MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

The Massive DirecTV Campaign For Home Premiere

There is not a word about the program on the service’s website. And the only indication of its existence you will find on your DirecTV HD-equipped service is the above. $29.99 for Just Go With It… no mention of the early release… nothing special compared to the many other promoted pay-VOD offerings… and right next to the offer of “400 new releases & 6000 shows an movies.”

So you tell me… are the studios or DirecTV seriously expecting anyone to buy something that’s premium priced, but not even being sold?

Oh wait… ““We’re testing a price point and testing a window in the early days of this product, and we’ll see how it takes,” Chang, DirecTV’s head of content strategy and development, said today in an interview. “Down the road, if the window gets tweaked and changed, I think we all cross that bridge when we get to it.” (Blooomberg)

I guess it’s good that someone is pretending that the next step isn’t already planned for 45 days and $20, followed by 30 days and $15 when that fails.

3 Responses to “The Massive DirecTV Campaign For Home Premiere”

  1. Joe Leydon says:

    Actually, I have found that Comcast does next to nothing to alert people that indie movies that haven’t even opened yet in theaters can be viewed as VOD. I’m not comparing, say, Tiny Furniture or Heartless to Just Go With It in terms of audience appeal. But it does seem to me that, across the board, we’re still pretty much in the Jursassic period when it comes to VOD marketing.

  2. Blackcloud says:

    C’mon, Joe, no love for the Ordovician or Permian?

  3. Russell says:

    Yeah, Comcast does nothing to promote its OnDemand service really aside from flaunting the number of shows available by number. For instance, the movie Super with Ellen Page is available on VOD yet there’s no mention of it anywhere and it isn’t the easiest to find either. Is Super also available on DirectTV or is it Comcast-only?

Leave a Reply

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

“Yes, good movies sprout up, inevitably, in the cracks and seams between the tectonic plates on which all of these franchises stay balanced, and we are reassured of their hardiness. But we don’t see what we don’t see; we don’t see the effort, or the cost of the effort, or the movies of which we’re deprived because of the cost of the effort. Paul Thomas Anderson’s Inherent Vice may have come from a studio, but it still required a substantial chunk of outside financing, and at $35 million, it’s not even that expensive. No studio could find the $8.5 million it cost Dan Gilroy to make Nightcrawler. Birdman cost a mere $18 million and still had to scrape that together at the last minute. Imagine American movie culture for the last few years without Her or Foxcatcher or American Hustle or The Master or Zero Dark Thirty and it suddenly looks markedly more frail—and those movies exist only because of the fairy godmothership of independent producer Megan Ellison. The grace of billionaires is not a great business model on which to hang the hopes of an art form.”
~ Mark Harris On The State Of The Movies

How do you make a Top Ten list? For tax and organizational purposes, I keep a log of every movie I see (Title, year, director, exhibition format, and location the film was viewed in). Anything with an asterisk to the left of its title means it’s a 2014 release (or something I saw at a festival which is somehow in play for the year). If there’s a performance, or sequence, or line of dialogue, even, that strikes me in a certain way, I’ll make a note of it. So when year end consideration time (that is, the month and change out of the year where I feel valued) rolls around, it’s a little easier to go through and pull some contenders for categories. For 2014, I’m voting in three polls: Indiewire, SEFCA (my critics’ guild), and the Muriels. Since Indiewire was first, it required the most consternation. There were lots of films that I simply never had a chance to see, so I just went with my gut. SEFCA requires a lot of hemming and hawing and trying to be strategic, even though there’s none of the in-person skullduggery that I hear of from folk whose critics’ guild is all in the same city. The Muriels is the most fun to contribute to because it’s after the meat market phase of awards season. Also, because it’s at the beginning of next year, I’ll generally have been able to see everything I wanted to by then. I love making hierarchical lists, partially because they are so subjective and mercurial. Every critical proclamation is based on who you are at that moment and what experiences you’ve had up until that point. So they change, and that’s okay. It’s all a weird game of timing and emotional waveforms, and I’m sure a scientist could do an in-depth dissection of the process that leads to the discovery of shocking trends in collective evaluation. But I love the year end awards crush, because I feel somewhat respected and because I have a wild-and-wooly work schedule that has me bouncing around the city to screenings, or power viewing the screeners I get sent.
Jason Shawhan of Nashville Scene Answers CriticWire