Why can't movies be released in homes? [closed]

Netflix has done the next best thing to what you suggest with House of Cards (which cost $100 million to produce) and Lillyhammer by releasing these episodic series directly along with their other online features. You cannot see them in a theatre. There was an announcement of another series, this one science fiction, coming in late 2014.

I heard an interview of the founder of Netflix on PBS radio about a month ago: he basically says he doesn't care what the industry does. He's going to do what he thinks audiences will like. I would not be at all surprised if a movie or two shows up, though I have found no indication of any.

This article suggests Netflix won't do movie production because a) TV series are 70% of their online usage, b) Movies do not have the same cultural cross pollination as series, c) A Netflix movie would compete with movie studios on which they greatly depend for most of their content.

However, Amazon is known to be doing something. The next few years should prove to be quite interesting.

If I understand the question correctly you are asking if there is a service that lets you watch new movies in your home at the same time as they are released in the theater. If this is what you are asking then the answer is yes.

Prima Cinema offers at home viewing of movies at the same time they are released at the box office. However, convenience comes at a price and in this case it is $35,000 for the player and $500 per viewing. You can read more about the viewer and its security features in this G4 article from January.

There have been several movies which have been released for online viewing (at a price) at the same time it is released in the theaters (examples: Bubble 2006 and Upstream Color - a month after theater release). I don't think this will ever become a regular practice in the future ... more of an oddity. The reason I say this is, as long as there are movie theaters, theaters will want their cut (theaters do not make their money from the movie itself, but from the concessions they sell - popcorn & soda - at least here in the States). If people are home enjoying movies, they aren't buying concessions.

Another reason is, most main stream movies were meant to be seen on the "big screen". If they weren't meant to be seen there, they'd be shown on network television.

While it may seem releasing movies at home at the same time as in theaters would provide a way for studios to make more money, I would argue it wouldn't exactly work this way. While their upfront money would be greater (make money quicker), the total quantity of money made would less. They release a movie in the theater (money made), then out on On-Demand, then on DVD, on premium cable channels and direct stream, and finally (usually) much later on commercial TV. Here is five different money streams where money is made for a movie. If you put any of them together, they compete for the same pool of money. If I have a choice to view a movie at home vs. at the theater I would probably choose home because it is much more fiscally responsible (multiple people can watch a movie at home much cheaper than what it costs for tickets to go to the theater). Some people might choose to go to the theater, but not nearly as many.

Mind you, it would be great for us (the viewer) if movies were released at the same time to different markets, but given the amount of money which can be made through the various sources, I doubt it will happen anytime in the near future.

Here is an article from the Huffington Post on the subject.

There is an entire genre/category of movies called "Direct-to-video" that frequently skips the movie theater, but sometimes are joint releases. So, what you're asking about is already occasionally done.