Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies

First-Run Movies at Home For the Ultra-Rich at Just $2,500 a Pop (bloomberg.com) 101

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
Meet Red Carpet Entertainment, the opposite of Netflix in the fast-changing home-video world. From a report: Unlike the famous streaming service, which serves up thousands of films and TV shows to millions of subscribers for about $13 a month, this startup by two entertainment-industry veterans is seeking just 3,000 rich Americans who'll put up $15,000 and pay $2,500 per movie to watch the latest theatrical releases in their homes. Since launching in October, Red Carpet has attracted just a sliver of the customers it hopes to sign up in the U.S. in the next two years, founders Fredric Rosen and Dan Fellman say. And they know they aren't the first to market a high-end, first-run film service to the ultra-rich. But the two say their knowledge of the entertainment industry gives them a fighting chance. "Everyone is looking for a new, ancillary business," said Fellman, who spent 37 years at Warner Bros, retiring as president of domestic distribution. "So we thought: How do we start a small, ancillary business, but that's not disruptive?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

First-Run Movies at Home For the Ultra-Rich at Just $2,500 a Pop More

First-Run Movies at Home For the Ultra-Rich at Just $2,500 a Pop

Comments Filter:

  • Fame versus wealth (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TWX ( 665546 ) on Wednesday December 18, 2019 @10:31AM (#59532232)

    The problem is that they're pricing this for the wealthy, not for the famous.

    Wealthy people may still live in relative obscurity, and thus be able to go see movies without hassle. Famous people may or may not be wealthy, it's famous people that face greater challenges when going out in public, even if they aren't especially wealthy.

    Additionally, many of both type of people may not spend much of their time on diversions like watching an inordinate amount of movies. Typically success comes from understanding what to focus upon, and diversions like movies may well not be that thing.

    Obviously there will be outliers for both, and perhaps wealthy people inviting over their wealthy friends to watch first-run movies together might be a market that this sort of service would cater to, but right now these prices don't seem in-line with what the market will bear. We'll just have to see how it pans out.

    • For $2500 a pop, you could probably get a local theater operator to do it in your house, just like renting an entire theater. And you don’t have to throw in $15k up front.

      This sort of thing has existed for ages. If you are willing to pay enough, you have always been able to get first-run movies at home.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by TWX ( 665546 )

        What's funny is that it may well be possible to rent the entire theatre for far less than that $2,500 price. The small movie theater that used to host Rocky Horror a couple decades ago was actually owned by a guy that owns a major first-run movie theater chain. The auditorium was pretty small. He's since renovated it and officially branded it along with the rest of the movie theaters, but usually shows independent movies there. It would not surprise me if one could purchase an otherwise-unlisted showing

        • Depends on the Cinema. A small cinema maybe. I just priced it up:

          The local Dolby Cinema is about $8000 to buy out every seat.
          The local 2D cinema is about $3000

          • I myself have rented venues for a private group event. You do it off-hour.

          • Pretty sure you'd be getting a volume discount because only the biggest blockbusters would be selling out and usually only then for a few weekends.

          • Depends on the Cinema. A small cinema maybe. I just priced it up:

            The local Dolby Cinema is about $8000 to buy out every seat. The local 2D cinema is about $3000

            I'm sure you'd actually pay far less than that, especially if you were willing to do it off-hours. I typically go to movies a little on the early size (about 5 PM), and it's very common that there are no more than 10 people in the theater. It's not uncommon that my wife and I are the only ones there. I'll bet that you could easily rent the house for $500.

            For that matter, at least in my area the advent of megaplexes with big, powered reclining seats in stadium seating has really reduced the number of sea

          • The local Dolby Cinema is about $8000 to buy out every seat.

            So, if you, your wife, and one kid wanted to see a brand new movie in the privacy of a rented theatre, it's still cheaper than these guys charge?

        • and if anything because it's nestled-in within a major cinema complex, no one but the ticketholders would even realize that it was reserved for a private screening.

          The biggest one around here they have two sets of front doors, one inside the mall, and another nearby outside. When they have private parties, those people go in through the outside doors, they don't have to rub elbows with the commoners in the regular line. They still have to mix at the trough, though.

        • What's funny is that it may well be possible to rent the entire theatre for far less than that $2,500 price.

          My group of friends has done is several times for either a film we wanted to see or in one case a birthday party showing (so we could all heckle the movie). Both times it was after advertised showing times and we just had to garrantee a certain number of seats. Didn't take much more than somebody calling the theater and asking.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by EvilSS ( 557649 )

        For $2500 a pop, you could probably get a local theater operator to do it in your house,

        With most major releases these days being digital only, that's not going to happen. It's not like you can just get them to bring over their digital projection setup to your house. And nothing you own (even if it's the exact same equipment as in the theater) will play their digital copy.

        • For $2500 a pop, you could probably get a local theater operator to do it in your house,

          It's not like you can just get them to bring over their digital projection setup to your house.

          They say you can, you just wave your arms and say you can't. If you wanted to make that point, you completely failed. Since you didn't give any explanation or reasoning, presumably you just didn't understand the comment.

          Why is it that you believe the local theater operator is not going to set up a digital projector in your house? Conclusions are fucking worthless dude, the reasons you give are what people use to weigh your ideas. It isn't like you're CowboyNeal and people will just take your word for it bec

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by dwywit ( 1109409 )

            Because digital cinema is tied down good and tight. It's not as simple as plugging in an external hard drive to someone's home cinema system.

            The server containing the digital copy of the film is "married" to the projector with cross-checking of serial numbers, and the cinema owner has no access to the "technician" or "maintenance" operator levels, only "user" level.

            If you so much as remove a cover panel on the projector or the server, that breaks the marriage, and the projector refuses to turn on until a te

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              Which makes me wonder how this works.

              Usually the Blu-ray is nowhere near finished when the movie is related to cinemas. Are they really going to risk that perfect digital copy getting out anyway?

              If love to know what format they use and how they protect it.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by dwywit ( 1109409 )

                The digital film distributed to cinemas is encrypted, I don't recall the exact details, but it uses a 4096-bit decryption key to make it work, and that key only works for a specified period.

                It's packaged on a conventional hard drive but that drive is inside an enclosure which can be hot-plugged into the server.

                Each frame of the master is re-rendered into JPEG2000 frames in XYZ colour space and then those frames are wrapped up into an MXF container. Each audio channel is also exported to 24-bit WAV, in its o

          • who's going to issue you the KDM for your private showing?

            • You probably don't even need KDE at all, much less KDM.

              Or wait, are you asking about how this works in Korea?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by EvilSS ( 557649 )
            Are you a moron or troll? Just wondering which it is.
      • The local dine-in theater charges $5,000 for its largest theater (~120 people). Frozen II birthday parties were quite popular during opening weekend.

      • "For $2500 a pop, you could probably get a local theater operator to do it in your house, just like renting an entire theater. "

        Those people already have a theater in their house.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rtb61 ( 674572 )

        All I could think is how desperately empty and shallow your life must be to fork over money to see some really shite movies early. Like, who gives a fuck any more, so much content, competing the old canned content has become last on the list. New release, like, when it becomes available on my streaming service beyond that it doesn't even exist for me any more, boring old canned content, shite storing, pointless action scenes that tell no story, the psuedo celebrities just another bunch of self promoting blo

    • Most of the wealthy people I know, wouldn't pay for this. It isn't that they cannot afford it, but it isn't a good value.
      As you stated a lot of wealthy people are not so famous to a point where they just can't go out to the movies with relative privacy.

      But most famous people do have some wealth, and often fame isn't from them making good business decisions, but from doing a particular job that is public facing well. Sports, Acting, Singing...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by TWX ( 665546 )

        And that's another aspect of it, if you're famous, you might need to interact with the public in order to fuel that fame. You need to be seen.

        The fact that they're having trouble signing-up customers tells me that they missed the mark.

        • And that's another aspect of it, if you're famous, you might need to interact with the public in order to fuel that fame. You need to be seen.

          That's what them twiters are for.

      • As you stated a lot of wealthy people are not so famous to a point where they just can't go out to the movies with relative privacy.

        I think it misses a bigger point that a lot of wealthy non-famous people are wealthy precisely because they don't fritter away their money on things like this. They're more likely to go to a matinee showing to save a few bucks on the ticket price or even just wait for the movie to come out for home release and borrow a copy from the library.

        • Or they rent out an entire theater and only invite their friends.

      • Most of the wealthy people I know, wouldn't pay for this. It isn't that they cannot afford it, but it isn't a good value.

        Exactly. Most people don't have a problem with spending money, they just don't like to waste money. One of the problems today is that many people often confuse the two, but spending is not always wasting.

        For example, my mom (now a dedicated Fox News watcher in her 80s) doesn't want to pay taxes anymore because of "all the freeloaders" (declining to elaborate). I reminded her that her taxes also pay for the Police and Fire departments, road and public-space maintenance, etc ... She's still not happy abou

        • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

          by CubicleZombie ( 2590497 )

          For example, my mom (now a dedicated Fox News watcher in her 80s) doesn't want to pay taxes anymore because of "all the freeloaders" (declining to elaborate). I reminded her that her taxes also pay for the Police and Fire departments, road and public-space maintenance, etc ...

          All those things you mention come from state and local taxes. She's probably complaining about Federal taxes, which are much higher, and mostly goes to waste.

          Maybe you should try watching Fox News.

          • All those things you mention come from state and local taxes. She's probably complaining about Federal taxes, which are much higher, and mostly goes to waste.

            Maybe you should try watching Fox News.

            A couple thoughts come to mind...

            Option1: surely your federal taxes are going towards your world-class health-care system that ensures your most valuable resource - your people - are healthy.
            Option2: surely your federal tax spending on a massive military make you the safest nation in the world, not requiring the indignities lesser nations face such as taking their shoes off at airports.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Ogive17 ( 691899 )
            You're right, much of our federal taxes are going to waste supporting those states with low taxes that need more federal handouts.
        • Curious, does mom get SS, and does she pay out of pocket for medical, or use that government medicare program? If either answer is yes, tell mom she is part of the freeloading problem. If mom is in her 80's more likely than not she has consumed vastly more in SS and medicare payments than she put in.

        • She also complained about a news report about the federal government "wasting monsy" studying algae blooms and declines in the oceans. I reminded her that about 70-80% of the oxygen we breath is produced by (or because of) that algae

          Fighting ignorance with ignorance isn't effective. You're both being daft.

          Algae blooms are studied because they devastate fishing. The government has to track that shit to tell the stupid fisherman where to go, because otherwise they'll lose money. And they all took out 2nd mortgages on their fishing boats, because they're allergic to math, and so without the government making sure they know the best places to fish they'll go out of business in just a couple months.

          The truth is something even Fox News drone

      • Yeah this is for people who stumbled into money and are trying to go back to being broke as fast as they can.

        Actors who happened to get cast on a hit show for a couple years, lottery winners, etc.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by hey! ( 33014 )

        Depends on the kind of wealth you're talking about. New money is always looking for new ways to spend; old money looks for ways not to spend.

        I was a manager at a Boston charity that had a bunch of scions of Brahmin families working there. One of my employees decided to finance his yacht, because his investments were returning more than the loan interest. The bank mistakenly turned him down because they thought his $30,000 weekly income was his *annual* income. The thing is, though, a buck meant more to

        • Depends on the kind of wealth you're talking about. New money is always looking for new ways to spend; old money looks for ways not to spend.

          Wow, I can see you've never actually met a real-life Trustafarian.

      • Theaters tend to be located in more highly populated areas. The ultra-wealthy tend not to live in these areas. At a certain point of wealth the hassle of driving across town on a set schedule costs more than the $2,500 to see a movie in home at their leisure. There are certainly enough ultra-wealthy people where this arrangement would make sense. The question is are there enough ultra-wealthy people who care enough to subscribe.

      • I think most famous people know somebody that gets an early screener, and they can already watch new movies at a friend's house. It isn't like they'd be waiting for the DVD release date. In many cases they'll have access to a screener before the theater release, they'll be able to watch it at a private party during the media review screening period.

      • These amounts of money are somewhat trivial if you're truly wealthy. But you also need to have a home theater good enough that the experience is better than the most expensive theater seats in your city. So the audience is limited to an intersection of the wealthy and the power-hobbyists, and unsurprisingly that's a small group of people. Maybe they can grow it by positioning this service as a standard feature in newly built luxury homes. Checking the box for extra $15K will not matter much in a $10M house

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by AHuxley ( 892839 )
        Re "but it isn't a good value."
        Whats the value of not having to enter parts of crime, waste and trash filled CA to see a new movie?
        The cook can make snacks, the screen is as big as a small "cinema"...
        Good sound, good quality visuals... great food, security and comfort.
        Not surrounded by talking, smartphone users, hours lots to travel and parking...
        For a wealthy person that security, comfort and time saved is looking like really "good value"...
    • Well their target is just a few thousand. Certainly there are that many wealthy agoraphobics for whom $15k for the setup is the equivalent of a middle income buying a $15 movie ticket. The idea isn't bad at all. The idea it is newsworthy is a bigger problem because it is giving social attention to socially worthless assholes on all sides over some dumb triviality.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by TWX ( 665546 )

        Except that if they're really agoraphobics, it probably doesn't matter when they see the movie, it's unlikely that it will be spoiled for them.

        Due to the birth of our child we haven't really seen any movies in the last couple of years, and despite going out and about and spending a lot of time discussing all manner of subjects, I haven't had to really deal with unavoidable spoilers. Someone that doesn't really get out of the home should have an even easier time simply waiting until the home-release.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        Well their target is just a few thousand. Certainly there are that many wealthy agoraphobics for whom $15k for the setup is the equivalent of a middle income buying a $15 movie ticket. The idea isn't bad at all. The idea it is newsworthy is a bigger problem because it is giving social attention to socially worthless assholes on all sides over some dumb triviality.

        Well, there are a few people who have a lot of money to spend on their hobby - but aren't super rich. I've seen fancy high end home theatre equipm

    • It's more than just public familiarity, many rich people are also super busy and want to do things on their time. Plus there's the venue issue.

      If I could afford a first run movie in my house, chances are my screening room is super luxurious and comes with food/beverages of top quality. Why would I want to drink shitty pop and popcorn even in a "nice" public theater with reclining seats? I also think they better make this satellite enabled, because the next thing I'm gonna want is to show these movies on

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Thud457 ( 234763 )
        I'm showing the new Beetlejuice at my place next pluterday. [wikipedia.org]

      • I also think they better make this satellite enabled, because the next thing I'm gonna want is to show these movies on my yacht in the Bahamas.

        Turns out being out on a yacht somewhere fairly remote like the Bahamas is a miserable experience for people whose lifestyle would include that sort of new movie screening.

        People who own a yacht, but also do fancy indoor showoff shit, those people don't actually spend time on the yacht. They'd be seasick. They'd be staying at private village in some resort, the yacht would only be boarded for a few hours at a time to go diving or sightseeing. Nobody would want to still be bobbing around in their seat while

        • There's no bobbing on a 30+ meter yacht. Most of them are big enough to not move much in ordinary sea conditions, plus these days they've all got gyroscopic stabilizers that eliminate rolling and pitching in all but the heaviest seas.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        Another problem I can see with this, if I'm sufficiently rich where $2500 doesn't matter to me to watch a movie, I'd wager I'm also rich and influential enough that people with access to screeners -- agents, PR people, studio people, maybe even stars -- will provide them to me.

        The screener market has changed dramatically. First, screens are generally just DVDs, so no high-def. That's if you get a disc - most screeners are streaming these days and locked up (but these are in high-def).

        Hollywood is controllin

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dwywit ( 1109409 )

          Camrips would be the only way. Digital cinema doesn't use HDMI - it's an encrypted stream over ethernet from server to projector, and it gets decrypted by a proprietary board in the server.

        • I think you underestimate the kind of influence that a billionaire can bring to bear. I'm not talking low-end swapping of screeners by flunkies with access, I'm talking about people who can move markets and boost/cripple careers and social status with a couple of casual phone calls asking people at the top for access.

    • You're using the wrong terminology. It's rich (high income) vs wealthy (high net worth). The rich can spend $2,500 on a movie to impress their friends. The wealthy are more likely to wait for Netflix.

    • The problem is that they're pricing this for the wealthy, not for the famous.

      That's not a problem at all.

      Wealthy people may still live in relative obscurity, and thus be able to go see movies without hassle.

      I am not famous and going to the movie theater is a big hassle. The prices suck, the people suck, the theaters can be OK (especially now with reclining seats) but you have no control over the environment and may be sitting somewhere non-optimal.

      Having a projector, I mostly prefer to watch movies at home

    • Wealthy people may still live in relative obscurity, and thus be able to go see movies without hassle.

      Yes but why would they want to? Based on what Slashdot told me seeing a movie in public is a horrible experience.

    • For every wealthy person who got there through industrious use of time and hard work (i.e. success) there are at least ten others who got there by being related to the industrious person. There's a lot of money to be made by catering to the latter group.

  • Better then the other guys but at up X5 the cost.

  • That's not a bad deal considering that popcorn and soda for a famliy of 5 at the movie theater is $2500.

    • the theater has dolby atmos with up to 128 discrete audio tracks and up to 64 unique speaker feeds. The cheaper home one is way less.

      Let's see $50K-$100K AV hardware + $15K box + $2.5K PPV + fees (ticketmaster former ceo) vs say $20 person (high price) + food (some places have full service food at restaurant pricing so say $20-$30 person higher end) and most places have all 1st movies.

      • Wow! Its like he was posting an absurd comment! But you sure showed him with a practical breakdown of the pricing structure of a movie theater. What was that guy thinking, he was way off!!

        Or maybe you were missing something....hmmmmm....

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by uncqual ( 836337 )

        Being able to watch the movie when you want, with whom you want, wearing whatever you want (or, even, nothing), eating whatever your chef knows you will want prepared the way you love it, drinking the scotch you prefer all without having three or more of your discreetly dressed security people lurking in the seats around you paying more attention to the audience than the movie -- PRICELESS.

        Many years ago, my wife and I stopped at a well known deli in the LA area late at night and went to the "upstairs" seat

      • up to 128 discrete audio tracks and up to 64 unique speaker feeds

        Why not just say "up to infinite audio tracks," it would be just as true. Nobody produces output with 128 discrete audio tracks. Especially not when the speaker feeds are capped at 64.

    • "That's not a bad deal considering that popcorn and soda for a famliy of 5 at the movie theater is $2500." So which theater do you go to where a family has to spend this much for consessions? Ok, I know you are joking, but 100+ dollars would not surprise me one bit. This ultra-gouging may actually be hurting ticket sales, but Fast Short-term Profits Uber Alles. :\
    • Do they get underage hookers are part of the deal?

    • Your kids must not harass you for their favorite candy as well. It's usually well above the $2500 mark when we go to the theater.

  • 15K for the box (sound and video hardware extra)

  • Then the company owner(s) rip their first run movies and make their real profit off piracy out the back end.

    Step 3. Profit?

    Hehe

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dwywit ( 1109409 )

      These movies are supplied either via internet or on a hard drive.

      They're also encrypted and the decryption key (supplied separately by the distributor) includes serial numbers for the server and projector. The server doesn't decrypt the film, it's done at the projector, so there's no point running a tap on the cable from the server to the projector.

      The only way to "rip" it is to point a camera at the screen. You can probably capture the 5.1 audio between the amps and speakers.

      Now, it wouldn't surprise me if

    • not possible. the digital cinema servers connected to the projectors contain a battery-backed physically-secure cryptographic system that will only decode the movie given a time and projector-sensitive key (using RSA 4096 X.509 keys). attempt to access the innards of that system (or letting the battery drain) will erase the keys within. The link between the cinema server and the projector itself is encrypted. the major studios (MPAA) won't send you a movie to play on anything less.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Cito ( 1725214 )

        Ah, I had a completely different idea of how they'd receive the film. Like I was imagining a 40+ gig mkv or something with drm and perhaps with some proprietary player. I had no idea how it'd actually work so thanks for enlightening me. ðY

  • Awesome, now we'll get torrents so much earlier !

  • How much again would renting a whole cinema be?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by EvilSS ( 557649 )
      Usually around $300-750 plus the cost of the tickets. If you are doing an event with presentations before hand, factor in about $150 an hour for that portion. There is generally a minimum number of tickets, sometimes depending on time and the film it can be the entire capacity of the theater you rent, others it would be a fixed number (say 75 or 100). If you want to watch the movie during normal business hours for the theater, there is usually an up-charge as well. You also usually get tickets for a free sm

  • I expect the Wealthy people who have these big home theaters systems in their home may invite 100 people to watch the movie with them in their home. which is cheaper then renting out a movie theater for a private showing.
     

    • An oversized room would ruin the sound quality, no rich person is going to waste money making a private theater big enough to invite a bunch of commoners, because it would sound just like what the commoners get; listening to something in a giant cavern.

  • Corporate Events? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Somervillain ( 4719341 ) on Wednesday December 18, 2019 @11:10AM (#59532400)
    I'd assume this is more for corporate events, like allowing a large tech company to do a private screening in their office or for fundraisers. I have a harder time imagining a wealthy individual paying so much to see something 3-6 months before it's available OnDemand. However, organizations hold fundraisers or Employee Appreciation events all the time. My company is screening the new Rise of Skywalker this week in our lunchroom.
  • I wish I had $2,500 to throw down the toilet for a quick happy shiny. I lost my idealism a long time ago because we have rich little playboys who smoke up their money because "HAHA we're better than you!" They can go fuck themselves.

  • Is a bunch of greasy hipsters camping on my front porch to be the first to see the latest Star Wars release.

  • $2500 seems like a paltry sum to be the first to rip and release a first run film. Seems like you could easily make that back on click advertising alone on your pirate streaming/download site.
  • Talk about a pathological lack of delayed gratification.

    • Talk about a pathological lack of delayed gratification.

      That depends who you invited to watch the movie with you, and how much gratitude they show.

      Also, if it shows signs of pathology or not depends on their resource access. If they have enough money that spending $2500 on a trinket or a night out doesn't change their lifestyle, then there would be no cause to even suspect pathology.

  • I'm pretty sure they still watermark the movie with your name just like a screener. Howard Stern talked about it.

  • $2500 a pop?
    Disney's really worried about TRoS.

  • Home video has really changed a lot in recent years. If earlier it was antennas and cable systems, now everything is much easier. There are set-top boxes. I use 420 mag https://www.infomir.eu/eng/pro... [infomir.eu] for watching movies, listening to music concerts. It's all online. This console supports a six-channel surround sound of 5.1 and provides hi-fi sound. There is a built-in standard Wi-Fi module. It's very simple. The quality of the video and sound is gorgeous

  • "But the two say their knowledge of the entertainment industry gives them a fighting chance."

    But you don't know that these wealthy people already likely know the people in these movies that they wish to see, so they get advance screening copies for fucking free from the actor themselves.

    No wonder you aren't already loaded with customers. Duh.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Being against torture ought to be sort of a multipartisan thing." -- Karl Lehenbauer, as amended by Jeff Daiell, a Libertarian

Close