Will "Bubble" Bust Cinemas?
 

http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2006/mf...gvisit=y&npu=y

I'm still not convinced that this roll-out will work. I've been following this since they announced it and for the life of me I can't figure out how it's going to work. I understand what they're trying to do but on the other hand I don't think it's a smart move. I just can't seem to figure out the added benefit that they keep saying this will create.

I think it's mostly a business decision to save sales & marketing dollars. They save money by just having one marketing campaign for all three outlets, instead of a separate costly campaign for each one.

The benefits they're touting to the consumer are basically marketing fluff. In effect, they're acknowledging that consumers are already using these other media outlets to watch their movies. and they're just following the customers, not setting a new trend or paradigm.

Haven't seen the movie, but I'd classify this method of distributing a movie as one step above "straight to video". That's not meant to be derogatory classification, because I bet their is a nice healthy profit to be made with this type of distribution model.

I'm a producer with a strong marketing and distribution background. Maybe I'm stupid but I still don't see how a "healthy profit" can be realized from this over say a traditional release pattern. By shrinking the window of release between theatrical to dvd does not guarantee a bigger slice of the proverbial pie. I realize that this is a "beta" test of sorts but I still don't see how it can work and/or benefit the consumer.

Here's another take on this.

http://www.nymag.com/nymetro/news/me...543/index.html

I've heard that the bulk of money made from hollywood movies is actually in the rental and dvd part of the marketing setup. The movie release is more of a big marketing prelude to dvd sales.

I haven't researched it much, its just what I've heard and I admit openly that it could be completely off the mark but their is something about this that i apperciate - I don't live in LA or NY or even the US - Translated that means, if its a limited release it takes forever to get out of theaters and even longer to DVD or TV. So If I want to watch it then by the time its available a long time has past even if I pre-order it on dvd, talking a long long time. A simul release means I can watch the movie before I forget about it, which should translate into them getting more of my money quicker.

I think though even if i'm wrong about where the money is made its a convience thing. If you can reach more audience faster then your potential for sales should go up - Thats why I'm a strong believer that online distribution is eventually going to be the way to go - huge audience + a half decent movie should equal better sales than having a few film prints travelling around and a forgotten release in the end.

I don't think hollywood will adopt this, they can easily make and distribute film prints, but smaller budget stuff would hopefully benefit from this new paradigm.

I think the simultaneous makes far more sense for limited release and indie films.

I'm hoping that the whole dvd pirate thing is a "fad" and people will realise that they are short changing themselves by buying them and things will go back to normal.

Andy.

Ebert and Roeper gave "Bubble" a strong review, btw. Ebert called it "Soderbergh's masterpiece".

And the numbers are in...

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/arts...=1&oref=slogin

It's a good try at breaking the strangle hold of the traditional distribution model.

Those theatre owners complaining about it should get on the ball and at least try to embrace the model to see if it works for them. They might find that they have more targeted content that their local audiences are willing to pay for. The big Hollywood blockbusters will always be there, but I don't see why offering more appealing localized content via this system can't be a win-win situation for everybody.

Obviously it's not for big expensive Hollywood movies, but it's a much better system for independent productions with smaller audiences And, if it catches on it will make a nice compliment to the traditional Hollywood movie release and distribution system.

A nice contrast to this disheartening article.

Wow, a whopping $70,664 at the box office. Sounds like a winner to me!

Seriously, let us never forget how Mark Cuban became a billionaire -- he owned and sold a domain name before the "bubble" collapsed! Ha! Gotta wonder if that kind of success makes someone feel invincible?

$70,664 may not sound like a lot, but comparing it to the revenue of a much larger Hollywood blockbuster would be a mistake.

Consider that Bubble is a small art film, it's not a big Hollywood Blockbuster. They only released it in 32 theatres nationally. Here in Manhattan, arguably THE media nexus, it's only showing in one theatre, and that theatre is a bit out of the way for most Manhattanites.

This movie is not a "King Kong" it's got a limited audience and can't be marketed in the same way. The producers of Bubble seem to understand this quite well.

And that's where this odd distribution model seems to fit. I think it addresses the needs of many smaller films and is quite viable as a business model. The point of it is not to break the latest & greatest Hollwood weekend record, the point is to find the customers for smaller independent films, recoup their expenses, and make a profit.

Another interesting tidbit, they're not releasing it on film at all. It's been an all digital 4K theatre release on Sony's SXRD projectors.

Studio Daily article: http://www.studiodaily.com/main/news/6022.html

Very interesting interview with Steven Soderbergh about Bubble and filmmaking in general.

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.