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."
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
That's nothing. Back in the 1920s, we used to wait a whole 80 years before a movie came out on DVD. And we liked it. And nobody complained. Sure we'd be dead and burried by the time we saw it, but I'll be damned if it wasn't worth the wait. Ah, those were the days.
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
You know people, not getting what you want IMMEDIATELY isn't a bad thing.
Taken independantly, your sentiment is certainly valid. Taken in the context of the article, on Slashdot, again it's alright -- the slashdot crowd more than most other cliques can tend to wait (or pirate it, and face it, lots of slashdotters do).
But for most people, movies do need to be seen relatively soon as they come out. It's all about water cooler chitchat, and last years or last seasons movies don't cut it.
This should really be taken to heart too -- Slashdot is filled with guys that can't socialize (and hence, get dates). To some degree, that is affected by an inability to realize that if someone asks you about the latest movie; they're trying to start a conversation -- not looking to get preached to about the evil movie industry.
~Rebecca
Your falling into the classic "I need to know everything to be interesting" trap.
.. how was it?"
Watercooler chitchat does not requre shared experiances as much as you think. It can actually be about sharing experiances as well.
"Hey did you see the new movie?"
"no
And *blam*, you have a conversation. It's that easy.