For several days the topic Screening Room is bringing back to the debate on contemporary Hollywood between room and home video. It looked like the usual project with no future to bring home movies at the same time when they go to movies (which is what, illegally, makes piracy), but at a closer look proved so good and well thought of collect the favors of one of the largest chains of movie theaters of America (AMC) and the very concrete directors like Martin Scorsese , Ron Howard , JJ Abrams , Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson , all become shareholders of the company.
As expected, however, after a first wave of acclaim now come “the contrary “, captained by Christopher Nolan.
Behind the idea is Sean Parker , or the mind that at the end of the 90s has actually created the modern concept of piracy with Napster and also had some importance in the founding stages of Facebook (it was played by Justin Timberlake the Social Network ). Screening room is a service that is based on a technology Elementary today: you buy a an internet connected box, set top box to attach to your TV, and through it you legally rent out the same movies that are coming out in the hall to see in streaming . The details that differentiate it from similar as done previously and that they did collect all these favors are two. On the one hand the cost, or $ 150 for the set top box and $ 50 for 48 hours of movie rental; the other, the division of the proceeds with a good share that goes to cinemas (although do nothing), one to the holders of rights and only finally a Screening Room.
short it is not a service for everyone, it is not “mass” given the prices, while it is thought not to send a blow to the halls but rather help them.
If you look at the question of the circulation of films from a purely technological point of view and not the film is pretty obvious that sooner or later we will arrive at the same time. A little ‘because we have already, piracy does so even if illegally and often with poor quality which means that contemporary is already in the habits of many people, is already a reality that yes can stop, deny it to ourselves not needed . And a little ‘because historically nobody has ever stopped the technology, the technological evolution does not work like that, you can not stop a possibility too long.
In this sense Screening Room it looks really the best view up to square the circle now (though still have to get the opinion of the producers) and even if he fails his model could serve as a basis for someone else in the near future will certainly succeed in the enterprise. Undertaking which, it must be said, is of a disarming simplicity and necessity: to legalize and therefore profitable for those entitled to what already exists, but from which no gain.
No coincidence that in the party of the “favorable” Peter Jackson is the one who has spoken more clearly, explaining that instead of eating Screening Room viewers to the halls can enlarge them, that can bring movies to those who would go to the cinema. Rent $ 50 means not only have a large family (think of the cost of 3-4 more gasoline tickets to go, popcorn, parking … It is not much different) but also be really determined not to go to the room. In
adverse party today instead sided Christopher Nolan with James Cameron and his producer Jon Landau . Unfortunately, their arguments are not, however, equally clear and new. They seem to reason as if it were a non Screening Room service different from the others.
Nolan said they agree with what was said by Cameron and Cameron has left the word Landau , who spoke of “ sanctity of ” and said he did not understand why “ the rooms would provide the public an incentive for breaking free from the enjoyment on the big screen . ” The most practical and logical argument, however, seems touched by the Landau when you say “ For us as a point of creative and economically remains essential that films are offered primarily and exclusively in the room . “
Nobody is under the illusion that this is a battle for art, mind it, is a struggle to understand what is the best way to economically exploit a film. And on the one hand there are those who believes that the current model is unsurpassed, that have several well-separated phases, so as to make the most of each one (before the hall, then video on demand and home video, then Pay TV etc. Etc.. ), while on the other there are those who now believes that Screening Room could increase the consumer base.
For lovers of the genre this time, as usual, the association’s opinion of the exhibitors category it is the less reasonable and more dogmatic. Even if you are American. Their point of view on this whole issue is so complex that in any case, any novelty in the world of a film exploitation chain should be discussed with them and worked together with “ not by a third party “, then that would be a way to refer to Screening Room, without naming them. Put simply, “if we want to we do it alone.”
No comments:
Post a Comment