The drama of the shrinking theatrical window

By Sarah Sluis

Going to the movies can be expensive. Last week, tickets to 3D IMAX Shrek Forever After in New York City hit the twenty-dollar mark, only to be reduced once news outlets got wind of the story (at least that's my take on what happened; the theatre claims it was an error). With movie tickets becoming so expensive, it's no wonder people would turn to rentals to see at least some movies--but that field is getting more expensive as well.

Today, Variety dubbed 2010 the year of the window. New mediums of delivering movies to viewers, like the Internet and on-demand, are becoming more popular and more available.

First, there are the changes that make sense: I think there is a compelling argument for shepherding box-office bombs like MacGruber to

DVD as quickly as possible, so that audiences will still remember the

marketing of a film enough to rent it. Bad movies have arrived in

video stores sooner than good ones for as long as I can remember, and a

further shortening of the window shouldn't be a problem.

Second, there are the changes that seem like fleecing the customers. I'm skeptical of charging exorbitant fees to see movies at home while they are in theatres. Time Warner, in particular, wants to be able to put movies on-demand thirty days after they release for $20, though some think the number will approach $30-50. For $50, you could take four to six people to the movies, depending on your location, so it's hard to imagine who the intended audience for this could be. My first thought is the cast of "Jon & Kate Plus 8," and my second is those people on the show

"Cribs" that have home theatres. I think it will be very, very

difficult for average households to get over the sticker shock of

paying that much for a movie when they can rent a slightly older one

for $1 at their local RedBox. However, studios have already taken steps like delaying the Netflix release of a movie one month beyond its on-sale date. A bifurcation of the rental release date could make the on-demand experience more valuable. If you wanted to see it at home, you'd have to wait much longer.

One part of the equation that is interesting is the idea of a business' "comfort" with a new idea. Variety explored that notion in a recent article about World Wrestling Entertainment. The pay-per-view provider has recently branched out into feature films starring WWE standouts, and plans to release the movies on DVD shortly after they open in theatres. Perhaps WWE's experience in the pay-per-view and alternative content markets has made it more eager to see theatrical distribution as a way to boost DVD sales, instead of a revenue stream in of itself.

As a counterpoint to that argument, there's still the model of indie, platform release, which is considered incompatible with compressed DVD releases. If a movie needs time to build theatrically, putting it out on DVD may not help. A recent panel at a film financing forum, for example, highlighed the opposite of a "MacGruber" situation: a movie that's doing so well at the box office DVD release can be pushed back.

So few Americans are regular moviegoers (they say that 80% of the tickets come from 20% of the people) that exploring new ways of home distribution makes sense--except for the $50-per-movie fee to see it at home when the theatre is clearly better.