Would you pay $50 to see a first-run movie at home?

[Irish]

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.

https://variety.com/2016/film/news/studios-exhibitors-consider-revolutionary-plan-for-day-and-date-movies-at-home-exclusive-1201725168/

https://deadline.com/2016/03/the-screening-room-sean-parker-distribution-exhibition-controversy-1201717454/

I don't think this will ever fly-- theater owners are already freaking out about it-- but it's an interesting experiment. $50 sounds expensive on the face of it, but that strikes me as in line with pay-per-view. Seems like this might be ideal for bigger households, ie frats and families.

[Dukefrukem]

YES! Would save me money and I dont have to go anywhere.

[Lazlo]

No. The act of going to the movies is borderline sacred to me. Yes there are downsides (disrespectful patrons, occasional presentation issues), but the size of the screen, the strength of the sound system, and the relative lack of distraction are all huge plusses. I have a 50 inch TV and 7.1 sound but those don't come anywhere close to delivering the same emotional and technical immersion of a big screen and a dark room. It continues to be the best presentation available and the preferred delivery system of the vast majority of filmmakers. Plus, as corny as it sounds, to me going to the movies is like going to church. It's a meaningful experience, wether the movie is good or not.

Combine that with the fact that $50 is at least three times as much as I pay to go to the movies most of the time. I usually go alone, but if I go with my girlfriend the most expensive it will be ticket-wise is $32 for IMAX 3D (Charlotte, NC prices). I don't buy concessions other than the occasional bottle of water, parking is free. Yes I'm sure there's some formula of gas used to get there and opportunity cost of the effort to drive to the theater that might get you to $50 (MAYBE), but the removal of everything that's special about going to the movies is a vast negative to me.

[Dukefrukem]

No. The act of going to the movies is borderline sacred to me. Yes there are downsides (disrespectful patrons, occasional presentation issues), .

This to me, is worth $100. The satisfaction of knowing I won't have to worry about the fucking millennials who can't go 20 minutes without checking twitter or posting on instagram.

Or the people who talk shamelessly throughout the whole movie. Who repeat the joke they just heard (for some reason people do this so often!).

Or the people stuffing their face while chewing with their mouth open.

Give me this technology now!

[Dukefrukem]

I have a 50 inch TV and 7.1 sound but those don't come anywhere close to delivering the same emotional and technical immersion of a big screen and a dark room.

It doesn't for you?? It sure does for me. And in the comfort of my own home no less.

[Lazlo]

This to me, is worth $100. The satisfaction of knowing I won't have to worry about the fucking millennials who can't go 20 minutes without checking twitter or posting on instagram.

Or the people who talk shamelessly throughout the whole movie. Who repeat the joke they just heard (for some reason people do this so often!).

Or the people stuffing their face while chewing with their mouth open.

Give me this technology now!

Believe me, I have plenty of problems with other people in the theater. Interestingly, the stereotype of young people being the problem doesn't generally bear out in my experience. It's white people over the age of forty that can't keep their mouths shut, for the most part. They seem to completely miss the distinction of watching in the theater versus watching at home. They're horrible, always have to comment on something to each other, and never admit that they're causing a distraction. You're always the asshole for asking them to be considerate. Theater staff is usually no help and even going to get them makes you miss at least five minutes of the movie and spikes your adrenaline, making it difficult to settle back into the movie. So, yeah, it's not always an ideal environment. I've taken to walking out of movies and getting my money back if I get bad vibes from the crowd during the trailers or the first 5-10 minutes of the movie. I know that's extreme and hurts me more than anything in terms of wasted time. But it's even more wasted time if I just sit there miserably, and the movie doesn't get a fair shot.

I've also been on the verge of being assaulted at a theater as a result of asking someone to either keep their kid quiet or leave.

As far as cell phone screens, I sit in the first or second row of the stadium so most people are behind me.

Also of concern are presentation issues, whether it's dim projection, incorrect color configuration in the projector, low audio levels, incorrect aspect ratio formatting (saw Carol matted as though it was shot 2.35, which was distracting), flashing thermostat screens in your peripheral vision, there are plenty of shortcomings from theater to theater.

I have a blacklist of theaters I won't go to as a result of a lot of these issues.

So, I agree, there are perils to going to the theater.


It doesn't for you?? It sure does for me. And in the comfort of my own home no less.

But here's the flipside of all of that. When it all lines up right with a respectful crowd and proper presentation (which happens most of the time), there's nothing that competes with theater viewing. Most of my problems stem from being easily distracted and having low levels of discipline.

At the theater, the screen takes up your entire field of view and you're immersed in the world. Even at 50 inches, the TV is only a small part of what I can see. If I'm watching during the day, I have the entire apartment lit up around me to catch my attention. If it's at night and I turn all the lights off, there's still a problem in that it's hard to look at the screen for a long period of time without some sort of discomfort. It stems from the fact that the TV is shining light directly at me while at the movies the light is being reflected back at me. I have no problem not looking at my phone in the theater, but for whatever reason at home I'm tempted and it takes me out of things.

Another issue is seating. At the theater it's an upright chair that focuses my attention. At home I'm slouching on the couch. I also am not a fan of recliner chairs or this new phenomenon of putting couches in theaters. I'm not there to relax. I'm there to focus on the movie and let it do the work of transporting me. I also can't get with theaters that serve food.

The fact that the theater is usually solely geared to show me the movie is a huge draw for me. It's an escape from the larger world and all of its myriad distractions.

Unless I get super rich somehow (unlikely) and am able to build the ideal home theater, I'm just not going to get that experience at home. And the experience, to me, is half the appeal. I know I'm an anomaly, certainly among the greater moviegoing public. And sometimes my fastidiousness works against me and leads to disappointment with the experience. But when everything lines up, there's just no topping it.

[Dukefrukem]

Understood.

For me, I spent over $100 on tickets for the Hateful 8, Ant-Man, Star Wars, Age of Ultron... and will probably due the same for Batman v Superman, Civil War, Suicide Squad.. the 37 other comic book movies over the next 10 years, the 5 more Star Wars movies...etc..etc.

So I can see this option saving me money over the long haul.

[Lazlo]

Understood.

For me, I spent over $100 on tickets for the Hateful 8, Ant-Man, Star Wars, Age of Ultron... and will probably due the same for Batman v Superman, Civil War, Suicide Squad.. the 37 other comic book movies over the next 10 years, the 5 more Star Wars movies...etc..etc.

So I can see this option saving me money over the long haul.

Could you explain how? As far as I know you don't have kids. $100 on just tickets per trip for those movies? Are you buying four or five tickets each time you go? Curious to know how you're hitting that number.

[Watashi]

I have never spent more than 10 dollars on a movie ticket in years.

[Spinal]

Lazlo nailed it. I am bothered by the increasing conflation of cinema and television. The most recent Best Picture winner was well-made, but it was basically an HBO movie. On the flip side, going to see The Hateful Eight made me realize just how much we've lost over the years in terms of the movie-going experience.

[Dukefrukem]

Could you explain how? As far as I know you don't have kids. $100 on just tickets per trip for those movies? Are you buying four or five tickets each time you go? Curious to know how you're hitting that number.

Yup. 5 Tickers for myself, the GF, Sister, Mom and Dad. (We love movie nights and it's kinda my thing and my treat)

I'd much prefer to spend $50 and have my mom come over and cook me a meal.

Especially now that I have a lake house and we can hang out by the water and fire pit after :-D

[Lazlo]

Lazlo nailed it. I am bothered by the increasing conflation of cinema and television. The most recent Best Picture winner was well-made, but it was basically an HBO movie. On the flip side, going to see The Hateful Eight made me realize just how much we've lost over the years in terms of the movie-going experience.

I dunno that I want to crap on Spotlight's aesthetics and tie it to a larger problem. It was more effective in the theater than it would have been at home, regardless of how it looks.

The Hateful Eight 70mm experience was spectacular, though less for the presentation in terms of the size and clarity of the image, and more for how the audience reacted to everything. The Overture had the remarkable effect of indicating to everyone that it was time to settle down and get ready. The calming effect and the focusing effect was palpable.

Obviously that's not going to catch on and arguably the crowd was more predisposed to be "in" on the movie.

[Lazlo]

Yup. 5 Tickers for myself, the GF, Sister, Mom and Dad. (We love movie nights and it's kinda my thing and my treat)

I'd much prefer to spend $50 and have my mom come over and cook me a meal.

Especially now that I have a lake house and we can hang out by the water and fire pit after :-D

Makes sense for you from that perspective, for sure. It's very different from my typical use case. But I'd imagine you wouldn't do that for the first viewing of something Marvel, DC, Star Wars, etc. Certainly you'd agree that the theater is more ideal presentation-wise for big movies.

[Dukefrukem]

And lets be clear. We haven't had a 70mm experience like the Hateful 8 in decades. So whatever you think is lost today, has been lost for decades. Directors that want to give that experience and innovate cinema will continue to provide that and I welcome it. I'll still go to 70mm premieres like that. But for the most part, I dont want to be bothered. I want my experiences to be immersive as possible. And I find at home is where I am most comfortable.

[Dukefrukem]

Certainly you'd agree that the theater is more ideal presentation-wise for big movies.

I can't say that I would. I think I would definitely use this for Marvel movies and big blockbusters. In fact, it would probably cause me to spend MORE money on movies I kinda want to see but dont want to leave the house. If anything, this tech will bring about a different way to experience movies as an in home event- like Irish's PPV example.

My home theater experience is pretty sublime.

[Winston*]

I like leaving the house.

[Lazlo]

I can't say that I would. I think I would definitely use this for Marvel movies and big blockbusters. In fact, it would probably cause me to spend MORE money on movies I kinda want to see but dont want to leave the house. If anything, this tech will bring about a different way to experience movies as an in home event- like Irish's PPV example.

My home theater experience is pretty sublime.

Glad you enjoy your home setup so much. It's just never going to be big enough or immersive enough for my tastes. Even if I were to upgrade to a larger TV, the home experience will always be second rate in my mind.

[Dukefrukem]

OH BTW, the $50 also gives you two tickets to see the movie at a cinema of their choice.

[Lazlo]

OH BTW, the $50 also gives you two tickets to see the movie at a cinema of their choice.

That's weird to me, too. If you're at all interested in going to the theater, then why not go without this service, see it as it's meant to be seen the first time, and then buy the disc or download for when you want to watch it at home as many times as you want in the future.

Anyone have a theory on why this is a feature of this service? Like, I'm going to watch it at home and kick myself for not seeing it in the theater and have the peace of mind that I can go at no extra charge after the magic of seeing it first is lost by watching it at home? That's my cynical take on it. Maybe there's a good reason I'm not thinking of.

[Dukefrukem]

That's weird to me, too. If you're at all interested in going to the theater, then why not go without this service, see it as it's meant to be seen the first time, and then buy the disc or download for when you want to watch it at home as many times as you want in the future.

Anyone have a theory on why this is a feature of this service? Like, I'm going to watch it at home and kick myself for not seeing it in the theater and have the peace of mind that I can go at no extra charge after the magic of seeing it first is lost by watching it at home? That's my cynical take on it. Maybe there's a good reason I'm not thinking of.

Well, according to the article, they added it to appease the major theater chains so it would encourage people to go out and spend money on junk food.

Personally, I dont need to stuff my face for a movie.

[Dukefrukem]

While we're on the subject, Civil War tickets are on sale. And it's cheaper than I thought. Only $85 for 5 tickets.

[Lazlo]

Well, according to the article, they added it to appease the major theater chains so it would encourage people to go out and spend money on junk food.

Personally, I dont need to stuff my face for a movie.

If I'm a theater operator that's very weak appeasement. I'm guessing the percentage of people who actually use those free tickets will be very low. Unless they're transferrable to other patrons or a different movie.

[Ezee E]

Ridiculous.

If you want to avoid crowds, go to an Independent theater where people are typically polite, an earlier show where there's hardly anyone at all, or sit closer.

[Skitch]

There are some instances where I would absolutely without a doubt pay $50. Paying for the special box seems completely stupid cashgrab though, why not just make it on Vudu or Amazon or any other app of your choosing?

I would split the cost between a few friends I trust. This is a direct result of every theater trip being ruined by rude assholes that the theater does next to nothing about. Two years ago I demanded my money back halfway through a dozen films, last year I saw maybe five in theater all year. I LOVE the theater. But the theatergoers have almost completely chased me away. The experience has become so consistently awful that I don't go at all. That is ticket revenue they aren't getting because they don't punish shitty people.

Would I prefer to see it on huge screen? Of course! But I've had sooooo damn many first experiences completely ruined by other people, it enrages me to the point were I would rather wait to see it on my 50" at home. And I have friends with full home theaters, so thats a no brainer.

[Dukefrukem]

There are some instances where I would absolutely without a doubt pay $50. Paying for the special box seems completely stupid cashgrab though, why not just make it on Vudu or Amazon or any other app of your choosing?


Because of the anti-piracy software on the box. Did anyone read the articles?

[Dukefrukem]

Ridiculous.

If you want to avoid crowds, go to an Independent theater where people are typically polite, an earlier show where there's hardly anyone at all, or sit closer.

No to all of those. Those are not solutions to my problem(s).

[Skitch]

Because of the anti-piracy software on the box. Did anyone read the articles?

I did, I just know thats crap because it will have no effect on piracy.

[Dukefrukem]

I did, I just know thats crap because it will have no effect on piracy.

Well there won't be anyway to record off it. So unless you're talking about cam stuff (which is such a minor part of movie piracy) I don't see it as an issue.

[Winston*]

If it's playing on your TV what stops you just using a DVR recorder or whatever?

[Dukefrukem]

If it's playing on your TV what stops you just using a DVR recorder or whatever?

For the same reason why you can't do that with the PS3 or PS4.

[Winston*]

I don't understand things.

[Skitch]

I don't understand things.

Nor do I, but I know how geek nation works. They'll have a work around it in about a week, month tops.

[Ezee E]

No to all of those. Those are not solutions to my problem(s).

The only time I have bad theater experiences in recent memory is:
-Film projector broke down in Son of Saul
-Too damn hot in the theater (typically sold out shows)
-Old people predicting the outcome of scenes in Boyhood

[Dukefrukem]

Nor do I, but I know how geek nation works. They'll have a work around it in about a week, month tops.

PS3 and PS4 have yet to be hacked.

[transmogrifier]

No.

[number8]

I think movie theaters are so fun that even one full of awful audience members is still better than watching a movie in private in the greatest home theater in the world.

[number8]

I wish porn is still shown in theaters regularly. The handful of times I've watched porn on a big screen with an audience (at a porn film festival, or there's an arthouse theater in Brooklyn that screens old porn features at midnight every couple of months), it's been really fun.

Masturbating is frowned upon, though, so maybe home theaters are still good for something.

[Dukefrukem]

Watching porn in a theater is the very last thing I want to do in life.

[Winston*]

Watching porn in a theater is the very last thing I want to do in life.

Weird goal.

[Dukefrukem]

Weird goal.

I think you read my post wrong. After I do everything else in the world, I will watch porn in a theater. That's how interesting and fun it sounds.

[baby doll]

I go to Disney movies just to masturbate. That Princess Elsa is one sexy bitch.

[Spinal]

I think you read my post wrong. After I do everything else in the world, I will watch porn in a theater. That's how interesting and fun it sounds.

Sometimes Winston makes jokes.

The closest I've ever been to watching porn in a theater was 9 Songs.

[Ezee E]

Shortbus for me.

Didn't see Gaspar Noe's Love in the theater....

[Spinal]

Shortbus for me.


Oh yeah, that one too.

[Milky Joe]

This is what I imagine when I read Duke's posts in this and any other thread:

http://filmgarb.com/wp-content/uploads/tv-eastbound__down-2009_2013-guy_young-ken_marino-accessories-s04e05-water_jet_pack.jpg

[Ezee E]

Not a bad thing.

[DavidSeven]

This has been proposed and re-proposed for years. It'll never work.

People pay a premium to get out of the house. Going to the movies is "something to do," and we've collectively assigned value to that. Immediacy isn't what people are paying for. They are paying for the social experience. (I'm speaking broadly to the general pop, not cineastes or movie nerds.) Going out costs money, so people are willing to pay more due to the lack of cheap alternatives. That long married couple still wants to get out of the house on date night.

There is a different value calculation we do for entertainment at home. The value is considerably less because there are cheap options. Netflix, Redbox, cable, internet, etc. The value to a consumer of a movie "at home" is probably like 2-3 bucks at most. There may be a small premium people will pay for a "new release", but I doubt it's that significant.

[Winston*]

At the cinema now fyi. Will provide updates.

[Irish]

This has been proposed and re-proposed for years. It'll never work.

It'll never work because the industry won't allow it, not because consumers wouldn't want it.

We assign a different values to things at different ages, and it feels like you believe Screening Room's target is much younger than it is. They don't want the under 30s. They want young families. They want dinks (double income, no kids). They want people who go to the movies 6 times a year (the nat'l average) or less. They see value in capturing extra dollars between day 1 and day 90 in the traditional release window. That market doesn't involve kids who are looking for "something to do" and go out just to go out.

Immediacy is one of the few things theaters offer, and they know it. That's why the Nat'l Assoc of Theater Owners (NATO!) freaks out constantly about the day and date release window. It's also why the industry pushes opening weekend as the only metric that matters.

If the social angle were that strong, especially as a selling point, attendance wouldn't drop year over year. And besides, Screening Room doesn't inhibit socializing at all. You can still watch the same movie with the same friends. The only difference is where that happens.

The average cable sub in the US is 70 bucks. Premium VOD is already above your price point at $10-15 a pop. Pay-per-view sporting events are many times that. I think you're underestimating how much people will spend for entertainment at home (it's slightly off topic, but Steam, XBOX Live, and PSN don't fit into your model at all, where the costs are potentially higher per piece than Screening Room).

[Winston*]

At the cinema now fyi. Will provide updates.

Man, watching a film with an appreciative audience is the best. Home viewing is for chumps.

[transmogrifier]

It just seems to me that the type of people who really really care about watching a new release movie the exact moment it comes out are the type of people who would just go to the cinema for less than half the price. Whereas those who hate theatres are more likely the type of people who couldn't give a shit about watching something day and date and would happily wait for a cheaper home option to become available.

I don't know, just my feeling about the $50 price point. I certainly would never pay that much. Ever.

[Skitch]

It just seems to me that the type of people who really really care about watching a new release movie the exact moment it comes out are the type of people who would just go to the cinema for less than half the price. Whereas those who hate theatres are more likely the type of people who couldn't give a shit about watching something day and date and would happily wait for a cheaper home option to become available.

I don't know, just my feeling about the $50 price point. I certainly would never pay that much. Ever.

Good points, and I agree. To be clear, I can't think of a movie I would pay 50$ for just for myself. Maybe Star Wars, but I would have a couple friends over and split it up. Also if there was some kids movie that my kids really wanted to see, 50$ would be a major savings compared to toting the whole family to theater plus popcorn, drinks, etc.

[Spinal]

Man, watching a film with an appreciative audience is the best. Home viewing is for chumps.

Thanks for the update!

[number8]

I'm gonna double down and say that the only people who would pay for this are weirdos and I don't think there are enough weirdos in the US to make this a profitable business model.

[Dukefrukem]

I'm gonna double down and say that the only people who would pay for this are weirdos and I don't think there are enough weirdos in the US to make this a profitable business model.

As opposed to all the weirdos who would want to watch porn in movie theater?

I can't imagine the upkeep on a proprietary box being very expensive, especially when all of your product is basically a PPV priced movie.

And I also don't understand why it's so weird for people who don't want to watch something with the masses? Are people who don't like concerts weird too? Except for some reason both of those options exist. (concerts and PPV concerts)

[DavidSeven]

Premium VOD is already above your price point at $10-15 a pop. Pay-per-view sporting events are many times that.

Live sporting events and VOD aren't comparable, though. That's pretty widely understood at this point. Consumers have already assigned those things two very different values. They will pay a premium and cling onto their expensive cable subs for live sports. They will not do that for prerecorded programming or a bank of movies. Also, I think an event like Mayweather-Pacquiao is much more conducive to the type of living room socializing that this platform thinks it's catering to.

It'll cost nothing to run this, so it might be profitable in a vacuum. But the market will be some tiny Beverly Hills niche, and I wouldn't expect the returns to be good enough to justify pissing off industry partners and further undercutting the essential value of movie theaters.

Just my gut feeling on it.

[Sycophant]

They don't want the under 30s. They want young families. They want dinks (double income, no kids). They want people who go to the movies 6 times a year (the nat'l average) or less.

I can maybe see these people being persuaded to do the $50 per movie thing. But are they also convinced to pay the price of admission at $150 for the box that gets them gives them access to make that choice?

Of course, I also don't understand anything, because no matter what, this isn't targeted at people with my income.

[Winston*]

Thanks for the update!

Thanks man! Appreciated.

[Irish]

I can maybe see these people being persuaded to do the $50 per movie thing. But are they also convinced to pay the price of admission at $150 for the box that gets them gives them access to make that choice?

No, and that's where I think the pitch fails on the consumer side. The market for set-top boxes is shit because cable companies have a monopoly on it. Screening Room is another set-top, and it's a set-top that literally does nothing except allow you the chance to spend more money.

If this product ever goes to market, I'd expect the original $150 price point to be either reduced by 30% or more, or subsidized in some fashion ("Sign up now and enjoy your first 3 movies for free!").

[Dukefrukem]

No, and that's where I think the pitch fails on the consumer side. The market for set-top boxes is shit because cable companies have a monopoly on it. Screening Room is another set-top, and it's a set-top that literally does nothing except allow you the chance to spend more money.

If this product ever goes to market, I'd expect the original $150 price point to be either reduced by 30% or more, or subsidized in some fashion ("Sign up now and enjoy your first 3 movies for free!").

Oooooooor... a monthly subscription.

[Ezee E]

Merge it with Popcorntime, slap a monthly price on it, and get rid of the box.

[Irish]

Oooooooor... a monthly subscription.

A subscription based service would likely price Screening Room well out of the consumer market. Would you pay $200 a month for this?

Subscriptions also mean a different relationship with the supplier. SR would be forced to cede even more control to the Big Six if they went with subs. It's a shit business either way because you get squeezed either way, but after what happened with Netflix Streaming, Pandora, and Spotify, I'd avoid subscription based models like the plague (even though investors prefer them).

[bac0n]

As much as I like the movies, getting to see one when you have kids can be a real pain in the ass. You need to find a day where you don't have something going on. You need to line up a babysitter. Yadda yadda yadda. That's the main reason my wife and I see 1-2 movies in the theater a year. If we're going to put in the effort for a date night, it's more often going to be a nice meal at a fancy restaurant, and some performance somewhere.

Being able to pay 50 bucks to watch a first run movie at my house would increase my viewing of such movies more than 10-fold.

[Milky Joe]

Solution: don't have kids. ;)

[bac0n]

Dammit, NOW you tell me.

[Dukefrukem]

A subscription based service would likely price Screening Room well out of the consumer market. Would you pay $200 a month for this?

Subscriptions also mean a different relationship with the supplier. SR would be forced to cede even more control to the Big Six if they went with subs. It's a shit business either way because you get squeezed either way, but after what happened with Netflix Streaming, Pandora, and Spotify, I'd avoid subscription based models like the plague (even though investors prefer them).

I was talking about the box. If it's $150, subsidize it with a subscription. Like we do cell phones. And people pay $200 for a cellphone willingly for a 2 year contract. Boggles my mind.

[Lazlo]

NATO has shot this down. Even with $20 of the $50 going to the theaters, the process of divying it up fairly on that level is too complicated.
(http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-theater-owners-sean-parker-screening-room-20160316-story.html)

[Skitch]

Dammit, NOW you tell me.

Unprotected sex is better. *high 5*

[Dukefrukem]

NATO has shot this down. Even with $20 of the $50 going to the theaters, the process of divying it up fairly on that level is too complicated.
(http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-theater-owners-sean-parker-screening-room-20160316-story.html)

Love the first comment:

"Movie theatres are the next Blockbuster."

[Dukefrukem]

If this happens, I am DONE going to movies.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/texting-may-soon-be-allowed-inside-americas-biggest-mov-1770857630#_ga=1.156616827.158 8592589.1430832638

I share this guy's rant.

http://gizmodo.com/a-psychotic-rant-about-going-to-the-cinema-1770930634

[Lazlo]

Yeah, it's a pretty outrageous idea but I kind of feel like it won't happen or at least not on a large scale. I don't know who's clamoring for this to be a feature, while there's plenty of people calling for it to never happen. Admittedly AMC has paid for market research and I just read movie nerd websites so my data is skewed. The general public is oblivious and aggressively disrespectful in their movie-going practices.

At a time where AMC is also working to retrofit their theaters with new seats and new Dolby standards through their AMC Prime concept, this seems like a run in the other direction. I'm sure if the texting theater happens it'll be labelled to warn people (I'd imagine most people, but I'm probably wrong) who don't want to deal with that (more than it already happens). There's a couple of problems with that I can think of: some movies already have a limited number of showtimes and this limits the options even further. Also, this normalizes a behavior that shouldn't be rewarded or normalized and there'll be spillover to non-texting theaters. Not that there's such a thing as non-texting theaters currently.

I don't know. It seems shortsighted and really not that big of a problem. Are millenials actually staying away from AMC theaters or theaters in general because they can't text during the movie? I doubt it's in the top ten reasons they might not go.

And I still maintain that 40+ year-old white people are the worst movie patrons.

[number8]

They've been saying this for years. Often at the same convention. It ain't happening.

http://deadline.com/2012/04/is-it-time-to-let-movie-goers-send-texts-during-a-film-cinemacon-261789/

[Irish]

Dalian Wanda (a huge Chinese conglomerate) bought AMC in 2012 so I kinda think this might fly, at least at the corporate level.

It also seems like a direct answer to chains like Drafthouse, who is aggressively expanding in a lot of markets.

[Spinal]

Labeling a certain showing a 'texting ok' time doesn't make any sense, because people will still text in the other showings as well.

[Dukefrukem]

Are millenials actually staying away from AMC theaters or theaters in general because they can't text during the movie? I doubt it's in the top ten reasons they might not go.

Ummm yes. They are single handedly destroying the cereal market because you have to "clean up after eating it."


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/23/this-is-the-height-of-laziness/

[Lazlo]

Ummm yes. They are single handedly destroying the cereal market because you have to "clean up after eating it."


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/23/this-is-the-height-of-laziness/

My point was that they text during the movie anyway, whether it's allowed or not, so allowing texting isn't going to magically bring them back. There have to be different reasons they aren't going as much as other demographics.

[Ezee E]

Haha. The cereal theory is so funny.

I want to read that one. I figure most people have stopped eating cereal because it's the same reason donuts aren't as popular as they once were. People are trying to eat healthier.

[DavidSeven]

Yeah, I call shenanigans on that cereal story. You can buy paper bowls and plastic spoons.

If people don't eat it anymore it's because it's not portable, not particularly filling (or healthy), and the increasing number of young singles probably can't justify buying cartons of milk or whole boxes of cereal for themselves either.

[number8]

It's a bit of both. If I'm gonna have dirty dishes afterwards anyway, I may as well make an actual good, healthy breakfast. If I'm feeling lazy and just want something quick, I'm gonna grab a bagel on the way to work. I stopped buying cereal in my groceries because I kept ending up with an unopened box in my pantry for 6 months. Unless you're just really into the taste, it's a useless inbetween food for today's world.

[transmogrifier]

Dirty dishes? It's a bowl and a spoon.

Theory confirmed.

Of to eat a bowl now in protest.

[Winston*]

Dirty dishes? It's a bowl and a spoon.

Theory confirmed.

Of to eat a bowl now in protest.

Also, unhealthy? Americans need to get up on that Weet-Bix.

http://ecommerce.wiosid.com/uploads/user/SanitariumWeetBixHiBran04.jpg

[Irish]

Labeling a certain showing a 'texting ok' time doesn't make any sense, because people will still text in the other showings as well.

This strikes me as an implementation detail that could be handled at a corporate or local level—similar to ratings restrictions.

To shorthand it: AMC might become to movies what Chuck-E-Cheese is to food. You wouldn't go there for what's ostensibly the main draw, but for the "experience."

[Dukefrukem]

As it stands today, I dont look at the details of the theater I buy tickets. Time of showing is the most important aspect to me. If it's in 3D so be it. If it's 2D, good.

[Lazlo]

720972338699702272

Since he mentions it, I'm not a fan of these recliners. It sounds ridiculous but they're too comfortable. Even fully upright the angle is too far back and I feel less at attention for the movie, if that makes any sense.

EDIT: Can't figure out how to make this tweet embedding thing work.

[Dukefrukem]

https://twitter.com/AMCTheatres/status/720972338699702272

https://twitter.com/AMCTheatres/status/720972338699702272

Since he mentions it, I'm not a fan of these recliners. It sounds ridiculous but they're too comfortable. Even fully upright the angle is too far back and I feel less at attention for the movie, if that makes any sense.

EDIT: Can't figure out how to make this tweet embedding thing work.

It's [Tweet] that giant number in the middle of /Tweet]

And I Looooooooooooooooove the recliners.

[Spinal]

To shorthand it: AMC might become to movies what Chuck-E-Cheese is to food. You wouldn't go there for what's ostensibly the main draw, but for the "experience."

I'm offended that you're implying that I go to Chuck-E-Cheese.

[Lazlo]

It's [Tweet] that giant number in the middle of /Tweet]

And I Looooooooooooooooove the recliners.

Nice, thanks. I was pasting the entire url.

[Ezee E]

The recliners are great.

[Irish]

Stadium seating and recliners were the beginning of the end for the theatrical experience.

I loathe them both.

[Scar]

Stadium seating and recliners were the beginning of the end for the theatrical experience.

I loathe them both.

They're what got me to start going back.

[TGM]

I prefer stadium seating, but agree that the recliners are an awful addition, and far more uncomfortable than the regular seating that used to be there. I'm just glad we got other theaters than AMC in town, I used to go there fairly regularly before they made all their changes, but I literally only go there now if something I wanna see isn't playing anywhere else.

[Ezee E]

The recliners are more uncomfortable? Insanity.

[transmogrifier]

So what I can gather is, you all like what you like, and if companies give that to you, you like it, and if they don't, you don't.

?

[Skitch]

No to stadium seating? Dude...I went to an old crappy theater that was the old way, it SUCKED. Looking up the entire time and at the mercy of the tall people ahead of you. It was cute for nostalgia, but give me the stadium all day long.

[Lazlo]

The recliners are more uncomfortable? Insanity.

I don't have any desire to recline as it somewhat makes me more prone to be sleepy and less attentive. But when they're vertical, the seat is so deep that my knees don't quite hit the bend of the seat quite right. And I'm an average-height dude (5'10"). I dunno. I want to be comfortable enough that I'm able to pay attention but not so comfortable that I feel like I ought to be curled up with a blanket like I'm at home. Theater recliners are too laid-back, literally and figuratively.

Non-stadium seating is garbage, but this is clearly a majority opinion.

[Lazlo]

So what I can gather is, you all like what you like, and if companies give that to you, you like it, and if they don't, you don't.

?

Very astute observation. :D

Joking aside, I really wish there weren't so many potential annoyances or barriers to my enjoyment of the movie. It takes up way too much of my headspace. I'm particular about it to a degree that I'm not particular about anything else in my life.

[Spinal]

The quality of a seat has never impacted my enjoyment of a movie one way or the other. Seems a little finicky to me.

[Russ]

Stadium seating and recliners were the beginning of the end for the theatrical experience.

I loathe them both.
Why?

[Irish]

Why?

Oof. Tirade incoming! :D

Distance and direction changes how you view an image and what kind of reaction you have to it. Stadium seating changes the physical relationship between the audience and the screen, very often putting them on the same horizontal plane or above the image.

This is different from the way movies used to be shot and the way audiences use to view them. Films were projected above the audience. Past filmmakers understood the relationship between seat and screen and employed it as part of their technique. There was a great article on the weblog Wonders in the Dark years ago about how certain characters in the Maltese Falcon were photographed to take advantage of this (unfortunately, I can't find it now).

Film isn't pure tech, just celluloid in a projector. Part of cinema depends on the physical layout of the theater. If you change the layout, you change that experience.

http://i.imgur.com/aq5FPGf.jpg

^ Hitchcock intercut this shot during a key sequence in Psycho with one on a more horizontal plane. The effect is unsettling because the camera's own eyeline changes between edits (and it's subtle). But consider this specific image if it's projected above you, larger than life. That stuffed owl isn't aimed at Norman -- it's aimed directly at you, down in the audience and looking up. If you view the whole sequence and your eyeline is on the same plane as these images or above them, the sequence is still creepy but somehow less menacing. In this case, stadium seating would undercut the effect. The way you view the image changes its meaning.

On top of that, I think stadium seating creates just enough physical distance between individual audience members that that experience becomes fractured. You're no longer part of a whole group, but separate entities who happen to be sitting the same space. (Other spaces do this on purpose to create a veil of privacy in close quarters, eg: train cars and restaurant tables). If people in theaters were more physically aware of each other, I suspect they'd act up less often and you'd have less obnoxious behavior. At least, that's my working theory.

Recliners are just a cheap ploy to attract a flagging audience. People act like they're in their own living rooms because the theaters started to feel like somebody's living room. And again, given the bulk of those seats, everybody is in their own discrete space. Why not whip out your phone and text? You enjoy a veil of privacy in a place where there specifically shouldn't be one.

[Gizmo]

Great post, Irish.


Give me stadium seating with comfy chairs, though. Don't think I've ever been to a theater with recliners.

[Skitch]

Its a fine argument for older cinema that had only one outlet - theaters sans stadium seating. But filmmakers have to change with the times.

[number8]

The arthouse theaters that show old movies here, even the brand new one that just opened last month, all use non-stadium seating.

anyway, when it comes to seating your choice is likely affected by how you see the act of watching a movie. If it's for unwinding and enjoyment, you'd likely to prefer comfy recliners. I see it more as a sit-up-and-pay-attention activity, so I prefer seats that keep my posture up. The aforementioned swanky new arthouse theater's seats were just these old Broadway style rigid wooden benches with upholstery separated by armrests and I loved it.

[Dukefrukem]

The aforementioned swanky new arthouse theater's seats were just these old Broadway style rigid wooden benches with upholstery separated by armrests and I loved it.

Yeh those are nice every once in a while, ala Hateful 8... but if Hollywood wants me to keep going out to watch movies, I need to be more comfortable than that.

[Scar]

With my less than perfect back and what not, those Broadway seats sound dreadful.

#itsnottheyearsitsthemileage

[number8]

With my less than perfect back and what not, those Broadway seats sound dreadful.

#itsnottheyearsitsthemileage

Stop making fire pits.

[Scar]

Stop making fire pits.

Never!

I'd better not have to make another one for a loooooong time.

[Irish]

At least five of the major studios are pushing plans to get movies into homes earlier, but theater chains and studios are still far apart from agreeing on how it would happen.

Warner Bros. and Universal have been the most aggressive in pursuing an arrangement that would see certain movies receive a premium video-on-demand release within weeks of their theatrical premieres, but now other studios are joining the discussions. Twentieth Century Fox has also begun to talk early releases with theater owners, while Sony is having its own separate talks with exhibitors and is trying to devise its own plan.

https://variety.com/2017/film/news/vod-early-home-rentals-studios-theaters-1201994060/

So, the good news: Some form of this might happen.

The bad news: There are six major studios. I'll give you one guess as to who isn't mentioned in this article.

[Dukefrukem]

BV needs to get on board and then I'll be excited.

Though I'm still a little excited.

[Irish]

Negotiations continue!

https://variety.com/2017/film/news/studios-premium-vod-early-1202013205/

Now they're talking $30 a pop, available 17-20 days after theatrical debut.

If this actually happens, it will be hard for me to justify going to a multiplex again.

[Dukefrukem]

I dunno. 3 weeks is a long time for movies that I need to talk to MC about immediately. I think my OCD would get the best of me there.

[BuffaloWilder]

I like going to the theater to see films. It's the venue they were made for. Also, I have a sizable Criterion collection that I paid a lot of money for, and the reason for that is all the extra-narrative special features that add to my enjoyment and understanding of the film - that and the sterling presentations are what make them worth the money. Barebones releases I could see in theaters, on a bigger screen, for a fifth of the price? Pass.

[Ivan Drago]

It's still a little pricey, but after all the times last year I was burned by a bad audience, it's something I'd consider.

[Skitch]

But get a couple like minded friends to come over and chip in, and its no more than a regular evening showing. Except with only selected like minded individuals. :)

[Dukefrukem]

It's happening!


March 20, current theatrical films like The Hunt, The Invisible Man, and Emma “will be available on a wide variety of the most popular on-demand services for a 48-hour rental period at a suggested retail price of $19.99 in the U.S. and the price equivalent in international markets.”

[Ivan Drago]

Theaters were fun while they lasted...

[Skitch]

Of all the things I thought government incompetence would be the death of, theaters didn't even make the list. But they found a way.

[Ivan Drago]

Of all the things I thought government incompetence would be the death of, theaters didn't even make the list. But they found a way.

We'll see in the long run, I guess.

But right now, nothing to do but cope. And that's the hard part.

[MadMan]

Movie theaters have survived a lot, but eventually something will do them. I was thinking climate change, actually.

[transmogrifier]

I just watched Schindler's List in a big, comfy cinema with perfect sound and projection for $4. Theaters for life!

[Irish]

$20 is cheap as hell if you consider it a Pay-Per-View event and not a workaday movie rental, even though they're functionally the same.

I think theatrical showings will survive in some form or another --- but maybe the theater will be your living room and the other patrons will be on Discord.

Sorta similar to those twitch streams last year of Shaw Brothers movies, which were broadcast once on specific days and times and thousands of people watched them at once.

Or this:

FAST AND FURIOUS MARATHON FOR SOCIAL DISTANCING (http://corona.sophaskins.net/)

"One movie per night, starting at 9pm EDT. All nine NOS-fueled classics. Watching together with our Family, over the Internet, with Discord Chat. You can have any brew you want, as long as it’s a Corona."

[Irish]

Or this!

https://www.netflixparty.com/

Synchronized playback with chat features.

I'm a little surprised it took this long for someone to do it.

[MadMan]

I found out that Roku has a Fandango app that lets you watch new movies including The Hunt and The Invisible Man for a certain price. So I guess others are doing it now, too. I am not sure I want to pay 19.99 in the case of the 2020 movies or even 5.99 for 2019 ones when RedBox is cheaper.

[Dukefrukem]

It's happening...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trolls-world-tour-breaks-digital-records-and-charts-a-new-path-for-hollywood-11588066202


“The results for ‘Trolls World Tour’ have exceeded our expectations and demonstrated the viability of PVOD,” Mr. Shell said. “As soon as theaters reopen, we expect to release movies on both formats.”

[Dukefrukem]

It's happening...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trolls-world-tour-breaks-digital-records-and-charts-a-new-path-for-hollywood-11588066202

AMC responds

https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/28/21240637/amc-theaters-universal-trolls-world-tour-disney-warnermedia-digital-streaming

[Irish]

It's a good headline but who does AMC think they're fooling?

They'll be lucky if they're playing anybody's movies in 6 months, much less Universal's.

[Dukefrukem]

It's a good headline but who does AMC think they're fooling?

They'll be lucky if they're playing anybody's movies in 6 months, much less Universal's.

What do you think of this data point?

"[Trolls 2] earning the studio nearly $100 million in three weeks, more than the studio previous “Trolls” movie earned in a five-month theatrical release in 2016"

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/amc-vows-to-bar-universal-movies-from-its-theaters-after-video-on-demand-comments-2020-04-28

This is AMC's worst nightmare.

[Irish]

What do you think of this data point?

"[Trolls 2] earning the studio nearly $100 million in three weeks, more than the studio previous “Trolls” movie earned in a five-month theatrical release in 2016"

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/amc-vows-to-bar-universal-movies-from-its-theaters-after-video-on-demand-comments-2020-04-28

This is AMC's worst nightmare.

I think it makes for another fun headline but it's also largely meaningless until every studio releases a dozen plus first-run movies to VOD over the course of the year. Because nobody knows if that ROI is market fever --- a combo of coronavirus quarantine and novelty factor --- or reflective of genuine audience interest.

I mean, imagine a world where Disney had a functioning pipeline for Disney+ and didn't have their heads up their asses. No way "Trolls 2" makes $100MM in 3 weeks then.

I think the studios will struggle with what they've known for awhile: North American interest in blockbusters it way too low to justify the budgets and marketing. So what do? They don't have an international platform to distribute their movies.

So either they half ass it and try and create one (eg: All Access, Disney+, etc). Or they get in bed with their rivals (Netflix, Amazon). Or (and this is my wildest thought): They return to making more mid-budget movies.

For genre movies, this might mean more John Wicks and less Avengers Endgames.

[Ezee E]

More mid-budget movies tends to happen in times of recession.

[TGM]

Assuming AMC even survives this whole thing, there's no way they'll stick to their guns on this Universal scenario. By the time the next F&F is set to release, they'll be singing a different tune. No way they'd turn down that kind of business.

[Ezee E]

Disney will just buy out AMC. Odds?

[Irish]

Disney will just buy out AMC. Odds?

Paramount decree still in effect

[Ezee E]

Paramount decree still in effect

There's always a way.

[Irish]

There's always a way.

Not ... really? Not while the agreement is in place. They'd need court approval to own a significant number of theaters.

The DOJ talked about eliminating the decree late last year but afaik nothing came of it. So Disney is still bound by federal anti-trust law.

(Nevermind that AMC is majority foreign owned and operates 1,000+ theaters and is a $5 billion business. Even without the decree, they'd likely need DOJ approval on the merger.)

[Dukefrukem]

I dont know if Disney would be interested in more brick and mortar platforms. They have Disney+ if they want to release stuff.

[Irish]

plus their rocky relationship with those retail stores

[Grouchy]

I was just talking about this the other day with a friend - what would happen if Disney ended up buying the theater chains and furthering its monopoly? I'm glad there are some laws against that.

[Dukefrukem]

It's a good headline but who does AMC think they're fooling?

They'll be lucky if they're playing anybody's movies in 6 months, much less Universal's.

DEAL MADE! Only 17 days in theaters before VOD. Wow.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/amc-theatres-universal-collapsing-theatrical-window-17-days-unprecedented-pact-1304759

[Ezee E]

So when do you think we'll actually have movies in theaters again? October?

[DFA1979]

So when do you think we'll actually have movies in theaters again? October?

Some day, Ezee. Someday. Probably next year.

[Skitch]

DEAL MADE! Only 17 days in theaters before VOD. Wow.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/amc-theatres-universal-collapsing-theatrical-window-17-days-unprecedented-pact-1304759

What a world. I remember freaking out when I saw trailer for BTTF2 because it meant I could see it on tv in 2-3 years. I literally ran around the house cheering.

[Ivan Drago]

From the sounds of that story, AMC's getting a cut of the PVOD profits and the PVOD price will remain $20. They'll let the movies making money in theaters continue to make money. Sounds like a good deal for everyone involved.

So. . .I guess my retirement from film is curbed for now?

[Skitch]

From the sounds of that story, AMC's getting a cut of the PVOD profits and the PVOD price will remain $20. They'll let the movies making money in theaters continue to make money. Sounds like a good deal for everyone involved.

So. . .I guess my retirement from film is curbed for now?

I guess depends if they still intend to use us for early reviews and supplying us with early viewing options.