Why is it cheaper? Well there’s no army across the nation of attendants to see you have your popcorn, super screen, super sound set up, nor building costs. Building costs have to be added for everything from rent to seeing that the structure meets fire codes, doesn’t allow cell phones to work, or meets national safety codes for the disabled. Again this looks to be plain out price gouging and greed at work.

Here again the specter of p2p for distribution pops up as the very cheapest way to get it out. Wanna bet if it does become a distribution vehicle that they’ll want to charge the same price for your assistance and use of your own bandwidth? This isn’t going to float anymore than paying the same price for the download as for the theater experience.

Freeman is seeing that if he can get his own distribution channel going he can cut out some of the expense of getting to the customer, line his own pocket before p2p cuts the money channel, and pocket a little extra by being his own delivery service. Nothing wrong in that other than again, there is no reflection to the customer of those savings being passed on. The customer is once again viewed as the cash cow and everything is fair that fleeces that cow. Only thing in argument here appears to be which way the money should flow, not the quality, not passing on a bit of the savings to the customer reflected in the true cost savings being done virtually.

I think that most can agree that Freeman has a good bedside manner when it comes to the movie presence for an actor. What I don’t see is value for the money if that cost is going to up there with the price for theater tickets.