OK. I watched the Soderbergh interview on the DVD before I watched "Bubble". I have to say, in my sorry non-artsy headspace, the interview was the best thing on the DVD.

Kudos for the attempt to use locals for the cast but man, I honestly would like my $25 back. I had more fun re-watching "Donnie Darko" and "Live and Die in LA" this weekend.

I know this was an attempt to do something different but the story is straight forward, the acting is too stiff (but still a credit to the local non-actors for trying it), and the music is, well, it's like Magnolia in that it really knows how to stretch a piece of music way past being comfortable. All in all, I'm no professional critic but I can say that's 73 minutes of my life and $25 I'll never see again. And there was so much I could have done with that $25 or 73 minutes.

I'm lost on all the hype. I suppose as a distribution model, it's something to talk about but as a movie, it's a bust for me, but then, who am I to say I suppose.

--- For Sale ---
1 ever so slightly used copy of Steven Soderbergh's "Bubble".

Sean McHenry

whats new at home
 

if its convient , it will happen. My age group 18-25 is not going to go to the movies when we can watch it at home on the big screen. ( MOST of the time)...unless its the first date

I have to agree with the consensus here. I don't see the hype, other than just that - hype.

There may be some cost cutting, and maybe some residual sales from this generating interest for the marketing idea, but if the movie doesn't connect with people, it doesn't matter how/where it's shown.

I especially agree with Charles in that the future of distribution one way or the other is going to be technologically altered. The industry would be wise to start looking into this, and start thinking more forward than just "Bubble", or they could find themselves in the same position as the dinosaur RIAA - left to sue customers who won't buy their product in the only way they offer it.

What's good in a traditional release pattern?
 

I came to the U.S. from another country, and the American way of showing films stumbled me. Despite of actual value of each film, all films seem expendable one-week shows. They are promoted, shown and forgotten. Well, not exactly forgotten, because they are released on DVDs later, but forgotten for a large screen. The pattern has very American taste: hype it up, collect the dough, throw it out and forget about it.

Right, there are movie theaters that specialize on classic movies, on "hits of all times" or on foreign movies that proved to be popular in their home countries. Still, most theaters show only the latest reels. I don't think this is healthy. What if I realized how good a certain movie is, and I wanted to watch it on a big screen, but alas, all I can do is renting a DVD.

The move that Sodebergh made may work for moviegoers like me. Buy/rent the DVD, or hear from a friend who bought it, watch the movie, then if you really liked it go watch it on a big screen. Obviously, this would work only if you want to watch it the second time. There are good movies that I don't want to watch once more, and there are cheesy simple movies that I can watch 5 or 10 times (Top Gun, for example).

In any case, I just hate the rush when I have to watch a new movie in a week or two in a theater, or else I have to wait for a DVD. I like theaters that show reruns, and I never watch a new movie on the first day of release.

The benefit to consumers is obvious: being able to watch a movie as soon as it comes out in the comfort of your own home without having to deal with the hassle of going to a movie theater. The benefit to producers is what's questionable, since there's less money to be made by allowing consumers to pick their distribution format from the start. If consumers really wanted to go to theaters there wouldn't be any reason to have separate release dates to try to force them to do so.