question of the day: Would you pay $40 to watch a new movie at home?

Wow, um, no. Not even if it was available at home at the same time as it was in theaters--which is the only way I can see that even being a remotely viable plan.

Cuz paying 40 bucks is almost exactly like paying 10 bucks and getting a blu-ray as a bonus.

Well, it is if you have four people watching it, especially if everyone chips in equally on the cost, and it only gets cheaper the more people you have. Got some new movie, and got a group of five or six people or more going to see it? You'd actually save money.

It's not like a theater, they have no way to know or control how many people one $40 ticket admits.

Forty dollars? No. For myself, no more than $15--what I'd pay for a matinee and refreshments. However, a family of four can easily spend $70+ for a night out at the movies, so forty dollars might be a steal for them. But if streaming a "new" movie at home meant having to wait until the two weeks before it hit home video, what's the point? Netflix, a $5-6 24-hour digital cable rental, or just buying the Blu-ray is the better deal.

No. If I wanted to watch my movies at home, I'd watch them all on DVD.

I go to the movie theatre to see everything on the Big Screen.

We don't have a home theatre system that rivals the movie theatre. If we did I might think differently, but I doubt it.

I would pay top dollar to see a "new" and "exciting" film at home. E.g. District 9 will be released on Friday in the UK, and I will end up paying £40 to see it at our local multiplex; I would happily give that money directly to Sony to see it at home - at the start of its cinema release, or even a couple of days before. Not after - not when everyone's already seen it and it's no longer an "event".

Which films would I be willing to shell out my hard-earned cash for? Why, the ones that MAJ told me to!

I already feel embarrassed that I am going to have to admit to my grandchildren that we used to have to drive to a barn and queue up to watch movies. The day when I can watch the latest releases from the comfort of my own 72" plasma screen just can't come quickly enough for me.

Perhaps I wouldn't feel this way if our local multiplex put more effort into audiovisual quality than it does its Ben and Jerrys concession.

PS Am typing this into a 1-inch wide form in the left hand adbar because the new MT4 layout isn't respected by Safari 3 on the family iMac.

$40 for one movie? No way, Jose.

Some of my movie experiences of the last few years may make it possible for me to entertain the idea (as long as there is a group of people watching.) Theater going has become unappealing as rude people talk, bring crying children, talk on the cell phone, and, in one terrible night, start a huge fight. Not to mention various problems w/ sound and film quality.

Um, no. Because I am Teh Cheap.

This is particularly strange when you can already watch Amazon Video On Demand titles on your Bravia TV ... and those you can buy (and thus rewatch indefinitely) for $10-$15 and rent for $2-$3.

I bet a significant number of people would be willing to pay that much or even more to see a movie well BEFORE it was available to the general public in any other way; for example a chance to see Inglourious Basterds or Antichrist sometime between their Cannes debut and their stateside releases. But I don't think this is what the execs are planning, for a zillion different reasons.

Well hey, listen: if you have a nice enough TV and a big enough living room, and you could invite some friends over and watch the new Batman with some pizza and beers on the day it comes to theaters, you wouldn't do it?

I'd be all over that.

And for families with a couple kids? You take 2 adults and 3 kids to the theater and you've spent over $40 already just on tickets!!

This is a fabulous idea, and the only thing I don't like about it is that I don't have Bravia tv.

I think now watching movies online is much convenient than other options... there are so many websites which provide great list of various genre movies like www.cool-movies.com

God, the whole point of the movies is they get me out of the house. I watch enough movies on my ordinary, not-special TV and my computer screen (thank you, Netflix). I would never pay $40 to stay home and watch more... even if, technically, that would save money, since I go with my husband and thus spend $20 on tickets, often $5 on snacks, and at least $30 on babysitting. It's an outing. You can't stay in for it.

Hell to the no.

These people are on crack, right?

Newbs has a point. BUT, said families could just wait for the On Demand or something. The appeal of going to the movies is the whole experience of actually going. If you are just going to stay home anyway, why not wait a few months for it to come on pay-per-view, when it's only $4.99 a pop? It's not like movies take a long time to go from the theater to your tv. Maybe if you have a home theater or something, where you could sort of recreate the experience, and have a big party and split the cost...and have a popcorn machine..

I don't get this compulsion to see or play things FIRST ABOVE ALL ELSE! I mean, I play video games and I'm a fangirl of many things, but I never rush right out on or before the release date to pay the highest price for my movies, games or gaming consoles. Just wait a bit, Speedy! Because you'll kick yourself spending $300 on a new console when a year later it'll be half price (AND they no longer sell the first version with all the bugs in it :D).

Now, movies: if I really want to see something (like 9, which I'm practically salivating over, and MAJ, your green light is only making me more impatient:)), I'll spend the money for the theater trip. But, because so many movies might suck, I rarely splurge on the theater unless it's something I'm sure will be at least good.