You would get the same answer to each question whether you used would or does; both questions ask for the price of the action mentioned. There is a slight difference in the implication of why you're asking, but the information you want is the same.
When you ask How much does it cost to [x], you're simply asking for information. You could be asking out of pure curiosity, or because you want to purchase the item in question, but no implication is made either way.
When you ask How much would it cost to [x], there is a stronger implication that you're wanting to buy the item you're discussing. Instead of a straight pricing inquiry, you're saying "If I were to buy [x], how much would it cost me?" Using would introduces a future conditional, thus the implication that you're considering the purchase (based on the answer to the question about price).
Maulik has given you a good start. What you need to think about are the practical difference between the two options. The clear difference is "get". So what does "get + past participle" give us?
Well, firstly, movies don't release themselves! But I think you knew that. So our second option is not great, as we can't use "release" as an action of the movie itself. For this to work we would need a verb that can be something that a movie does.
If a movie doesn't suck.
Moving on to "get", in your first sentence; this sentence is perfect - it sounds natural and is entirely self-explanatory. "Get" is an extremely flexible verb with many uses and meanings. Its function in this case is to externalise the action. That is, we are saying that the action "occurred" without explaining how, and more importantly by who. This is a form of the passive/causative, which is a vital tool in English.
We use "get + past participle" to externalise an action where the "agent" (who did it) is unknown, unimportant, or self-explanatory.
Here are a couple of other examples:
When a book gets published, it is a nervy time for the author...
If you get arrested, it's important to know your rights...
In the event that you want to explain who performed this "externalised action", you can do so by simply using "by":
If a movie doesn't get released by a movie company, it's likely due to...
Best Answer
The first is correct and the best way to say it.
A simple rule when using the interrogative pronouns with a verb in a question. If the question is about the subject of the verb, you don't include do, does or did:
In case the question is about the object, you do include them:
Note that those examples are in simple present and simple past only. Things might change in other tenses.
Update:
Also note that You might use the second sentence if you want to use the emphatic do. The emphatic do is simple used when you want to emphasize a verb. For instance:
There is also the example stangdon mention below in the comments.