Why Hollywood Should Worry About Samsung’s 110-Inch TV

Samsung Ultra HD TV

Electronics manufacturers are sure to set off a new tech trend of mega-TVs that will encourage more consumers to stay at home

Just days before the Consumer Electronics Show kicks off in Las Vegas next week, Samsung unveiled a massive 110-inch Ultra HD TV that comes with an equally hefty pricetag of $150,000 in South Korea.

While the new TV is out of the reach of most consumers, Samsung has created a ripple that will surely turn into a wave of new mega-TVs the electronics industry will soon unleash from a variety of hardware makers looking to lure buyers with the next big thing. Although 3D TVs — also heavily promoted at CES in the past — have turned out to be a fad, 4K doesn’t look to go down that same route.

And that should have Hollywood worried.

If studios and their exhibition partners were concerned about an increasing number of moviegoers staying at home, the newest 4K TV sets hitting the market over the next year should amp up the anxiety.

Ultra HD provides four times the resolution of a standard high-definition TV currently found in most homes, displaying 8 million pixels rather than 2 million.

While movie theaters show images in 4096 x 2160 resolution, the newest Ultra HD TVs show them in 3840 X 2160, too close for comfort for theater operators. Because of that, expect exhibitors to demand a tighter hold on current release windows in order to protect ticket and concession sales.

Ticket sales this year were stable with 2012, if not slightly higher, according to the National Assn. of Theater Owners, at 1.36 billion sold.

But admissions could start to decline as prices of Ultra HD TVs decrease and consumers opt for more impressive home theaters.

Price points on the newest TV sets have already dropped fairly quickly, with Sears selling a 65-inch 4K TV from Seiki Digital for $2,999 during this holiday season.

The new 4K TVs are also smart TVs, providing access to streaming video apps like Neftlix, YouTube, Amazon and Hulu Plus. Some of those players already are experimenting with 4K streaming in order to be ready for the demand for more programming from buyers of Ultra HD screens.

Sony stepped up this summer to provide buyers of its own 4K TVs movies and TV shows through a new media streamer. And other studios already are filming their movies in 4K — Universal’s “Oblivion” was shot in the format — making the transition to homevideo easier.

The push to promote Digital HD, an earlier window than homevideo disc releases, could also bode well for studios as they look to sell more films through digital platforms and steer consumers away from rentals.

While most analysts believe consumers will likely purchase a 55-inch unit, Samsung’s 110-inch 4K TV provides a glimpse into what’s to come. Earlier this year, Samsung wowed CES-goers with an 85-inch unit providing crystal clear visuals on its massive screen. That unit cost around $40,000.

Samsung says it expects to sell most of its 110-inch TVs in China. But it already has 10 orders for the sets from buyers in the Middle East. The unit is also available in Europe but not yet in North America.

Global sales of Ultra HD TV sets are expected to grow from 1.3 million in 2013 to 23 million in 2017, according to NPD DisplaySearch.

As sales increase, Hollywood’s studio executives will likely be forced to take a closer look at the kinds of movies they greenlight, and the likely result will be slates filled with films that have a wide appeal and developed to be seen on the kind of big screens only multiplexes can provide. As a result, expect less risk taking and more sequels for years to come.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 115

Leave a Reply

115 Comments

Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. Lt Col STan, Jr. says:

    Only ONE commentator has mentioned the fact that SAMSUNG has TVs that have a capacitor problem & was only addressed by a class action lawsuit, filed for people that owned 2008 and prior years TVs. My 55″ SAMSUNG LN52A630M1FXZA was NOT covered by the lawsuit because it was A NEWER MODEL and just died TODAY!!!! Funny, since this TV was a 2 month newer TV, I asked the 9th Samsung phone rep, who I was transferred to, was there any LOGICAL POSSIBILITY that my TV was made with the OLDER CAPACITOR…….he BOLDLY TOLD THE TRUTH that YES, there was a probability that is WAS made w/ the older capacitor that was in the 2008 models…..BUT BECAUSE the 2009 models were NOT addressed in the lawsuit, there WAS NOTHING HE COULD DO ABOUT IT! I was even directed to a computer generated SAMSUNG phone “answering machine” who told me to go to the http://www.samsung.com\capacitorsettlement website THAT NO LONGER EXISTS!

    I have to find a TV repair person (Anyone remember those?) who MIGHT be able to fix it….however, I already looked for the possible part(s) on the web and would you believe it, THEY ARE NO LONGER ABLE TO BE FOUND due to all the TVs that have died before mine, & REPAIR PEOPLE (or Samsung) bought THOSE PARTS!! GO FIGURE!!

    So, I will be talking to a lawyer on Monday to see if he wants to head into ANOTHER class action lawsuit for all of us consumers who were STUPID ENOUGH to have bought a SAMSUNG TV AFTER THE LAWSUIT for the newer 2009+ models!

    I can ONLY PRAY that I can save another person from buying a SAMSUNG PRODUCT knowing that their warranty and consumer relations department don’t GIVE A DAMN about their products once some “sucker” buys them!

    I have a large 55″ diagonal/70 pound paperweight sitting in my livingroom if ANYBODY NEEDS ONE!

    I am also interested to see if SAMSUNG knows how fast the internet social media “TALKS” when lots of consumers are screwed by them and their LOUSY PRODUCTS! I WILL be taking my fight to Twitter/Facebook/etc….etc…..etc…..

    DO NOT, FOR THE SAKE OF YOUR WALLETS AND POCKETBOOKS BUY SAMSUNG!

    Screwed by Samsucks…..
    Lt Col STan, Jr.

  2. jpow says:

    Do you really think people are gonna skip Avatar 2 to stay at home and stream Netflix on a 100 inch screen…lol!!!!!!

  3. Anon says:

    I hate Hollywood and I agree about us paying for the tickets making them rich but not for the same reasons you just said you nut. lol

  4. Mike0oSS says:

    Holliweird could make a couple of ORIGINAL type movies….ya know…ones with a believable story line and plot…without CGI as a crutch for ACTION scenes……yeah..drop a buck and inmpress me…

  5. Vin says:

    I love how every time I logon to one of the trade publications, the comments sections are filled with right-wingers (and in many cases, racists) railing against the evil Marxist anti-American movie industry, and how Hollywood’s days are numbered. Of course, Hollywood just had near-record revenues in 2013, so I don’t see them quaking in their boots. If these conservatives have really quit watching movies, as they repeatedly claim, why spend so much time visiting the trades?

    Also, it’s interesting that Variety’s commenting system claims comments are moderated. Really? There’s some seriously racist and anti-Semitic crap in the comments. Some moderation.

  6. David Thrasher says:

    It’s already is happening. And you can already watch movies at home on a 110 inch screen and larger. It is called a video projector. The strategy for dealing with the problem reported in the article is just more of the same and only contributes to the problem. The real problem is price and selection. It simply costs too much to go to the movies and there are too few movie offerings and they only cover a limited range of stories and audiences. Here’s a suggestion that I’m sure the studios are way too greedy to consider: Movies have already become a loss leader. Why not simply go for numbers right up front and drive down admission prices enough to get butts into seats and pay for the picture further downstream? And how about making it so that these numbers (attendance) are the measure of a movie’s success rather than box office take, which is a distorted measure anyway when you consider differing admission prices in different markets and the fake measure brought on by the need to pay a premium for 3D glasses.

  7. Grammar Spelling says:

    Just read an article the other day about the new pixel war stating we’ve reached a point where higher resolutions cannot be perceived by the human eye and that the 4K technology really offers nothing more for the price paid over “lesser” picture quality.

    Personally I’ve quit movies, and TV, altogether now for over five years and don’t miss a thing except being left out of conversations about tv shows and movies.

    *big yawn*

    • jkim says:

      Agreed. We don’t even have a television and we rarely see movies except those which we know are worth watching…of course that works out to be a very small number. Then we will watch it on the computer. When we do go out to see one, we go to our local “cheap” theater that shows movies that are finished at the full-priced theaters. By then, we know enough to expect the hour and a half will be well spent.

      Hollywood has been enthusiastically digging its own grave with the garbage it puts out. Now let them lie in it.

  8. Justin Case says:

    Hollywood has nothing to fear from the people. the people do not has the integrity to walk away from movies or TV in mass. The people are addicted and would rather give up their freedoms and country then to give up their TV. I am one of the few who gave up TV and movies but I do not expect many to follow my lead, Americans in general are pathetic.

  9. Paul Lane says:

    I have to agree. I’m afraid to go to the local cinema (Richmond, CA) because the AfAm teens will punch you out for a thrill or a Mcdonald’s lunch. No thanks.

  10. Joe says:

    You can get an hd projector now for $1,000 that will throw a fantastic 110″ picture. There’s no need for the extra resolution at home. It’s very uncomfortable to sit close enough to see any pixelation. Good audio is a whole lot more difficult to get right at home.

  11. Erik C says:

    There is almost no industry as short-sighted, ultra-conservative in its business models, and panic-attack-terrified of change as the Hollywood film industry. This is the lame-brained bunch that moaned that VCRs would be like “Jack the Ripper” to their profits, when in fact home video turned out to be a major revenue stream. The movie industry can survive this just fine (if they get out of their terrorized paralysis), but the theater business is probably going to suffer badly. And good riddance – they’re even worse than Hollywood. What idiot came up with a business model that charges the same price for an indie flick as a mega-budget blockbuster? That doesn’t adjust prices based on popularity over time – so they (and we) have crazy packed lines on opening weekends and then 95% empty theaters further down the run? Could they possibly do “better” to minimize the utilization of their fixed overhead? That still sell us stale popcorn and candy rather than offering us healthier snacks? I could go on and on. There are a few tiny chains that now offer amenities like reserved seating and alcoholic beverages (a near-requrement for many of the crap movies these days) but even then if you’re going to the trouble of assigning them, why price the nearly unwanted front corner seats the same as the highly desirable middle seats? Not only do you make more money on the enthusiasm of those who want their “optimal” experience based on time preference and theater position, but you can fill less desirable seats at a lower price and allow others on tighter budgets (or who would otherwise not queue up at all because their level of preference doesn’t cross the line of the ticket price) to enjoy a flick.

    If Hollywood wants to make more money, maybe they should kick out something new every once in awhile rather than rebooting Spiderman (a mathematical analysis of this trend shows that by the year 2032 we will be seeing a new Spiderman reboot every three days)? Don’t get me wrong, I can enjoy a good Spiderman flick now and then. It’s just that I also read a bit and there are … oh, I don’t know … approximately 8 trillion other good stories that haven’t been made even once yet. I’ve taken to watching more foreign films (especially Chinese) because I’d rather see a new story that actually makes sense combined with special effects that look like they were done on a first generation Amiga than a plot hole-filled (unfilled? These are holes…) rerun with (unintentionally) laughable dialog and a $100,000,000 effects budget. And so would a lot of other people, judging by some of the box office numbers that don’t involve Joss Wheden (also, screw you, entertainment industry, for canceling Firefly and Dollhouse). I don’t know – maybe there are only five good screenwriters to go around, but I kinda doubt it.

    Actually, we don’t really have to worry about Hollywood’s inevitable disintegration over its disinterest in the future. There are newer and cooler business models for making movies. Kickstarter is genius in its ability to offer varying levels of participation and rewards in developing projects. Star value is decreasing in an age of social media-driven media consumption. Production costs are dropping with companies like Red offering affordable cameras and Apple making 4K video editing available to anyone with a serious itch to scratch. Markets will ultimately deliver what we, the consumers want to demand. It’s up to Hollywood as to whether or not they will be involved in this.

    • jpow says:

      Hollywood is not declining…but you must understand that America is only a small portion of their business…global profits are up…they don’t care that broke working class people can’t afford $10 tickets or $5 popcorn…you are irrelevant to their business model…they are designed for comfortably middle class people all over the world…not peasants and serfs…there is no new model for film production and distribution…that’s just web chatter and digital propaganda…oh, and star value is more important than ever…people crave stars to worship and gossip about…and they wanna watch what everyone else is watching…Hollywood and popular culture is already delivering what the people want…that’s why they
      earn billions per year….won’t change anytime soon…good luck with the youtube movie revolution…lol

  12. Barry M says:

    Why go to a movie theater with the gangs and Knockout Games. I know an older white couple who went to see a movie at 2 pm. He was punch in a knockout game and his jaw was fractured. No one was arrested and it was in a nice suburban area. Movie theaters are too dangerous.

  13. Loser says:

    No mention of true refresh rate on the 4K sets. Real refresh rates, not the “new math” mumbo jumbo TruMotion, CMR, CRM, M.O.U.S.E…..Hertz,Hz, cycles per second if you are over 70 years old. FPS, etc.

  14. Out of curiosity, what do you spend your time watching?

  15. John says:

    The last three movies I have seen at a theater are Crocodile Dundee (when I was 18), Gladiator and The Patriot. I am the Hollywood’s worst nightmare. I have a large disposable income but refuse to spend it to support their garbage. I selectively buy movies and watch them at home in massive HD/surround in a comfortable chair. I’m not so naive as to believe they are not benefiting from my purchasing of the DVD or BluRay but it is a far smaller percentage than if I went to attend a theater screening. It is always amusing to me to see the torturous rationale that is used as to why a movie failed. ‘The marketing was wrong’, ‘Amercian audiences aren’t sophisticated enough to understand the concept’, ‘it was poor timing to release it in the Fall’ etc. How about IT WAS $HIT and had a cast of LIBERAL DIP$HITS that espouse a view that 80 % of the people in the country don’t agree with? The first time I saw Alec Baldwin on a Capital One advert I cut up my card and cancelled the account. Now they are trying to lure me back with Samuel Jackson? That aint happening.

    I’m from New Zealand. I remember watching Peter Jackson’s first movie ‘Bad Taste’ and ‘Meet the Feebles’. My flatmate at University had a sister whose house was used in the movie ‘Brain Dead’ (can’t remember what it was called in the US). I hunted and fished all around the places the LOTR movies were filmed but I didn’t spend a dime to go see the movies at the theater. I waited until I could get them all as the Directors Cut to watch at home. Nothing against PJ or the cast of liberal morons (not all of them, but some) but I can wait. If a lot of other people behaved like I did Hollywood would be reassessing a lot of what they do.

  16. Mike Turag says:

    Passion of the Christ only grossed around $600m. The rest of the comments are just funny.

  17. Country_Dog says:

    Jack, you have stated my reasons why I have boycotted many movies. I’ll bet I’ve seen maybe two movies this year. The year before, I think one. Actors, actresses, producers, and directors have the right to state their opinions. I have the right to not subsidize those opinions.

  18. CTRaider says:

    Hollywood just had a record year (11 Billion).
    This is the same argument used every time new technology is rolled out.

    Therefore this article is clearly just trolling.
    Go row your boat elsewhere.

    • Barry M says:

      This is why my 18 Plex sends out coupons every week and the place is usually empty like a ghost town. Wait til next year when healthcare skyrockets.

  19. Nolff says:

    The DrudgeTards have arrived

  20. Brian says:

    I found that in a theater, the optimal viewing area equals the SAME viewing area on a tablet or laptop screen. Don’t believe me? Measure the screen from where you are sitting in a theater. Not the actual screen, but what you perceive.

    Now ask yourself why the hell you’re paying all that money for a ticket and concessions for something that actually sucked anyways, when you can wait, and grab it at either a red box or one of the online streaming sources later on for far less…. (except maybe Netflix…)

  21. Hollywood just has to charge more for the higher resolution movies. Netflix just announced that it will charge less for low resolution movies. People with more expensive systems will gladly pay more while people with cheaper systems will be glad to pay less.

  22. Tsar777 says:

    I go to the 24 cinema during the week for five bucks. Can of diet coke in one pocket and pop secret in the other. I enter the movie 20 minutes after the starting time to miss the previews and commercials. I give it twenty minutes and if the movie is going nowhere I jump to another. If I catch a good movie, I note it and eventually buy the DVD at Walmart for five or ten bucks. I have a 65″ Panasonic plasma at home where I rewatch these DVD gems. I feel that about one in twenty movies are pretty good. I like the enveloping experience of a big screen movie theater. There is no texting in the weekday as only five customers are there and I sit down front.

  23. Madrigal Man says:

    I bought a Sharp 70″ 3D LED LCD TV last year. My family and I have only been to the theater once since then and that was only because we were visiting someone out of town. Active 3D on an HD screen designed for 3D looks 100X better than passive 3D in a theater anyway. Not to mention, the fridge is stocked and the snacks are cheaper.

  24. Cincinnatus says:

    Considering I haven’t been to a movie theator in 6 years because I don’t like to pay the high prices for garbage from Hollywood. There hasn’t been a movie out in a long time that I have even thought that looks interesting. Besides – the food is cheaper at my house and I am not paying to support an industry that bashes everything I believe in.

  25. Mike Wilson says:

    The thing that movie theatres should really worry about can be summed up in two words: Bed bugs.

  26. Make movies, not political statements that reflect only your boring tedious leftest views.
    Ipso facto your leftest views have to be boring, because they come with the “politically correct” rule book.

  27. CitizenKane says:

    Hollywood and Silicon Valley need to figure out how to broadcast movies like SnapChat…pay for one time viewing but unable to download or store or record. It can be done. Once Hollywood allows people to buy movies at home, the need for traditional theaters is not viable, and the trend will be more towards theaters that serve food and alcohol….its just too expensive to go to the movies…

  28. tomkay1012 says:

    The quality of the picture is not what Hollywood should be worried about, it’s the content quality

  29. ragu4u says:

    I’d rather stay at home and not have to worry about my feet sticking to the auditorium floor like in a sleezy peep-show booth. (So I’m told)

  30. Except… there’s no 4K content and at average viewing distances most people can’t tell the difference between 4K and 1080p, and the vast majority of “HD” TV is still only sent out in 780P…. so there’s nothing more worry about compared to monster regular HDTVs

  31. Rujholla says:

    Hollywood should learn from the music industry! When they tried to prevent digital distribution of music, it just led to things like Napster and lots of black market downloading. Hollywood should be looking at ways to allow people to pay money to stream high quality movies the day of release. If they are paying up to 150K for a TV then they are probably willing to pay more than Hollywood makes off a ticket sale to watch at home. For me the big problem with going to a theater these days is dealing with all the rude people texting, talking, etc. I would consider it worth quite a bit to be able to watch something on release day at home.

  32. I have to disagree. Hollywood shouldn’t worry about the size of TVs keeping people in. People either want to go out or they don’t. What Hollywood should worry about is the quality of movies they release. I can’t remember the last good movie that came out worth seeing in theaters.

  33. Kevin Weindorf says:

    I remember when the flat panel TV came out for $10k, looks like we just have to wait for the 95% price drop like the first flat panel…

  34. Ghost says:

    Hollywood has a lot more to worry about than a silly 110 inch TV set! For over a decade a lot of the movies that have come out of Hollywood has consisted of one clunker after another after another and if they don’t start coming up with some better ideas for the future Hollywood is going to slip beneath the waves right in front of their eyes!

  35. jules says:

    No need for hollywood to fear this tv at $150k. Once the price drops to say $15K, and the resolution is increased, hollywood might then be really in. trouble.

  36. dolly says:

    These prices are 150k now, but they’ll come down a lot in a short amount of time. Remember how expensive LCD and Plasma TVs were when they first came out. I remember them being $20-40k. The real price gouge is at the theater and all sporting events. Staying at home starts sounding real nice when you would otherwise have to spend $50-120 to go to see a movie with your family or $200-500 for one college game in the nose-bleeds (for parking, concession, and tickets). Staying in the comforts of home offers being able to pause and rewind and having the best seat in the house without the drunk behind you cursing, kicking your seats, talking on the phone, and/or spilling peanuts and beer on you or dealing with the traffic jam at the end among other things.

  37. rajj says:

    Reminds me of video games and arcades. Once the consoles started catching up to arcade machines in technology most arcades shut down and people just played at home.

  38. Tom says:

    I think all sports are in trouble because of HDTV.

  39. floridaforeclosure says:

    Why would anyone in their right mind spend so much on one of these Ultra HD TVs when you can buy a top of the line 1080p home theatre projector and 120″ screen for around 3 grand out the door?!

    Yes, you could also buy a 4k projector and a screen for around 25-30 grand, but there is almost zero 4k content to watch right now, and that won’t change much in the next year.

    If I had to choose between a 55″ ultra HD and a 120″ 1080p image for half the price, it’s a no brainer.

  40. Fargin Bastiges says:

    At $150K at each, I’m sure EVERYONE will buy one right after they’ve bought their new health insurance on their part-time jobs.

  41. Mike says:

    Dalton, you have said it all. Hollywood in 2013 is practically irrelevant (as are the TV networks). The best content consists of classic, foreign, and indie films. And the best place to watch them is on a big screen HDTV with 7.1 sound, sitting in a comfortable chair in a clean, safe room.

  42. Mike says:

    Given the increase in violence at movie theaters (real violence, not screen violence), who wants to risk their lives venturing into public space when they can get a better experience at home? Between “Knockout King” and flash mob invasions of theaters and shopping malls, public spaces (especially in urban areas) are simply no longer safe. Government is no longer capable of maintaining public order. When the price of these sets come down to $5,000 or less, sales will take off and movie houses will be deserted. Crime is causing a mass retreat from public spaces. This is far bigger threat to Hollywood (and the economy as a whole) than the advent of bigger TVs.

  43. J Waggoner says:

    Problem is 3D movies need to be glasses free if you want people to pay for it. or at least give me the Disney type glasses with no frames. Frankly though series like Downtown Abbey and Game of thrones don’t give people much incentive to go see a bomb like Pacific Rim. Thor 2 was great but I know some people only going 2 or 3 times a year now that used to go about 5 or 7 times. It adds up especially with kids. Plus if you go and see a movie and it sucks you feel like you wasted your time, wish I had got up during that last Die hard movie and left early cause it SUCKED.

  44. CitizenTM says:

    I will get a 4K Television, because is can double up as my computer screen for editing and graphics work – or rather as two split computer screens – and I prefer only one large screen in my home.

  45. DarkStarAz says:

    The ones who need to worry are not Hollywood producers but the theater owners. Content is king, delivery is a side-note.

  46. Charles Kenwood says:

    Hollywood is running out of stream for I have seen few and few movies with good plots to them and for anything with imagination and new not much or nothing at all. Like fast and futile after the first one the plot was the same. Like the remake of Batman,Superman ans Spider man no new plots or story line which in most cases is flat lined on imagination. Even I half drunk could come up with better plots then movies today.

  47. It only took me reading 6 posts before somebody needlessly brought up politics in a comment section that has nothing to do with politics. Good job.

  48. Theater owners should just NOW be worried? The living room surpassed everything but IMAX years ago.

  49. Peter says:

    4K in the home? Yeah, right. A little perspective here: Full raster 1080p chews up almost a gig per second, but we barely get 5 MB per second off cable and broadband. Do the math. What broadcasters call “HD” is actually a pathetic fraction of the actual concept.

    HD is not the enemy. Anorexic throughput to the HD home theater is. No amount of extra pixels is going to change that. In fact, it’s just going to make the problem that much more noticeable. “4K” in the home is nothing more than a marketing scam concocted by appliance manufacturers. Anyone who pays $150K for this nonsense deserves the bout of depression that follows.

    • J Waggoner says:

      You are a little crazy, you can already get 50gb on a dual layer dual sided blu-ray, And Philips has been working on a disk that will do 250gb. So don’t be so sure. Plus the main advantage of a 4k set is people can get rid of multiple computer monitors and have one big 60 inch monitor. You can already get monitors of 50 inches for 1299 wholesale. Just no frills. 4K will come and more than likely it will be on blu-ray.

      • He’s not crazy. “HD” television channels are almost always 780p at best, and thats coming through your cable line. “HD” streaming is not 1080P either. The only thing that is 1080P is blu-ray. And not only that, but at average viewing distances, most people will not be able to tell the difference between a 1080p tv and a 4K tv.

More Digital News from Variety

Loading