Sean Parker Touts Pricey Home Movie Service to Hollywood Studios, Theater Owners.

[Himmel]

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]

Yeah, right. Is he stupid? Wow.

[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.

[imsounoriginal]

I love how they say "plotting" lol

[Buscemi]

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

[doctor_who]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

Yeah, right. Is he stupid? Wow.

No. He isn't.

[chris_sc77]

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 .

[cinemaphile]

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]

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.

[JohnCarpenterLives]

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.

[Doctor Jack]

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.

[Drewbee87]

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

[BLUEGRASS]

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]

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

[doctor_who]

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]

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.

[JamesBenjamin]

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.

[jacobsever]

Copy/paste from the other thread.


This is the stupidest thing in the world.

I already refuse to spend $6 on a digital rental. Spending money to watch something on your home setup is just a complete waste of money.

Why would I spend $50 to see a movie on my 50" tv in my bedroom, alone, when I could go see it on a huge screen with better sound in a room full of like-minded individuals for 1/5 the price?!

I'm actually angry at how dumb of an idea this is.

EDIT: In reading through some of these comments, I totally didn't even think about those with families/kids. I am a single man, that goes to movies by himself, and never buys food or drink. So my theater experience costs from $7 at the low end, to $12 at the high end. With that, I could go to the movie theater once a week, for over a month, for the price of one rental at home.

[DCW]

I'd considser paying $50 to own it but not to rent.

But even as I'm writing this now I think I'd rather just wait four months and own the blu ray and digital copy for half the price. As mentioned above maybe something around the $35 mark would be more enticing but I'm definitely curious about paying a little extra for an at home viewing of a new release.

[jacobsever]

Originally Posted by DCW

But even as I'm writing this now I think I'd rather just wait four months and own the blu ray and digital copy for half the price.

Shit, wait even a couple months after that and pick up the blu ray when it drops to $10 or under.