|
Post by The Ultimate Nullifier on Mar 14, 2016 9:36:00 GMT -6
www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/theater-owner-rejects-proposed-50-874835Theater Owner Rejects Proposed $50 Home Movie Service: "It Feels Like a Half-Baked Plan" Alamo Drafthouse founder Tim League doubts Hollywood studios will agree to Sean Parker's plan and chains like Cinemark and Regal aren't likely to go along, but filmmakers like Peter Jackson line up in support. Theater owners have started to weigh in on Sean Parker's bold bid to make new films available to rent in the home for $50 via an encrypted $150 set-top box on the same day they hit theaters — and not all the theater chains are happy about it. "I think this is not a good idea, and I sincerely doubt the studios will go for it at that price point. It feels like a half-baked plan to me," said Tim League, founder and CEO of Alamo Drafthouse Cinema. Parker — the founder of Napster who later played a key role in Facebook's rise — and music executive Prem Akkaraju are pitching the proposal for their new company, The Screening Room, and will need significant support from theater owners if it is to work. Otherwise, Hollywood studios will be reluctant to license their titles in fear that exhibitors could retaliate by either refusing to carry the movies in question or by striking tough terms to agree to book them. The Screening Room hopes to entice exhibitors by sharing revenue, and giving them $20 for every $50 spent by a consumer renting a title for a 48-hour window. Parker and Akkaraju's push comes at a time when serious discussions are going on between studios and theater owners about how to shorten windows without jeopardizing the box office; however, a $50 day-and-date rental service may not be the solution. (In the past, League has not been adverse to playing day-and date releases.) Major theater circuits Cinemark and Regal Entertainment aren't expected to partner with The Screening Room, according to sources. While Cinemark wouldn't reveal its position, CEO Mark Zoradi issued a statement raising his concerns. "The exhibition window has been the most stable window long-term and the theatrical success of a film drives the value proposition for the studios’ downstream ancillary markets," he said. "Cinemark believes that any day-and-date propositions must be critically evaluated to avoid the devaluation of the exhibition window and all subsequent revenue streams of our content providers." “Cinemark diligently evaluates and considers all business proposals. We have great relationships and an open dialogue with our studio partners and work directly with them individually regarding film content, windows, and decisions that may impact the long-term health of our industry," said Zoradi, a longtime studio executive who recently took the job at Cinemark. Cinemark is the third-largest chain in the U.S. behind Regal and AMC Entertainment. AMC, on the other hand, has signed a letter of intent with Parker's company, according to several sources who have been briefed on the matter. However, any formal deal is incumbent on certain conditions being met. AMC, owned by Chinese giant Dalian Wanda Group, will pass Regal to become the largest theater circuit in North America once it completes its recently announced acquisition of Carmike Cinemas later this year. To date, both Cinemark and Regal have declined to make a similar commitment. The Screening Room, represented by attorney Skip Brittenham, has attracted a powerful board of advisors that includes J.J. Abrams, Steven Spielberg, Brian Grazer, Ron Howard and Peter Jackson, who in 2011 was among 23 directors and producers who opposed a plan to make movies available on premium VOD 60 days after their release. But in a statement to The Hollywood Reporter, Jackson explained his support for the new proposal, saying, "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." He continued, "This 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." Former Sony Pictures vice chairman Jeff Blake is consulting with the venture and, along with Akkaraju, has been meeting with the major studios in recent weeks and months, including Fox, Universal, Sony and Paramount. Disney won't participate in the venture, although the others have yet to decide on the proposal.
|
|
|
Post by The Ultimate Nullifier on Mar 14, 2016 19:26:55 GMT -6
variety.com/2016/film/news/ron-howard-brian-grazer-sean-parker-home-movie-plan-screening-room-1201729693/ Ron Howard, Brian Grazer Defend Sean Parker Home Movie Plan Brian Grazer and Ron Howard confirmed their involvement in Screening Room, saying that the controversial start-up aimed at providing new releases in the home is a way to bring theater owners and studios together. Backed by Sean Parker and Prem Akkaraju, Screening Room rents films for $50 while they are still in theaters. Exhibitors have long resisted any attempt to shorten the length of time between a film’s theatrical debut and its release on home entertainment platforms, but Screening Room tries to entice theaters and studios by cutting them in on a slice of the revenue. “When we met Sean and Prem last year, it was clear Screening Room was the only solution that supports all stakeholders in the industry: exhibitors, studios and filmmakers,” Grazer and Howard said in a joint statement. “The SR model is fair, balanced and provides significant value for the entire industry that we love. We make movies for the big screen and for as many people to see it. Screening Room uniquely provides that solution.” Howard and Grazer run Imagine Entertainment, the company behind such hits as “A Beautiful Mind,” “Apollo 13” and “American Gangster.” They are stakeholders in Screening Room, along with such prominent filmmakers as J.J. Abrams, Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Peter Jackson and Taylor Hackford. On Sunday, Jackson released a statement contending, “Screening Room will expand the audience for a movie — not shift it from cinema to living room.” The company has attracted interest from the likes of Universal and Fox, but so far no studios have signed deals. AMC is believed to be interested in partnering with Screening Room, but some exhibitors, such as Regal, are not participating, believing their business would be harmed. In addition to the rental fee, Screening Room charges $150 for access to a set-top box that is said to be anti-piracy proof. Parker is best known for his roles in Internet companies such as Napster, Facebook and Spotify. Akkaraju has ties to the entertainment industry from stints as a partner at the electronic music company SFX Entertainment and as global head of operations at Sanctuary Music Group.
|
|
|
Post by The Ultimate Nullifier on Mar 14, 2016 20:27:48 GMT -6
variety.com/2016/film/news/peter-jackson-screening-room-sean-parker-1201728990/Peter Jackson Says Screening Room Grows the Movie Business 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 homes 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, Martin Scorsese, Taylor Hackford, Frank Marshall, 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 Jackson’s 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.” As Jackson argues, Screening Room is intended to serve as a bridge between studios and theater owners. The plan is to cut exhibitors in on as much as $20 out of the $50 fee and give customers two free tickets to a film, so they will be enticed to buy concessions. Studios also get a substantial percentage of the fee. Studios such as Universal and Fox are weighing the proposal, and AMC is interested in the company’s offer. Other exhibitors, such as Regal, are believed to be skeptical of the plan. The start-up is challenging established business practices. Wide-release films are typically in theaters for 90 days before hitting home entertainment platforms. Parker is best known for his roles in Internet companies such as Napster, Facebook and Spotify. Akkaraju has ties to the entertainment industry from stints as a partner at the electronic music company SFX Entertainment and as global head of operations at Sanctuary Music Group.
|
|
|
Post by The Ultimate Nullifier on Mar 15, 2016 21:07:14 GMT -6
variety.com/2016/film/news/indie-theaters-slam-sean-parker-home-movie-service-piracy-1201730612/Art House Theaters Slam Screening Room, Say Startup Encourages Piracy Art House Convergence, a group of roughly 600 specialty theaters, has come out against Screening Room, saying that the day-and-date film release start-up from Sean Parker and Prem Akkaraju, could inspire “a wildfire spread” of pirated content. Screening Room’s business model revolves around a plan to rent new releases for $50 each and to cut theater owners in on as much as $20 of that fee. Studios also get a percentage of the revenue. In addition, Screening Room plans to charge $150 for access to a set-top box. The technology is intended to be anti-piracy proof, but in an open letter, Art House Convergence members ask how it prevents consumers from taping content. “If studios are concerned enough with projectionists and patrons videotaping a film in theaters that they provide security with night-vision goggles for premieres and opening weekends, how do they reason that an at-home viewer won’t set up a $40 HD camera and capture a near-pristine version of the film for immediate upload to torrent sites?” the letter writers ask. Many theater chains have privately expressed concern about the day-and-date nature of the releasing, maintaining that anything that cuts into an exclusive theatrical window threatens their business model. Major exhibitors such as Regal, for instance, will not screen films that are released on home entertainment platforms concurrent with their theatrical runs. Art house cinemas, however, show films that also pop up across on-demand services, and Art House Convergence writes that it has no problem with the day-and-date aspect of the proposal. Its major objection is to the potential for the films to reach torrent sites that share illegal downloads. “This loss of revenue through box office decline and piracy will result in a loss of jobs, both entry level and long term, from part-time concessions and ticket-takers to full-time projectionists and programmers, and will negatively impact local establishments in the restaurant industry and other nearby businesses,” the letter reads. Screening Room has received the endorsement of several prominent filmmakers such as Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Peter Jackson and J.J. Abrams, and AMC is close to a deal with the service. Several major studios are weighing the concept. As for the indie theaters, they write that Hollywood should reject the proposal. “Our exhibition sector has always welcomed innovation, disruption and forward-thinking ideas, most especially onscreen through independent film; however, we do not see Screening Room as innovative or forward-thinking in our favor; rather, we see it as inviting piracy and significantly decreasing the overall profitability of film releases,” the letter reads.
|
|
|
Post by The Ultimate Nullifier on Mar 15, 2016 21:09:29 GMT -6
variety.com/2016/film/news/screening-room-sean-parker-steven-spielberg-1201730698/ Inside the Screening Room’s Bold Plan to Disrupt the Movie Business Schedule a meeting with Sean Parker at, say, 10 a.m., and the tech guru will likely take hours to show up. People who work with the visionary entrepreneur, whose peripatetic career has taken him from Napster to Facebook to Spotify, refer to it as Sean Parker Time. It’s the cost of doing business with one of the boldest minds of the Internet Age. “He has his finger on the Zeitgeist,” said Arianna Huffington, founder of the Huffington Post, and a friend. “He’s incredibly convincing about where the world is going.” When it comes to movies, Parker believes that the future is a couch-based one, but that view has its detractors. Theaters have resisted efforts to shrink the time between a film’s debut on the big screen and its launch on home entertainment platforms. That resolve could crack, after news broke in Variety that Parker and partner Prem Akkaraju have teamed to launch Screening Room, a start-up that offers new releases in the home for $50 per 48-hour view, and have managed to enlist such high-wattage stakeholders as Steven Spielberg, Peter Jackson, J.J. Abrams, Martin Scorsese, Ron Howard and Brian Grazer. Hollywood’s biggest rainmaker, attorney Skip Brittenham, is representing Screening Room. Another industry vet, Jeff Blake, a former vice chairman of Sony Pictures, was recruited as a consultant. “It’s the first real shot across the bow,” said David Weitzner, a former studio marketing chief. “There can’t be an exhibitor worth anything that doesn’t know this is where we’re headed. Short of surrendering and sticking their head in the sand, this is something both sides need to work on.” Parker and Akkaraju are trying to broker a peace using a persuasive olive branch — money. Their plan is to give exhibitors $20 of the $50 fee, and to offer two free tickets to a movie in hopes of encouraging customers to visit a theater and buy concessions at a future date. Akkaraju has industry ties from stints as chief content officer at electronic music company SFX Entertainment and as global head of operations at Sanctuary Records Group, helping to guide its 2007 sale to Universal Music Group . He also has Wall Street ties, having worked at JPMorgan Entertainment Partners and Intermedia Partners. To pitch their wares, Screening Room’s leaders and their reps have crossed the globe, flying to Philadelphia to meet with Comcast CEO Brian Roberts, whose entertainment conglom owns Universal, and touching down in China to pitch Dalian Wanda, the parent of AMC Theaters. Screening Room appears close to a deal with AMC, poised to be the world’s largest exhibitor with its pending deal to buy Carmike Cinemas. That said, the idea remains a tough sell to exhibitors, perhaps as daunting as the one Parker faced when he tried to convince the music industry to view Napster, the music-sharing site he founded, as friend, not foe. “There’s no way exhibitors would be willing to risk their windows on any regular basis, or on significant movies to get a piece of this,” said Bud Mayo, president of Carmike Cinemas’ alternative programming and distribution division. Universal, Fox and Sony continue to study the venture, while other studios are still reluctant. Producer Jonathan Taplin, director of the USC Annenberg Innovation Lab, called Screening Room “a little niche play.” Because of the proposed pricing, “There will be some very rich people who will want to set this up in their homes. But it’s not a mass-market product.” Others see a big upside. Court Coursey, managing partner of the Silicon Valley investment fund TomorrowVentures, called the proposal “disruptive/non-disruptive,” adding: “It adds a new alternative. But it has a positive impact on everyone, from theater owners to filmmakers to studios. I think overall it increases revenue.” Coursey said his own fund might consider investing in the venture. “There are about 10 people we co-invest with who would look at this opportunity in a heartbeat … I don’t think raising money for this is going to be their challenge.” If most studios are unwilling to risk exhibitor anger by backing Screening Room, the business model could be imperiled. Success depends on the quality of the content, analysts say. With several highly anticipated summer blockbusters, such as a “Captain America” sequel and the “Ghostbusters” reboot, on the horizon, studios may be wary of angering exhibitors, particularly if they threaten not to show certain movies. “This is a big leap, and I’m not sure either side is willing to take it,” said Eric Handler, an analyst at MKM Partners. “Studios and exhibitors have a good relationship right now.” But Huffington noted that both sides face the innovator’s dilemma, the term for when successful industries get complacent and fail to embrace new technologies that drive future business. “Often people who are making a lot of money now don’t see why they need to adjust,” she said. “They refuse to recognize how the world is changing.”
|
|
|
Post by The Ultimate Nullifier on Mar 15, 2016 21:29:28 GMT -6
www.businessinsider.com/sean-parker-streaming-rental-startup-the-screening-room-2016-3Billionaire Sean Parker has a new startup that wants you to pay $50 to stream movies still in theaters First he disrupted the music business with Napster, then he helped Mark Zuckerberg craft Facebook, changing the way we live our lives. Now, Sean Parker wants to make movies in theaters more easily available for home viewing. A company called The Screening Room, founded by Parker and Prem Akkaraju (who is also CEO), is making the rounds at Hollywood studios pitching $50 rental fees for movies still in theaters. The service would use the company's secure antipiracy set-top boxes, according to Variety, which broke the story Wednesday evening. The Screening Room would reportedly charge $150 for the set-top box and $50 a rental (available for 48 hours). As DVD sales continue to plummet, studios will listen to any ideas that can bring them revenue. According to Variety, The Screening Room has found serious interest from Universal, Fox, and Sony. Disney, according to the story, has no interest. And The Screening Room is trying to extend an olive branch to exhibitors by offering customers two tickets to see the movie they buy in theaters, which would soften the blow of violating the standard 90-day theatrical window for movies before they move to home-video and streaming platforms. The Screening Room is also proposing giving theater chains a slice of the revenue, as much as $20 of the fee. Distributors who participate would take 20% of the $50 rental fee, and Screening Room would take 10% of the fee, according to Variety. The basic idea isn't a new one in Hollywood. Back in 2011, the Ben Stiller comedy "Tower Heist" was offered as an on-demand option to 500,000 Comcast customers at a price of $59.99 for rental. The "test," as the film's studio, Universal, called it, was a bust. Most customers didn't go for it. Though The Screening Room has come up with a plan that intrigues both distributors and exhibitors, it is unknown whether the public will dish out $50 to see the next Marvel or "Star Wars" movie at home instead of going to the theater for a significantly lower price. Here are the results to our Twitter poll where we asked if you'd pay $50 to rent a movie that's still in theaters: BI Entertainment ✔ @bi_Entertain Would you pay $50 to stream movies that are still in theaters? read.bi/24SRHaA 9:25 AM - 10 Mar 2016 14% Yes. 61% No way. That's expensive. 8% I'd try it once. 17% It depends on the movie. 1,504 votes • Final results 17 17 Retweets 5 5 likes
|
|
|
Post by The Ultimate Nullifier on Mar 17, 2016 19:26:38 GMT -6
www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/5-hurdles-facing-sean-parkers-8763245 Hurdles Facing Sean Parker's $50 Home Movie Service Opponents — from theater owners to Wall Street analysts to filmmakers including Christopher Nolan and Brett Ratner — say the proposal could do irreparable harm to theaters and change customer habits for good. Sean Parker and Prem Akkaraju's bold bid to collapse theatrical windows and make new movies available in the home for $50 on the same day they hit theaters has set off a firestorm, sparking a fierce guessing game as to whether they can actually convince a majority of Hollywood studios to license their content. So far, Parker, the co-founder of Napster, and Akkaraju, a music executive, haven't spoken publicly about their new venture, The Screening Room. Rather, they've relied on a raft of high-profile filmmakers who are shareholders, including Peter Jackson and J.J. Abrams, to explain why the service isn't a threat to theaters. According to Jackson, the "SR" model would only target consumers who don't go to the movies, while Abrams says the Screening Room would be "beneficial" to theater owners because they would share in the revenue. On Wednesday, the National Association of Theatre Owners dismissed the idea, saying any decision to shorten windows should be made by exhibitors and Hollywood studios, not a "third party." NATO also politely told filmmakers advising on the matter to let theater operators determine what's in their best interest. Here are five obstacles facing the Screening Room. Price Point "I think $50 is too low and I can see a lot of cannibalization, especially for family movies," says analyst Eric Handler of MKM Partners. "It could be a lot cheaper for a family of four to stay home. Kids could have sleepovers, and 10 girls could watch Frozen 2. And think of colleges, where students could get together and watch a movie on a big-screen television. I think it would have a significant impact on the industry." You Can't Put the Genie Back in the Bottle Offering movies day-and-date in the home could forever change customer behavior and expectations. "The cost of failure here is pretty great," says one executive who couldn't speak publicly after signing a non-disclosure agreement with the Screening Room. "And if such a service indeed impacts theatrical or home entertainment revenue, you can't take it back. The genie is out of the bottle." Adds Handler: "People are often willing to watch a movie twice in two different settings, first in a theater and then on VOD or DVD. If you have a home-viewing system and you watch it day-and-date, are you going to pay for it again? I don't think so." There's also concern that customers would soon want lower pricing. Not Enough Theater Support So far, AMC Entertainment is the only major theater circuit signing a letter of intent to do business with the Screening Room, while Regal Entertainment and Cinemark, the country's two largest chains behind AMC, are a no. And the Art House Convergence, which represents 600 smaller specialty and independent cinema houses, says the Screening Room is a bad idea. The Hollywood Reporter has learned that under the Screening Room's plan, customers paying for a $150 encrypted set-top box would designate their "local theater." When they rent a movie for $50, a percentage would go to the designated theater. Also, the Screening Room would give a customer two free tickets to that theater in the aim to boost concession sales. For the Screening Room to secure content from Hollywood studios, exhibitor support is key since studios may not want to risk theater owners refusing to carry their films, or striking tougher terms. Disney has already made it clear it has no interest in the Screening Room; studios mulling the idea include Paramount and Universal. Filmmakers Divided Parker and Akkaraju were smart to line up top filmmakers to serve on their advisory board, but now filmmakers of equal prominence, including James Cameron and Christopher Nolan, are objecting to the service. The two voiced their objections on Wednesday, followed by Roland Emmerich and Brett Ratner on Thursday. “I'm with Nolan, Landau and Cameron. It's crucial that we support and protect the cinematic experience," Emmerich tweeted. Ratner was even more emphatic. "This alternate form of distribution would destroy the exclusive theatrical window which is one of the crucial elements — along with the best possible presentation, the social experience, and the sense of a unique event theatrical creates — that drives the value of the entire distribution chain," he said. "There may be certain movies that will lend themselves to this platform, but I am still a firm believer, and as a moviegoing fan will always support the traditional theatrical experience." And it's possible some of those who say they support the Screening Room could retreat in the face of the outcry from theater owners and their fellow directors. Piracy Studios and theater owners have been assured that the $150 set-top box protects against piracy, but many are still concerned. "No matter what software has been included, what is there to stop someone from using their iPhones to record what they are watching? Bringing movies into the home day-and-date gives people the opportunity to find whatever way they can to share it illegally," said Cameron's producing partner, Jon Landau. Insiders say the Screening Room would use watermark technology to identify anyone who tried to record the movie with a camcorder of other device, such as an iPhone. March 17, 12:35 p.m. Updated with Emmerich's comment.
|
|
|
Post by The Ultimate Nullifier on Mar 17, 2016 19:50:15 GMT -6
blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononhollywood/the-screening-room-earns-mixed-reaction-not-total-rejection-20160316The Screening Room Earns Mixed Reaction, Not Total Rejection Filmmakers from Peter Jackson, Martin Scorsese, and Steven Spielberg to J.J. Abrams support the controversial home viewing plan, Jim Cameron, Chris Nolan and exhibitors decry it. The National Association of Theater Owners, which represents exhibitors and speaks for the top theatre chains, has finally weighed on the much-discussed The Screening Room, which offers day-and-date home delivery of first-run movies. Their statement is more about who initiates discussions about changes to the status quo than the clear rejection from The Art House Convergence, which organizes independent (specialty) theaters. Both organizations raised concerns that hint at the chance to negotiate. (Read full NATO and AHC statements below.) The Screening Room concept involves consumers buying a $150 device that will attach to their home entertainment system so that they can pay $50 to watch first-run movies in a 48-hour window at the same time as initial theater play. The plan attempts to include from the start exhibitor participation (unspecified revenue sharing, two admissions for each purchase to theaters where concessions would be bought), recognizing that without theater incentives and approval they would have no chance to get studios, much less the theater owners, on board. Way back in 1979, when I was a young film buyer working for Chicago's top locally-owned theater chain (back then, most theaters were based in one compact region), studios announced that they were going to start releasing their films a half year or more after their premiere on the new videocassette format, sending shock waves through the industry. The reaction from most theaters owners, who are by nature resistant to change as retailers in a system that gave them the sole viewing option for at least a year (16 mm in schools and other institutions came next, then network TV two-three years later, with individual ownership of a copy not an option) was overwhelmingly negative. The owners of my company had a different reaction. My boss contacted the heads of distribution with a proposal: 'Why not talk to theaters about their becoming your retail outlet when they go on sale?' (Rentals were an afterthought.) No infrastructure then existed for this beyond regular retail outlets (for both music and wider wares) and there was no precedent for the public to purchase movies to own. But had theaters nationally bought into this early, they might have controlled the sale and rental of videos and enhanced their own business and made themselves even more integral to future developments. The idea went nowhere as theaters dug in their heels and hoped it would all just go away. So videos went forward, an entirely new industry was created and thrived and theaters lost a chance to be involved on the ground floor as partners as the industry shifted. The vast income videos brought to the studios helped finance movie production, in turn buttressing theaters with product. The model remained theatrical-driven (as the credibility of video releases was built from their success at theaters). But it also introduced for all time the alternative of seeing movies at home, uncut and without commercials at the viewers' own pace. Flash forward nearly four decades, and although home viewing has evolved — DVDs, Blu-rays, Video on Demand (first-run in limited cases), cable movie stations, far larger international markets— the core model of top studio releases shown initially in theaters has stayed the same (although with a shorter three-month window). Now that we have both NATO and AHC on record, we get a sense of where this evolutionary process could be headed. Theaters both operate from a position of strength and weakness. Studios at this point have little alternative with the expense of their movies and the bounty that comes from the present model, reconfirmed above all by the huge showing of "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" to risk total exhibitor rejection. But their current distribution paradigm is threatened by non-studios with deep pockets like Netflix and Amazon starting to initiate significant projects (both traditional movies and longer-form programming) that have the option of totally bypassing theaters. So the trajectory is more and more to coexistence and finding a model that maintains as much of the status quo as possible while adapting to new paradigms. NATO's statement should be seen in the context of its complex internal politics. Second biggest circuit AMC, which is trying to merge with #4 Carmike (transforming them into the biggest exhibitor) is reported to be an active participant with The Screening Room. They alone have played films day and date with Video on Demand (although with the subterfuge of renting auditoriums to distributors, thus not violating NATO policy) and they played Paramount's two horror films last fall that had pre-announced VOD availability early in their release. The statement takes note of the surprisingly strong support of TSR concept by top directors (a shrewd move that has garnered this much credibility, although James Cameron just now voiced his opposition) and recognizes the need for potential change release models while still keeping theatrical play first and foremost. It states that initiatives should come out of exhibitor/studio discussion, rather than from third-party outsiders. This doesn't address what is proposed, but rather sounds like a consensus statement as they slow things down rather than totally reject the concept. The AHC statement gives a much more detailed case to block the proposal. The articulate and detailed response comes from a group of theaters who have little chance of making or breaking the concept. That comes from the Big Four chains (Regal and CInemark along with AMC/Carmike, as well as a handful of powerful regional chains like Pacific and non-AHC participant Landmark). But their points deserve attention since it voices shared concerns of all exhibitors. Their reasons for asking studios not to participate revolves around four main concerns. First is the elevation of alternatives to the theatrical experience. Second is how piracy will increase with the ease of home viewers' ability, even if there are anti-recording devices in the equipment, to film the movies (with better quality than similar illegal recording from movie screens). Third is uncertainty about revenue sharing and particularly how they with less clout than the bigger chains might fare in this. And fourth is no recognition of the need for changed film rental terms with increased competition. The statement recognizes up front that AHC members have been among the most willing theaters to play VOD releases. AHC is in an awkward position as the group that pushed Sony a little over a year ago to make their North Korean pirated "The Interview" available for theaters after the studio announced a VOD rather than normal release. Both sides benefited; many AHC members, with less competition as most chains refused to play the film, had great grosses and Sony got added revenues while still having a strong VOD play. No one seemed to be concerned with piracy then, or damage to the theatrical experience. Members couched doing this in terms of freedom of expression and patriotism instead of at least in part awareness of potential profits, but the profit motive was a key factor. No doubt if most or all movies had this availability, it would reshape the industry much more. But accepting it in some cases and then rejecting wider use puts members in the position of being half-pregnant and less credible in wholesale rejection. The larger piracy issue, with more interest in higher profile movies and a $50 rather than $10 or lower charge current VOD fee as the alternative, is legitimate. It is hard to believe that TSR's backers haven't thought this through, with some sort of identification of each individual purchase detectable by hi-tech investigators who doubtlessly would pursue offenders and make examples of them. But still the risk is real. The AHC statement also expresses concerns about lost income for bars, restaurants, hotels and others showing these movies. But that issue already exists for high expense, high profile events like boxing championships, and a solution has been found for that (no use without permission and payment, something theaters would want to make certain didn't happen). Their final point about the shared revenues hints at the main reason for the strong statement, apart from wanting a seat at the table. How they share in the proposed revenues is a concern for any theater participating; they are right to worry about getting the short shrift. But by raising the question of normal film rental, they also hint at a way studios could entice all exhibitors. Yes, they realize there will be lost revenues (particularly concessions, a much larger profit maker for theaters than their share of ticket prices). So in rejecting the idea, they add an area where if their financial concerns are addressed, perhaps the door isn't totally closed. My guess is that although the independents of AHC will have a small voice in whatever happens, their statement speaks for concerns of all exhibitors big and small. And it suggests, contrary to the initial exhibitor reaction to videos of just wishing them away and not getting on board early, exhibitors are aware enough of changing times and new models that they now think it is time to openly discuss options, and discuss which one works best, rather than totally rejecting discussion. The much more powerful NATO in its statement, that focuses more on who originates future delivery patterns rather than rejecting consideration outright, reiterates how much they've learned since 1979. NATO STATEMENT: (Washington, D.C. and North Hollywood, California) Recently there have been various reports in the media regarding a proposed movie release model called “The Screening Room”. Within a few days of the first report, several different high profile movie directors publicly stated their support for the model, some claiming that the model is good for motion picture exhibitors. Movie theater operators, however, will individually decide what business models work for movie theater operators. The owners and operators of movie theaters genuinely appreciate the vision and creativity brought to the big screen by motion picture directors. Nothing entertains movie fans better than a great movie exhibited in a modern movie cinema. The exclusive theatrical release window makes new movies events. Success there establishes brand value and bolsters revenue in downstream markets. NATO has consistently called on movie distributors and exhibitors to discuss as partners release models that can grow the business for everyone. More sophisticated window modeling may be needed for the growing success of a modern movie industry. Those models should be developed by distributors and exhibitors in company-to-company discussions, not by a third party." ART HOUSE CONVERGENCE STATEMENT: An Open Letter from Art House Convergence regarding "Screening Room" The Art House Convergence, a specialty cinema organization representing 600 theaters and allied cinema exhibition businesses, strongly opposes Screening Room, the start-up backed by Napster co-founder Sean Parker and Prem Akkaraju. The proposed model is incongruous with the movie exhibition sector by devaluing the in-theater experience and enabling increased piracy. Furthermore, we seriously question the economics of the proposed revenue-sharing model. We are not debating the day-and-date aspect of this model, nor are we arguing for the decrease in home entertainment availability for customers - most independent theaters already play alongside VOD and Premium VOD, and as exhibitors, we are acutely aware of patrons who stay home to watch films instead of coming out to our theaters. Rather, we are focused on the impact this particular model will have on the cinema market as a whole. We strongly believe if the studios, distributors, and major chains adopt this model, we will see a wildfire spread of pirated content, and consequently, a decline in overall film profitability through the cannibalization of theatrical revenue. The theatrical experience is unique and beneficial to maximizing profit for films. A theatrical release contributes to healthy ancillary revenue generation and thus cinema grosses must be protected from the potential erosion effect of piracy. The exhibition community was required to subscribe to DCI-compliance in a very material way - either by financing through VPF integrators (and those contracts have not yet expired) or by turning to other models which necessitated substantial time and commitment. Those exhibitors who were unable to make the transition were punished by a loss of product. The digital conversion had a substantial cost per theater, upwards of $100,000 per screen, all in the name of piracy eradication and lowering print, storage and delivery costs to benefit the distributors. How will Screening Room prevent piracy? If studios are concerned enough with projectionists and patrons videotaping a film in theaters that they provide security with night-vision goggles for premieres and opening weekends, how do they reason that an at-home viewer won’t set up a $40 HD camera and capture a near-pristine version of the film for immediate upload to torrent sites? This proposed model would negate DCI-compliance by making first-run titles available to anyone with the set-top device for an incredibly low fee - how will Screening Room prevent the sale of these devices to an apartment complex, a bar owner, or any other individual or company interested in creating their own pop-up exhibition space? We must consider how the existing structures for exhibition will be affected or enforced, including rights fees, VPFs and box office percentages. A model like this will also have a local economic impact by encouraging traditional moviegoers to stay home, reducing in-theater revenue and making high-quality pirated content readily available. This loss of revenue through box office decline and piracy will result in a loss of jobs, both entry level and long-term, from part time concessions and ticket-takers to full time projectionists and programmers, and will negatively impact local establishments in the restaurant industry and other nearby businesses. How many of today’s filmmakers started their careers at their local moviehouse? There are many unanswered questions as to how this business model will actually work. The proposed model, as we have read in countless articles, suggests exhibitors will receive $20 for each film purchased. At first glance, an exhibitor may think it represents a small, but potentially steady, additional revenue stream. But how will this actually be divided among the number of theaters playing the purchased title; will exhibitors who open the title receive more than an exhibitor who does not get the title until several weeks later (based on a distributor's decision); who will audit the revenue to ensure exhibitors are being paid fairly; does this revenue come from Screening Room or from the distributor... these are just a few of the issues yet to be explained. Similarly, Screening Room promises to give each subscriber two free cinema tickets with each film purchase. Yet to be disclosed is how an exhibitor will recoup the value of those tickets from Screening Room so they can then pay the percentage of box office revenue owed to the distributor of the film. Yet to be explained is who will manage the ticket program details such as location choice, method of purchase, and so on. Will all exhibitors be expected to honor Screening Room free tickets, or will some exhibitors receive preferential treatment over others? We strongly urge the studios, filmmakers, and exhibitors to truly consider the impact this model could have on the exhibition industry. We as the Art House and independent community have serious concerns regarding the security of an at-home set-top box system as well as the transparency and effectiveness of the revenue-sharing model. Our exhibition sector has always welcomed innovation, disruption and forward-thinking ideas, most especially onscreen through independent film; however, we do not see Screening Room as innovative or forward-thinking in our favor, rather we see it as inviting piracy and significantly decreasing the overall profitability of film releases. At this time and with the information available to us we strongly encourage all studios to deny all content to this service."
|
|
|
Post by The Ultimate Nullifier on Mar 18, 2016 22:20:44 GMT -6
deadline.com/2016/03/the-screening-room-bill-mechanic-reaction-would-hurt-artists-1201722255/The Screening Room: Bill Mechanic Says Day-And-Date Streaming Would Ultimately Hurt Artists Bill Mechanic, who was instrumental in building Disney’s home entertainment unit, worked as an executive in pay-per-view before that, helped run 20th Century Fox studio and is now a filmmaker, told Deadline that closing the theatrical window on a day-and-date business model the way The Screening Room proposes is “short-sighted.” He is yet another voice in a parade of individuals in the Hollywood community who has taken The Screening Room’s business model to task. The Screening Room’s proposal is to charge consumers $150 for a set-top box and then give them a 48-hour window (for $50) in which to see a film that would drop day-and-date in the nation’s theaters. The controversial idea, supporters say, is to create another revenue stream for the industry. Some of the concerns are about piracy and the fact that The Screening Room presentation wants to be the exclusive box into the home, which conflicts with pre-existing contracts at some studios. Others in exhibition have blasted the idea: the National Assn. of Theater Owners said any new model should not be handled by a third party. There are supporters. Wanda-owned AMC has signed a letter of intent, and Paramount — which tried a day-and-date VOD experiment on two films with the Chinese-owned theater chain — has also been interested. Top notch filmmakers like Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese and J.J. Abrams (to name a few) — who are advisors and whose success would reap them a financial reward — are aboard, but there is a growing stream of filmmakers who are detractors, beginning with James Cameron and Jon Landau, who came out against it earlier this week. Mechanic was the executive at Fox who stood with the two filmmakers during the making of Titanic which became a box office giant. And he’s standing by them again, saying the proposal to do away with the theatrical window would harm the business. “Anything that tries to eliminate the theatrical window or shorten it where it doesn’t matter is completely short-sighted. And if you are in a business that no longer has theatrical, it becomes the land of the giants … then it is a question of only what can break through the clutter,” Mechanic told Deadline from Australia where he is working on the film Hacksaw Ridge with Mel Gibson. “It’s very myopic to think that it’s not ultimately destructive.” He said in the long-term it is ultimately bad for artists, especially those who want to make movies with a more artistic bent, to stand out in the marketplace. “Once you’re in to the Internet, you are no longer one of 16 films in a theater or eight films in a theater or even four, you are one of tens of thousands of entertainment products being streamed. You’re going to get lost.” Some people in the entertainment industry say this day-and-date business model is inevitable because of current consumer behavior and the desire to see things when and where one wants. Supporters, though, point to how the music industry has changed to keep up with consumer needs, and that it’s only a matter of time before the movie business catches up. To that, Mechanic says: “It can be a self-fulfilling prophecy, but it is not inevitable. You have to remember that movies are not consumed like music … and music doesn’t require millions and millions of dollars to make.” He also said that existing contracts between studios and other home entertainment providers are a big obstacle if they are asking for the exclusive entry into homes, which Deadline has been told is part of what The Screening room proposed. “There are too many conflicting interests and who owns who. You never would grant exclusivity. A single gatekeeper is a bad idea.”
|
|
|
Post by The Ultimate Nullifier on Mar 18, 2016 22:23:34 GMT -6
deadline.com/2016/03/international-union-of-cinemas-the-screening-room-cinema-operators-1201722547/The International Union Of Cinemas Takes Stand Against The Screening Room: “The Risk Here Is Not Just To Cinema Operators” The International Union of Cinemas, a European org repping exhibitors across 36 territories has issued a statement this morning against Sean Parker and Prem Akkaraju’s Screening Room concept. The International Union of Cinemas (UNIC), the European trade body representing cinema associations and key operators from across 36 territories, has today set out its position regarding media reports around the proposed ‘Screening Room’ initiative. The vast majority of UNIC members will view the ‘Screening Room’ proposal with great concern. The model as outlined seems to offer little benefit to cinema operators and their distribution partners, while representing significant potential risks. While it is of course up to each operator to agree terms around a film release with partners in film distribution, UNIC maintains that the exclusive theatrical release of a new film helps create unparalleled levels of audience awareness and ultimately benefits its performance across all platforms, including VOD. All the evidence we have shows that exclusive offers work very well in digital markets and that they help to maintain audiences’ desire for high quality content. It is also known that online piracy has a hugely destructive impact on every stage of the film value chain. We are therefore very concerned about a model that might result in a proliferation of high-quality copyright-infringing films online during the theatrical release and beyond. The risk here is not just to cinema operators but to everyone contributing to the wider film ecology. The past decade has shown that disruptive interventions such as the ‘Screening Room’ do not always yield the greatest commercial or societal benefits; the music sector is a good example of this. Operators across Europe will strive to continue to offer high quality and exclusive cinematic experiences at an affordable cost to audiences from all ages and all walks of life. Yesterday, M. Night Shyamalan, Brett Ratner and Roland Emmerich joined Jon Landau, James Cameron and Christoper Nolan as those filmmakers vetoing The Screening Room’s proposal for a day-and-date service that would debut major studio titles in the home on the same day they hit the multiplex. Today’s statement by the International Union of Cinemas also reads that “no studio or major European film company has so far stated that it is in support of the proposal.” In addition today, in various trade reports, the U.K. Cinema Association, which represents 90% of British Cinema operators, thumbed down The Screening Room over piracy fears and the fact that there wasn’t any evidence to suggest that consumers would pay $50 to rent a major studio release the same day it hit theaters.
|
|
|
Post by The Ultimate Nullifier on Mar 18, 2016 22:25:04 GMT -6
deadline.com/2016/03/the-screening-room-sean-parker-uk-cinema-association-attacks-1201722491/UK Cinema Association Comes Out Against Sean Parker’s The Screening Room Adding their voices to the growing chorus of disapproval, the UK’s Cinema Association Friday released a statement blasting Sean Parker’s planned home movie service The Screening Room as “a massive risk” and “an unprecedented opportunity for film piracy.” The group, which reps more than 90% of the British exhibs, defended the theatrical model, “which remains the key driver of revenue for the entire business.” The Screening Room is a new first-run movie service being pitched around town by Napster co-founder and former Facebook president Sean Parker. Essentially, $150 gets one a set-top box, with a $50 per-movie charge for a 48-hour rental. The plan has sparked strong passions with a number of filmmakers, including James Cameron, Christopher Nolan and Brett Ratner, coming out strongly against the scheme, while the likes of Steven Spielberg, JJ Abrams and Peter Jackson are backing it. The Cinema Association acknowledged that while there is space and a need for greater innovation in the exhibition space, “The appropriate forum for this is through discussion between cinema operators, our partners in film distribution and those with realistic long term value-enhancing ideas, not those offering unsustainable alternatives.”
|
|
|
Post by The Ultimate Nullifier on Mar 18, 2016 22:27:43 GMT -6
deadline.com/2016/03/m-night-shyamalan-the-screening-room-protest-sean-parker-1201722440/M. Night Shyamalan On The Screening Room: “Once Filmmakers & Theater Owners Open The Door…There Is No Going Back” Count Oscar-nominated filmmaker M. Night Shyamalan among those opposing The Screening Room, Sean Parker and Prem Akkaraju’s day-and-date in-home entertainment service for major studio films. Shyamalan joins a growing list of colleagues, many of whom signed a 2011 open letter against DirecTV’s premium day-and-date streaming service: Roland Emmerich, Brett Ratner, Christopher Nolan, James Cameron and producer Jon Landau. The list who are against The Screening Room is close to rivaling those who are in favor: Peter Jackson, J.J. Abrams, Martin Scorsese, Brian Grazer, Ron Howard, Taylor Hackford and Frank Marshall. The Screening Room team is seeking to grab a higher-income demo with their service, charging consumers for a $150 set-top box and a $50 48-hour rental. The whole notion is to create another revenue stream in addition to the box office for major studio films, particularly those that might fall through the cracks in a tentpole-heavy market. However, exhibition and studio chiefs raise a number of cons about the service. The Art House Convergence, a group of specialty theaters, observed that The Screening Room could decimate Main Street U.S.A. weekend businesses that are connected to moviegoing. Worst of all, piracy concerns prevail: Any consumer can lift up a camera and point it at the screen. One industry vet told Deadline today, “The logic seems to be that since they’re making it available in the home, they’re taking away the reason to steal a film. At $2 a rental, there might be little reason to steal a title, but if it costs $50, there’s plenty of reason for someone to steal the title.” The insider added, “It doesn’t matter what type of encryption or forensic watermark you put on a streaming title. Then there’s an endless effort to track the person down who copied the film. Before you catch them, the pirated version will spread like wildfire.” In the meantime, we’ll let Shyamalan’s tweets speak for themselves: M. Night Shyamalan ✔ @mnightshyamalan I agree—I am completely against the Screening Room. Film is one of our last communal art forms.http://deadline.com/2016/03/the-screening-room-james-cameron-jon-landau-speak-up-against-day-and-date-release-1201721393/ … 7:06 PM - 17 Mar 2016 M. Night Shyamalan ✔ @mnightshyamalan There are other ways to experience art on your phone & laptop. But cinema is a group of strangers sharing stories & it belongs in a theater. 7:08 PM - 17 Mar 2016 99 99 Retweets 198 198 likes M. Night Shyamalan ✔ @mnightshyamalan Once filmmakers & theater owners open the door to this idea, there is no going back. The movie going experience is something to fight for! 7:10 PM - 17 Mar 2016 60 60 Retweets 163 163 likes M. Night Shyamalan ✔ @mnightshyamalan Watching a movie by yourself & watching a movie in a theater are two very different experiences. Film is meant to bring people together. 7:10 PM - 17 Mar 2016 154 154 Retweets 308 308 likes
|
|
|
Post by The Ultimate Nullifier on Mar 18, 2016 22:52:10 GMT -6
deadline.com/2016/03/brett-ratner-against-screening-room-day-and-date-home-movie-service-1201722273/Brett Ratner Joins Growing Filmmaker Chorus Against Screening Room Day & Date Home Movie Service Add director/producer Brett Ratner to the growing list of filmmakers who have come out against Screening Room, Sean Parker’s proposed day-and-date major studio in-home service. After a group of elite filmmakers including Steven Spielberg, Peter Jackson and JJ Abrams came out in support of a service that is still being shown to studios and exhibitors, James Cameron, Jon Landau Christopher Nolan and Roland Emmerich have all expressed their concerns about changing the status quo windowing system for theatrical releases. Like Emmerich, Ratner was among the long list of directors who signed NATO’s open letter against a premium video on demand novel that was proposed by DirectTV. “I said it in 2011 and it’s even more true now, I’m a firm believer in the importance of protecting the theatrical window,” Ratner said. “The home market is important too, but it must be in its proper sequence. This alternate form of distribution would destroy the exclusive theatrical window which is one of the crucial elements – along with the best possible presentation, the social experience, and the sense of a unique event theatrical creates – that drives the value of the entire distribution chain. There may be certain movies that will lend themselves to this platform, but I am still a firm believer, and as a movie going fan will always support the traditional theatrical experience ”
|
|
|
Post by The Ultimate Nullifier on Mar 18, 2016 22:58:19 GMT -6
deadline.com/2016/03/roland-emmerich-sides-with-james-cameron-jon-landau-christopher-nolan-in-battle-against-the-screening-room-1201722161/Roland Emmerich Sides With James Cameron, Jon Landau & Christopher Nolan In Battle Against The Screening Room Independence Day director Roland Emmerich has tweeted out a response against Sean Parker’s proposed day-and-date major studio in-home service The Screening Room. He joins James Cameron, Jon Landau and Christopher Nolan as those filmmakers protesting the concept which could ruin the exhibition and moviegoing business. Back in 2011, Emmerich was among a long list of filmmakers who signed NATO’s open letter against the premium video on demand model being proposed by DirecTV. Here’s Emmerich’s tweet: Roland Emmerich ✔ @rolandemmerich I'm with Nolan, Landau and Cameron. It's crucial that we support and protect the cinematic experience. www.ew.com/article/2016/03/16/christopher-nolan-oppose-sean-parker-screening-room … 2:25 PM - 17 Mar 2016 Next up for Emmerich is 20th Century Fox’s Independence Day: Resurgence on June 24, the long awaited sequel to the 1996 hit. Coming out in support of the close of the theatrical window, however, is producer Todd Garner, who also signed the 2011 letter. “I do think that for some movies The Screening Room makes sense,” he told Deadline. “These tentpoles are sucking up so many of the theaters for so much of the time … their tails are so long that the distributors are either having to double their marketing spend or the films are going away. I think for those movies, a day and date system isn’t a bad idea.” Garner was the producer on Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse, which was one of the films that Paramount, AMC and Cineplex partnered on for a day-and-day VOD release. That picture opened to $1.8M in over 1,500 theaters and has made $14.86M worldwide on what was said to be a budget of $15M.
|
|
|
Post by The Ultimate Nullifier on Mar 29, 2016 0:00:54 GMT -6
blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/podcast-the-playlist-talks-batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice-the-screening-rooms-premium-vod-plan-20160328soundcloud.com/the-playlist-podcastPodcast: The Playlist Talks 'Batman v Superman: Dawn Of Justice' & The Screening Room's Premium VOD Plan The Playlist Podcast returns for an episode in two parts. On the first segment, I'm joined by Managing Editor Kevin Jagernauth to talk about "Batman v Superman: Dawn Of Justice" after its strong opening weekend debut at the box office. In the second segment, Editor-in-Chief Rodrigo Perez joins me to talk about The Screening Room, Sean Parker's proposed day-and-date streaming service that would allow people to rent new movies (big and small) for a premium price, bypassing the theater altogether. It's a bold move, and perhaps an inevitable reality down the road, but is the industry ready to make that shift now? Check out the podcast to find out what we think.
|
|