This is an interesting way to let people know that they can purchase Lionsgate movies on iTunes (which is Lionsgate’s intent). It reminds me of the EnhancedCDs that made a blip a few years back (apparently some are still being made) that contained bonus materials like music videos or fan club and concert information.

And of course, this will give Apple an extra boost in its nascent rentals business, as I’m sure anyone who happens upon the iTunes store will be told about the rental section as well.

This along with an article in this month’s Wired bring up interesting ideas about the nature of how companies will make money. Wired’s article discusses the surge in “free” products, which are subsidized by other items one might purchase (for example, if you subscribe to cable, you get a free DVR if you sign up for add-on channels). With Lionsgate throwing in a free iTunes movie (albeit for the same movie you got the DVD of), rumors of all major studios reducing the number of movies they make (this was discussed before the WGA strike) and the recent defeat of Blu-ray over HD-DVD, I think we’re in for an interesting year in movie promotions.

Just a few hours later I got word that Pioneer stepped in to deliver yet another bitchslap to HD-DVD on behalf of Blu-Ray by lowering the price of their most popular Blu-Ray disc burner from $649 to a can’t-beat-it low $429 (over 30%). This move wasn’t really necessary because Blu-Ray already dominates the high-capacity disc-burning market. Why? Because no one has released an HD-DVD burner yet!

So let’s re-cap: Blu-Ray’s most expensive player on average runs $800, while HD-DVD’s most expensive player runs around $900. Blu-Ray has more player models available and the exclusive support from every movie studio except Paramount, which is expected to cave in soon. Blu-Ray has many disc burners available, while HD-DVD has none.

The exact reason why his movie hasn’t been bought isn’t explained anywhere, although an article on MTV.com suggests people nowadays just don’t dig his style of movies anymore. But that’s not stopping Burns from releasing his movie. Although he’s been picked up for foreign distribution in 3 countries, the lack of U.S. distributors (not even straight to video) has prompted Burns to “premiere” Purple Violets on… iTunes. Which in fact is a major plus for hardcore Burns fans, as they can now own the movie for a tiny $12.99 (some sources say $14.99), instead of having to sit in a theatre for $12+snacks or buying the DVD in stores for $25.

In the same MTV article, Burns himself offers up a reason for his lack of distribution: “This is the year that art house cinema died.” He claims the culture of the movie audience has changed since the mid-90s. Citing specifically two movies out in theatres right now, Rendition and Lions for Lambs, Burns said, “If they’re not going to see Reese Witherspoon or Tom Cruise, they’re not going to come out and see me and (Purple Violets co-star) Patrick Wilson.”

Burns is definitely disheartened by his new movie’s demise, so much so that he’s “not going to make another small dialogue movie for a while.” (he’s averaged about one every 18 months).

Now, I’m not exactly an Edward Burns fan (in fact, for the some of same reasons cited above), but I think this is an interesting point in movie history. Not because no one bought Burns’ movie, or because he claims “art films are dead”, but because now Apple (via iTunes) is being featured as a legit distributor of indie movies (as a matter of fact, the trailer for Purple Violets prominently features the iTunes logo in the beginning, where distributor logos are usually featured). Granted, many indies have been sold thru iTunes (some exclusively), but a moderately-big name like Burns bringing it to light gives Apple some cache in the movie field. Where this could lead, however, is anyone’s guess.

Which is great (save for the higher movie ticket price), this post isn’t to bash 3D movies. It’s merely to bring up a point that affects me and I’m sure thousands if not millions of people, which is that some of us have eyesight that doesn’t jive well with 3D glasses.

My left eye sees about half as far as my right; as a result, I’ve yet to experience a 3D movie where I’ve actually been able to see the 3D jumping at me. It has worked a few times, but I really have to strain my eyes for it to work. It may be the same thing that prevents me from seeing that floating pirate ship in those Magic Eye posters that were all the rage back in the early 90’s.

So maybe ol’ Katz oughta consider making some prescription 3D glasses for people like me, eh? Whaddya say? I give you $20 for the movie, you give me $600 3D glasses? Deal? Deal.