Slashdot Mirror
Hollywood Is Fighting Billionaire Sean Parker's Plan To Let You Rent Movies Still in Theaters For $50 (businessinsider.com)
Billionaire Sean Parker's plans to bring movies to your home as soon as they release in theatres has hit new roadblocks. After receiving praises for "Screening Room" from directors and producers Steven Spielberg, Ron Howard, J.J. Abrams, and Peter Jackson, as well as Hollywood studios, the buzz for the startup has started to wane. From a report: Though Parker and cofounder Prem Akkaraju have promoted the company in the last two years at CinemaCon, it's gotten little traction due to a naivete of the industry, competitors, and studios' and theater chains' decade-long discussion about how to move forward on Premium VOD (PVOD) (alternative source), Business Insider has learned. "Everything you've heard in the press about studios and theaters wanting to explore a PVOD window, nothing about that revolves around Screening Room," a source close to the talks told Business Insider. Screening Room's main pitch to studios and exhibitors has been that it can bring added revenue to all sides of the equation. Out of the proposed $50 rental fee, 20% would go to the movie's distributor, and a participating theater chain would get up to $20 of the fee, plus each customer receives two tickets to see that rented title at their local theater. Screening Room would take 10% of each fee. Sources told Business Insider that all of the bells and whistles Screening Room is selling don't matter until the studios and theaters can agree on a Premium VOD (or PVOD) window. Industry players don't want movies to be available on PVOD simultaneously with theatrical release dates because the first two weeks of a theatrical run are still when studios and exhibitors get a majority of a movie's income. Also read: Sean Parker Is Going To Great Lengths To Ensure 'Screening Room' Is Piracy Free, Patents Reveal.
. . . or pop onto one of the surviving Torrent sites and grab a copy.
Because people with children exist, and want to watch movies without disturbing a whole cinema full of people, or having to hire a baby sitter.
Also, because home movie setups are a lot more comfortable than typical theatre setups.
Also, because people with older children exist, and 5 cinema tickets costs more than $50.
For once Hollywood seems to have some limited understanding of technology. If this goes ahead, no matter how much DRM and other nonsense they wrap it up in, it will be ripped and distributed.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I believe this service is aimed at people who have so much money, that it has little value to them below a certain amount. Not unlike how you and I might view a nickle. I can see a very select clientele for whom paying $50 for a movie is nothing, enjoy movies, and perhaps have some celebrity status thus making going to a public theater difficult.
Does LeBron James go to his local AMC to watch the latest Star Wars release? I doubt it. But he's probably willing to spend $50 to watch it in the comfort of his home with his family, so he can talk about it with his friends without fear of spoilers.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
$50-100 is by no means "just a nickel" of us, we budget monthly and a trip to the movie theater to see a first run movie is a big treat for us. We watch most of our movies at home in some fashion, and there's also a second run theater that makes it affordable. And this is also cheaper than when we had to leave the kids at home and get a sitter to see a movie, so there's that.
If I could see first run moves for $50 I would pay for that in a heartbeat.
I'm also aware of torrents and sneaking candy in, too :)
1980s to 1990s - transition period, with the first blockbuster console games without a corresponding arcade release (Super Mario Bros).
2000s and 2010s - all games are now released directly to console or PC. Ask a kid if they want to go to the arcade, and they'll reply "What's an arcade?"
Times change. Except for live events like concerts or sports, where being part of the crowd is part of the experience, people prefer viewing their entertainment at home. Movie theaters are not a necessity, they were just a way to amortize the high cost of the projection and sound system across all viewers. As the cost of big screen TVs, projectors, and home theater sound systems continues to go down, movie theaters are going to become a relic of the past, just like arcades. The benefits I've seen from watching movies on my projector and HTS are:
You can also time shift all movies by a year, and get them much cheaper.
The little crappy theaters they move the film to after opening weekend doesn't feel much larger than my own TV,
You just discovered why this ain't worth fifty bucks. The only reason you spend that much is to go out and see it on the big screen. The only other benefit is seeing it right when it's released, but who gives a shit? The only benefit to that is that you get to discuss the movie with all the other people who paid see it early, and frankly, if my life is down to discussing what Hollywood is doing this week, fucking shoot me.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
What's a "nickle"?
It's something people that make annoying music put on their backs.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Blu-Ray hasn't been cracked yet.
Really? I have my whole movie library on network storage - including Blu-Rays. I haven't yet hit a movie I can't rip.