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
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?
... 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.)
Great, another 'expert' with no clue about business. You do realise that the cinemas make next to no money from ticket prices? They make their money largely from the food and drink.
You say that it's too expensive, then you want them to employ more expensive staff? This doesn't add up. Did you skip maths lessons at school? Here's a hint in case anyone reads your post: hiring more projectionists and more skilled workers costs more money. This money will go on your ticket price. Then you'll be whining that the prices have gone up. THINK FIRST, POST LATER.
How is the business method old? A business method is not obsolete just because it's taken advantage of by criminals. The answer is to stop the crime not to force the businesses to cut revenue streams to cater to the criminals.
Our local theater is doing just that. They are attempting to turn the theater experience into more than just a movie.
The first thing they did was expand their snackbar. Previously, you could get popcorn, a Coke, and some candy. That was about it. They added a fast-food line (burgers, chicken sandwiches, fries, etc).
They then started special screenings of movies. "Mommy & Me" movies -- regular movies (not necessarily kids shows) but screened in the afternoons and early evenings, with the lights turned on low so new parents could go to the shows and bring their babies with them. Since EVERYONE there has babies, nobody gets upset if one cries... This was wildly successful.
Next was the midnight screenings. They pick a classic movie every week (it might be Star Wars or Raiders of the Lost Ark or the Exorcist) and screen it at midnight -- charging $1.00 per ticket. This has also been a huge success.
After that, they started inviting local bands to play in their lobby before the midnight shows. Now people can go early, catch some good local music (and the bands get exposure!) before their movie.
The most recent thing they have done are video game competitions. They hook a PS2 or XBOX up to their projector and and have a competition. HALO on a fullsize movie theater screen definately has generated some interest...
Things like this are keeping that theater open and generating a lot of revenue -- above and beyond anything the mediocre overhyped movie of the day could possibly bring in.