Would you pay $50 to watch new movies at home?

[Shawn Knight]

Napster co-founder Sean Parker is reportedly backing a startup called Screening Room that aims to let customers rent first-run movies that are still showing in theaters (even beginning the same day they are released in theaters).

The company's secure anti-piracy set-top box will cost $150 while individual movie rentals will go for $50 each. Customers would have a 48-hour window to view a film according to sources briefed on the matter as reported by Variety.

Sources say Screening Room is preparing to share as much as $20 of the $50 rental fee with exhibitors to make up for lost sales. The $50 rental would also include two free tickets to go see the film at a nearby cinema so theater owners would have a chance to make money from concession sales.

$50 may sound like a hell of a lot of money to spend on a single movie rental (and it is, in certain situations). If you're single, this makes very little sense. Those with families or those that want to host movie watch parties with friends could certainly see the value here.

Simply divide up the cost of "admission" among friends and it's suddenly pretty affordable. If you spring for a few pizzas or Chinese takeout, you can eat for far cheaper per person than what you'll pay at the theater. And if your host has an awesome home theater setup, well, that's an added bonus. Oh, and you won't have to deal with idiots in the theater that'd rather play or talk on their phones than watch the movie they paid to see (don't forget the people that bring screaming babies, either). And did I mention, it's far cheaper than the alternative?

Some of my fellow tech writers are labeling the whole idea as absurd but I think it's a pretty great idea given the right circumstances. What do you think? Would you be willing to spend $50 on a movie rental to host a movie watch party for your friends or family? Let us know what you think in the comments section below.

Lead image courtesy Audio Dimensions

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/64067-would-you-pay-50-watch-new-movies-home.html

 

[ChuckyJ]

Yes I would.

 

[Technician]

No, I don't want to watch the newest movies yet, I still have a huge backlog of movies I haven't gotten to yet.
If it was 50.00 a year for unlimited, I might, but they need to add more to the pot than just movies, like Amazon does.
You can watch current movies at the same time as theaters on Amazon for a tiny fraction of that cost now.

 

[Mister_K]

No, not for $50, it's too dear.

£20 is the most I would pay, maybe £25 at most ($35)

 

[tonylukac]

I usually pay $1.50 per blu ray at redbox, so no. Watched about 1 last year. Birdman gives me chills.

 

[BSim500]

The company's secure anti-piracy set-top box will cost $150 while individual movie rentals will go for $50 each

$50 just to rent one movie which needs a specialist proprietary DRM'd-up-to-the-eyeballs box and has time limit restrictions? LOL. No thanks. I always have some backlog somewhere. And I don't suffer from WICS (Whiny Impatient Consumer Syndrome). And since most of our friends don't go to the cinema either, we're all on the same "delay" which means they haven't seen whatever DVD/BR we get either. And once you strip out all the unneeded remakes (and remakes of remakes) plus all the "it's getting old now" Marvell Super hero cash-in stuff, the amount of films we're buying each year seems to be shrinking rather than growing to match Hollywood's chronic creativity brain drain...

 

[hahahanoobs]

I thought Intel was supposed to do this back when they introduced Quick Sync....

 

[TomSEA]

No way in hell. I can go to an IMAX and see a full-blown version of a new release movie for a matinee price of $15. Or do what tonylukac does and pay a buck-fitty to rent one from RedBox.

 

[9Nails]

I think $50 is to high. Even if it came with a free BD Disk, or unlimited streaming, or even 2 free theater tickets. I feel that I can wait a few months for a film to release to rental. It's not that important that I see a film straight away. I have a family of 4, and the most I pay now is $34 for a film at the theater.

 

[Cycloid Torus]

$50 is cheap for this - think LAN parties and apply to movies. We had 2 8-10 port switches running all spread out in 3 rooms - the house roared. The kids LOVED it. Thank the powers that be, my kid had 3 close friends who knew how to tidy up afterwards.

 

[cliffordcooley]

The company's secure anti-piracy set-top box will cost $150 while individual movie rentals will go for $50 each.

No I wouldn't!

 

[Technician]

If I had to sit in the room in the picture, no way. I don't like leather and I don't like damask. And the brass tacks are, for lack of a better word, tacky.

 

[cliffordcooley]

I'm fairly certain the only thing they control is the set-top box. You would design your own viewing room, including the TV of choice.

 

[Raoul Duke]

No, I don't understand why people are so hung up on 'the latest release', there are a large number of movies going back decades that are fantastic and require no rip off. I could care what the latest, greatest in the theatres now stuff is. I enjoy movies back to about 1940 (film noir mainly at that age), but there is more good stuff around than one has time to watch. There are a lot of great movies in Cantonese/Mandarin, some good Korean, French, I even have a couple in Brazilian Portugese (Tropa de elite) add Japanese anime, you get the picture (no pun intended)

 

[Technician]

It was a joke...

 

[Mister_K]

To be honest, with VR kicking off, once we can get a good 4k devices we can emulate cinema environment in our living rooms. I already feel it can be more immersive on my Samsung VR and the quality on that is poor. The illusion that you are looking at bigger screen is pretty awesome.

 

[infiltrator]

It may be expensive for everyone else, but I don't have problems with expending that much money. I only live once and I want to enjoy my life to the fullest.

 

[EClyde]

They will sell but not to me

 

[Uncle Al]

Nope .... considering the "quality" of todays movies I don't think it's worth it. Far too many movies rely on FX and the "wow" factor, just not enough that have first rate dialogue, or thought provoking idea's that stick with you for weeks after seeing them. One recent one, "Grateful Eight" was one of the must vulgar movies I have seen or watched, but I give it's director an A+ for how it was assembled. That was some great production work. But still not worth $50. Does anyone have one of those $3 mattine's around them? God, those were great!

 

[mailpup]

Does anyone have one of those $3 mattine's around them? God, those were great!

Well, there is a theater that I usually go to that has $4 senior day once a week. Two days a week (Tuesday and Thursday) they have family day for $5 all day (in other words, not just for matinees). Not $3 but still pretty good.

 

[turismozilla]

Fnck no, I would not, and anybody who says "yes, I would" better start giving money to a charity.

 

[Kraemepoo]

Sure. That means my wife and I can see movies without a babysitter, and don't have to pay 50 cents an oz for movie theater drinks and popcorn.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

Some of my fellow tech writers are labeling the whole idea as absurd but I think it's a pretty great idea given the right circumstances.

Sounds like your fellow tech writers aren't thinking about other people's situations.

They already have this... it's called pay-per-view and people throw parties, have their friends over and spend $100 to watch some boxing match that might only last for 5 minutes.

For a new movie where you can host a party this is a great deal. My family has 3 people in it, and going to the movies is about $50 if we get snacks. It's $35 just to get tickets. Being able to host with others for movie nights would be great. Maybe it's having a bunch of the kid's friends over, maybe it's your own adult friends - one couple gets the pizza and drinks the other gets the movie.

The downside isn't the cost - the downside is people won't be able to enjoy the experience of the theater. Especially now that they have recliners.

Oh - and I'd bet you can pause it. Brilliant!

 

[BMfan]

No

 

[mctommy]

I'd pay for it. As others have said, it's cheaper than having to pay for babysitters; you can have a movie night with your friends; you don't have to pay $15 for popcorn and pop; etc...