Studios rattle the DVD windows

By Sarah Sluis

How long should a movie be out of the picture between its theatrical run and its DVD debut?

When I was growing up, that time period between theatrical release and home video release could be agonizing. Some movies were "must-sees" in theatres, and others I could wait to rent at the video store, but a lot of them fell in between. I frequently missed seeing a movie in a theatre, because there were simply too many other good films out or I didn't have enough time (I also had a thing against seeing a movie once it had been out for months--you might as well just wait to see it at home).

Now, this same theatrical window that vexed me as a child is causing exhibitors and studios to draw their swords once again. While exhibitors want to maintain a long window to preserve the

sacredness of theatrical release, studios want to make money on the

pent-up demand caused by a film going dark--being unavailable in

theatres or on DVD--for a few months. A month ago, Sony's decision to make the film Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs available earlier for those that bought a special Sony television led exhibitors to pull the film from their theatres. Even as studios are trying to release films on DVD earlier, they're also fighting RedBox, which rents new releases for $1. They're in the odd position of trying to break new ground in one area and preserve the status quo in another.

Most of the studios' home-grown proposals for shorter windows involve charging a premium for the privilege of seeing a movie in this "in-between" time--up to $50 for in-home viewing. I don't buy that this will work. I personally would never see a film for such a high price tag, not even if I were one of the targeted demographics, living in a "geographically isolated" area with an expansive brethren and laid out with a bad back. The stereotype in my head of the perfect family for this proposal, The Duggar Family of TLC's "18 Kids and Counting", would never spring for a $50 rental, even though it would cost them $200 to go to a movie theatre. This is the same family that has a recipe for discount laundry detergent on their website. I think theatres are overestimating the value of their product, especially in a market saturated with media choices (why not just surf Hulu for free?). Plus, going to a theatre has a unique value of its own: there are fewer distractions, a bigger image, and the enjoyment of seeing a picture with an audience, to name a few reasons. While seeing a film at home shortly after its theatrical release may present a value for large groups, the only thing justifying the price point is being able to see a movie in sync with its water cooler hype. You still miss out on the fun of going out to the movies.

The fight on both ends is far from over. Just today, the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp., which receives donations from film studios, released a study that was proposed by an "unnamed" guild, saying that cheap DVD rentals will cost the region thousands of jobs. While the special interests close to the study make its findings suspect, it shows how seriously film studios are taking this threat, and the lengths that they will go to fight it.