Slashdot Mirror
Peter Jackson and JJ Abrams 'Back' Sean Parker's Screening Room (variety.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Reports claim that Napster founder, Sean Parker, is working on a new service, called Screening Room, which would make major blockbusters available at home on the same day as they hit cinemas. The service would apparently charge users $50 per movie, and provide them with a 48-hour window to watch it. Now a new report claims that Hollywood titans Peter Jackson, Steven Spielberg and JJ Abrams are among backers of Screening Room.
A fool and his money soon parted.
Better have Dolby atoms and at least 4k at $50. Also the system should let you do offsite downloads just so the people with low caps can use other places to download at.
It's a bit too much for me, even if you watch it with a few other people; perhaps in the future we'll see the price drop to maybe $20/movie after a week or two, and $10/movie after 4 weeks. I usually go with just the wife and that $50 is about what I pay for 2 tickets for a 3D movie with popcorn and pop combo deals.
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
I have a 4K HDR Dolby Atmos dedicated theater in my basement. Sure a 100 foot screen is great and all, but I have better sound and video on my 133" screen than any theater within a 18 hour drive. I would gladly pay that fee, it would be cheaper than me and my wife going because of the cost of a sitter.
"and along with Screening Room’s robust anti-piracy strategy" LOL are they serious? If you can see and hear the movie you can record and redistribute it. Period. At first I'm sure they'll have the stream locked down but pirates will just record it using a capture system and re-encode. And quickly the stream will be compromised and they won't even have to do that. Don't get me wrong I like the idea but if they're under some delusion that there won't be releases on every torrent site after a couple hours they REALLY don't get it. Love the idea (maybe not for $50 a movie) but you'll be able to get copies from everywhere less than a few hours after release.
Well $50 isn't that bad if you plan on having friends over to watch it together instead of going to the cinema. I don't see how they can make real money on it because most people are tired of shelling out $15+ just to go see the movie so I doubt they'll pay $50 just for the sake of staying in.
On the other hand, at least pirates will be able to a good rip on day one to enjoy at home.
I don't see this really coming to fruition because of that.
When I take my twins to a movie it goes like this:
$40 for tickets
$20-30 for food/drink (not counting the trip to Walgreen's for candy)
So $60-70 total (minimum actually, game room is another money sink at some theaters).
$50 to watch it at home? Shoot, I'd almost pay a higher premium.
And even if it's just my wife and I watching, it's still cheaper than the UFC (which we watch regularly - mixed martial arts if you aren't familiar with it).
BlameBillCosby.com
Are there actually THAT many people that HAVE to see it on release day.....and can't wait for a later, more convenient day, or maybe just do like I do...and wait for it to come out on BLuRay...rent and watch in the comfort of their own home...?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I assume they'll be leaning on some kind of "unique purchaser identification" - like, we can identify your copy of the film in some kind of robust way, we'll require some kind of secure ID/credit in order to purchase, and we'll come eat your face if "your" copy of the film gets leaked?
Because it's obviously not going to be possible to prevent people from setting up a video camera in their own house.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
they make the shows $2 after it goes to dvd/br release.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
This reminds me of my college days. I always asked my roommates if they wanted cable. They all say YES! I then asked them if they wanted to pay for cable. They all say NO! We never had cable when I was in college.
The significance I see in this is for families. A family of four can easily be close to $200 to see a movie, and it's not even a comfortable setting. I'll take it for $50 any day. Although that said, there are very few movies that I won't wait for the blu-ray release.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Just watch. If you have more than X people, it will be considered a violation of the license.
SWAT raids will follow.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
True, but for say a family of four.
This could easily be MUCH cheaper then going to the movie theater, especially if you add in drinks/snacks....
A single viewer watching on their laptop in their parents basement probably isn't the target market.
I have a friend with a home theater. Big projection screen, proper acoustic dampening, decent sound system, 3d capable, seats 6 (more if people sit on the floor and/or double up on the couch). $50 split 6 ways is cheaper than a movie ticket, and it's way better viewing experience.
There are plenty of people to whom $50 is not problematic at all for an hour or two of entertainment. Think what dinner at a nice restaurant costs even in a medium-sized city. They could charge more and still have many thousands of customers, but are obviously searching for the sweet spot between cost and number of customers that optimizes their return.
As a parent here is some simple math 2 tickets almost $30 (not 3D or IMAX or anything) Babysitter - $30-$40 Snacks - $20 Not missing something awesome because I have to go to the washroom (let's assume this thing has hi-tech functions like pause and rewind) then great, although I would really like a $75 package that includes a digital copy once the blu ray or whatever hits the stores, because it irks me that if I want to watch something in 3D or IMAX, by the time I factor in babysitters its almost $100 for a 2 hour movie that I get to watch ONCE.
Are there actually THAT many people that HAVE to see it on release day.....and can't wait for a later, more convenient day, or maybe just do like I do...and wait for it to come out on BLuRay...rent and watch in the comfort of their own home...?
Sure, why not? I can see friends getting together, it's not particularly expensive split between 4. I don't usually go to the cinema at opening, but it was super exciting to see Star Wars at the first midnight showing.
And obviously there's value in seeing a film at the same time as general culture, we are social creatures and seeing something while the world is experiencing something is being part of the world around you. Waiting months for DVD means you don't get to have any conversations about the film with friends, have to avoid spoilers in media or opinion pieces about the film...
I like going to the theater. I always have. The home theater is great but for the kind of movies that I think would motivate someone to spend $50 to sit at home and watch I think the giant screen and the crowd add something to the experience. I won't really have much use for this service.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
It seems extremely unlikely that this will work.
What Abrams, Jackson and the other rich director/producer types are thinking:
Movies cost about $15 each ticket and up so a family of four could find this to be a good deal!
What will really happen:
The same family of four that will pay $60 or more to go to the movies will balk at paying a slightly lower charge at home because they won't make the "This is cheaper than 4 individual tickets" connection that the big shots think. They will see it as "I could pay $15 to see this film. Why should I pay $50?"
This seems to be very unlikely to be anything that groups smaller than 4 will want (ie. singles, childless couples, etc.).
Some in Hollywood will refuse to cooperate and see this is a threat to their standard business model. Not to mention push back from the theater chains. All hell broke loose over the release of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon - Sword Of Destiny" to home video on the same date as theaters and all the major theater chains in the USA refused to show the film as they viewed it as a threat. Do Abrams and the others really want to risk having all the major chains tell them "Yeah, we're not going to carry your film if you do that"? They'll back down. if this ever ever gets off the ground I expect that it will only show films with limited audiences, which will make it seem to be a failure.
This could easily be MUCH cheaper then going to the movie theater, especially if you add in drinks/snacks....
Eating Kraft macaroni and cheese at home is also much cheaper than going out to a high class restaurant. Your point? Watching a movie in the cinema is not the same as watching a movie at home, even though in both places you get a "movie". Just like horrible, boxed mac and cheese and a $60 angus steak are both "food". But if you can't see the difference then you deserve to pay more for less. If your family of four waits a few months the same movie will be on pay per view for $5, or on cable for the price of the subscription you're paying anyway.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
nah, home is better than theater. Movie in 40W stereo and 1080p is good enough. $50 for family to go to theater?, I think it's more!
When you consider that it costs $150+ to pile a family of 5 into the Canyonero and drive to the movie theater, pay $15/ticket and $15 a piece for a small bag of stale popcorn and small sugary soda, and watch a movie surrounded by people talking on their phones and calling a play-by-play of the film, I would HAPPILY, VERY VERY HAPPILY pay $50 to watch a first-run movie at home on the night it is released in theaters.
For one, I spend much more when I go see the movie with my wife if you factor in drink and food, parking and travel.
Not to mention with twins under two years, we had to bend over backwards to go see Deadpool. And yes, not waiting too long is important. On the one hand you want to be able to discuss it with others as long as the memory is still fresh and on the other, you do know people are dicks on the internet, yes? Spoilers are a major issue.
Not to mention that you never know whether you'll have a douchebag in the room at public venues.
At first I thought, $50? Way too much.
But then I thought, to be able to see a movie I've really wanted to see the day it opens, instead of waiting for six months to a year for the Blu-Ray...
As long as I could watch it a few times in the viewing window, I'd be interested.
The price is also more reasonable if you think about splitting the cost among a small group of friends who watch it together (I'm sure explicitly disallowed by license but whatever).
I do see that DRM could kill this idea dead by making the system nearly unusable though. Hoping it's an AppleTV app.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Also there is a lot of value in NOT dealing with the asshole talking and texting in the movie.
Probably not.
First off, not every movie has Atmos, or DTS:X. Plenty are just plain old 7.1 Dolby Digital or DTS. A lot of them, actually.
Secondly, even in the movie industry they may film with 4K+ cameras, but CGI is often still done in 2K, so the resulting output is actually 2K. Most movies are still released in 2K Digital Intermediate format - maybe only one or two are 4K Digital Intermediate, and this is the past 6-12 months of releases. (Star Wars is 2K DI, as is The Martian).
Now, 2K is 2048x1080, so the frame content is only slightly wider than 1080p. However, it is not 1080p as the letterboxing is absent - 2K DI is sent through an anamorphic lens that stretches things out to the 2.2:1-2.4:1 anamorphic format. A 1080p Blu-Ray has to be converted to maintain aspect, so those are letterboxed to around 900-odd pixels high.
As for downloads - the people this caters to are NOT the ones who have low caps. They're likely to have proper home theatre setups with stadium-style seating, properly tuned rooms and projection systems (holding 4-8 people). When you spend $100K+ on a home theatre, worrying about your internet caps is quite unlikely.
But you got a million tedious fight scenes that were never in the books.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
wait no that didn't happen that way AAAAAGGGGHH
Dude's a hack. Admit it.
I agree. I boycotted those movies when I found out the dialogue was going to be in English, instead of in the original Westron with subtitles.
>> the dialogue was going to be in English, instead of in the original Westron with subtitles
Coffee, meet keyboard.
All and all, until "Into the dome, motherfuckers" is done in theaters, having a device like this is a decent alternative to keeping the kids entertained without having to make the run a pilgrimage or an exercise in hair-pulling.
Of course, the heavily DRM-ed set top box bothers me. Will it be like the proposed Kinect DRM where if it detects four or more people and stop playing? Will it have a camera and demand it snoop on the area supposedly to guard the IP... but then uses that info as additional revenue, sold to advertisers who now can peer into peoples' homes, perhaps be used as plain view doctrine for searches, if someone lights up a spliff? Will it store all conversations to sell or perhaps be used as evidence?
I'd consider that set top box... in a dedicated, sound-dampened room in a detached garage. Not in my house proper.
It wouldn't take many guests to justify this cost.
I don't plan on using it (though I have an awesome Entertainment room). But who knows.
The real question is how they will keep Mom and Pop from trying to make a buck off the Neighbourhood?
The cost is trivial for large families and those that entertain.
High for us one child family or smaller types.
Expect some future iteration to include a camera monitoring the audience size.
Letter To Iran
A fool and his money soon parted.
Possibly, but for people with their own home theatres this may be a good deal. The real question is what are the conditions around the price. For example, non-commercial, limited to 6 people, etc?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Ok, Anti-Piracy is going to be a big deal. There has to be some sort of camera visible, not human visible watermark on the film, so that it can be traced back to an individual user. Cue the scrubbing video crowd. But for some time this will be difficult to discern. I suspect the reason for the box is so you don't have to create an individual version on the fly, but the box adds the watermark. The other point of the box is to keep the software from being hacked easily.
The biggest problem is going to be bandwidth. Hopefully they make a deal with MLB.com or like netflix to settle the bandwidth problems. This is a problem for any video service that has at least some number of subscribers.
But, this doesn't need to be mainstream to be successful. A gigantic portion of movie revs are made in the first 2 weeks, and the first weekend is the largest. If this increases first day revenues, this will be a success for the entire industry. (At least if the model that first day revenue leads to ultimately leads to end revenue holds true). I would suspect that even 100K units will result in positive results for the industry, and if this gets as high as 1M units, this will be great. I am not sure what everyone here is worried about. This won't change anything. Theaters will still be theaters. You can go there. If price is too much, go to a matinee. If it is still to much wait for redbox if it is still too high, wait for netflix, if it is still to high wait for tv.
I for one think opening day movie parties with friends will be awesome. There have always been movies that I want to see but don't need to see them on big screens, and there will always be movies I want to see in a theater. I can't wait to get the box.
$50 split 6 ways
Don't let Hollywood know your friend is you charging money to see movies on his home theater. The movie studios will send their lawyers around real quick - that's a no no. Public performance? OK, pay a million dollars.
Actually, makes me wonder how they are going to prevent people bringing in cameras and sharing the movie with 'friends'? There is no one is kick you out of your own theatre room.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Actually, $50 is perfectly reasonable. Just because you do not like movies, does not mean many others do not find them entertaining.
A typical family will easily spend over $50 to see a movie in the theater, when you take into account concessions and ticket cost, parking. Double that if you need a baby sitter so that you and your spouse could go out to dinner and a movie. Quadruple that if it is a family movie and you want to take your kids.
So no, $50 is not unreasonable, especially you split the cost with friends.
This is also geared towards people who many not have gone to the movies to begin with and would have waited for the DVD or download to be released.
Me, I actually enjoy the theater experience, maybe I am just weird, who knows, but the last movie I took my toddler too (Deadpool.. just kidding), Minions Movie, and lets just say it was not a pleasant experience (at least it was for a birthday party and the theater was rented out for the group, so it was a ton of toddlers and everyone was understanding)
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
But he can watch it without being in the same room as you.
Invaluable.
Wait a minute... they are trusting the guy who created Napster, who essentially "let the genie out of the bottle" regarding music as MP3s -- to do something that *won't* have the exact same effect on films?
How fast before the Chinese develop a box that plugs in between HDMI cables, intercepts the stream to the monitor, and spools out the movie via USB to any convenient hard drive? In fact, I'm willing to bet such a box already exists. If I can think of it, so can someone else with more talent than me.
John Oliver showed a box for sale on Alibaba that brute forces open an iPhone, and can do it in a few seconds, apparently without utilizing the touch screen -- it all works directly via USB -- if they can build that, no streaming service is safe, first run movies will be pirated before their opening day is over.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
It's more that there are a lot of people who want to see something at home and don't want to go to the cinema. With large numbers of people have good home cinema setups, they'd like to use their equipment to view these blockbusters. There are some movies that I really couldn't be bother going to the cimema to see, but may watch at home. (There are some that I'd still go to the cinema for, though). Also, some people just can't get to the cinema for various reasons.
So, yeah, I probably be tempted to fork out some money to watch a movie at home instead of a noisy cinema, where I can enjoy it more. $50 is a lot (€45, which is 4 cinema tickets here), but with a few people around to watch it, you'd break even.
And I'm sure it will lead to a certain degree of reduced piracy, where some people will be happy to pay to have a good copy streamed to their TV, rather than download a low quality (and illegal) camera copy. But the impact likely won't be huge. I'm sure most will still just download the cemera copy, but at least the option would be there to allow you to purchase it for viewing, legally, and in Blu-Ray quality (or even 4K!)
It's amazing how many people here on /. are alone.
Say a movie comes out and I pay 50 bucks to watch it day-one. I'll be joined by wife, brother-in-law, sister, mother-in-law and (if the movie allows it) my kids. Now divide that 50 bucks to 5 and the price is 10 bucks a person. If it's a kids movie and you divide 50 bucks by 7, it's cheaper (7 bucks per viewer).
No cinema would beat this.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Let me tell you how this will play out. You pay 50$ to stream the movie, you do so during the 48 hour in your home. Using various technologies you pirate the movie, and because you have no morals and need to recover the 50$, you provide an pristine HD copy of the movie, on release day, to a release group. This group then releases said movie to the internet. And.... you go to jail for 10 years because the thing is audio/video digital fingerprinted. $50? No, sorry, that's never going to work. The exact same price as a theater ticket? Yes, that my friend, will actually work. BUT..... it has to be ATLEAST 50$ because two adults are not seeing a movie opening weekend for 50$. They just aren't. And no one is going to pay 50$ to watch a new release at home, by themselves. I just don't see this working. Give us everyone VOD and be done with it.
If you already don't care about breaking the law, why not just pirate the movie?
First of all an official release will probably be of higher quality (I only say "probably" because there has been a history of DRM or fear of rights holders meaning an official digital release of something has been worse than what you can download). For Day1 material though, the likelihood of the quality being better from an official release is much higher. I'm at the point where taking even even two hours to watch a movie is a lot of time so I want it to be worth doing and only have to see it once if possible...
But the second thing is, morally I don't want to just download something and not pay the creators for it. So even if I could download a higher quality version for free I'd rather at least pay for it for real and then watch the free version (I've done that before). You seem to conflate morals with the law, but the two are pretty much wholly disconnected at this point. I can easily say I break the law many times per day now (I won't say how but there are many common things that almost everyone does) so worrying about "breaking the law" means nothing to me anymore in comparison to behaving morally. Getting a small handful of friends together to me seems reasonable, so I will do it regardless of what the actual contract wording may be.
There's also the side aspect of risk; studios are particularly finicky about going after pirates of newer material.
All around it's way worth $50 to me to have an official release with great quality.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This is much cheaper than going to the movie theater if you have kids. Baby sitter and movie tickets are easily 50$. Add in cost of food or drinks it swings even more towards the staying home. Also, you can have as many drinks as you want and not have to worry about driving. Even if you don't have kids, 4 adults watching the movie and this is cheaper than a theater.
There were a bunch of assholes right here on Slashdot broadcasting spoilers for The Force Awakens.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
This will greatly improve the quality of cam torrents as pirates use stolen credentials and private VPN service to capture the latest movies day&date with theatrical release in their own home.
-==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!
..and yet so far. Zero day release thats not a cam +1, only 48 hour rental? -1 net 0 benefit
Just because you do not like movies, does not mean many others do not find them entertaining.
I'm curious as to how you came up with that insight that I don't like movies based on a Biblical quote. I usually see one or two movies per month. If I want to watch a movie at home, I wait for the cheapest option becomes available. That can be Redbox, Hulu or a $4.99 special on iTunes.
You really can't say that without knowing the specifics of this setup and referencing a specific theater for comparison. It's obviously not as good as an idealized cinema set up for some posh exclusive viewing, but it's well past the point of caring unless you're one of those people who thinks they can hear the difference between a 512kbps mp3 and a 256kbps mp3 and buys the 5x more expensive graphics card because benchmarked 2fps faster than the cheaper one. The picture is fine, the sound is fine, and it's most definitely better than the chain theater down the street with the sticky floors, kids who won't shut up, and poorly maintained equipment.
I don't think splitting the cost between a group of friends watching it would count as "charging money" in the sense of it being a public performance in this context. If Hollywood is going to claim otherwise, then $50 for a single viewer watching a movie from home is retarded and I take everything back.
My Wife and I went to see Deadpool last weekend and after the babysitter and tickets it was around $45.
Are there actually THAT many people that HAVE to see it on release day.....and can't wait for a later, more convenient day, or maybe just do like I do...and wait for it to come out on BLuRay...rent and watch in the comfort of their own home...?
Are there that many people who have different priorities than you do? Yeah, I guess there are, weird how that works. Go ask the UFC how much their fights make on pay per view sales, and also feel free to get their opinion on whether or not they care how you choose to spend your time.
I like how you mention "the comfort of their own home", as if this isn't exactly what is being sold. I've only watched one or two UFC fights in public, and you have to either reserve space or get there hours early for a decent spot. Everything else has been at my house or a friend's place where we order or make food, people chip in on the cost, etc. It's really not a big deal. The recent Star Wars made almost $248 million in the opening weekend, so get out your calculator and figure out how many tickets they sold to that. There are actually THAT many people who WANT to see it on release day, and instead of standing in line with hundreds of other idiots they can get their group of friends together and watch it, in the comfort of their own home.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Were those 'asshats' living outside of the United States?
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
so just like the fights, invite a bunch odf people at home and watch in home theater and split the cost. over 2 days...
or for the used blueray a month after that...
It's called Kraft Dinner , thanks. And it's hardly horrible.
Were those 'asshats' living outside of the United States?
Nope. Cheap American bastards who didn't have cable and didn't want to pay $1.99 per episode on Amazon or iTunes. Pirated copies took longer to circulate back then. These days you can get a pirated copy of a blockbuster movie weeks before the release date.
unless you are in a rural area or you only ISP choice is one with shit caps.
No intemperate jerk kicking the back of your seat every 2 minutes
Have a Day!
Spoilers can be a pretty big factor.
I PPV most UFC events. I'm a fight fan, and I can afford them. Friends watch them with me, and bring food. We all win there. ...if I'm watching a fight delayed, I have to live in a spoiler-free bubble of caution and the fear of looking at my phone. ...but other than some movie with a twist, there isn't too much other than a whodunnit, a "blockbuster" Marvel where someone dies, or a Star Wars type spoiler that I think can genuinely ruin a movie for me.
Pirated copies took longer to circulate back then.
No, they didn't. In fact one of the big arguments made for piracy, especially in that era, was the time it took (6+ months) for content to legitimately reach over-seas. It wasn't until 2010 or so before shows started appearing world-wide on iTunes within two weeks of their original airing.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
In Japan I like going to the cinema, because people are considerate. In the UK I prefer to watch in the comfort of my home on my THX certified TV.
The best thing about this is that about 15 minutes after the steam goes up the torrent will follow.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I guess you've never had the real thing.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
In fact one of the big arguments made for piracy, especially in that era, was the time it took (6+ months) for content to legitimately reach over-seas.
I generally avoid pirated materials. When a boss insisted that I contribute MP3s to the department file server back then, I ripped a bunch of Patsy Cline CDs and dropped the MP3s on the server. The mp3s were deleted five minutes later after my boss screamed, "What's this crap!" and played 30 seconds for the entire department to hear. Lots of groans and catcalls. Some people just don't appreciate early 1960's country music.
I'm married and have two kids. To go to see a movie in the theater, we shell out $44 for two adult and two kid tickets just to get in the door. If the kids bring friends, we break fifty bucks. Then, of course, you have the overpriced concessions. Mom can only stuff so much candy in her purse.
If the wife and I want to see a movie alone, we have to shell out probably $60 for a sitter plus $24 for tickets alone, plus we generally add in dinner, too. Spend $50, skip the tickets and add in a nice bottle of wine and it's a much cheaper date night.
You take a non-popular stance here but I agree with you. Of course, not even the BBC radio play had Tom Bombadil and that is about as faithful an adaptation as I have ever encountered.
When these movies first came out, I didn't see them in the theater.
These were childhood favorite books that really sparked my imagination.
The thing I hate about movies made from books is not so much the technical inaccuracies, it's that my memory gets overwritten with the face of whatever actor they decided to plunk in.
I did finally see the movies long after they had been released and I was actually bored watching them. I guess another nice thing about a book is that you don't have to do the whole thing at once.. only when you are really in a place to enjoy it. I think that people watch movies just to fill time or to keep from having to talk to people for a little while.
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
Some theaters are better than others.
I don't in fact have a miss-focused projector, speakers blown out by 10,000 high volume showings of 'blowed up real good' films, seats full of loud talking ass hats and 16+ screens packed so close together you hear the loud parts of neighboring films.
I do in fact have a decent HD screen and non-blown speakers that are 99% as good as any. That last 1% is REAL expensive.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
and at the that price it's still better to go to VIP setting with food and drink at the movies.
My 60" LED tv has much nicer colour and contrast than the local cinema chain's digital projector. My couch is much more comfortable than those cinema chairs where there is room for one elbow, but two people want the space.
At least he didn't start inserting scenes from the upcoming video games into the LoTR movies. Those had to wait for 'The Hobbit' films.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Your point? Watching a movie in the cinema is not the same as watching a movie at home, even though in both places you get a "movie".
No, it's worse. Not starting at the scheduled time so they can show you adverts, noisy people, no pausing to go to the toilet, expensive (and non-alcoholic) drinks.. I really don't see the point in the cinema any more - is there anything *so* good you can't wait six months?
Nope. If you want that service it already exists and has for many years for the ultra-wealthy. $500 for a single screening. Credit Check required. The equipment has a fingerprint scanner to verify you authorized the screening. It uses a satellite connection to pull down an encrypted file ahead of time and then the internet connection to get the key to decrypt. It's basically the same source material a theater would use.
It will result in reduced piracy. It sounds expensive, but when computed out, it's not too bad. You're not going to use it all the time, but maybe you and a bunch of friends will hang out for dinner, then go to your house and catch the blockbuster opening that very day? That's one heck of a day!
People have been wanting reduced theatre-to-home delays ever since home video came out back in the 80s. Back then it could take 6 months to a year before a movie came to VHS. These days, it's around 3 to 6 months, and there have been experiments where you could buy the disc the same day, at the end of the movie, where it came out on Netflix and theatres the same day, etc.
This seems to be the ultimate ending.
And to be honest, I only go to the movie theatre to experience the enhanced effects - either IMAX or the 3D, DBox or Atmos showings. Regular 2D showings don't impress me as it's just a larger screen. Theatre owners will have to innovate and make their places better than home. Not a bad thing.
How will they stop party's where you can change $3-$5 a head and get 20 people with food.
Having the "backing" of producers and directors is nice and all but lets not forget that it is the owners of the movie distribution companies that will have the final say. I suspect that if they do not get a sizable chink of that monthly fee to license the movies the MPAAFIA will shut Screening Room down so fast it will make your head spin. And that assumes they even allow the service to go live in the first place.
This could be valuable for movies as big as Star Wars was, since the theaters were packed and you *might* see a die-hard fan who wanted to be absolutely certain they would get a screening that very day.
But I don't see enough of those sorts of movies out there to make the $50 price tag a good price point for this.
I mean, all I did was stop looking at the Internet for a week or so, and I went to a matinee on a day off a week later. It was still a little crowded, but I don't feel like I missed anything by not seeing it that very day.
Moreover, those people who do go same day, they're probably there for the whole experience, which includes standing in line, in costume, hanging out with everyone else. They might not actually want to see it at home, in some cases.
As for Blu-Ray, yeah, if you're not interested enough to see it in a theater, you're not going to need this service. I'd *hope* that they did understand that much when they created this new service.
You and your roommates never figured out how to steal cable?
I had cable all through college. Never paid for it. Vampire taps are easy.
I would think so as well, I would think the incentive would be even greater to pirate it, pay 50 bucks or wait wait a few hours to pirate it? They must be thinking enough people are going to be paying to account for that.
There were a bunch of assholes right here on Slashdot broadcasting spoilers for The Force Awakens.
There were a bunch of asshole /. editors who posted spoilers to the ending of the X-Files spinoff The Lone Gunmen on the front page minutes after the show ended. Ah, the early days of /..
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
You and your roommates never figured out how to steal cable?
My roommates and I were in the campus ministry. So thievery was out of the question.
not so easy anymore with the digital conversion
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Consumer downsides:
1)- This will require some idiotic set top box. The set top box will go next to everything you already have for this purpose, add two wires to however many you have (so if you have a nest it got crappier, and if you are a minimalist you now have a nest). This means that whatever your solution for inputs to your TV is (select with a remote, autodetection, whatever you got) will also get slightly crappier. You already have at least one box here, and this one would be useful very rarely compared to those.
2)- The set top box will ASSUREDLY show you ads- that's pretty much the only reason to give you a locked down box like this. This will be an absolute ad festival.
3)- Fifty dollars is a lot of money for a single movie. In order for this to be a decent deal, you either need to invite everyone over, or have the family all want to see it.
4)- Your home setup is weak compared to a modern theater. If you didn't spend a zillion bucks on it, then it is *hella* weak compared to a modern theatre.
Consumer upsides:
1)- You can eat well, or eat cheap, and you aren't thirsty. A lot of theaters have drama with food and drink, and even if you are lucky enough to live next to one that is reasonable (serves food to you, doesn't give you grief for carrying in, doesn't give you water in a urine sample cup), it's still stuff you don't have to worry about with this.
2)- You can fit it around your schedule.
3)- You don't need to deal with theater hassle. Again, to some, this is no big deal, but if the close theater isn't nice, and if the nice theater isn't close, this could be a big deal.
4)- You can easily come in over 50 bucks taking even just one person to a movie theater, depending, and if you have a bunch of people (family or friends) you can easily save money with this setup.
5)- No one will scream a spoiler about Han Solo from the back of a slow moving pickup truck as you walk into the theater.
So, that's interesting, right? But there's also some other effects. Movie theaters are a *rough* business, and first run movies on opening night is sort of their big draw. Most (and in some cases effectively all) of a ticket sale go directly to the studio, leaving theaters forced to upcharge to stay around. Some do this sketchily with strange and aggressive setups for candy sales, others do this more straightforward by serving you a restaurant quality meal (often with optional booze), but all have been pinched to some degree by the pricing structure. Theater operators may simply flip out at the attempted erasure, causing drama. Meanwhile, studios might not trust the technology wholeheartedly, or be willing to go through the efforts of getting all the movies over to the service, leaving you with the fifth box next to your television that offers pay per view content... but not the pay per view content you actually want.
Two people, snacks & parking in Miami Beach easily can exceed $50. I have a home theatre with a 104" screen, so I'd absolutely go for this over dealing with going to the local AMC for most films. The only time it doesn't make sense is for movies which I'm the only one that wants to watch them.
-a.e.mossberg
will it? or will people simply wait for the person who does buy it to rip it and put it on tpb?
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
posting to remove erroneous mod.... apologies
THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
Some people were taught right from wrong by their parents and have some moral integrity. I know it's a crazy idea, but just because you think it's okay to steal doesn't mean everyone else does. I would guess that most of us did some morally questionable things when we were younger. Most of us have matured enough to realize that we should not be proud of those things and brag about them by the time we graduate from college though.
Cue the "it's not stealing if nothing gets taken" crowd. I'll go ahead and preemptively respond to that, too.
There are different types of theft but at the simplest level theft is taking something that is not yours without permission from the owner/creator. Note that "something" can be a physical item, a valuable idea, an identity, a service, etc.
If you go to buy a car and think the dealer's asking price is too high, do you come back after they close for the day and steal it? The cable TV company spent the money and did the work necessary to provide the infrastructure so they could offer a service. They set a price for this service based on what they thought it was worth. If you thought their asking price was more than the service was worth, you should have done without rather than stealing it.
...not to be downloading cam versions any more.
While I MIGHT consider it at $50. I think theater chain owners are going to pitch an ever loving fit.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
>"For one, I spend much more when I go see the movie with my wife if you factor in drink and food, parking and travel."
Except there is no expense for parking for most of us, and food isn't included with this $50 thing either. My nice theater is down the street, a 2 min drive with free parking and $5 to $12 ticket price depending on time, per person. Eat before going.
Or wait for the Bluray on sale for $25 and own it.
Or wait for it to be on Netflix and stream it as much as you like for no extra charge than what you already pay for Netflix.
I don't see how $50 is reasonable to time-bomb "rent" a streaming-only movie. Now, if it were $25, that might compete with 2 people going to the movies (or the above options)...
I've never been to a reasonably soundproofed theater, you can always hear the next one over. 'Projectionists' are a thing of the past. Minimum wage schlubs can't even be bothered to check the focus the once per week they visit the projection hardware.
You don't know what you are talking about regarding audio. Seriously, get a clue. Getting to 90% of 'perfect' is cheap and easy. It's all diminishing returns after that.
There are no theaters with electrostatic speakers. It would kill the finances of the place.
Theaters have lots of bass heavy watts. Great for reproducing explosions so they can be heard 2 theaters over. But for people who's ears aren't tuned to rap music it sounds like shit.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
No, but I'd sure as hell press one button to make a copy of the car and take that, leaving the original exactly where it was for the dealer to sell at his inflated price.
Don't be a pedant and don't be intentionally obtuse about theft of intellectual property.
Even if you could press your magic unicorn dust button and copy the car, it's still theft. You'd just be stealing the idea since you're not the one who had the creativity to come up the valuable concept of said car in the first place. You'd just be the lazy freeloader who thinks it's okay for the rest of society to work and create things while you steal them.
One of us doesn't, that is for sure. You are the one claiming home audio is '1%' of theater. (Apparently all theaters...) That makes it you.
Do you even know what diminishing returns means? How about 'flat frequency response'?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
If they could provide it in 4k, i expect they wouldn't have a problem with plenty of people wanting to pay. After all what does a home cinema system cost? and well $50 is not exactly much of a night out at anyrate. Stay home with the girl friend and a few beers? Why the hell not.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
You know what, if you go to the car dealer and think that car price is to high and you come back latter than night and make a copy with you own machine and supplies, well, you know what, that's fan-fucking-tastics, and woo hoo, you are to be celebrated and congratulated. Gees, think about, don't like the price of a big mack and can make an instant copies to feed yourself as well as the rest of the planet, you would be celebrated no matter how much maccas would want to fuck you up.
Dude, copying ain't stealing. In fact the only actually stealing that occurs is when the pigopolists with the backing of government storm troopers turn up to your door and actually steal and destroy the stuff you made with your equipment on your supplies, they also steal the equipment and suppliers and even your own self. The other big time actual stealing that is occurring is of course big time fraudulent DMCA claims where pigoplists do actually steal content that other people have produced by the pigopolists claiming it as their own.
Now here is a tricky one, did the cable companies steal quality of life from it's users by maliciously and disingenuously promoting unhealthy and socially destructive practices and should they be prosecuted for the harm and suffering they have purposefully caused, that harm being the theft of years of a persons life.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
To me, a vastly inferior experience would be to watch a forced 3D movie with cheap glasses and 2D subtitles. Been there, done that. Not to mention that spectators around you is really a lottery. You can end up with a really nice audience or a bunch of noisy teens or retards of all ages.
On top of that, at home I can watch the movie in my underwear, pause it, vape and scratch my balls (really important!) while not giving a shit.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
According to your link it's KD. I remember that they changed they name recently. Something about trying to be hip again. Only tried the stuff a couple of times and can't stand it.
If Hollywood ever puts out a movie worth seeing. I've been to one movie in the past two years and that was only because the woman I was seeing at the time wanted to see it.
Why can't anyone go to a movie and not buy snacks? Seems like everyone here is complaining about the cost of them so the easy solution would be not to buy them or are you physically incapable of sitting a couple hours without putting food in your mouth? I refuse to pay the concession prices at the theatre and so I go without. It's not that difficult.
and also can't just go to the theater and pay $12 instead of $50 with this new service?
.. It brings with it the other typical benefits of streaming, such as being able to pause the damn thing! The worst part about seeing a movie (every movie) is that unless you manage to go to the toilet at the start of the film, you will probably need to go during it.
I would say that 100% of the films I have seen in recent years I've missed something from the middle because whoever the idiots are who edit the films don't believe in intermissions, even though these same idiots provide data saying that the length of their feature exceeds the average expectancy of the bladder. Sometimes this is a blessing, obviously, because spending time in public bathrooms is actually significantly more enjoyable that watching The Hateful Eight, but sometimes I think "great, now I have to go home and download this entire feature to catch the 8 minutes I missed. Why didn't I just do that to begin with?".
the 50$ seems steep but in the end if you think about it what it cost to have more then 1 ticket and food would go over 50$ easy for a family and your getting day one releases.
not factor that in for more then yourself.
its been proven if you make a legile way to get content people will use it look at how huge Netflix and hulu are.
pigopolists with the backing of government storm troopers
Found the commie, guys!
Heh, my family is like that as an adult. :/
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Except that this is still within spitting distance of two tickets to a movie plus snacks at the ridiculous theatre prices. And there are people (myself included) who have put a pretty decent investment into a home system that's more comfortable and in many ways better than a theatre system (you can control the volume yourself to start, pause the movie when you need a bio break etc.)
On the flip side, I DO enjoy actually going to a theatre to watch a movie... and yes I enjoy new releases on occasion. I think this might be a service I will use because (a) I can afford it and (b) sometimes my girlfriend and I would rather sit home and watch a movie. Invite a couple of friends over for a "first watch" party and all of a sudden that $50 seems pretty damned cheap. In fact, I think I'd probably do that at least once a month.
$50 (£35) is probably less than it costs for my Wife and I to go to the cinema, once you've factored in travel and babysittings costs.
Zuck should ask Sean to call it, "The Screening Room." That would be his contribution to the service.
Beware of the Redittor who loans you a Sharpie.
Could I open a 'block theater'? Perhaps put 10-20 seats in a large home room and have a showing at $5/person (11 person minimum)? Great rate for first-run movie! Use the minor profit to improve the facility, or parlay into more venues elsewhere. Better still, create mobile theaters at cheap rates! WOW! This opens all kinds of possibilities! (HEY! I thought of it first! Ummm! After Sean, JJ, Peter, and Steven!)
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.