Sean Parker Touts Pricey Home Movie Service to Hollywood Studios, Theater Owners. - Blu-ray Forum

Himmel · 03-10-2016, 10:41 AM

Sean Parker, of Napster fame, and music executive Prem Akkaraju are plotting an expensive in-home movie service that once again raises the controversial idea of making new titles available in the home at the same time that they hit theaters.

Akkaraju and Parker's company would charge customers roughly $150 for access to a secure set-top box and $50 to rent a film for 48 hours, sources say.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...ey-home-874097

s2mikey · 03-10-2016, 11:35 AM

Yeah, right. Is he stupid? Wow.

doctor_who · 03-10-2016, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by s2mikey

Yeah, right. Is he stupid? Wow.

No. He isn't.

chris_sc77 · 03-10-2016, 02:27 PM

Why not. So few people would do this . 90% + of movies I see are for free via Redbox and libraries . I would never be so stupid but there are probably a few rich folk who would do this to avoid hassles of cinemas .

s2mikey · 03-14-2016, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doctor_who

No. He isn't.

Maybe not about everything - but this? Yes, he is.

Vudu · 03-14-2016, 01:59 PM

What a great idea for wealthy introverts. I for one love going to the theatre and seeing and being around people so I will continue doing so until that option is no longer available.

Himmel · 03-16-2016, 10:35 AM

600 Art House Theaters Oppose Screening Room, Question Revenue-Sharing Model.

http://www.thewrap.com/600-art-house...sharing-model/

bsweetness · 03-10-2016, 11:43 AM

This sort of thing has been tried before, but so far no one has been able to make it work well. I don't see this effort going any differently.

That said, the pricing isn't that outrageous if you have a group of people watching at your house. It would be like a Pay-Per-View event that costs a good chunk of change but becomes manageable when broken up. $50 per movie could even be worth it for a family of four in some areas of the country.

imsounoriginal · 03-10-2016, 11:57 AM

I love how they say "plotting" lol

Buscemi · 03-10-2016, 12:28 PM

DirecTV tried this in 2011 and it failed (mainly because they were charging $30 for second-run titles that could be seen for $3 in a theatre). Universal attempted it the same year with Tower Heist but canceled plans after some chains refused to book it.

Also, Sean Parker seems to have a rather negative reputation in the entertainment industry so I'd be surprised if anyone took his offer (maybe Weinstein will but that's it).

If anything, I think AMC's purchase of Carmike kills this concept in the early stages (that and the film industry doesn't work like the video game industry, where this idea seems to be coming from*), as day-and-date titles will have a much easier time getting wider releases (AMC is one of the biggest supporters of day-and-date distribution while Carmike wasn't).

* - the Steam Machine, mainly

cinemaphile · 03-10-2016, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bsweetness

This sort of thing has been tried before, but so far no one has been able to make it work well. I don't see this effort going any differently.

That said, the pricing isn't that outrageous if you have a group of people watching at your house. It would be like a Pay-Per-View event that costs a good chunk of change but becomes manageable when broken up. $50 per movie could even be worth it for a family of four in some areas of the country.

That's the big problem. What if someone doesn't have a big group around, or even wants to watch a movie alone? He should pay $50? Hell no. This is just dumb.
Same-day VOD for a small rental fee works for small releases that won't otherwise get much exposure in theaters, but for mainstream films this is an awful idea that won't take off.

Besides, someone will hack the box and circumvent security features, and the last thing studios want to do is hand people a perfect digital copy of the film. It would be pirated and instantly spread over the internet for free within hours.

Jennifer Lawrence Fan · 03-10-2016, 06:29 PM

Why are people always trying to make going to the movies obsolete?

Are people really that lazy they can't leave the house? So they rather pay a lot more to view it in home?

Plus yah. Like cinemaphile said, you gotta think of piracy issues. Because people will find a way to steal it no matter what or how.

Doctor Jack · 03-10-2016, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jennifer Lawrence Fan

Are people really that lazy they can't leave the house? So they rather pay a lot more to view it in home?

.

Less to do with laziness and more to do with being around ignorant, annoying ass people who ruin the movie with their awfulness.

doctor_who · 03-11-2016, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jennifer Lawrence Fan

Why are people always trying to make going to the movies obsolete?

Are people really that lazy they can't leave the house? So they rather pay a lot more to view it in home?

Plus yah. Like cinemaphile said, you gotta think of piracy issues. Because people will find a way to steal it no matter what or how.

I wouldn't call it obsolete. Just opportunistic. I honestly believe we could see a longer period of "theatrical" time where this service is available, before a home release.

In 25 years, will we even have physical releases? Doubt it, unless the internet breaks. So if there's theater only and digital at home only, they will want to maximize profit.

Dynamo of Eternia · 03-11-2016, 07:58 PM

I have mixed feelings about this myself, but in the article it does say that they are trying to partner (somehow) with theater distributors, and with the $50 fee you would also get two free tickets to go to a local movie theater for a movie.

IMO the whole ting is a catch-22. While $50 is a lot (especially since it would usually be just my wife and I), and the quality of streaming tends to be somewhat lacking, I can kind of see the appeal of this.

While I otherwise like going to a movie theater since I do enjoy the "big screen" experience, the worst part tends to be the other people in the theater. Not that everyone is bad (and I do actually like when a new movie comes out that is highly anticipated, and people cheer at various parts, etc.), but my wife and I have had A LOT of bad luck going to a theater and having the rudest, most annoying people sit near us (adults who can't shut up... kids who can't shut up... kids who kick the seat, etc.). And our tolerance for it has gotten less and less over the years.

But this whole partnering with theaters thing is also kind of what bugs me a bit. The last time that this sort of thing was proposed, it was the exhibitor/theater chains that cried fowl over it, for obvious reasons. And I certainly don't want to see theaters going out of business. But the article states, "To get exhibitors on board, the company proposes cutting them in on a significant percentage of the revenue, as much as $20 of the fee."

Again, while I don't want to see theaters go out of business, why the hell should they get almost half of the money for this service? This is reminiscent IMO of all of the talk back in the mid to late 90s about how email was impacting the post office and the idea was being "kicked around" (but never went anywhere) about there being a cost-per-email sent that people would have to pay which would go to the post office, all for a communication transaction that they had absolutely NOTHING to do with.

On the one hand while the two free tickets to a theater with the $50 is nice and all, since avoiding the hassles of going to a theater (i.e. rude people) is what appeals to me about this option, getting two free tickets to a theater kind of defeats the purpose.

I'd rather just pay $30 or $35, not get the free tickets, and not have a chunk of the money arbitrarily going to the movie theaters. At that price, I'd be more inclined to just stay home and see a movie.

That said, I am curious about the 48 hour viewing window. Is it only one view, meaning that if once you watch the film from start to finish, that's it and you lose access? Or can you rewind, fast forward, and otherwise watch it as many times as you want during that 48 hours?

If it can be watched more than once, I can see that being appealing (even at $50) to people who might go see a new Star Wars movie several times or something like that.

Plus even at the $50 price point, it would be cool to get some friends together and chip in together. That way they don't have to deal with others at the theater, and if they do want to talk amongst themselves, they aren't bothering anyone aside from (potentially) each other.

JohnCarpenterLives · 03-10-2016, 07:43 PM

They already have something like this for VIP only kind of people. Rob McElhenney talked about it on Marc Maron's WTF podcast.

It is indeed expensive.

Drewbee87 · 03-10-2016, 08:34 PM

Never would do this, I'll stick to paying $8-$13 to see a movie on a giant screen.

BLUEGRASS · 03-10-2016, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drewbee87

never would do this, i'll stick to paying $8-$13 to see a movie on a giant screen.

+1

djgeneral · 03-11-2016, 07:09 PM

Makes no sense.

A family of four can see a movie in the mornings for $22. Everyone could also get a pop and popcorn (with free refills on both) and it would still be slightly under 50. horrid idea

JamesBenjamin · 03-11-2016, 08:44 PM

Yeah, if its $35 and I can watch it say, 3 times in a weekend I think I might sign up. $50 is too much though.

View Poll Results: So is this Movie Service..
A Good Idea.	6	18.18%
A Terrible Idea.	27	81.82%
Voters: 33. You may not vote on this poll

03-10-2016, 10:41 AM	#1
Himmel Banned Member since:Jul 2012 Location:Northeast Corridor 4K collection:46 Blu-ray collection:301	Sean Parker Touts Pricey Home Movie Service to Hollywood Studios, Theater Owners. Sean Parker, of Napster fame, and music executive Prem Akkaraju are plotting an expensive in-home movie service that once again raises the controversial idea of making new titles available in the home at the same time that they hit theaters. Akkaraju and Parker's company would charge customers roughly $150 for access to a secure set-top box and $50 to rent a film for 48 hours, sources say. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...ey-home-874097

03-10-2016, 11:43 AM	#8
bsweetness Blu-ray Ninja Top contributor Member since:Sep 2008 4K collection:- Blu-ray collection:- DVD collection:- Digital collection:- Trading Score:85	This sort of thing has been tried before, but so far no one has been able to make it work well. I don't see this effort going any differently. That said, the pricing isn't that outrageous if you have a group of people watching at your house. It would be like a Pay-Per-View event that costs a good chunk of change but becomes manageable when broken up. $50 per movie could even be worth it for a family of four in some areas of the country. Last edited by bsweetness; 03-10-2016 at 11:58 AM.

03-10-2016, 11:35 AM	#2
s2mikey Banned Member since:Nov 2008 Location:Upstate, NY 4K collection:130 Blu-ray collection:303 Trading Score:40	Yeah, right. Is he stupid? Wow.

03-10-2016, 02:27 PM	#4
chris_sc77 Banned Member since:Feb 2012 Location:OH Blu-ray collection:1345 DVD collection:4285 Digital collection:144 Trading Score:777	Why not. So few people would do this . 90% + of movies I see are for free via Redbox and libraries . I would never be so stupid but there are probably a few rich folk who would do this to avoid hassles of cinemas .

03-14-2016, 01:59 PM	#6
Vudu Banned Member since:Mar 2016	What a great idea for wealthy introverts. I for one love going to the theatre and seeing and being around people so I will continue doing so until that option is no longer available.

03-16-2016, 10:35 AM	#7
Himmel Banned Member since:Jul 2012 Location:Northeast Corridor 4K collection:46 Blu-ray collection:301	600 Art House Theaters Oppose Screening Room, Question Revenue-Sharing Model. http://www.thewrap.com/600-art-house...sharing-model/

03-10-2016, 11:57 AM	#9
imsounoriginal Blu-ray Grand Duke Top contributor Member since:Dec 2008 Location:NYC 4K collection:320 Blu-ray collection:947 DVD collection:70 Blu-ray reviews:2 Trading Score:59	I love how they say "plotting" lol

03-10-2016, 12:28 PM	#10
Buscemi Blu-ray Samurai Top contributor Member since:Aug 2013 4K collection:10 Blu-ray collection:3836	DirecTV tried this in 2011 and it failed (mainly because they were charging $30 for second-run titles that could be seen for $3 in a theatre). Universal attempted it the same year with Tower Heist but canceled plans after some chains refused to book it. Also, Sean Parker seems to have a rather negative reputation in the entertainment industry so I'd be surprised if anyone took his offer (maybe Weinstein will but that's it). If anything, I think AMC's purchase of Carmike kills this concept in the early stages (that and the film industry doesn't work like the video game industry, where this idea seems to be coming from), as day-and-date titles will have a much easier time getting wider releases (AMC is one of the biggest supporters of day-and-date distribution while Carmike wasn't). - the Steam Machine, mainly

03-10-2016, 06:29 PM	#12
Jennifer Lawrence Fan Blu-ray Jedi Member since:Aug 2011 4K collection:415 Blu-ray collection:2752 DVD collection:1312 MA collection:305 Digital collection:495 iTunes collection:284 Trading Score:721	Why are people always trying to make going to the movies obsolete? Are people really that lazy they can't leave the house? So they rather pay a lot more to view it in home? Plus yah. Like cinemaphile said, you gotta think of piracy issues. Because people will find a way to steal it no matter what or how.

03-11-2016, 07:58 PM	#15
Dynamo of Eternia Blu-ray Knight Top contributor Member since:Dec 2007 4K collection:335 Blu-ray collection:1857 DVD collection:1573 Trading Score:3	I have mixed feelings about this myself, but in the article it does say that they are trying to partner (somehow) with theater distributors, and with the $50 fee you would also get two free tickets to go to a local movie theater for a movie. IMO the whole ting is a catch-22. While $50 is a lot (especially since it would usually be just my wife and I), and the quality of streaming tends to be somewhat lacking, I can kind of see the appeal of this. While I otherwise like going to a movie theater since I do enjoy the "big screen" experience, the worst part tends to be the other people in the theater. Not that everyone is bad (and I do actually like when a new movie comes out that is highly anticipated, and people cheer at various parts, etc.), but my wife and I have had A LOT of bad luck going to a theater and having the rudest, most annoying people sit near us (adults who can't shut up... kids who can't shut up... kids who kick the seat, etc.). And our tolerance for it has gotten less and less over the years. But this whole partnering with theaters thing is also kind of what bugs me a bit. The last time that this sort of thing was proposed, it was the exhibitor/theater chains that cried fowl over it, for obvious reasons. And I certainly don't want to see theaters going out of business. But the article states, "To get exhibitors on board, the company proposes cutting them in on a significant percentage of the revenue, as much as $20 of the fee." Again, while I don't want to see theaters go out of business, why the hell should they get almost half of the money for this service? This is reminiscent IMO of all of the talk back in the mid to late 90s about how email was impacting the post office and the idea was being "kicked around" (but never went anywhere) about there being a cost-per-email sent that people would have to pay which would go to the post office, all for a communication transaction that they had absolutely NOTHING to do with. On the one hand while the two free tickets to a theater with the $50 is nice and all, since avoiding the hassles of going to a theater (i.e. rude people) is what appeals to me about this option, getting two free tickets to a theater kind of defeats the purpose. I'd rather just pay $30 or $35, not get the free tickets, and not have a chunk of the money arbitrarily going to the movie theaters. At that price, I'd be more inclined to just stay home and see a movie. That said, I am curious about the 48 hour viewing window. Is it only one view, meaning that if once you watch the film from start to finish, that's it and you lose access? Or can you rewind, fast forward, and otherwise watch it as many times as you want during that 48 hours? If it can be watched more than once, I can see that being appealing (even at $50) to people who might go see a new Star Wars movie several times or something like that. Plus even at the $50 price point, it would be cool to get some friends together and chip in together. That way they don't have to deal with others at the theater, and if they do want to talk amongst themselves, they aren't bothering anyone aside from (potentially) each other.

03-10-2016, 07:43 PM	#16
JohnCarpenterLives Blu-ray Samurai Top contributor Member since:Sep 2008 4K collection:229 Blu-ray collection:980 DVD collection:420 Trading Score:5	They already have something like this for VIP only kind of people. Rob McElhenney talked about it on Marc Maron's WTF podcast. It is indeed expensive.

03-10-2016, 08:34 PM	#17
Drewbee87 Blu-ray Ninja Top contributor Member since:Dec 2009 4K collection:8 Blu-ray collection:266 Trading Score:7	Never would do this, I'll stick to paying $8-$13 to see a movie on a giant screen.

03-11-2016, 07:09 PM	#19
djgeneral Moderator Member since:Jan 2011 Location:Michigan 4K collection:1 Blu-ray collection:605 DVD collection:239 Blu-ray reviews:9 Trading Score:161	Makes no sense. A family of four can see a movie in the mornings for $22. Everyone could also get a pop and popcorn (with free refills on both) and it would still be slightly under 50. horrid idea

03-11-2016, 08:44 PM	#20
JamesBenjamin Senior Member Member since:Aug 2012 Blu-ray collection:305 Digital collection:163 iTunes collection:80 Trading Score:3	Yeah, if its $35 and I can watch it say, 3 times in a weekend I think I might sign up. $50 is too much though.

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals