Today our sister publication Variety reported on the Screening Room, a new first-run movie service being pitched around town by Napster co-founder and former Facebook president Sean Parker. His twist on an old idea that has been thwarted before by exhibitors would be that major studio releases could be accessed via an anti-piracy technology.
Essentially, $150 gets one a set-top box, with a $50 per-movie charge for a 48-hour rental. From what Deadline has learned, the concept is in the idea stage, but the whole idea has a number of executives in distribution and exhibition raising torches and pitchforks. Despite surrounding himself with former Sony distribution honcho Jeff Blake as a consultant, Parker is a Hollywood outsider — he’s the guy who (with Shawn and John Fanning) appeared seemingly out of nowhere with the controversial free music service Napster before metal band Metallica led the charge against them and pushed them into a major legal battle that had implications for the entire music industry.
Said one major studio distribution executive tonight, “This news is so damaging, I can’t tell you right now how unhappy I am.” Another warned that if the Screening Room becomes a reality, “it would be the beginning of the end, and half of the theaters in this country would close.” While the Variety report cites AMC Theatres being close to a deal, Deadline heard that Regal Entertainment Group — which has been critical of any attempt at thwarting the exhibition viewing window — has completely thumbed its nose at the idea. Parker’s plan– which is said to be in its R&D phase — is to cut exhibitors in for as much $20 per movie, along with providing consumers who shell out $50 with two tickets to see the movie at a theater of their choice. That’s so exhibition can make money off of concessions sales later. However, cutting theaters in on a deal that ultimately harms their existence is not being embraced. “Hopefully, this will fail,” said one film buyer in exhibition.
The high price point is also a point of debate. Some distributors think it caters to a high-end clientele, that no one would buy into it, particularly since it would rob audiences of the movie theater experience. 
“There’s no market for it,” said one studio executive. Others think that the price point is economical, particularly when one takes into account the extra costs involved in moviegoing (i.e. parking, babysitting fees, extra tickets for the family). Meanwhile, here is a service called Prima Cinema that delivers first-run quality films to your home theater via its equipment (for example, one can currently watch Paramount’s Whiskey Tango Foxtrot which opened last weekend). However, Prima Cinema isn’t perceived as a threat because the barriers of entry are extremely expensive with the movie rental being $750-$1,000; a service essentially for the Bel-Air crowd. “It’s not a scaleable business,” critiqued one insider.
Nonetheless, the news of the Screening Room continues the long-gestating attempt to close theatrical and home entertainment windows for studios. Universal originally had a plan in late 2011 to sell Tower Heist via premium VOD in several markets for $59.99 a pop three weeks after the film played. The studio pulled the plan after facing boycotts from exhibitors.
Essentially, such distribution plans are attempts by studios to cut their P&A spend and make money faster between the theater and VOD/DVD dates. Last fall, Paramount tried an experiment with a shortened theatrical to VOD window with its Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension and Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse (which were released only a week apart), cutting the theaters in on some of the VOD cash. But the studio was only able to get AMC (which is owned by China conglom Dalian Wanda Group), Canada’s Cineplex and a few smaller venues on board. Essentially, at the end of the day, premium VOD isn’t a plan exhibition wants to play ball with.
Said one exhibitor, “Anyone who thinks this is going to work in this day and age needs their head examined.”
Anita Busch contributed to this report.
GOOD! Let this happen! Half of the movie theaters SHOULD close because they’re cesspools of scum anyway. Anyone who has braved the average theater chain on a weekend can attest to that. Terrible food, spotty sound and picture, audiences full of talking and texting mouth-breathers and the apathetic management that permits them, and let’s not forget the never ending string of commercials they play before every feature. Even Dante couldn’t dream up a circle of hell that torturous. The theater owners need some real competition before they get their crap together, and if that means being forced to compete with in-home theaters on opening weekends, then so be it. This way only the theaters worth visiting (Alamo, Arclight) will remain open and the outhouses currently called multiplexes can go the way of the dinosaur.
Studios, distributors, give us the option of watching these movies with some close friends in the comfort of our own homes and we will shower you with money and gratitude. Resist, and you will be crushed by the advancement of technology and consumer demand the same way the music industry was.
Cinepolis is truly the movie experience ever
I prefer arclight. I don’t need waiters and people interacting and bringing food back and forth while I’m getting absorbed in a good movie.
Ever notice the Arclight Hollywood has never put a penny back into the theatre. They have the same carpeting since they opened. Yet they charge top price.
They upgrade their projectors though. Would you rather have new carpet or a good image? I must say, I agree with the OP though that some theaters ether need to improve drastically or close down. Less is more. But if arclight isn’t good enough, then nothing is.
“Shower you with money and gratitude”….this coming from the generation that feels there are no negative consequences to watching movies online for free. Forgive me for seriously doubting the altruistic nature of a person saying do as I say or you will be crushed.
Don’t know about Arclight, but Alamo Drafthouse is one of the worst theaters I have ever been to. I don’t go to the movies to be treated like an inmate. I have ZERO issues with normal theaters.
Good luck, Sean!
Most movies are crap. Nothing to worry about. The blockbusters no competition.
Get rid of half the screens at a megaplex and low sellers. They go to arthouse places.
First Shawn Parker killed the record store, now he’s going to kill the movie theater. The biggest problem with these boxes he is proposing is that pirates will record the movies and put them up for free. Stealing a movie isn’t like stealing a song, movies cost way more to make than music.
Yes, going to the theater to consume entertainment (a movie) is over. We are just witnessing the slow and painful death. Brave new world, kids.
It’s not over, just like live music won’t be over nether will going to a theater. Theaters and distributors need to step up their game. They are getting half of ticket sales and concessions, why not use some of that to update the theater experience? Even a low budget indie can be experienced better with a quieter crowd, responsive sound and calibrated projector. I have a 4k OLED LG tv and I can tell you first hand it’s not as good as seeing a movie projected. Their is still a market for quality theaters for public viewing and will be for sometime- if the theaters get their act together. I know a few have around me but somethings are harder to control – i’m talking about people using cell phones and chatting during the movie like they are at home. Arclight seems to do a pretty good job with that. I’ve only had one problem in a few years their.
I also have a very nice, very large 4k system and I’d rather watch anything on it than I would most theaters. What’s this rubbish of “robbing the public of the theater going experience”? If the experience didn’t suck, it wouldn’t be in trouble.
And please, enough of the “internet piracy is killing the film industry” BS. When the list of “Most Pirated Movies” and “Top Box Office Grossing Films in History” aren’t IDENTICAL, we’ll talk.
Napster didn’t kill record stores, evolution of the marketplace did. Same is happening with film & television. Adapt or (deservedly) die.
How is he stealing content if he sharing the ticket prices with the theatres and it protect the creators with state of the art anti theft piracy.
And why in god’s name would Filmakers like Speilberg get involved with technology that hurts his own business. You and whoever wrote this ridicluous article news to check thier facts.
More proof that the traditional studios and exhibitors are completely out of touch. This is already “working”, it’s called Netflix. Consumers want this and it will happen either by studios getting their heads out of the sand and embracing the change and profiting from it, or burying their heads deeper and continuing to decimate their ability to profit off of anything other than a tent-pole and continuing to drive the growth of the the digital players that have stolen all of the studios thunder and potential increased marketshare. Think about it: Paramount is valued at $4b Netflix is valued at $42b. It’s comical.
but you cant duplicate the theatrical experience at home. The screen size is smaller and the sound quality is weaker too. Its not the same as watching it at home.
You’re missing the point. It’s not about trying to recreate the experience at home, it’s about audiences placing less value on the theatrical experience. It is a market that is in decline – there’s a reason the MPAA stopped publishing admissions reports after about 2007 because they realized they were presenting information that proved the theatrical market was contracting. When SD was all you could get at home the theater was a really compelling proposition. With 4K TV’s the new standard the home presentation of film actually has a higher perceptual resolution.
Only if we’re talking Star Wars. For Beasts of No Nation and the like, the difference in experience isn’t worth the bother of schlepping to a movie theater.
I disagree, seeing Beasts in a good, quiet theater will always be better than watching it via streaming at home, even if you have the best TV (like I do). I must say Netflix has great streaming quality! I wish HBO would catch up!
regular movie-goers, at the end of the day, don’t care about the “theatrical experience” industry-nerds put more stock on it than it really deserves. If it were such a big deal then home video and film piracy would never have been a thing.
You can’t duplicate the screen size or the ambiance of watching it with a large crowd (if that’s even a good thing), but you can definitely duplicate the sound quality.
Now, that large crowd can also be a problem…when people just can’t stop themselves from bringing their infant to the movies because they absolutely MUST SEE TWILIGHT ON OPENING WEEKEND (not that I would know anything about that…ahem), then that hallowed theater experience becomes something I’d rather not duplicate.
Send the kids off to their bedrooms, drop $50 for an opening night movie…yes please. It’s cheaper than paying for movie tickets and paying a babysitter.
You are correct, John, but the next generation doesn’t care.
Theater quality sound is very doable and not crazy expensive ether, so is image size. Just get rid of your coffee table and slide your couch closer to the screen! It’s all relative. Image quality- that’s where theaters have the edge.
You’re picturing the best screens at the best theaters with good audiences. They’re out there, and they’re still magic. But they’re also far from guaranteed. I’ve had plenty of the more typical experience where I find myself griping that the sound and picture are better at my house, which has solid but far from exotic equipment.
That’s because there isn’t a lot of money in making new content like paramount does. I know netflix makes new content too, but no where in the amount paramount does.
Stop saying “content”. It’s annoying and already an industry cliché.
content
Maybe Paramount is making too much of the wrong kind of content.
Clearly so. But knowing the right kind of content is very hard. Even Spielberg has made a dud or two.
Netflix is valued higher due the the technology assets it has, but it also adds to the point that studios should not only be film companies, but technology infused companies.
Sure, but Viacom’s price to earnings ratio is around 8 and Netfilx’s P/E is….wait for it….350!! Bubble much?
Something needs to seriously change within Distribution tactics. Exhibitors are dying anyway from tremendous rental fees especially from blockbuster films. Concessions are ridiculous! Although recent profits are up at Major Cineplex, the First look and Screening premise is a dying art. VOD and pay per view far outweigh any old school distribution. Plus the indies are getting left in the dust. Out of 5000 movies made annually less than 1% make it to our local theater. So any other means to make deals with Filmmakers to get their movies seen is better. @JEV1A
Have you seen some of those 5000 movies. It’s all 1 student film movie, it’s called “wanna be Sundance” and it’s PC garbage.
“There’s no market for it”
No-one is paying $50 to see any movie. DOA.
families pay $50 for a movie all the time
Not to stay home.
dont fine it, Lew. staying at home is a damn sight easier than dragging “the family” to the movie theater. times they are a changing
And you wouldn’t have hassle of kids in theater, going to bathroom , and mortgaging your house for some soda candy and popcorn
This would be way cheaper
Exactly. Your assumption is that the $50 is per person. But when you buy the film, you can have 10 people show up and watch it. That makes it $5 a ticket. Plus you save on having to be $100 on concessions. This will happen eventually but the timing is just not there yet. Netflix has proven that people love to screen content at home, cell phones, ipads, laptops etc…the old argument of “well you can’t replicate the theater experience with respect to screen size” is old. Look at some of the amazing televisions and home entertainment systems coming out. I even heard Japan will debut 8K content during the Olympics this summer. This idea is going to happen but not anytime soon. But nonetheless, the migration away from movie theaters has already started.
It’s for a night out.
Not your stinky tv room. Pew.
Somebody clean the carpets.
Dog pee.
When’s the last time you saw a teenager got to the movies with his “family”? Ridiculous idea.
$50 for a group of people to see a movie isn’t too steep at ALL. When you factor in concessions, most groups of 2-5 people spend WAY over $50 at the theater.
If you pay $10 (well, $20 for a couple) to see Star Wars, then you need something more than twice as compelling to justify $50. The only thing I can think of is truly immersive VR. What’s Disneyland cost now, $100 or more per ticket? That’s the future of movie theaters, to merge with the video game/amusement park industry.
For the arty/indie stuff, just watch it on Netflix. You don’t need a mammoth movie screen unless stuff is zooming around and blowing up. If it’s just actors talking, a home-size big screen is enough.
In the US theatres (partially) survive because teenagers have nowhere else to go (and they don’t want to hang out at home with their parents).
It isn’t $50 per person – it is $50 per movie and any number of people can watch it.
I’d rather save the loot and Redox for $1…
There’s nothing I can’t wait 6 months for… difference between having a life and not.
Difference between having a knowledge of cinema and watching reality tv
I digress, you just don’t like movies that much Ichy mItchy. Why are you even here? Oh wait, you must just work in the industry!
This is beyond stupid, don’t count on this ever happening.
Why is this always coming up — it ultimately will damage the theater going experience and I hope that theaters will continue to fight it. How did paranormal activity and scouts do for paramount?
There’s really only one reason to go to movie theaters anymore: for the big-screen zap-pow experience that is so noisy and all-enveloping that you can’t even hear the idiot on one side of you yakking on the phone and the idiot on the other side, munching popcorn.
$50 for something to watch at home is just too damn expensive. If anyone wants to charge $50 per couple, it better be for something a-friggen-MAZING, like completely realistic VR Immersion into the world of Pandora for Avatar IV.
Meaning, it would require technology that is far too expensive for home use, at least now, so that gives movie theaters a continued reason for existence – they can afford the setup fees for increasingly immersive and compelling technology that will motivate people’s butts out of their sofas because Netflix is going to take over the rest of the business anyway.
Immersive VR tech will make its way into the home of course, so the theaters will be in a technology arms’ race to keep one step ahead. That’s their path forward.
$50? per, plus annual fee? D.O.A
Any time you can remove any form of human interaction with technology the product will succeed. Silicon Valley Is crowded with autistic shut-ins and we’re slowly becoming a culture of the same.
It’s only recently that movies have lost their cultural weight in the US. In the 30s, 40s, you’d see political classics that brazenly defined the conditions of their time. Thanks to McCarthyism, the artists lost the cultural war and eventually gave way to the Super Hero shchlock that dominates the film business.
Those same exhibitors who are unwilling to take risks and play films of social merit will be the same whose businesses will be eaten wholesale by the free market they cling to – irony of ironies.
Kids are going to start using theatrical on demand platforms to screen the films they want to see with the people they want to see it with. The filmmakers will benefit from the promotion and audience excitement.
Moviegoing will never die bc people are drawn to the stories told around the fire. But nobody needs an exhibition hall to get a room full of people together these days. ..just look at Burning Man.
Mobile is the way of the future.
Free is the way of the future.
Oh, wait – the future is now.
Oh I get it. It’s like a….”Home..Box..Office” Well, okay, good luck with that.
It’s a shame the exhibitors didn’t see the opportunity to start up there on networks back in the day. They missed that boat.
“Anyone who thinks this is going to work in this day and age needs their head examined.”
Umm… No! You need to have your head examined. This is 2016 and we have Roku’s, Apple TV’s, Fire TV’s and Android TV’s fully capable of delivering the content you greedy $$$ fucktard! Some people don’t actually wanna go to the theater, plain and simple! So die off as an industry already and give people want they want, in the comfort of their own home, with their $3,000 home entertainment system!
“Im a whiny entitled millennial! I want my way now now now! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh!!!”
Oh piss off.
You need theatrical revenue to pay off the costs of making these big budget movies. Period, end of story. It’s the only way to finance those $100 million plus to $200 million tentpoles.
You kill theaters, that means no Star Wars, no Avengers, no Batman, no Martian, no Gravity, no Mission Impossible, no Jurassic Park, no Mad Max, and no Revenant. If you disagree, tell me what $100+ million tentpoles Netflix is making.
Before you say, “Well it’s for lower budget movies anyway,” I say, “Why the F%$% would I pay $50 to rent a Lionsgate Premiere movie?!”
That said, theaters need to get their act together. Buying cheap miniplexes and throwing recliners in them doesn’t get it done. I don’t know what the hell AMC is thinking trying to buy Carmike. They’re better off maintaining their own buildings, upgrading to laser projection, and building complexes with BIG SCREENS ONLY.
Give me 4 to 6 auditoriums modeled after the Seattle Cinerama, outfit a couple with Dolby Vision, ENFORCE a talking/texting ban with ushers present, and ban kids under 5 and unsupervised teens – and I’ll put every theater near me out of business.
On both sides of this, “the only way” is the exact sort of thinking that history has proven wrong over and over.
The VOD model has at least gotten Adam Sandler the hell out of movie theaters finally.
But I’ll ask again – how do you pay off those $100, $200 million tentpoles without theatrical revenue? What $200 million movies are netflix making?
…no Frozen, no Zootopia, no Jason Bourne, no James Bond, no Planet of the Apes, no Inside Out…
$50+ per film? Might make sense for a family of four or more that enjoy animated films or maybe the occasional PG-13 tent pole, but I’m single. I’m not interested in having friends over to watch and split the price as some suggest here. I love movies, but I love the theatrical experience better and $10+ is still reasonable to me. And no, I don’t work for an exhibitor.
I hope Sean’s distribution model takes off. Exhibition is such a bad experience the wonder is anyone other than insensate teenagers goes anymore; a fact reflected by the types of movies being made and marketed these days.
My advice to exhibitors worried about innovation is simple: Clean up your act!
Start by eliminating the 30-minute (or longer) advertising campaign that bludgeons audiences waiting for the feature to start. Eliminate the relentless series of 30-second ads hawking razors, pantyhose, deodorant, McDonalds latest $3.99 entree, local fine dining restaurants and new cars from the playbill. It’s an imposition on a captive audience. It’s also pointless because most people simply ignore it, or try. But I think it does more to ruin the mood before the feature starts than anything else, short of sitting in stinking filth or hearing bad sound. It’s also counterproductive because it reduces the all-important gate. People won’t buy tickets because they won’t subject themselves to it. That makes it self-defeating — so get rid of it.
The Carmike merger makes sense if you believe multiplex theatrical exhibition is a dying industry. But in the final analysis I think it will slowly disappear anyway, like movie exhibition killed Vaudeville around this time last century.
I’ll just flat out state why this will never work because I’ve spent years researching it and there’s no plausible solution, not a device, not a program, etc: its known as Analog loop problem and because of what happened to music especially when they entrusted their physical-based models to Internet consuming devices regardless if they’re paying. Analog loop (pfft anti-piracy device that doesn’t run on HDMI you mean?) can’t be closed thus their valuable theatrical content will be pirated and decimated like what happened to music industry ironically because of this same character. Don’t invest or hold your breath! Don’t get me wrong like other commenters on here I’ve dreamed of this kind of service but its simply not possible without studios trusting consumers 100% which is never going to happen and why theater companies are still in business and profitable.