quote:

---

Studios, Exhibitors Consider Revolutionary Plan for Day-and-Date Movies at Home (EXCLUSIVE)

Brent Lang
Senior Film and Media Reporter
@BrentALang

Studios, Exhibitors Consider Revolutionary Plan Day-and-Date

MARCH 9, 2016 | 03:41PM PT
Tech moguls Sean Parker, Prem Akkaraju pitch industry on premium service offering $50 rentals of new releases

Five years ago, major studios attempts to offer first-run movies in the home months early set off a fierce standoff with theater owners.

Now, a startup backed by Sean Parker of Facebook and Napster fame is trying to encourage Hollywood studios and exhibitors to wade back into those controversial waters. Called the Screening Room, the company offers secure, anti-piracy technology that will offer new releases in the home on the same day they hit theaters, sources tell Variety.

Individuals briefed on the plan said Screening Room would charge about $150 for access to the set top box that transmits the movies and charge $50 per view. Consumers have a 48-hour window to view the film.

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. As an added incentive to theater owners, Screening Room is also offering customers who pay the $50 two free tickets to see the movie at a cinema of their choice. That way, exhibitors would get the added benefit of profiting from concession sales to those moviegoers.

Participating distributors would also get a cut of the $50 dollar per view proceeds, also believed to be 20%, before Screening Room took its own fee of 10%.

Representatives from the Screening Room have been pounding the pavement in recent months, meeting with all of the major studios and feeling out exhibitors, more than a half dozen industry insiders confirmed to Variety. Parker, who is the major investor in Screening Room, has tapped former Sony Pictures worldwide marketing and distribution chief Jeff Blake in an advisory capacity. He has been working on the project and has deep ties to both the exhibition and studio communities.

At the presentations, Screening Room officials have told studio executives that they are close to finalizing a deal with AMC, which is poised to be the world’s largest exhibitor if its acquisition of Carmike Cinemas is approved by regulators.

There is serious interest from several of the major studios, including Universal, Fox and Sony, people familiar with the matter say. Those studios are continuing to study the business plan and deal terms and remain engaged in discussions with Screening Room. However, many cautioned that the talks are still in the initial stages. For its part, Disney, does not appear to be interested in the plan.

One potential deterrent for distributors is that Screening Room is looking to be the exclusive content partner. This may give pause to studios like Universal, that makes movies available through parent company Comcast, or Sony, which has family ties to Playstation.

On the other hand, the company’s anti-piracy technology could be appealing to studios who struggle with global content theft. Major films can be widely available illegally on line in file-sharing sites within hours of their release.

However, some exhibitors worry that they would essentially be midwifing their demise by agreeing to shrink the windows–which continues to be a hot-button issue for theater owners. Regal, for example, has steadfastly refused to screen any films that do not agree to a standard, exclusive theatrical run of roughly 90 days. Box office hit record levels last year, crossing $11 billion for the first time in history. But attendance has been essentially flat in recent years.

Although a few studios, such as Paramount and Universal, have tried to cook up alternative distribution strategies in recent years, most distributors have been wary of upsetting exhibitors. Last fall, Paramount teamed with a few chains, such as AMC and Cineplex, AMC and Cineplex, on a plan that allowed them to release the pictures on home entertainment platforms 17 days after the number of theaters showing the films dipped below 300.

There have also been efforts to create technology that allows consumers to watch major studio films in the home. Prima Cinema’s, for instance, boasts a box that allows customers to screen new releases, but is priced at a much steeper, $35,000.

In addition to Parker, Prem Akkaraju serves as CEO of the company and its co-founder. He was previously a partner at the electronic music company SFX Entertainment and was a partner at InterMedia Partners. In addition, he worked at JP Morgan Entertainment Partners and Sanctuary Music Group.

Representatives for Screening Room declined comment, as did AMC and the major studios.

---

quote: Justin Hamaker

---

I don't really understand the constant desire to get theatrical movies into homes so quick.

---

quote: Justin Hamaker

---

I don't really understand the constant desire to get theatrical movies into homes so quick

---

quote: David Buckley

---

exhibition is an unnecessary step

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

What really irritates me is the way exhibition is always painted as the "bad guy" in these articles, as if we're a bunch of greedy bastards.

---

This attitude trickles down to the general public, perpetuating the notion that movie theatres are just raking in the money and making ungodly profits. We recently had someone post a review on our Facebook page calling us greedy bastards because we don't have the newest luxury seats. He went on to say that he would be taking his money 40 miles down the road.

His attitude did a 180 when I explained that our seats haven't been replaced because of the money we had to spend on digital projectors. I also explained that the theatre 40 miles down the road was part of the largest chain in the country which had plenty of cash flow, while we are an independent theatre.
 

---

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 03-10-2016, 07:44 PM:
 
Several weeks ago, I met with someone, who I'm pretty sure represented
this company, to do a public demo of their device here in San Francisco.

They wanted to be sure their 'server'could interface with the equipment
at the screening room we were meeting at that day.

Beyond that I can't say much, other than:
1) I have yet to hear back from them;
2) No, it wasn't the Dolby Screening Room where I work at.

I was given some technical details but asked not to share them publicly,
but from the info in the article that started this thread, it sure seems like
they guy I met with was representing that company- - or else two companies
are planning to offer the exact same service . . . . .
 

---

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 03-12-2016, 12:54 AM:
 
Justin, Just looked up that review. The sheer fact he said "Wow can't believe you responded" shows, and rightfully so, the low expectations of the average patrons to typical theater management(the big guys).

Not only did you deescalate the dude, you made him apologize and made him realize not all theater companies suck!
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 03-12-2016, 05:17 AM:
 

quote: David Buckley

---

That's the plan; exhibition is an unnecessary step between production and monetization.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

I'm quite certain most studio execs know that the exhibition industry still is a fundamental part of their revenue model.

---

quote:

---

Sean Parker and Prem Akkaraju- backed startup offers day-and-date releases in the home for $50

Peter Jackson said he is backing Screening Room, the controversial start-up that wants to deliver new releases to the home while they are still in theaters, because it captures an audience that does not go to the cinema.

“Screening Room will expand the audience for a movie – not shift it from cinema to living room,” Jackson said in a statement.

Jackson isn’t the only big name backing the venture. He is joined as a shareholder by Steven Spielberg, Ron Howard, Brian Grazer, and J.J. Abrams.

Screening Room, the brainchild of entrepreneurs Sean Parker and Prem Akkaraju, offers movies for $50 at the same time as they open in theaters. It plans to charge $150 for access to the anti-piracy equipped set-top box that transmits the films and will give customers 48 hours to watch the movies. The hope is to capture middle-aged audiences whose family responsibilities prevent them from routinely going to the theater.

After Variety broke the news of Jackson’s involvement, some questioned whether he was back-tracking on his earlier support for theatrical release windows. In 2011, Jackson was among more than 20 directors who signed a letter decrying a deal that several major studios made with DirecTV to rent several releases eight weeks after they landed in theaters. Other signatories included Michael Bay, Kathryn Bigelow, James Cameron, and Guillermo del Toro.

But in a statement to Variety, Jackson explained that he believed that the DirecTV deal would imperil the theatrical business, while Screening Room will grow overall revenues for the industry.

Here is his full statement:

I had concerns about “DirecTV” in 2011, because it was a concept that I believe would have led to the cannibalization of theatrical revenues, to the ultimate detriment of the movie business.

Screening Room, however, is very carefully designed to capture an audience that does not currently go to the cinema.

That is a critical point of difference with the DirecTV approach – and along with Screening Room’s robust anti-piracy strategy, is exactly why Screening Room has my support.

Screening Room will expand the audience for a movie – not shift it from cinema to living room. It does not play off studio against theater owner. Instead it respects both, and is structured to support the long term health of both exhibitors and distributors – resulting in greater sustainability for the wider film industry itself.

---

quote: Variety article

---

Screening Room, the brainchild of entrepreneurs Sean Parker and Prem Akkaraju, offers movies for $50 at the same time as they open in theaters. It plans to charge $150 for access to the anti-piracy equipped set-top box that transmits the films and will give customers 48 hours to watch the movies. The hope is to capture middle-aged audiences whose family responsibilities prevent them from routinely going to the theater.

---

quote: Scott Jentsch

---

What's the latest research on how many times per month/year that the average person goes to a movie theater?

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

Oh, they know it all right. They just HATE IT. That's why they keep trying to figure ways to get around it.

---

Yeah, I'm also looking for a get-rich-quick-scheme which doesn't involve customers or potential jail time.

quote: Paul Mayer

---

And in other news, Amazon Studios announces their release strategy will now feature a 90-day window for theatrical release prior to Amazon Prime's streaming release.

Back to the day-and-date discussion already in progress..

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

Of course their argument is going to be "they capture the audience that doesn't go to the movies anyway."

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

Why the #$%# do they want to "fix" what's not broken?

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

We just had the highest grossing year in history and ticket sales are up over the previous few years. Why the #$%# do they want to "fix" what's not broken?

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

The perceived value of movies "in the home" is only about a buck or two.

---

quote:

---

Hollywood v Sean Parker: The Case for Home Movie Services

by Kristopher Tapley

In the wake of the news that entrepreneur Sean Parker and former SFX Entertainment executive Prem Akkaraju have teamed up to launch Screening Room, a startup that offers new film releases in the home for $50, a number of major filmmakers have spoken out against the proposal, which was first reported by Variety.

Filmmakers including James Cameron, Christopher Nolan, Roland Emmerich and M. Night Shyamalan have lined up against the plan, while Screening Room’s all-star lineup of backers includes Steven Spielberg, J.J. Abrams, Peter Jackson, Martin Scorsese and Ron Howard.

But as I read the various critiques, offered via statements and tweets (it’s unclear if detractors have heard Parker and Akkaraju’s pitch themselves), I kept getting hung up on one particular assertion. “Jim [Cameron] and I are committed to the sanctity of the in-theater experience,” producer Jon Landau said. “The movie-going experience is something to fight for,” M. Night Shyamalan added.

Filmmakers need to put aside lofty rhetoric about the value of the theater-going experience and realize that modern audiences are already consuming film and TV in different ways.

Just ask Cary Fukunaga, Brad Pitt or Will Smith, all of whom are making movies — big and small — with Netflix.

“What I’ve learned is that most people, even my friends, if they have busy lives — they’re just going to watch on whatever platform is available to them,” said Fukunaga in an interview with Variety last year. “It’s just the reality of now, in terms of filmmaking.”

And have filmmakers like Cameron or Nolan actually been to the local multiplex lately, or is the “sanctity” reserved for their own private screening rooms?

The choral crunching of the loudest food known to man, the vague smell of feet, the entitlement of those whipping out their cell phones — this is not a sacred environment. For most, going to the movies isn’t a time of worship like it is for those in or dedicated to the film industry. It’s an escape. And unless you’re bent on changing human behavior, that isn’t likely to change.

Some companies — like the Arclight and Drafthouse theater chains — are committed to an ideal experience, booting audience members who text during the movie, preventing entry once the film begins, etc. But for as many years as those practices have been in place, they have remained premium realities rather than standardized ones.

Larger companies have implemented more substantial premium experiences, but they remain notably limited. For example, the aim with AMC Theatres’ recent partnership with Dolby Laboratories — “Dolby Cinema at AMC Prime,” which marries the comfort of the theater chain’s already-exclusive plush seating auditoriums with Dolby’s dual laser projection and state-of-the-art sound technology — is to have roughly 100 such venues up and running by 2024. Hardly wide-ranging, and by that time, things like Screening Room may have already changed the game anyway. (It’s worth noting that AMC has signed a letter of intent to partner with Screening Room.)

Nolan, who echoed Landau and Cameron’s joint thoughts on the service without detailing his own, has spoken about the less-than-ideal theater-going experience in the past. “For some reason, it has become acceptable to say we are providing this empty room with a TV in it,” he said at the BFI London Film Festival in October. “We’re not putting on a show. That has to change, and if that experience for the audience is not valued, people will stop going.”

He went on to decry a growing trend among repertory theaters of projecting Blu-rays. “Exhibitors need to put their best foot forward and have standards,” he said. “No cinema should be showing a consumer grade format to an audience.”

But what incentive do theaters really have to provide an ideal viewing experience? It’s no secret that exhibitors are as focused on the popcorn and candy business as the movie business. Their money is made at the concession stand, not in the brutal percentage game of box office receipts. I remember my days working in a theater where management refused to replace projector bulbs running at 40% illumination because of the expense and the screens were stained from God knows what.

The whole brick-and-mortar paradigm is obviously crumbling, judging by the fate of record and book stores. So why should movie theaters be any different, particularly if there isn’t much interest in “putting on a show,” as Nolan said? And even if there was interest, there’s not a lot to bolster confidence. Quentin Tarantino made his best pitch for offering audiences a unique theatrical experience with his “Hateful Eight” roadshow in December, projected in 70mm at 100 venues nationwide, many of them retrofitted with new projectors. The film brought in only $6.6 million during that limited engagement and distributor The Weinstein Co. seemed eager to get it out into the multiplex marketplace, pulling the wide release up a week.

So while I’m sure there’s a fair rebuttal to Screening Room, I don’t think “the sanctity of the in-theater experience” is it. That’s not to say there aren’t inherent concerns, though.

For instance, we still don’t have details on the service’s “robust anti-piracy strategy,” as Jackson put it in his statement. That was a sticking point for the Art House Convergence, a specialty cinema org representing 600 theaters that issued a statement in opposition to Screening Room. My question is, what’s to stop someone from Periscoping an entire film? That proved to be a problem for HBO and Showtime during last May’s Mayweather-Pacquiao boxing match, as countless viewers simply used their smartphones to re-transmit the fight.

Also, will there be a premium or ban on commercial venues? For the MayPac fight, bars paid anywhere between $6,500 and $15,500, depending on capacity (compared to the $89.95 consumer rate). Will a venue simply be able to purchase one of these set-top boxes for $150 and exhibit the latest release every weekend to its clientele?

I imagine a number of the big-time backers that Parker and Akkaraju have assembled have wanted to embrace this inevitable shift for some time. The difference now, given that the Screening Room plan will send as much as 40% of the $50 fee to exhibitors, is that they’ve been presented with an option that doesn’t cut theatrical out of the equation. The proposed service “does not play off studio against theater owner … it respects both,” Jackson said. “Screening Room was the only solution that supports all stakeholders in the industry,” added Ron Howard and producing partner Brian Grazer.

And perhaps some of the ancillary business concerns — particularly the video and on-demand revenue — would be rendered less relevant if some first-time audiences were paying $50, rather than $5, to see a new movie like “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.”

More importantly, growing the business by expanding the audience is a stated goal. Movie-going has been flat in recent years, with ticket sales hitting a 20-year low in 2014. Right now, only 11% of Americans and Canadians frequent the cinema, per a report from the Motion Picture Assn. of America, and 32% of the entire U.S. and Canadian population doesn’t go at all. Meanwhile, the theatrical window has continued to collapse. Two years ago, DreamWorks Animation CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg predicted that within a decade, films would be available on a pay-per-screen-size model as few as 17 days after their theatrical opening.

The National Assn. of Theater Owners copped to all of this turbulence in its official response to the Screening Room news. “More sophisticated window modeling may be needed for the growing success of a modern movie industry,” the org said, adding for good measure that “those models should be developed by distributors and exhibitors in company-to-company discussions, not by a third party.”

Whoever develops the model, the time has come. And next month’s CinemaCon — an annual exhibition confab hosted by NATO — will likely mark the dawn of an epic showdown in Hollywood.

---

quote:

---

“Exhibitors need to put their best foot forward and have standards,” he said. “No cinema should be showing a consumer grade format to an audience.”

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Executives always have some kind of exit strategy.

---

quote: Some Hollywood Douche Producer

---

It's controlled too much by the movie theaters,

---

quote: The Same Guy

---

The Screening Room model doesn't go far enough: "They're saying $50 and people are going, 'Well, that's too expensive.' I disagree. I think it should be $80 or $100, and if it's a bigger and more in-demand movie, then have it be flexible pricing.

---

quote: Martin McCaffery

---

Didn't Relativity just go bankrupt?

---

quote: Frank Angel

---

Granted in the moment none seemed to take the time to do the math about how many people they could get to their $50 screening; they were just reacting to the price.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

I actually envisioned more of a "movie club" sort of thing where several people in the neighborhood get the service and they take turns playing "host" for movie night

---

Yes but then you still have all the pain-in-the-neck things I listed in my post above. It's still people leaving their house to get together with other people to watch a movie. It's just a different venue -- with the studio making way less money.
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 05-12-2016, 12:35 PM:
 
While the "movie club" idea has some merit, it is a sketchy assumption that various friends are going to kick in the cost of the film rental to watch a movie at another person's home.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-12-2016, 07:44 PM:
 
They don't "kick in" the costs. They take turns being the host. Say...Wednesday night is "movie night" and you take turns at each house...or maybe with less dates like only once a month...whatever the group wants. The more friends that participate, the cheapere it is for everyone.

Or everyone in the "club" dupes the movie and hands the others SD cards with the movie of the week. You no longer need go out and meet up but have again cut your costs to less than going to the movie theatre and the studios make less money...again, a lose-lose for the industry.

I maintain the premise of the whole thing is just plain wrong. This is a market that is already served. Nobody has to go to a movie theatre to see just about any movie. You just have to wait until it is released to home streaming/disc or premium channel. Typically 3-6 months after theatrical release.
 

---

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 05-12-2016, 08:49 PM:
 
The people who would be interested in this are already downloading Captain America off of the torrents already....
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 05-12-2016, 10:20 PM:
 
I think the whole idea is silly.

Estimate the cost of a nicely sized flat screen TV at $1,000 to $2,000... the cost of a good home theater sound system at another $500 to $1,000. Add in the cost of your DVD/Blu-Ray player, the cost of this proposed set-top box and any other gadgets you need to make a home theater and the price can easily hit $2,000 or $3,000. If you go all-out, you could top $5,000 or more.

For the price of a good home theater, you could go out to the movie theater fifty or one hundred times!

I'm not saying that a person shouldn't have a nice TV system in their house if they want one but I disagree with the idea that people can "replace" the movie theater experience with a home theater because the expense doesn't pan out.

Unless a person is a super-duper movie buff who has "movie night" every weekend of the year, all that expensive stuff that they buy is basically just going to sit and collect dust most of the time.

I know a guy who is a retired movie producer. He is one of those super-duper movie buffs and he does watch movies almost every week. All he has is a nice flat screen (Vizio, I think) and a basic home theater receiver/speaker system. It's all stuff you can easily get at Best Buy or Walmart. The whole kit-n-kaboodle probably cost less than $2,000. This is probably the only person I know who has ever gotten his money's worth out of a home theater setup.

As far as I am concerned, this is all just empty marketing designed to make money from the unwashed masses who think they are getting something special but really aren't.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-13-2016, 03:35 PM:
 
After just finishing writing my latest multi-thousand dollar check to a studio for a movie that will be available at Wal-Mart for $15 in 90 days, I wish there was some way to get across to these idiots that the theater industry is not this big bad greedy behemoth that just rakes in money by gouging people for movie tickets.

In other words, exclusivity is worth a lot of money. We pay dearly for that ever-shrinking window.

What's amazing is, the window used to be up to a year. Now we have 90 to 120 days, so the window is worth less, but the cost of film rent keeps going UP. So who are the greedy ones again?
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 05-13-2016, 04:50 PM:
 

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

I wish there was some way to get across to these idiots that the theater industry is not this big bad greedy behemoth that just rakes in money by gouging people for movie tickets.

---

quote: Randy Stankey

---

Estimate the cost of a nicely sized flat screen TV at $1,000 to $2,000... the cost of a good home theater sound system at another $500 to $1,000. Add in the cost of your DVD/Blu-Ray player, the cost of this proposed set-top box and any other gadgets you need to make a home theater and the price can easily hit $2,000 or $3,000. If you go all-out, you could top $5,000 or more.

---

I hate this system and I think the pricing is way off however the issue with this argument is that a lot of people aren't going to buy all of this equipment just for movies. I love movies and I love blu-rays, however I bought my TV, audio system, etc for TV, Gaming, Movies, streaming, etc... I think with most home theatres they are such multitaskers that I think it would be very easy for people to think "oh well I'll have that for the big game, etc" instead of thinking WOW $1500 just to watch movies, I could go to the theatre a whole bunch of times for that!"
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-15-2016, 09:27 PM:
 
Yeah it's really comparing apples to oranges.

To me, picture size/quality and sound size/quality aside, the much better argument for theater vs. home is, the fact that at the theater it's all done for you AND there is no interruption of the movie. You're having a night out... something special, vs. just another same-old-same-old night at the house.
 

---

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 05-15-2016, 10:14 PM:
 
I have always thought that movie theatres have a certain kind of a magical atmosphere that you don't find anywhere else.

I don't know if this "magic" still exists in today's multiplexes, though. (I literally don't know. I haven't been in any multiplexes in thirty years.)
 

---

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 05-15-2016, 11:40 PM:
 
Some do, some don't.

If you find yourself an independently owned smaller multiplex, You'll typically find it has character and happy bubbly employees.

Go to an AMC or Regal though, You'll probably find it's an extremely sterile, bland experience. After getting harassed about donating money to charity or signing up for a rewards card, of course.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-16-2016, 12:31 AM:
 

 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 05-16-2016, 01:59 PM:
 

quote: Manny Montes

---

I hate this system and I think the pricing is way off however the issue with this argument is that a lot of people aren't going to buy all of this equipment just for movies.

---

quote: Randy Stankey

---

People can buy TVs if they really want them but they should also think... They can watch movies in a theater for less money than they would spend on a TV system and, if they pick a good theater, they can have BETTER than their home theater.

So I stand by when I say that spending $100-plus dollars on another set-top box, plus $50 per movie and, likely, a monthly subscription fee just to watch movies at home is a waste of money and it doesn't make sense.

I think that movie theater owners need to do two things:

Get out the message that home theaters are a waste of money and don't make sense.

Step up their game so that when they say that movie theaters are better, it really IS better. By that, I mean the sterile, multiplex experience with stale popcorn, crappy screens and uncaring employees.

Movie theaters are better and they are cheaper in the long run.

We just need to overcome all that empty marketing hype that drives people to stay at home, thinking they are getting something better when they really aren't.

---

I think you're marginalizing the audience with some of your viewpoints. Doing so risks treating them with contempt and missing the mark when you are trying to reach them.

> Get out the message that home theaters are a waste of money and don't make sense.

This would be a waste of energy and it would likely backfire on you anyway. Movie theaters enjoy the one thing those people can't get in their home theaters: exclusivity. That's what makes things like Screening Room dangerous for theaters.

> Step up their game so that when they say that movie theaters are better, it really IS better. By that, I mean the sterile, multiplex experience with stale popcorn, crappy screens and uncaring employees.

THIS is the most beneficial thing that theaters can do to be successful.

Doing this benefits a theater from every aspect. No matter what challenge of attracting audiences a theater is facing, delivering an excellent moviegoing experience from beginning to end is how to combat all of them.

People with home theaters enjoy movies. They don't stop going to movies in a movie theater just because they have a home theater (unless the movie theaters near them are so bad that they pale in comparison to their home theater, that is). If they just have a big TV and some speakers, they're still going to enjoy seeing a movie in a proper theater that does a good job. There are more entertainment choices than ever, so doing an excellent job makes a theater competitive with the other choices.

Things like Screening Room threaten the biggest advantage that theaters have, but even if Screening Room fails, another effort will be knocking at the door very soon thereafter.

If it or something like it succeeds, the best chance that a movie theater has to compete with it is in delivering the best possible experience.

Therefore, the only real option for theaters is to "step up their game" as you say.
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 05-16-2016, 03:19 PM:
 
> People don't buy 4-wheel drive trucks just because there might be a snowstorm one day out of the year.

Sure they do. Obviously, they feel it is worth it.

> I bet 90% of those 4-WDs never see anything more "off-road" than driving it on the lawn.

My front yard is level with the top of the telephone poles. You haven't seen the steep winding driveway I have to transverse to get to my front lawn...
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-16-2016, 03:34 PM:
 
I have a 4-wheel-drive pickup which is my daily driver. I do about 99% of my driving on paved roads, but I do use the 4-wheel drive pretty much daily during the winter when the roads are slick. In Montana (or any other state with farms and snowy winters) I would guess at least 75% or more of the pickups are 4-wheel drive.

Besides, there are lots of reasons you would need 4WD besides snow. Going up a steep or gravelly hill, pulling somebody out of a ditch, or being stuck in mud. All have happened to me even though I'm a city kid.

In Montana we don't really use the term "off-road" -- it's more like "off-highway" because we have many more miles of unpaved roads than paved ones, and you can easily need 4WD even though you are indeed on a road of some kind.

In my case...I don't need it often, but I like having it when I do need it. It has saved my butt on many occasions. I'll never own a pickup without it.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 05-16-2016, 04:48 PM:
 
I'm sure that you'll all agree that, although individual people are often smart, people, in general, can be stupid. If you take one or two people, separately, you are likely to find some of the smartest people you might ever want to meet. If you take those very same people and put them in a crowd of dozens, they are likely to behave like cattle.

Mitchel and Mike, you guys are people who have trucks because you use them but I bet you also see many who don't and the most they ever use them off the normal roads is when they park them on the lawn.

I'm perfectly okay with people having trucks or home theaters or other things just because they like them. No beef, there. I still think that people in groups can and do fall prey to empty marketing far too often.

I think that this Screening Room concept is just another case of empty marketing and, unfortunately, I think that too many people will fall prey to it.

Scott, I take your criticism seriously. Yes, I see where my comments can make people feel like I am marginalizing them. I don't purposely intend to do that.

Still, in the end, I really do believe that Screening Room is little more than empty marketing that really won't live up to what people think it will be.

Sure, there will be some who will get something out of it in the same way Mitchell and Mike get use out of their trucks but I also believe that the majority won't.

I guess I'm asking how we can get that idea out without, as Scott warns, alienating people?
 

---

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 05-19-2016, 01:46 PM:
 

quote: Randy Stankey

---

I guess I'm asking how we can get that idea out without, as Scott warns, alienating people?

---

quote:

---

- Theaters should educate the public more. There should be a sign outside every screen listing the format:
Presented in: 70mm Ultra-Panavision 6-track DTS sound at an aspect ratio of 2.75:1 (for Hateful Eight) -or-
Presented in: Dolby Vision with Dolby Atmos immersive sound on a 60-foot wide screen at an aspect ratio of 2.4:1.
Etc.

---

quote:

---

- They should run a snipe that shows a 65" TV actual size on the theater screen. They should also have a TV spot that does the same.

---

quote: Martin Brooks

---

I personally don't think that home theaters are the problem. If anything, it's Millennials (and others) who are willing to watch movies on a 4" screen who are the problem.

---

quote: Martin Brooks

---

When you go to the ticket selling sites of the theater chains, they usually do tell you the format. But if you go to the third party sites, they don't. The theaters should insist that any third party site, such as Fandango, always list the film's format, especially when it's film, large screen, IMAX, D-Box, Atmos, ETX, whatever.

---

quote: Martin Brooks

---

They should run a snipe that shows a 65" TV actual size on the theater screen. They should also have a TV spot that does the same.

---

quote: Scott Jentsch

---

It is surprising to me that NATO doesn't do more to market the idea of going to the movies.

---

quote:

---

- They should run a snipe that shows a 65" TV actual size on the theater screen. They should also have a TV spot that does the same.

---

quote:

---

“From September onwards, Netflix will become the exclusive U.S. pay TV home of the latest films from Disney, Marvel, Lucasfilm and Pixar,” said Netflix content chief Ted Sarandos in a blog post. It’s worth emphasizing that this will apply only to new theatrical releases, as there are separate licensing deals in place for other Disney content. Netflix’s “exclusive” partnership with Disney also extends into original programming, with Marvel’s Daredevil debuting on the video-streaming service last year.

---

Please note that this shouldn't affect the theatrical release window.

Still, those studio executives seem to be firmly convinced it's best for them to lock their content into walled gardens. It's seemingly easier to have someone else bend over backwards and letting them pay a premium on your precious content as to try to earn it yourself.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-24-2016, 08:12 PM:
 
Funny how the Netflixes of the world want "exclusive" rights to movies, but they think the theatrical model of "exclusive" rights during the window is outmoded, even though we (as a group) pay far more during our little 90 day window than the Netflixes do, per viewer. Hmm.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-24-2016, 11:37 PM:
 
It's just the reality of stock market douche-bags being greedy. They're only too happy to shit on (and try to lay waste to) a business model that has worked for well over 100 years if it gives them a short term gain over a few months. There are no sacred cows with these day trader types.
 

---

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 05-26-2016, 12:40 AM:
 
Those Regal ads are a joke since they are doing a lot of letterboxing at their theaters now. The picture isn't even fitting the entire movie screen anymore! This must be why they stopped running those ads....
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 05-26-2016, 03:25 AM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

It's just the reality of stock market douche-bags being greedy. They're only too happy to shit on (and try to lay waste to) a business model that has worked for well over 100 years if it gives them a short term gain over a few months. There are no sacred cows with these day trader types.

---

quote: Bloomberg News

---

When Greg Foster is having a bad day, he retreats to a room deep in the bowels of Imax Corp.’s Los Angeles offices. There, the executive who heads Imax's entertainment division, can reconnect with what makes him love his job: watching movies.

In a large, nondescript building in an industrial area known as Silicon Beach, Imax has built a screening room with all the aspects that a viewer would want from a big screen experience. The 60-foot-wide, 45-foot-high, curved screen tilts to an auditorium of 95 stadium-style seats. The one in the center has accommodated the biggest directors in the world, such as Star Wars: The Force Awakens's JJ Abrams.

If you have forked out the ticket price of about $20, nearly double the U.S. average, to see a film on an Imax screen, you know what the fuss is about: Bright, high-resolution images, all-encompassing sound, and a curved screen help immerse the viewer. Now the Canadian operator is bringing that experience into the home for you to enjoy with about 18 of your closest friends—provided you have more than $5 million to spare.
Blockbusters on Demand

'“It is the perfect marriage of a lot of trends we are seeing in entertainment consumption and our technology,” said Robert Lister, Imax’s chief business development officer, in an interview. “People are demanding content, when they want it, where they want it, how they want it.”

In particular, Imax Private Theatre is being targeted to the growing number of high-net-worth individuals (who have assets north of that $5 million mark) in places such as China and the Middle East.1 There, not only will viewers get the highest-quality cinematic experience available (Interstellar director Christopher Nolan would be happy), but they will also be able to watch new releases just as they open in theaters—a radical development by Hollywood standards. Imax home theaters in China and Middle East will have $10,000 secure set-top boxes to deliver new movies, called Imax Home Premier, which uses fingerprint security technology, with additional fees for each rental; Lister said the company is considering selling this service separately from its physical home theaters overseas.

New expansion in the U.S. and Europe, though, is just for the theater design and build-out. (Exhibitors aren't budging on their fiercely protected, months-long exclusivity windows; popcorn doesn't sell itself, after all.) Some at-home-theater owners in the U.S. have been using Prima Cinema to get the new movies of some Hollywood studios, at the cost of $35,000 a year for a set-top box and $500 per screening. Napster creator Sean Parker hit a wall recently with his own "day and date" service attempt after top filmmakers and exhibitor groups came out against Screening Room, which purported to offer new movies via a cheaper, $150 set-top box for about $50 a movie.
Goldilocks Sizing

However the movies are piped in, David Keighley, chief quality officer and a near 30-year veteran of Imax, maintains a watchful eye on the company’s at-home theaters to assure that the same exacting, high-quality features that any movie fan would find in a major theater are shrunk appropriately to fit a family home. At more than 10-feet tall, these home systems require rooms that can be devoted to the installation or built to accommodate one. A majority of sales so far have been for newly built homes and targeted to developers; the company has indicated that the roll-out has faced some headwinds from slowdowns in construction and real estate.

The basic system is the "Palais" setup, for theaters up to 75 square meters, at a cost of $400,000—a price on par with a new Bentley in China. The set-top box and film rentals cost extra. An even bigger “Platinum” system accommodates up to 40 guests and costs about $1 million. Sales of both systems are expanding into North America and Europe, according to Imax. Plans for a smaller version called “Prestige,” about half the size and price of “Palais” are also in the works.

The service is catering to a growing class that is not only rich but would not—or cannot—go to a local theater.

“It’s not just about uber-opulence, its also about privacy,” said Lucie Greene, worldwide director of JWT’s Innovations group. “Visibility in public spaces, and in the digital space, and public knowledge of their whereabouts is increasingly something ultra-high-net-worth individuals are mindful of and spending money to step away from.” The service caters not only to movie fans but also allows for gaming and karaoke as well.
Growth Opportunities

The initiative is a potential source of growth for the exhibitor—which is hardly found in the U.S., where the movie market is stagnating and few new theaters are being built. China is where the growth is. A love for Hollywood movies is supporting an unparalleled boom in the number of screens, with an average of 22 built every day last year. China’s box office is set to overtake that of the U.S. in the next few years.

The project is a joint venture with TCL Corp., which provides some of the hardware and software for the system. After launching a showroom in Shanghai in June 2015, the companies announced 130 screens had been sold as of April this year. More showrooms will be opened in China, Dubai, and North America by the end of this year, a spokesman for Imax said.

From Wall Street’s perspective, it’s is a low risk strategy and doesn’t cannibalize its main business. Some analysts were impressed with the early take up in China, with plans to roll out in the Middle East this year, could provide a small boost to earnings in 2017, according to Eric Wold, analyst at B. Riley & Co. The move “represents another opportunity to leverage the Imax technology and brand with minimal cost or risk for Imax,” he said.
The Imax Private Theatre "Platinum" setup can fit 40 guests for a cost of about $1 million.
The Imax Private Theatre "Platinum" setup can fit 40 guests for a cost of about $1 million.

Sun Minhui, general manager of Diamond Beach Resort in Hainan, China, with its waterfront villas, is an example of the kind of buyer Lister is focused on.

Sitting with his view of the South China Sea, Sun, speaking by telephone, said the resort is similar to Miami or Hawaii, where people go to vacation during the winter. For him and his clients, home cinema can be an important part in their social lives. For some, they want to see the best way to watch a movie, for others its a reason to invite friends to their home or business associates, he said.

“In China, the value of cinema is more than just watching movies,” Sun said in an interview and the ability to watch new movies at home is a “big change.”

“If next week there is a new movie coming out, I can invite many friends to my home,” Sun said. “You build your own small platform for your social life. ”

---

quote:

---

If you have forked out the ticket price of about $20, nearly double the U.S. average, to see a film on an Imax screen, you know what the fuss is about: Bright, high-resolution images, all-encompassing sound,

---