Slashdot Mirror
Revamping the Movie Distribution Chain
ianscot writes "Steve Soderberg's latest film will be released in a manner that directly challenges the traditional Hollywood distribution chain. Soderberg's been influenced by Mark Cuban, the dot-com billionaire who owns the NBA's Dallas Mavericks, and Todd Wagner, another dot-commer whose ideas about the movie business are radical departures. Wagner's financing this one. The movie, Bubble, is the first of six that Soderberg will film in HD video; all will be released simultaneously in theaters, as HDNet movies, and on DVDs." From the article: "As independents, Soderbergh and Wagner are willing to talk openly about subjects that are being hotly debated behind closed doors elsewhere in Hollywood. When Disney chief Robert Iger recently brought up the concept of shortening the window between theatrical release and DVD, he was fiercely criticised by the National Association of Theatre Owners."
I'm glad that someone is taking a logical look at the distribution system again. From what I understand this article to mean, the movie would be released as a DVD on the internet and simultaneously in theaters. WONDERFULL! I'm sick of paying $7 + $5 for movie popcorn and a drink when I could buy (to own forever) the movie later for $20 (provided I don't get it through another means before then). Two words are all it takes to describe my emotion... THANK YOU!!! I hope that this does well and others follow the example.
Just so that you don't have to do it, "I for one hail our new movie overlords" (or something to that effect)
Sincerely,
Andrew Allen
In two years, it will read:
"all will be released simultaneously in theaters, as HDNet movies, on DVDs, and for download on iTunesVideo"
When Disney chief Robert Iger recently brought up the concept of shortening the window between theatrical release and DVD, he was fiercely criticised by the National Association of Theatre Owners.
:-)
The cycle is WAY shorter than it used to be. I remember back in the Bad Old Days(TM) when you would have to wait until a year after the movie left the theaters to see in on VHS. And that was only if the movie studio felt that the movie would do well resold on tape.
Now we barely have to wait 3-4 months after its initial release before it appears in stores on DVD! It's so quick anymore, that sometimes it feels like it's on DVD as soon as it's out of the theater. I realize that for some people that may seem slow, but for those of us who remember, that's one hell of a fast turnaround!
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Having a home theater at home, the only reason I go to theaters is just so I can brag about seeing it before everyone else (who usually wait for the DVD). So if they release it on DVD and theaters simuntaneously I's rather just rent the movie in my 19.99/month unlimited dvd plan instead of paying $8.00/seat in a theater. Just my 2 cents.
What does your Credit Report look like?
he was fiercely criticised by the National Association of Theatre Owners.
:-P
You know, he should be really careful about pissing off NATO. Otherwise he may find a nuke landing square on his doorstep!
(Thank you, thank you! I'll be here all night. Wait, no I won't. I'm going to bed.)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
... is because generally it's higher resolution than DVDs and their sound system is usually better than what I have at home. Other reasons would be a social gathering or something. It's hardly ever the case that I go to watch movies because I can't wait for the DVDs to come out.
This would also be a very good opportunity to get rid of the irritating DVD release zones. I think these zones are ment to align the DVD releases in all countries with the movie releases, which are also shifted around the world (what's actually wrong with one world-wide release date?).
But what they actually do is just give you lots of trouble when anyone outside the US or Japan wants to order a DVD that's only available there (no matter how long ago it was released!), and then has to find a zone-free DVD-player, or heck their existing one, etc.
Just stop with this crap, and you'll have a world-wide market for all your DVD's! Doesn't that sound nice?
molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
If the movie bombs in one region, they've just wasted money by releasing the movie simultaneously in thousands of other locations that will fail almost equally. By staggering the release times, if the movie generally fails, they may choose not to release it at all in a specific zone.
hello dear sirs my name is jamesh i are india (bihar) can u guide me install red had linux 9?
It's interesting that the National Assocation of Theater O shares and acronym with another organisation who actually usefulness is doing that toilet bowl spiral.
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...
What do you think will be the most popular format for purchase? I think either DVD or download by a bit. This is a nice idea and I hope others follow suit.
Mark Cuban, the dot-com billionaire who owns the NBA's Dallas Mavericks, and Todd Wagner
At least people in the movie business are coming to grips with the reality that people have access to the movie via the internet as soon as it hits theaters anyway. At least this way they can make some money off of it.
The sooner these content producers realize that change in their distribution sceme (and copyright in general) is inevitable and is a Good Thing(R) the sooner we can start seeing more people making more stuff, and more money flowing.
I'm sure there were a few monks who weren't happy about the advent of the Luther bible, but they adapted and the bible is still a number one best seller. The film industry was terrified of the VCR, but now we see more movies getting made by more people and more money flowing. The Internet and "piracy" are just harbingers of another change in progress. Personally, I'm pretty excited for it to finally get here so I don't have to put up with being called a thief for downloading movies that I could legitimately get through my netflix subscription but don't feel like waiting for.
It's $24 to go to the movies, it's $24 to buy the DVD.
They ought to just charge $34 to go to the movies, but you get a copy of the DVD too. If you only want the DVD, you pay $24.
The release zones, as I understand it, not only allow them to effectively release the movie at different times in different areas -because they prevent exporting the released movie to other zones-, they also allow the movie companies to charge vastly different prices in each zone. It seems like that should be illegal (I thought it is illegal!).
BTW, This sentence would like to apologize for the strange (at best) punctuation exibited in the first sentence of this post. This sentence thanks you for your tolerance, and encourages you to make any suggestions that you believe would improve the readability of the first sentence. This final sentence exists merely to mock those who would pay it any attention whatsoever.
I really hope the movies they make are good ones, and good sellers, or else this little experiment will lengthen the time it takes before this is common practice.
The reality is that the whole process of seeing a movie in a theater continues to lose its luster. It is too expensive. The food and drinks keep getting more and more outrageous in price. It is too inconvenient. Even in pure performance, the theater is losing out - more and more people have equal or superior sound and visual quality in their home theaters.
Also, it is better to sell copies of your movie immediately and eliminate one of the biggest reasons people pirate movies over the internet.
This is a huge boon to people with children. Going to see a movie is a pretty tough task when you have kids (not to mention, the expense is astronomical).
-Michael
Threshold RPG
Steven Soderbergh's "3-pronged attack" is being watched closely by Hollywood. This Theater-Cable-DVD simultaneous release of a new movie to the public is actually one of the counter measures against privacy movie people have thought about but never really dared to try. So, give Mr. Soderbergh a chance, and maybe years down the line they might even use words like "pioneer" to describe him.
h tml).
"Bubble", shot for $1.6 million, may be a cheapo in Hollywood standard, but Soderbergh was serious enough to use the same high-definition camera George Lucas used for two "Star Wars" movies, as described in a New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/22/movies/22bubb.
Sun and Fun
Primarily because the Theatres only get a tiny fraction of any box office recipts when a movie first opens, then as the weeks pass, their percentage goes up. Sure, they make a ton of money off of popcorn and candy, But when you're paying 7 or 8 bucks to see a movie, 95 - 99 percent of that goes straight to the Movie Companies. So, if the Movie Companies continue to shorten the life of a first run movie, those Theatre owners are going to have to adapt or die.
So they're fighting to maintain some sort of status quo. It's not right or wrong, it's just why they will fight this so hard.
I suppose the next question is, At what point will major, non sucky, movies get released straight to DVD (or whatever media is in vogue)? Currently straight to video is a pretty strong indication that a movie is sucky. How much longer before that will not be true?
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble. I like my coffee black, just like my metal" - Mindless Self Indulgence
What we really need is open content movies (commercial or community projects) that are available with source materials, have no DRM, and can be freely edited, redistributed, etc.
It'd be a perfect project for theatre students, film students, etc. Write their own script, produce their own movie, and release it online. If small companies and community groups don't have the resources to create the next Hollywood blockbuster then surely they do have the resources to create something of the quality we may have seen from the 80's or before (pre-CGI). Possibly even explore ideas that Hollywood has ignored. This kind of grassroots movie is what independent films should be.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
If the movie bombs in one region, they've just wasted money by releasing the movie simultaneously in thousands of other locations that will fail almost equally
But if they don't want a dvd from one region to leak to another that has not shown the movie yet, then they shouldn't release the damned DVD... and doing so is their own damned fault. If region codes expired I could somewhat accept this, but they are basicly trying to withhold the right to play media you bought in good faith indefinatly which has been argued violates the WTO... something I personaly can't conferm.
Besides region codes have become pointless anyway except for good old region 1 where it's not as common to find region free decks in stores.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
I thought it is illegal!
Different nations, different laws. Play that for profit. America has anti "dumping" laws, but there's no reason why India should object to getting American DVDs cheaper than Americans have to pay, nor is there any law that American companies can't charge what they want in America for American products. They could just give the stuff away as a promotional item if they wished.
The region coding exists so that Americans can't just order $3 DVDs from Indian discount suppliers.
KFG
I agree, it's about time that we see some changes in the Hollywood world, but I think it's a bit ironic that Steven Soderbergh is the one pushing ahead.
I think many/most of us would agree that Hollywood movies generally suck, and the experience is even worse when you factor in inflated ticket prices, bad (and expensive) movie food/snacks, noisy kids/cellphones, parking nightmares, etc. So it's interesting to me that it would be Soderbergh would leads the charge for us to leave that all behind. Because it's Soderbergh himself who has produced or directed some really great films, including Pleasantville, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, Ocean's Eleven (and Twelve), Erin Brokovich, and one of my favorite movies of all time, Traffic.
The irony is that it's the work of guys like Soderbergh who keep me going to the otherwise shithole movie theaters.
Let's say that Soderburgh kicks something off and the "window" or whatever between movie theatrical release and movie dvd release literally disappears.
Will the nation's movie theaters react by
1) Starting to actually make movies a pleasant experience?, or
2) Going bankrupt?
* If you buy a DVD movie then you increase the demand for DVD disc. The production of DVD movies causes pollution and great additional damage to biological diversity on earth.
* If you download a movie from the Internet, legally or not, paid for or not, then you are NOT in any way causing additional damage to the earth and biological diversity on earth.
I do understand that the device used to enjoy the movie casues harm and pollution in both cases, but given that you have a DVD player or a computer already, the first casues additional damage while downloading a movie from the Internet DOES NOT. Sorry, but regardless of Soderberg's alleged new idea of shortening the window, I personally find the whole very evil model it that is a insignificant part of rotten, evil and sickening. Yes, I know I sound like a wacko to some people and if you are one of those, then try to think five or ten generations ahead, and put those thoughts in perspective: Humans have only known how to write for a mere lousy 100 generations. The industrial revolution started only 300 years ago and that is when we, all humans, really started to efficiently destroy the environment we do not own, but are lending from our children, their children and all the other species we are sharing the planet with. Soderberg could easily do what would really show foresight and be revolutionary: ONLY sell his movies on-line. That would be sustainable. DVD discs are NOT sustainable and therefore a very bad thing, even if the DVD is released after a shorter window than normal.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
Make no mistake. This is not about customer's movie watching lives. Its about profits.
Band routinely sell merchandise and CD's after concerts. You've seen the band and as a souvenir you can buy the album for usually less than retail prices.
For films something similar could be done: You have seen the movie, and you were -no doubt- very impressed. A very good mindset for the merchant that is offering the DVD right at the exit(at a less then retail price). Instead of complaining, theatre owners should grasp this golden opportunity.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Am I the only one holding off on DVD purchases because I'm waiting for the new HD disks?
I figure some shows won't ever be re-done into HD, I'm betting that most of the profitable movies will be.
Here's hoping for an early release of HD-Ghostbusters.
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
Too expensive. And that is just the film. Factor in popcorn and coke, and the price for one evening is enough for me to rent the film many times over. Family outings are simply prohibitively expensive.
Too fuzzy. The quality of the picture in your average cinema is inexcusable. Maybe it is because I spend my life in front of a DVI screen and watch DVDs on a fairly large TV, but I simply will not accept scratches and blurs and lack of focus any more, especially not at that price. Simply said, the picture quality on my home system is better, and it's not like I spent thousands and thousands on it.
Other people I know complain about the obnoxious behavior of the other viewers, but I can't say that's a problem where I live. But one way or the other, if the people running the cinema chains want to stay in business, they will have to seriously re-adjust the price/quality ratio. At the moment, it is simply not worth it.
While I think some small, niche, indie films would do fine with a big screen, net, and DVD release at the same time, it is not going to be the next big thing. The main reason has to do with the role nationwide movie theater showings have. If you look at it for a minute, by doing a national release you get a level of publicity above and beyond anything you could ever pay for. Every newspaper in the country runs film reviews for new movies that open. Coming Attraction shows promote films. And there are the theater ran ads and plain show listings that customers look at several times a month. This high level of promotion is also over a period of time, which is very effective at driving the interest in something. Even if the consumer doesn't go to the theater when it is released, when that DVD shows up in stores he has already been exposed to it. Add in the paid promotional events and you end up with (ideally) a profitable big screen run, followed by a profitable DVD run -- not to mention pay-per-view, paid cable, cable, and finally broadcast TV. All of these events launch off that wide scale roll out, it provides a vast amount of unpurchasable publicity.
If you change the model and ship the film just once in several formats, your faced with having to sell the DVD and net versions without all that exposure over the nationwide release. And if the movie theater owners don't keep your movie around (because everyone is just buying the DVD) or they don't buy local newspaper/net ads, you may get less publicity than you might have if you had stuck to the normal schedule. Even if the publicity is identical and no one scales back because it is on DVD too, you still will lose the timed exposure. Like cooking by turning up the heat really high, it may not be as good a meal even if it is cooked the same amount.
The comic book industry has this same problem. Everyone wants to buy the trade paperbacks and skip the monthly issues. Which is fine, but it means giving up six months of exposure and advertising. Since it is going to take six months to make the six issues of the trade paperback anyway, if the monthly floppies can sell well enough to warrant shipping them, them being on shelves is more than worth having. Skipping right to the trade means giving up a whole lot of promotion.
For smaller indie films however it may make a lot of sense. They don't get as much out of the big screen roll out (usually because they only hit limited cities and play on screens that don't do much advertising). A combination DVD and big screen release might actually make the film more money, since mail order DVD's can cover the whole country. But once you cross over to the major studio film, I think the total revenue isn't going to be as much.
Have you got some ? Solar panels have an enviornmental impact during manufacture, even if they produce "free" electricity.
What about your impact on the environment, just by living ? You're killing plants and possibly animals because you eat, there were bugs and plants killed during the manufacture and building of your house, bike etc. If you want to have a significant impact on saving the environment, I suggest killing yourself, because it will immediately and very effectively prevent the environmental damage you'll cause by your mere existance for the next 30 to 50 years (or however long you live).
* If you download a movie from the Internet, legally or not, paid for or not, then you are NOT in any way causing additional damage to the earth and biological diversity on earth.
That's the first time I've heard of environmental impact being used to justify the theft of other people's right to control the copying of their work.
Are you next going to suggest robbing banks so that they can't give money to people because those people might then go and buy an SUV which has an environmental impact ?
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
My first instinct after reading this article is to be really happy that people are looking to explore around some. However, I really don't see this changing anything. I can easily see this movie going on sale via the net in a digital format, and many people just simply opting out.
I don't know what the rave is really all about when it comes to having the ability to download movies dititally. I think people automatically associate the whole idea of a file download with the word free, which is exactly the opposite of what people are looking to do. I think most people are interested in supporting others.
Unless they can be realistic and say: Okay, you are downloading the movie, you are going to use your own CDs, hardware to manufactur it, etc. All we want is the money we took to produce the thing and pay for our distribution service; they won't have much response.
For example, if they are going to charge me $8 for a download, I will most likely just go buy the damn thing. However, if the DVD will cost me $10 and they offer a download for $4... I would be tempted to download the movie and burn it myself.
Possibly even explore ideas that Hollywood has ignored. This kind of grassroots movie is what independent films should be.
If I may make a reference?
Cartman: Naw dude, Independent films are those black and white hippy movies. They're always about gay cowboys eating pudding.
If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
There already are some open source movies, for example Route 66 , a german movie. It is released under a creative commons license and you can actually get all the source materials if you send them a large enough harddrive where they can copy the data too. And the movie is actually not bad, it sold quite some DVDs despite that you can freely download it :)
To survive the movie theatres have to take a leaf out of the book of the stage theatres and make the total experience something that is worthwhile - something that you can't get at home. There are a few approaches they could take:
- 3D on large immersive screens, to put you in the middle of the action in a way that home cinema can't. We can already see that on the starting blocks.
- lower cost and closer. Reduce the barriers to attendance by making it easier to attend.
- improve the total experience. Turn some of the space over to dining, include discussions and explainations, competitions, free DVD copies - making the film part of a larger event that people are more likely to stump up for. This is akin to the way the stage theatre has become an 'event' rather than a norm.
Whichever direction is taken, its obvious that the status quo has no hope of continuing. Within five years the distribution model will have switched, and with it will go a blurring of the line between TV and movie. Smart theatre owners will be starting to shift now.
"what's actually wrong with one world-wide release date?" It costs a heck of a lot of cash to print enough reels to cover all courtries at once, and also it gives the studios a chance to have the actors do interviews in several areas of the globe just as the film comes out locally.
Rottentomatoes are advertising movies on DVD that are just in the middle of their cinema run here, at the minute region free discs might spoil things for theaters in certain parts of the world.
What should help things is if we see widespread digital projection (here in Ireland plans are afoot to equip every cinema in the country with digital projectors. Irish people have among the highest cinema attendance rates in europe, despite the abundance of home theater systems in homes)
If distributing a film worldwide is just a case of relaying it via a satellite system or virtual private network over the net (hey there's an opening for google into another industry!!) then releasing at the same time worldwide becomes more faesible. All we have to do now is clone the actors so they can be at 5 premiers at once (^^)
When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
oops, it it too late to include a tag? guess so ;o)
When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
June 15th of 2004, specs approved. (article here) Yet the various players are still squabbling over blue-ray vs. whatever the fuck I couldn't care less about.
That said, you are not alone. I rarely buy DVD's.. instead, i spend the money i would put into DVD purchase, into my digital cable bill. HD-DVD + HD(HBO/STARZ/CINEMAX/INHD/ETC) ensures I get to see at least 6-10 contemporary films a month in HD. Best ancillary benifit of this situation, is that I get to see a lot of random films I wouldn't have bought in HD-DVD format.. such as The Princess Bride, which I hadn't seen in 10+ yrs, and (as a filmmaker) now I discovered all sorts of very interesting cinematic details that were lost on me the first time around (not to mention I originally saw it on VHS --ack!).
As an aside, one of the interesting things for me to see, is how terrible the scans of some of the newer films are, as well as how awesome the scans of some random 80's films are.
Unless you have been going to some very "out-of-the-norm" cinema, DVD cannot compare to what you'll see on the 'big screen.' Now, i'm not going to say that sitting on your couch in your underwear isn't more comfy than sitting in a folding chair with gum stuck to it and one of the armrests missing, but at least from a technical standpoint, the bigscreen still trumps the dvdplayer.
Simply put, when film is scanned for digital manipulation (color correction, digital effects, etc), it's scanned at either "2k" or "4k" depending on what will be done with it. 4k is 4096px wide, and 2k is 2048 px wide. Current estimates put the theoretical [effective] maximum width of 35mm scanning between 6k and 8k. For the sake of argument, let's just assume 4k is the max. Current estimates put the theater release-prints somehwere between 1k and 1.5k, which is an abomination really, if you consider that is around 25% of the original "inherent" film resolution; but nontheless it's still considerably better than DVD (which is equiv to ".6k"). Now, if you're fortunate enough to be watching HD content at home, then you're watching the equivalent of 1.3k*, which is prettymuch onpar with what you'll get in a theater, but not better. And, since you said, "it's not like I spent thousands and thousands on it," one might assume you're just watching DVD's on a standard definition tvset, which i promise you, will be far inferior to your local theater.
(Disclaimer: a 720p frame is equiv to 1.3k, a 1080i frame is equiv to 2k; however 1080i is interlaced, and thus displayed in half fields, so each half-frame displayed is actually equiv to 1k. Even if you still want to pretend that 1080i frames are "2k," which they aren't (unless you're adding both halfframes together in some sort of weirdo math), you still have to watch an interlaced source, which is inferior to progressive film source a la your local theater.)
Look at the innodb link. I had the same line of thought as you did - but it doesn't look promising.
SearchIRC - Now with live chat directory!
hard drive space?
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
That's all as maybe, but all that resolution doesn't cure what is actually pissing me off: Scratches on the film, blurry spots, and films that are simply not in focus. I have none of those problems at home, and until cinemas fix those, home is where I will stay, even if that means taking a hit in resolution.
Next week, Carlito's Way: Rise to Power hits DVD shelves and theaters.
He was Mark Cuban's Broadcast.com partner and is now part owner of the Mavericks. They both own Landmakr Theaters and HDNet.
The reason is simple: the arrival of 1080p rear-projection TV's (and soon front digital projectors) that sport 1920x1080 resolution (you can get them from Samsung NOW and soon from Sony) and the impending arrival of HD-DVD/Blu-Ray high-definition DVD's that take advantage of 1080p resolution.
Once that combination becomes widely available by middle to late 2006, you'll get picture quality on home TV's that--while it might not have the absolute resolution of film--will have consistently good brightess, consistently good sharpness, and excellent color quality. 1920x1080 is essentially the same resolution used on digital cameras used for theatrical movies; that means movies like Star Wars Episodes II and III will look at home pretty much exactly what George Lucas saw in the final theatrical digital master.
Now you know why Hollywood is nervous--the last reason for why you want to see a movie in a theater is gone.
Or just remove the region code from the $30 dvd +-dlrw you bought off the internets, and run it into your home theater. The wonders of the modern pc will also allow you to play pal dvd's on an ntsc tv with the proper aspect ratio.
When Disney chief Robert Iger recently brought up the concept of shortening the window between theatrical release and DVD, he was fiercely criticised by the National Association of Theatre Owners."
It is no surprise that the theater owners would be pissed about such a plan. I have read that the release schedule in Hong Kong went to a "day and date" release plan like Cuban is promoting and that within a year, 75+% of the theaters in the city were out of business.
So, theater owners in the USA will be kicking and screaming every inch of the way. But, it is a fight they will lose - already the studios are earning 4x-5x as much revenue on DVD sales as they do on the theaterical ticket sales and if there is one constant in hollywood it is that money talks. I suggest theater owners start figuring out something else to do with the real-estate, like convert them to dance-clubs, laser-tag arenas, hand-ball courts, orgy courts and anything else that could make use of big open box rooms.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Not all, mind you, but most of them. Effectively speaking, most movies run at a loss on their theatrical run, when you add the cost of making the movie to the advertising budget for the theatrical run and the distribution costs to the theatrical run. Most of the money of a movie and the ones that put the studios in the black come from the home entertainment division, which handles DVDs, television licensing, not to mention other merchandise from books.
The studios are aware that if they continue to shrink the window between theatrical run and DVD run, the theaters or the bulk of them will go out of business. But when you look at theatrical profits versus distribution and advertising costs for the theatrical run, the profit margins have been steadily shrinking since 1948, and for that matter the money home entertainemnt makes far overshadows it. If they can boost their profits from an earlier DVD run, it could compensate for the loss of theatrical run dollars easily.
The main problem the studios face is that the theatrical run is promo advertising for the DVD. They're going to have to find other ways to push the movie to the home audiance. My own feeling is that they're going to switch to television for that, especially once HDTV gets out. They show it on television and that will encourage people to go and buy the DVD.
Not that all theaters are going to die out. There are a number of specialty theaters out there, focusing on art films, indie movies and so on that will continue to survive because they don't care about modern movie releases and so on, but they're going to be a niche and the studios on the whole won't care about them.
And in addition to letting them release in different places, it also allows them to release at different prices in different areas. It also allows them to sell the rights to distribute to different companies in different areas.
The different prices helps because if your product is the same everywhere, and you set a price people can actually afford to pay in a place with a low standard of living (say India), then your sellers in places with high standard of living, like the US and Europe will actually buy product perhaps even at discounted retail in India and resell it in the US. They do this because it increases their profit, but of course, it automatically decreases yours.
The different companies in different places can increase profits by allowing you to sell the movie multiple times. Or leverage the work of your licensees. Say a movie doesn't do all that well, and you release it in Japan. Because it didn't do well, you don't put any money in it yourself, your licensee in Japan spends all the money on the packaging, transfer and puts in some dynamite extras. They also market it wisely. And it's a hit. Now your movie is a hit and you can charge more to license it for other countries at a higher rate to those zones that you hadn't sold yet without fear of worldwide competition from other distributors.
So all of this is find and good, but really the region codes don't enable this stuff, they make it easier and more strong. Since distributors make their own packaging, even without region codes, there would be a difference between the US version of a movie and the Indian version, just by looking at the box. But is that enough to keep retailers from trying to resell the foreign version? Perhaps it is. Especially if you don't let them put an English soundtrack on the Indian version.
Well, there's a big explanation for you as to why the movie companies like regions. I too wish they would give them up. Honestly, if they make it difficult for me to get a movie I want as an import, I can always pirate it over the internet (region codes don't even slow that down) and then they get no money at all.
As an added note, I was surprised to find some of my movies I buy in the US are region-free. Not the major releases, but still.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
In most US theaters you're not supposed to take anything in but they aren't at all effective at checking you.
At the root of this is profiteering. But the other cause is US Health Codes and insurance, which generally prohibit places from selling food and letting you eat your own food.
But at some theaters they have all manner of different rules. Some are expensive and serve fine cuisine and wine at your seat. Some are beer-based "Brew&View" theaters. Some of these sell liquor, some just let you bring whatever you want. There are definitely some small inexpensive theaters that let you bring whatever you want. Often they either don't have their own concessions or the concessions are somewhat separate from the theater.
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
Isaac Asimov showed years ago that some peoplewill buy the hardback, some people will only buy paperback, and some people will only buy book club editions. He mada a LOT more money distributing all three channels simultaneously.
I'm sure that there are people who will only see movies in theaters and others who will only watch a movie on DVD. I am a DVD-only person because I don't want to spend huge amounts on overpriced snacks, overcrowded auditoriums, and inflated tickets.
Mark Edwards
I see quite of a few of you complaining about the price of movie theatre popcorn and soda. This boggles the mind, I bring you this alternative, don't buy popcorn and soda. A Ticket is mandatory, but the rest is optional, I am quite sure you can sit down without eating for 2 hours. Movie food is the industries biggest volentary rip offs, just buy your tickets, watch the movie, and leave, eat somewhere else, its probably healtier that way. I mean, last I checked the olive garden is cheaper, now that says something.
I realize this may seem odd, but to many of us who are regulars here on slash dot, the 'social experience' is about as foreign as being an alien grey. But, it should not be forgotten that going to the movies is 'an event'. Far far cheaper than going to see a play or attend opera or a concert. Much more easy to schedule on the fly. And the world is full of folks who do not have the paragon of home entertainment systems.
Sure, we can stay home, watch the DVD and have pizza delivered. But it is not the same as seeing a film after a meal in a nice restaurant, with friends away from the house.
So, will some theaters fail and close ? Heck, theaters are always failing and closing. AND new ones are always opening up too. The business model will change. Some will live, some will die, and life will go on.
Meanwhile, the movie industry will short circuit the bootleg business. Why buy a bootleg of uncertain quality, when you can have the real thing now ? Maybe a plea of poverty. Fine, for those who cry poverty there will remain bootleg. For the rest of us, the official release.
YAY !
Finally some innovation. It's still a long way from the type of distribution the movie Orange is using:
For details see http://orange.blender.org./
Raise capital, on the promise you ill deliver a great work. That's the way the world works, from your job interview down to that new razor you just bought.
DR.
I don't know about you, but I've tried watching those arabic theater pirated films and the noise level is unacceptable. UNACCEPTALBE!
:)
Anyhow, lay off the American's there are assholes everywhere. We just get in the news more.
Quack, quack.
If you kill yourself, they are going to waste a lot of gasoline for your funeral, resources making your coffin and digging your grave. So first get all your friends angry so they won't come to your funeral if you are being considerate!
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
for the benefit of the consumer. I'm sure everyone here understands that.
Steven Soderbergh and everyone else in Hollywood are only trying to figure out ways to maximize *their own profits*, not the $$$'s in *our* wallets or our own good times.
Slate recently had an excellent piece about Iger, NATO, and "the windows" that explained why Hollywood wants to shorten the windows and why Big Theater are so apopleptic about that. Highly recommended reading.
And BTW, I suspect Soderbergh et al. will continue to release movies in the theaters at least simultaneously with the On Demand / DVD / Movielink / etc. releases in order to qualify for an Academy Award -- or at least until the Academy changes that rule.
$.02When I heard about this story I was hoping it would be abotu a steady release of movies to more screens not releasing DVDs while a movie is still in its theater run. When I watched Switchblade Sisters on DVD the director Jack Hill in his audio commentary was talking about how the film was released in regional theater markets and only with its success was it released nationally. This is what happened with the 2002 independent film My Big Fat Greek Wedding. When it first came it out, it only played in one theater near me, later as it gained good revenues it was pushed out in nearly every cinema near my area and it stayed in theaters for a long time nearly a year since it was at only the Chester Theater it was still playing at most regional theaters.
This is how movies should be put out, steady progress based on success, not soso called block busters being advertised directly into national showings. Throwing millions to produce crap plots like Stealth and then shoving it in every theater and shoving advertising for it down people's throats on TV is not the way I would like it. I would like to see more smaller budget movies tested in fewer screens until they suceed, only then pushing them to more screens. As it is now only with Netflix can I see independent movies and foreign movies, no theater caters to such an audience in my area. The movie industry now is decayed.
Some of the other points mentioned here do make sense though, e.g. the pricing (but hey, they should invent region codes for music cds as well then! shit, shouldn't have said that. Or what about books? or medication? This all a lot cheaper in other countries, but still nothing prevents us from using it.), but probably the marketing costs are the main factor, distribution is probably still smaller and will be even smaller due to the digital techniques that stunt_penguin mentioned.
molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
The studios have a monopoly on each movie. So, to maximize profits, they have to charge every person the maximum amount of money that they can pay.
So the guy who only wants to pay for a ticket on the local theater, just pays them 5 dollars (remember, the studio DOES NOT make money on popcorn sold at the theater). The guy that wants to cough up $15, $20 or $30 dollars on a DVD, does so, and the guy who wants to download the movie, pays whatever they charge it.
Yes, they may lose on the people that goes to the theater AND buys the dvd. But they do not lose the people that doesn't buy the dvd after they friends tell them they saw the movie, and that it sucked.
Make no mistake. This is not about customer's movie watching lives. Its about profits.
Luckily in a functioning capitalist economy pleasing the customer leads to greater profits. (whether we still live in a functioning capitalist society is left as an excersize for the reader)
Simultaneous release of DVDs will pretty much make movie piracy by hidden camcorders obsolete, along with the movie industry's expensive campaign to detect or jam the cameras. Instead of industry insiders being responsible for 80% of illegal copies like they are now, it'll be closer to 100%. Then maybe the movie companies will have no choice but to stop blaming their problem on the public and clean up their own act.
Perhaps you've gotten a little too into filmmaking? If you watch The Princess Bride for the cinematic details then I'm afraid you've missed the point.
"I have a good idea why it's hard to verify programs. They're usually wrong." --Manuel Blum, FOCS 94