# Why rent movies? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 27, 2010, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-rent-movies/534064 "2010-03-27T23:26:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Mogle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mogle/32/12021_2.png) [@Mogle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mogle)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-rent-movies/534064/81 "2010-04-02T13:41:17Z")
> [@Lynn\_Bodoni](#): > > A fiction book that had numerous minor or even just one major fact wrong would fail. The reader would be jolted out of the story, and perhaps never feel like going back to it. Even fiction writers have to research their facts, at least enough to make the story plausible. I used to read old Perry Mason novels, a couple of decades ago, and I used to shake my head, and think “He’d never get away with that sort of crap today”, when Perry broke the law. > > A work of fiction MUST be both believable and true to its own world. A mystery novel will fail if, for instance, police don’t have to follow restrictive procedures to collect evidence. Science fiction novels will fail if the science is bad (and it’s not rationalized in some way). Fantasy novels fail if the unicorns in them are simply horses with single horns, and not a separate species altogether. If a writer doesn’t care enough about his/her book to do at least a little research, then it will show, and readers will usually ignore such a book in droves. Ok, you can add the cost of a fact checker to the cost I asked about. But people writing screenplays have the same problem, which is what I said in my first post, writing a screenplay and writing a book has the same costs associated with them, but going from one person with too much time on his hands to a finished product costs much more when we’re talking about movies. > [@](#): > > Many of my favorite fiction books have illustrations or maps, in the front of the book. This is especially helpful when the story is set in a completely different world, and the geography is important. A picture can truly sometimes be worth a thousand words, when it comes to describing an alien or a Wee Free Man. Personally I own one book that include illustrations other than a cover and a few maps(which are often done by the author, heck that’s how Edding’s got started on his Belgariad, he doodled a map when he was bored) at the start of the book. At any rate I just wanted to reduce the number of variables. Eg, colour illustrations on every page cost a wee bit more than a couple of black and white maps. > [@](#): > > And then we get down to the cost of someone’s time. Writing a book can’t be done by scribbling down 10 minutes here and a quarter of an hour there. Most people need to have some time to actually think about the story, and then try to work out how the various bits fit together. If the writer is distracted, even momentarily, s/he might lose his/her train of thought. I know that, I never suggested that you could write a book 10 minutes a time, but are you saying that no one can write a book in his/her spare time? That in order to write a book you need to sit in front of your typewriter eight hours a day? > [@](#): > > Back in Economics 101 or 102, we learned that spending time one way means that we can’t spend it another way. That is, the time that a would-be writer spends, staring at a sheet of paper/typewriter/computer monitor is time that s/he isn’t spending in other ways, ways which might be either more enjoyable or more profitable or both. This factor cannot be neglected. Spare time is by definition, spare. I stand by the my statement that time is only money if you have the option of spending it on something that makes you money. If you write as a hobby I would expect that you do it because to enjoy writing, otherwise you wouldn’t be doing it, no different from playing in a garage band or being a part of an amateur theatre group. I never said that every or even most books are written this way, only that it is possible to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-rent-movies/534064/82 "2010-04-02T20:32:09Z")
> [@Lynn\_Bodoni](#): > > Fantasy novels fail if the unicorns in them are simply horses with single horns, and not a separate species altogether. Nonsense! All the existing equines – horses, donkeys, asses, zebras, Przewalski’s – are interfertile, and can produce hybrid offspring. That is generally considered one of the distinguishing traits of a species. Classical pictures of unicorns look very similar to horses – far more similar than some of these other existing equines. So it is quite reasonable to presume that unicorns could breed with horses, and produce offspring (though probably infertile). So they would appropriately be classed as a branch of Equus. ---
**Author:** ![gazpacho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6f9a4e/32.png) [@gazpacho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gazpacho)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-rent-movies/534064/83 "2010-04-02T21:08:23Z")
> [@Lynn\_Bodoni](#): > > A fiction book that had numerous minor or even just one major fact wrong would fail. The reader would be jolted out of the story, and perhaps never feel like going back to it. Even fiction writers have to research their facts, at least enough to make the story plausible. I used to read old Perry Mason novels, a couple of decades ago, and I used to shake my head, and think “He’d never get away with that sort of crap today”, when Perry broke the law. This is just silly. Dan Brown has made a mint with book after book full of major fact errors. People are willing to put up with a lot of dubious things in their books. ---
**Author:** ![Lynn\_Bodoni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e47c2d/32.png) [@Lynn\_Bodoni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynn_Bodoni)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2010, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-rent-movies/534064/84 "2010-04-03T06:48:08Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > Nonsense! > All the existing equines – horses, donkeys, asses, zebras, Przewalski’s – are interfertile, and can produce hybrid offspring. That is generally considered one of the distinguishing traits of a species. > > Classical pictures of unicorns look very similar to horses – far more similar than some of these other existing equines. So it is quite reasonable to presume that unicorns could breed with horses, and produce offspring (though probably infertile). So they would appropriately be classed as a branch of Equus. Well, that’s sort of my point. Classical pictures of unicorns do look somewhat similar to equines…but classic unicorns have cloven hooves, which puts them into a whole different classification. They also have other differences from equines, but the cloven hooves nail it. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2010, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-rent-movies/534064/85 "2010-04-03T07:57:01Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > Does anyone know if Netflix is a sustainable model? The number of movies we watch, divided by the $8 per month my mother-in-law pays them (Xmas gift), divided by 2 for me and my wife both watching, must be, like, fuckin’ _nothin._ I think some people might have misunderstood this question. I’m quite sure Netflix is doing fine. The _fuckin’ nothin’_ was directed at the studios. How long can they keep producing $100M epics when we are, more and more, getting them for pennies? And re: cost of writing a book: I recall reading an article by John Grisham where he talked about how when he wanted to be a writer he would get up 2 hours early for work every morning and write. That’s all. When he had something good, he’d submit it. You could nitpick the details, but what he did was essentially free. And wasn’t JK Rowling homeless when she wrote Harry Potter, or is that one of those things like “Michael Jordan got cut from the basketball team”? ---
**Author:** ![anson2995](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c77e96/32.png) [@anson2995](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anson2995)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2010, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-rent-movies/534064/86 "2010-04-03T12:44:56Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > And wasn’t JK Rowling homeless when she wrote Harry Potter, or is that one of those things like “Michael Jordan got cut from the basketball team”? Rowling wasn’t homeless, but she said she wrote the first book in cafes “because taking her baby out for a walk was the best way to make her fall asleep.” Rowling has said she was on welfare at this time, living in Edinburgh after separating from her husband. And Jordan was cut from his high school’s varsity team during his sophomore year. He played JV instead, grew four inches over the summer, and made the varsity squad the next year. Einstein never failed math, though. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2010, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-rent-movies/534064/87 "2010-04-03T14:16:34Z")
> [@Mogle](#): > > Spare time is by definition, spare. > I stand by the my statement that time is only money if you have the option of spending it on something that makes you money. > If you write as a hobby I would expect that you do it because to enjoy writing, otherwise you wouldn’t be doing it, no different from playing in a garage band or being a part of an amateur theatre group. A friend of mine recently completed a novel she was writing in her spare time. Another friend has been working on a novel in her spare time for the past couple of years. They have not been paid for the time they spent writing, but you will never have the chance to read these books unless they are. Both my friends are smart enough to know they’re unlikely to get rich off their writing, but they aren’t distributing their work independently for free and they’re not going to hand their manuscripts over to a publisher without being paid for them. Almost any book you see in a bookstore or library is a book that the author was paid for. In many cases the author received at least part of their advance payment before the manuscript was complete. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2010, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-rent-movies/534064/88 "2010-04-03T14:47:44Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > Does anyone know if Netflix is a sustainable model? The number of movies we watch, divided by the $8 per month my mother-in-law pays them (Xmas gift), divided by 2 for me and my wife both watching, must be, like, fuckin’ _nothin._ The real question is time and money. For $8/month they send you what? 4 or 5 movies one at a time? So let’s say 5. 30 days/5movies = 6/days/movie. $8/5= $1.60. SO they make $1.60 every 5 days for any movie, provided they can keep into out to customers. The math is really even simpler; a movie constantly out to customers is making $8/month. Subtract 5 times bulk rate postage - which is the REAL question… what does that back-and-forth mailing cost for 10 mailings? Obviously much less than $8. Subtract the cost of handling, and the rest is profit once the movie is paid off. Lets pretend; mailing is $4, or half. $4 to pay for the facilities, envelopes, labor, etc. 10 envelopes, wholesale? $1 tops? Probably more like 30 cents. $1 for labour and handling, $2.70 profit. Let’s say 7 months to pay for the disc, or if you sell it, 3 months. So in the end, the business model is a trade-off; how many people will rent this movie, and will we tick them off if we buy fewer copies and make them wait longer? Fortunately, you even help them with that too by putting the movie on your wish list, maybe even before it comes out. This can help them guesstimate demand and determine payback vs. number of discs to buy. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2010, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-rent-movies/534064/89 "2010-04-03T16:01:17Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > The math is really even simpler; a movie constantly out to customers is making $8/month. Subtract 5 times bulk rate postage - which is the REAL question… what does that back-and-forth mailing cost for 10 mailings? Obviously much less than $8. Subtract the cost of handling, and the rest is profit once the movie is paid off. This blog claims 78 cents for round trip postage, so the postage on 10 movies is $7.80. [http://blog.streamingmedia.com/the\_business\_of\_online\_vi/2009/03/estimates-on-what-it-costs-netflixs-to-stream-movies.html](http://blog.streamingmedia.com/the_business_of_online_vi/2009/03/estimates-on-what-it-costs-netflixs-to-stream-movies.html) It looks to me like Netflix must lose money on everybody that turns their movies over more than once a week. Do you realize how much money Netflix would save if they could figure out a way for people to send a movie to the next person on the queue instead of back to them? ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2010, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-rent-movies/534064/90 "2010-04-03T17:14:43Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > This blog claims 78 cents for round trip postage, so the postage on 10 movies is $7.80. > > [http://blog.streamingmedia.com/the\_business\_of\_online\_vi/2009/03/estimates-on-what-it-costs-netflixs-to-stream-movies.html](http://blog.streamingmedia.com/the_business_of_online_vi/2009/03/estimates-on-what-it-costs-netflixs-to-stream-movies.html) > > It looks to me like Netflix must lose money on everybody that turns their movies over more than once a week. I don’t think many people fall into that category, though. Plenty of people get movies from Netflix and then leave them sitting around for weeks or even months before they get around to watching them (or just send them back unwatched). Netflix may lose money on people who watch each movie the night they get it and then send it back promptly the next morning, but there must be a fair number of people who are paying $8.99 to get just one or two movies a month. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2010, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-rent-movies/534064/91 "2010-04-10T12:29:59Z")
Netflix has announced 28 day delay arrangement with 20th Century Fox and Universal pictures similar to the one they already have with Warner Brothers. [http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-netflix10-2010apr10,0,3453854.story](http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-netflix10-2010apr10,0,3453854.story) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-rent-movies/534064.md?page=4)