I tend to agree. I fully understand the argument and associated reasoning behind why entertainment and distribution executives might think $19.99 is a steal but there is an obvious disconnect between their thinking and that of the end users expected to shell out that kind of money. If I take my family to the theater I know that if I have to put gas in my SUV that those profits will go to the oil company. Same for food at a restaurant I take them to and for consessions bought at the theaters and for the film revenue which is split between the studios and the same said theater operators via prearranged contract agreements. Yes, going to the movies is more costly but those costs benefit more entities and taking your family out for a night on the town really can't be replicated the same way by simply planting your rump on the couch and "clicking" OK to the $20 rental charge. It's just human nature and VR is not nearly advanced enough to recreate a true experience that consumers are willing to pay more for. That said I see how $20 for a new film is justifiable from a profit/loss bottom line forensic accounting perspective by studios and service providers. However, if you can manage to survive without having to watch films that are still red hot embers in terms of newness then I recommend adding a premium channel to your plan that lets you watch hundreds/thousands of films for $5 - $15 per month no contract or just rent stuff that is cheaper...for which there are plenty. Chances are that $20 movie they want you to rent will land on HBO or Amazon Prime in 3-6 months anyway. Happy couch surfing! I hope the pandemic passes so these types of issues become less of a concern to the masses.
... View more