket on weekends. As for snacks I looked and the theater is currently running a special for $10 popcorn and a drink combo.

A $10 popcorn and drink special. $18.00 dollar tickets.

That sounds like a very poor cost/value.

A sporting event, visit to a zoo offers so much more at that price point.

City matters. I lived in middle GA, matinee showings were $8 or so. And a theater had all-day matinee prices on Tuesdays (including for 3D and IMAX showings), so I saw a lot of movies on Tuesday evenings. But go north to Atlanta, and ticket prices pretty much doubled and you did not get a better theater experience for it.

Also, $5 snacks sounds like the cheapest snack they had. If you bought popcorn, it started at $6 or $8 for the small, even in middle GA.

Well talk about beer in a hockey or football match

But you can watch many movies for free on your cable or whatever Netflix you are already paying for.

So is this specific movie "$30" more valuable than any free alternative? Or is it the "newness" you are paying for? Have you7 watched all other movies worth watching already?

I would guess that people are (or were) paying extra to go to a theater because of the spectacular large screen and the experience in general. One feature of going to a theater is that you have to watch the movie in one sitting and there are no ad-breaks. That can add to the totality of the experience. And it's fun to get out of your house and to do that you need a reason .

They can share with friends

They don't have to pay extra. They pay the same amount for one unit of (watch event, time) that everyone else does.

The family of 7 also doesn't pay less.

No easy way to charge per viewer, so they gotta price it once-sized-fits-all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com