File: 1458227238239.jpg (56.94 KB, 928x523, 928:523, tmp_9635-1dc541e6e3ff61193….jpg)
No.277252
Sean Parker, creator of Napster announced 'Screening Room', a home streaming service where you can watch movies currently in cinemas at home for $50.
Speilberg and Ron Howard support it while many cinema halls are against it already, as well as Christopher Nolan.
http://archive.is/OdavC
http://archive.is/P90Jn
Thoughts? I hope it kills Hollywood.
No.277256
>$50 per movie
Holy shit fuck that.
Although I love the idea of the service. Hello day one screener-quality movie rips.
No.277260
>>277256
This, i hope to god the retards go for it, we could get high-quality rips the day the movie comes out.
No.277264
>>277252
I can't see it doing anything but help uploaders like >>277256 says.
Is he trying to crash hollywood?
No.277265
>>277264
>Creator of Napster
>Trying to bring down Hollywood now
My god, it makes sense.
No.277266
Great idea. Get five mates to chip in and you can watch the movie with a slab of beer and a bowl of nachos.
No.277270
>>277264
>Is he trying to crash hollywood?
No.277271
This would increase piracy a hundredfold
No.277278
>>277273
I'm guessing
(a) the convenience and comfort of watching it in your own home no niggers
(b) they assume you'll have friends round to watch also
No.277279
Fifty bucks a month for a subscription service to any movie out in theaters would be amazing. Now movie critics won't be the only one who have the time and the means to watch a wide variery of fi-
>fifty dollars per one movie
What the fuck is the point?
No.277286
I kind of had this same idea but not at the price he's suggesting. You could only maybe ask at most $10 extra to current movie theater prices. You might have to go lower because an online experience wouldn't be as good as the movie going one with its big screen and all.
My idea had more of the online interactivity that goes with it similar to other video hosting sites. If there was a platform where you can share in a group the enjoyment of seeing a film together and even making fun of horrible films as they come out in a legal way, I think it can be successful if it's marketed well. More so if you can profit off the reaction craze by getting user involvement in the process so they can profit as well.
It better have more than hollywood signing up for it. I think it needs more international films to expand the library. Maybe even provide translations in many languages to support a movies launch on its first day.
The irony might be that piracy of their service will kill the creator of Napster unless his protection security is as good as he says. Could become the Tidal of movie streaming sites and be forgotten just as quickly. I can see it happening in the future but unsure if Sean Paker will be the first to suceed.
No.277289
FUCK YES
No more waiting 3 months for a decent rip and watching horrible chinese subbed camera grabs
No.277290
>>277252
Only being an insider Jew gets you business deals like this.
No.277309
>>277279
>$50 a movie
>only cost effective if you split it with other people
>only point is to watch movies alone with your piss jars
i guess if 2 people watch it that's $25 a ticket which is close enough to some of the high end theaters I've seen, as fucking shameful as that is.
No.277317
Would only be worth it if there was two or movies that were released a month worth seeing.
No.277344
>>277309
The highest a movie ticket here in the South West is $5-10 dollars
No.277347
>Sean Parker
>Created Napster
No.277349
>>277252
>you can watch movies currently in cinemas at home for $50.
A cinema ticket is like $7. A fucking cam-rip is free. Why would anybody pay for this bullshit?
No.277368
>doesn't include the money you'd have to shell out for a decent sound system
No.277413
>>277347
>>277368
Certainly not one that can ….blow a ladies' clothing off :^)
No.277427
Price is really stupid unless you invited people over, no point in paying 50 bucks for yourself, but even then, who the fuck goes to see a movie alone?
I hope he makes it cheaper, but watching the backlash by movie theaters would be great. Imagine the next Star Wars or the New Flavor Saga(tm) tv reports, and there's like 5 idiots in Stormtrooper costumes because everyone prefers watching it at someone's home.
This COULD benefit whoever has access to a good projector and ample space, like a backyard or some lot.
Seeing how Jar Jar supports it, something tells me some directors are gonna abuse it to cut corners like crazy, thinking that they won't have to do detailed special effects because they think people will watch it on tiny tv screens instead of a theater.
No.277430
>>277252
Just think for a minute!
How much is a regular movie ticket? Around here, it costs like 5 USD. Now they give you the opinion to pay 10 times more for the same product, and you are saying this will bring down Hollywood?
No.277451
>>277427
> who the fuck goes to see a movie alone?
I wonder
No.277455
Who cares? Some fools will buy . However, there is always the cheaper and better solution of just pirating movies. And I think that $50 will go into allowing Parker to even have any movies for people to watch, so it is not like hollywood is out of pocket
No.277472
>>277252
>you can watch movies currently in cinemas at home for $50
Lol, nobody will buy this shit.
This kike has gone too over his head.
No.277475
>>277266
Yeah, the price is awful for one person, but acceptable (at least in comparison to theaters) for a group.
No.277486
>>277430
For a new movie it's like $12 to $15 here, up to like $25 in big cities with selected markets. $50 is appropriate considering you can have multiple people watching the movie.
No.277489
>>277430
For a new movie it's like $12 to $15 here, up to like $25 in big cities with selected markets. $50 is appropriate considering you can have multiple people watching the movie, not to mention the fact that you don't have to share the theater with any niggers.
No.277512
>rent a movie for $50
>invite over 15 friends to watch and charge them each $5
>profit
No.277546
$5 movies? Where the fuck do you live?
Even matinee prices in decent areas are around 10 most places I've been now, I've even seen as high as 17.50.
$50 dollars is not unreasonable considering you get multiple views in a 48 hour period as well as 2 tickets to see the movie in theaters. People with family and friends (i.e. less than 1% of the people who post on TV) will save boatloads with this. The tickets can also be gifted (again, requires friends and family which most of you don't have).
No.277547
>>277512
Yeah, my wife said the same thing. It'd be like a Pay Per View/Superbowl party. You can pay 50 bucks and then charge friends less than ticket prices to come over and make a profit. Plus you can make them bring snacks/drinks/alcohol. Hard for a basement dweller to understand.
No.277552
As a 35yo kv Im glad
I always go to the movies alone and am a bit ….. anxious(??) i guess
People stare at me and the cashier always seem to make a point to ask
Just one ticket, sir? JUST ONE!??
in front of everyone and then feeling everyone watch me from behind as i order my snacks.
It is just a horrible experience all around and Id rather pay a decent price to be at home and left alone and not have to worry about people messing with me
On some days i cant even concentrate about the movie because i hear people laughing or talking about me. Very rude people
Plus having to try and not pee for 2 hours and at my age i pee quite frequently
No.277607
>>277552
I have gone to movies alone several times and never feel any guilt about it.
It's fucking stupid, it's not like you're gonna be talking during the movie anyways (unless you're a nigger), so who cares if you are with someone or not? And don't get me started on people who go to the movie theater for a "date"
No.277609
>>277546
Matinee where I live is like 6$. It's not even a bad theater, although the seats could be better. I'm amazed when people say how expensive ticket prices are for their area, since I've never seen a ticket cost over 10$
No.277614
I really like this idea. $50 is alot. however considering that you can bring friends over to watch it with you, that isn't bad.
If this takes off, it'll do what Steam basically did for games, where smaller budget/middle market games (now the movie equivalent of those) compete directly with AAA games that have lots of marketing (big Hollywood movies) and get the same spotlight as them, both being easily available to everyone around the world instead of one being hard to find a copy of (only released in a small number of theaters) while the other has lots of copies at every store (every theater), etc.
No.277618
>>277349
Going to the cinemas with the family is like $35, I don't think it's much of an ask for $50 to watch films at the cinema in the comfort of your own home, also get ready for maximum over pirate.
No.277662
I like the idea but the execution will suck. Picture quality will suffer on any streaming service without some sort of fiber hookup. If you enjoy cinematography then more than likely this service will be substandard.
No.277679
>>277614
No one's forcing those smaller movies to launch exclusively in cinemas. A Field in England aired on TV the day it was released.
No.277686
>>277618
There's a noticeable difference between $35 and $50.
The only way I see this being worth it is if you've got a big family, like 4+ kids.
No.277735
while the price is outrageous (thank fuck i have a job)
i would totally support this.
No.277841
>>277735
So you'll take it up the ass just because you can? Good job you consumer whore.
This whole thread stinks of shilling. I bet you all preorder your digital 2 hour early access cinematic experiences from steam for a whopping sixty dollarydoos because they give you a "free" hat and you can afford it.
Where in the FUCK does a movie ticket cost over 5 fucking dollars. Maybe 10 but that's pushing it, like if you go to those VIP ones that serve you steak as you watch the movie and shit.
You guys are ridiculous, even more so for thinking this is somehow bad for Hollywood or good for consumers, maybe I guess if you're only thinking about the pirating.
No.277842
>>277686
>The only way I see this being worth it is if you've got a big family, like 4+ kids
and mormons aren't even allowed to watch movies
No.277966
>>277841
As soon as the service gets in place it means there will be competition springing up which will cause the price to fall.
The important part is that an initial service is used by Hollywood.
We already have things like Netflix, Hulu, and assorted video on demand services, so it's not like they don't already have methods of getting movies into peoples' homes if they were willing to, but they've been paranoid about piracy for so long that they haven't been willing to so much as dip their toes into releasing movies in homes and theaters at the same time before now.
Having any sort of experimentation committed by them to show that there is a demand for this service which could be profitable to them will help push them towards ending the bullshit with theaters.
No.278055
This already exist, today.
http://www.primacinema.com/
Sure, it's $35,000 for the hardware, the movies cost $500 a pop and the DRM includes fingerprinting, but you could buy it today.