For over a century, movie theaters have adapted to remain one of the world’s greatest pastimes. But since the 1990s, this industry has had one particular goal: avoid going down the music industry’s path of piracy and business model failures.

Now, movies are continuing to innovate, but with this innovation comes uncertainty. Hollywood’s newest innovation, the Screening Room (TSR), puts a lot up to chance, but this high risk could equal high reward.

TSR was created by Napster founder Sean Parker, whom you may remember being portrayed by Justin Timberlake in one of my all-time favorite films “The Social Network.” It’s a top-set box that, for around $150, customers could buy and attach to their television.

With TSR, customers could buy a film on its theatrical release date for $50, which would be viewable once for 48 hours after purchase. Movie theaters would make $20 of the $50 sold, and customers would receive two tickets to the film in theaters, so that the theater could make more money from concessions.

Looking forward to seeing “My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2” but you don’t want to schlep to Destiny USA? You could gather your friends, put in $50 and watch the film on TSR. If you enjoyed the film so much you want to see it again, you could do so easily with your two theater tickets.

There are many notable supporters of TSR, such as Peter Jackson, J.J. Abrams, Ron Howard and Steven Spielberg. These are seasoned Hollywood veterans, and more importantly, have mastered the art of making money in film. They, along with the creators of TSR, say this service would not replace seeing a film in theaters but rather expand the audience.

The one-time film viewing has a high price of $50, so this service would be targeted at customers with money to spend. Specifically, the target market would be adults who cannot make it or do not want to go to the theater, which includes early parents and seniors. These audiences probably wouldn’t see the film in theaters anyway, so why not give them an option to view it in a comfortable setting for a premium price? Win-win, right?

It’s not that simple.

Just as TSR has its supporters, there are many detractors who also know a thing or two about making money in the film industry, such as Christopher Nolan and James Cameron. They say that even though TSR has the opportunity to expand a film’s audience and reach, eventually this expansion could be so large it could become a replacement.

Many worry this service will not prevent piracy adequately. Sure, there will be encryption methods, but there is always someone who can outsmart these devices — if not just outright videotape their television screen. And more so, what happens if this product becomes too successful? Will people simply not go to the theater?

Ultimately, film is a medium that is meant to be seen in the theater. If we cut out that first step, are films just long television shows? What are the artistic ramifications of this service? TSR seems to have a business model where theaters, film producers and customers all win. But we have to ask ourselves, is this too good to be true?

I think the TSR is an excellent idea in 2016, but I worry what would happen in 2020. The biggest losers in this situation would likely be independent theaters, such as the arthouse in Manlius, where highbrow audiences typically gather but would now have the option to stay home.

The big chains will survive, but the little guy will be trounced yet again. Having first-run blockbusters in homes is a slippery slope, but maybe this will just force producers to create experiences that have to be seen in theaters. TSR could be the solution to help the film industry continue to thrive. But once this path is crossed, there is no going back.

Erik Benjamin is a sophomore television, radio and film major. His column appears weekly in Pulp. You can email him at ebenjami@syr.edu or follow him @embenjamin14 on Twitter. He doesn’t thinking making a million dollars is cool, he thinks making a billion dollars is cool.

Published on March 20, 2016 at 9:06 pm