Steven Soderbergh bites the hand that feeds him!
 

This is great! But, I hope he knows that theater chains will hate him from now until Kingdom Come. It was bound to happen, but he's playing with fire.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=719180

http://p2pnet.net/story/4701

p2p too? This is going to be VERY, VERY interesting......

This will definately change the world of distribution...if it takes over and production companies start doing this then all outlets are fair game.

It's good for the studios...no more "Opening Weekend" losses on the grand scale. They can make up the revenue elsewhere immediately.

That's interesting. So the main reason to do it that way is to get more revenue up front?

I feel a little bad for the theatres, but they really do have to come up with a different model. It costs $40 for two people to go and fully enjoy a movie. That takes a lot of the enjoyment out of going to the movies.

This sounds promising to me. I agree with Soderberg that the current model is not only outdated but inefficient as well. I can't even remember the last time I went to a movie in the theaters.

I also believe that Apple is gearing up for online releases. The H.264 codec is incredibly efficient. I encoded a movie using it the other night and it was 216K. I thought I ahd screwed up and made a reference movie by mistake. The same clip using MPEG4 compression was 1.5mb. Ican't remeber the length, somewhere around 30 seconds I think, but I was pretty impressed with the results.

What's inefficient about movie distribution is distributing film---there's a lot of silver in those reels. Deliver the movie over a wire or on a hard drive and you're back in the game of profits.

What theaters sell is a communal experience that DVDs and t.v. can't duplicate. Soderbergh's forays into alternate forms of distribution won't make too much of a dent in the mass-audience trade.

The internet's where distribution's headed. The only problems are technical (bandwidth and security). Theaters will be like big, hi-def t.v. halls ... and audience will flock to them as they have for more than a century, for the same reasons live theater has been viable for millennia.

If you've ever seen a Star Wars movie in a press screening, with reporters scribbling silently in the dark and no laughter or cheers, you know what I mean.

How much? $1? $10? $100? I tried some searching but couldn't find anything readily Googled about the celluloid release print silver content. (To be honest I always thought that silver halides were only found in film stock and that release prints used only dyes.) If it was really significant one would think there would be more extensive reclamation efforts, higher theft rate, etc.

Prints are expensive but the physical cost of distribution is hardly the determining factor for profitability in a film's release. For nearly all releases the cost of advertising is many hundreds of times the cost of striking and shipping prints.

Theater chains are in trouble bigtime right now. There are to many things competing for people's time.

The moment I realized they were in such trouble? Loews has this huge ad campaign for "Mothers and their Children"! During the week they're trying to get moms and their kids into the theater...what a miserable experience if that actually works! Can you imagine 100's of screaming brats in a theater? I get really antsy and actually yell at ADULTS talking during a movie. Of course, the rationale is...mothers are in the same boat. However, what sort of mother would bring her kid to a movie with other moms and kids? Is that some type of self-torture? What mother is actually going to enjoy the movie??

So, I know for a fact the theaters are dying right now. I think that the new things they're doing with running live football games and things like that are innovative. But, that's a bandaid. They need to upgrade their projection systems across the board to 100% digital. Also, they need to embrace 3D, super high def technologies and whatever else will seperate them from the home videophile. It's the dawn of a new age...home users are just as savvy as theater owers. Who wants to sit there watching a movie that stinks when you can get it perfect at home?

A movie print cost, on average, $1500.00 a pop. No small change when you consider the fact that a wide release means 2000 plus screens. On the flip side, and as was mentioned, people go to the movies to have a communial experience...something that modern civilizations lack greatly (outside of expensive sports outings) and something that home viewings can never give either.

Christopher,

I wouldn't call going 100% digital projection an "upgrade". If the movie was shot on film, it was meant to be see on film, as in light passing through film, which cannot be replicated digitally, or at least not with today's digital projectors. Movie theaters are still vastly ahead of the home viewer precisely because they are showing FILM, and not video, on an enormous screen which entirely engulfs you, and with a crowd, which has its own benefits. Changing over to super high definition (with its lower resolution and video properties) would surely place theaters much closer to the average consumer than film does!

Movie tickets might be pretty expensive now, but the movie theaters aren't the only ones to blame. The blockbuster culture, the opening weekend frenzy, the whole climate of what movies are getting produced and how they are marketed creates this price. If so much media attention wasn't put on how much money movies make in their opening weekends (and if they top $100 million GROSS), then we might not be in the same situation.

I SO disagree. Movie prints look HORRIBLE in the average movie theater to me. They're often dim, scratchy, out of focus, and or out of frame. And people often forget that the raw resolution of film never sees the light of day once it goes through its many cycles and ends up on the big screen.

If the print looks dim, it's often because the theater has turned down the projector bulb, in the belief that this will increase its lifespan. Tell them to turn it up! If it is out of focus, tell them to focus! If it is out of frame, tell them to fix it! If it's scratchy, well, then I guess you are just stuck with it.

The point is that film is film, and video is video. Film should be seen projected, as it was intended to be seen. When we watch a "film" at home on a DVD, it is a compromise, which is made for convenience and educational purposes. But it's not the same as seeing it projected! And blurring those lines is helpful to no one. In this world which is increasingly taken over by DVD, on-demand, internet downloads (who wants to watch a movie on a computer screen!), I think that movie theaters are still refreshingly pure, and I hope they stay that way for as long as possible. If I have to pay $3 more to watch film projected, then I'll gladly pay the $3 and see the FILM the way it was intended to be seen. Just as when movies are shot digitally, I expect to see them projected that way.

Joel, the theaters going digital is an upgrade. You obviously haven't worked as a projectionist. The film is handled in a way that degrades it every single time it's shown - not to mention it breaks, tears, and scratches every single time it's handled. There are on average of 10 reels per movie and each reel is about 10 minutes...some kid or drunk guy is taking the reels off and throwing them on a rewinder which is damaging the reel. Not to mention the finger prints on about 10% of every single frame on a film. If the theater has a platter system it doesn't matter...the films come in on 10 reels and have to be spliced together. They are all touched by human hands before it every is shown to the audience. It's appalling really when you consider the care up to the last moment it's send out from the studios. The theaters are at least 80 years behind - literally, they have not upgraded the way films are shown in 80 years. You want to tell me that digital isn't an upgrade? Go into any theater and ask to sit with the projectionist for one movie viewing and you will probably throw up. It's sickening to watch the film go through a projector. Also, the light used on a lot of projection systems is a welding arc...it stinks. Someone is standing there adjusting the light constantly adjusting two welding rods to whatever lighting they like...no standard light amount, just whatever they feel like doing. If you sit there and really watch a movie in the theater and pay attention to the screen...you'll see the light going all over the place it's horrible. Also, every single time the reels change it's the projectionist who's looking for a single little dot (cigerette burn in the right hand corner of every single reel!). They look for that burn mark and start the new reel whenever they feel like it!!! It's insane in 2005 for 80 million dollar movies to be projected this way.

I could go on and on about it, but I've done it and recently too. I did it for a learning experience and boy...I truly understand why filmmakers and studios HATE projection systems. It's the worst link in the chain because like I said..some kid or some drunk guy is in charge of very major things regarding your movie.

Here's the # reason projection SUCKS. Ready for this? Independent theater owners EDIT...and I mean, CUT out up to 10 minutes of movies and you don't know aboug it. They get the projectionist to trim bits and pieces from the movie just to save some time, so they can get movies back on the screen sooner and/or close up early. It's totally true and a fact...I've seen it done in front of my eyes. Let me ask you...have you ever seen a movie in the theater and for some reason things didn't make much sense? Then you rent the movie about 6 months later and you think, "I don't remember that scene? Weird". No, it's not always a directors cut...it's the theater owners cut!! It happens all over the place because "time is money". They do it because they can and it saves them money. Does the public care or know about it? No, because people are stupid and go with the flow. I personally hate it.

There is good reason studios and filmmakers hate theater owners. It's a situation where the theater owners can totally screw with the studios in so many ways and the studios can't do anything about it. Except, they can work towards educating the public and that's exactly what they are doing now. They are making it clear that theaters need to "upgrade" to a system that's "secure" - it's not so much the public the studios care about...it's the theaters!! Yes, pirates are a concern...but, theater owners are the ones letting the pirates into the theater right? What about what the theater owners do to the films? The studios have their hands tied because theaters have the upper hand bigtime.

If studios and Steven Soderbergh keep pushing it'll force the theater owners to do business in a more systematic way. Right now, it's so crazy the way it's done that the studios have no choice but to live with it. Once things get "upgraded" I'm sure things will improve across the board.

I know you are talking about resolution, but I've seen the latest digital projection systems and the average public won't know the difference because the digital "prints" are made and projected at such high rez. Yes, film projection is higher rez. However, there are many factors that you must look at....how far is the screen from the projection booth? How large is the screen? What type of digital projection is it? What is the source material?

It's a complicated matter and it's not there just yet, soon...just not yet. All I know is that digital projection is the solution to a lot of problems....not just one (rez).

That's the longest post I've ever written..whew!

"What theaters sell is a communal experience that DVDs and t.v. can't duplicate. Soderbergh's forays into alternate forms of distribution won't make too much of a dent in the mass-audience trade."

I agree, although what I think it will do is increase the sales and rentals on those DVDs and in the other areas of distribution he and Cuban are proposing.

Imagine the amount of advertising and marketing costs that a company will save, not having to repeat themselves. In the end, they may not actually 'save' dollars, but every dollar they spend promoting the film will be much more effective.

Right now, a movie is pushed hard right before the theatrical release...then a few months later they have to push it again when they put it out on DVD, trying to get people excited about the same movie a second time.

With this plan, DVD, PayPerView, and p2p will ride the same marketing wave that the theatrical release gets. When you see a trailer in the theater, it will serve also as an ad for the DVD release. Every commercial and print ad will serve to push the movie in every possible distribution format. So, instead of pushing one specific format and then going back and trying to use a fraction of the original marketing budget to push the same product a second time on a new format...now they can focus all the advertising on the movie itself, and let you choose your format (ie. theatrical, dvd, payperview, etc).

They definitely are not stupid.
It's more cost effective for them to do it this way, and I wouldn't be suprised to see the DVD sales increase as rental houses stock the latest "New Release," and people order these movies on Payperview at their leisure.

Brilliant idea.

Let Me Tell You Why I Am In Soderbergh's Court
 

More often than not, I am sick and tired of trying to enjoy a movie when you have fatmouths running their traps the whole time, talking on their cell phones or bringing in crying infants. Those instances have taken the enjoyment away from seeing a movie. It just seems like people today are less socially graced than, say, twenty years ago?

Heck, nowadays, just try and tell a fellow movie patron to keep quiet. What you're likely to get is some sort of retaliatory gesture/action on his/her behalf. I forsee "theatre rage" increasing just like "road rage."

Having never seen a digitally displayed feature in a theater, I fear the loss of blackness.
As I understand it a digital projection will have a constant brightness, vs film's momentary blackness. I do believe the "flicker" creates a dreamstate for the audience that a continual image could destroy.

I'm sure it'd be easy to introduce a flicker - and I hope this will be done.

About the cost of going to the movies - don't forget that most distribution contracts split the ticket sales between house and distributor (especially after the first weekend). Concessions generally stay with the house.
So in a very real sense, more than half the cost of movie going is not due to the film distributors, but the film exhibitors.

As for Soderberg's plan - IMHO, I'm sure the theatrical distribution, whatever that may actually be, will be horrible. Also, the DVD sales will stink too.
The Satellite and Pay-per-view will be average.
(ed).The bitTorrent distribution will be HUGE!

A producer friend of mine who once did an internship at a lab in Paris had this to say about silver in film prints. I hope someone with knowledge of the laboratory process will be able to amend his comments.

God, I hate Steven Sodenberg.

His movies aren't all that.

His awards I don't think are warranted.

And now the guy wants to basically start a movement that could lead to the destruction of the sacred movie viewing place . . . the theater. I'm sorry folks, maybe I'm just getting old, but if theaters become extinct, my desire to create movies will be cut in half. What is waiting for a release but to see it on the big screen? It's not near the experience at home. You have a much smaller screen that won't drag you into the show as easily, and you don't have the energy of the crowd with you. I think releasing flicks at the same time as in theaters will kill theaters, and man, there will be those of us whose lives will be forever changed. I remember Freak'n conceited James Cameron being asked what he thought of the high ticket prices and he said he didn't care at all, because people will always need to go to the movies and they will always pay whatever price you charge.

"We must move on" my butt. Into what? Our livingrooms with yet another rented DVD? Don't we spend enough time there? People as arrogant as Cameron or as art destructive as Sodenberg (loved that mini-dv classic called Full Frontal) are going to destroy movies entirely.

I remember a great theater called the "Northpark Screen I" in Dallas, Texas about 8 years ago now. It was dubbed by many as the best theater in the country. George Lucas would personally fly to this screen to test his new Star Wars films on. The first movie I ever saw on that screen was Die Hard of all things. I don't think I was ever so moved by a filmgoing experience. If I hadn't known better, I would have thought I was caught in Nokotomi Plaza myself (the die hard building). From then on, whenever I wanted to impress a girl, I'd wait until that theater was showing something visually impressive. Without fail, my date would tell me she'd never seen a movie that way in her life and can't wait to go back to that theater.

. . . in 1998 the North park Screen I was mowed down to build a Foley's.

The memories of that theater are so sweet I could almost cry. These huge chain theaters with their lesser quality were bad enough taking over, but now, if theaters dissappear completely? Where will the excitement be?

. . . I believe that the same DVD/theater release date will seriously endanger what we love the most. I sure hope they don't screw this up . . . and the lives of those of us that aspire to see our film on a big public screen . . . forever.

Actually, the cinema chains, at least in the UK, are beating him to it. There used to be a time when going to the cinema was an event, seeing films on the big screen. But so many of the newer multiplexes have such tiny screens that, if you're sitting at the back, it's not much bigger than your TV screen.

At least at home you don't get charged through the nose for a cola and 'dog!

Christopher,

I have actually worked at a movie theater before, a privately-owned theatre with one screen. They used the platter system (which I think must theaters use now), and I wasn't nearly as horrified as you were by what I saw. For the most part, everything seemed pretty well in order. The film was not spliced together by a incompetent drunk, but rather by a trained employee (I wasn't allowed to do this) or by the owner himself. I will acknowledge that films come to different theatres in different forms, and the longer it takes to get to a theatre, the more manipulated the film will be; but this doesn't always mean that some greedy theatre owner wanted to shave off 10 minutes to make an extra buck. Often the splicing and unsplicing necessitates cutting off 10 of so frames, which means that the more times it is put back together and taken apart, the more warped it becomes. This is a problem, but I don't think it is very serious.

I don't doubt that horrendous conditions exist in the way certain theatres handle the films that come to them, but I honestly don't think you should be mounting an attack on independent theatres, who still show us small, difficult films that the major, corporate chains won't touch, lest they hurt their bottom line. To speak of the "distributors" and the "studios" is also too tidy in that most of the major studio's own some stake in one of the large movie theatre chains around the country. Having all the theatres owned by the same 3 or 4 companies (not far from where we are today), which would allow for a standardization of exhibition conditions, would also force a standardization of the kinds of films we see.

I don't think digital is the answer for new standards of exhibition. Even if movies are projected digitally, there will still be theatre owners who skirt the rules, for good and for bad. But I do think digital projection (in that it cuts down on costs) does offer some exciting possibilities for independent film distribution to independent theatres. For a smaller film, the costs of prints can be staggering, and digital projection offers the possibility of eliminating that, while vastly expanding the variety of films we are able to see.

I agree with Laurence that Soderberg's plan seems like a move away from theatres, which I think is the wrong direction. Why not experiement with the capabilities digital projection offers smaller, independent theatres?

Side-note: About silver in film prints, I don't think many film prints contain contain much silver; but as Robert noted, it is necessary for a true, deep, dark black during projection. David O. Russell insisted on these true blacks in "Three Kings", so the prints contained a much higher percentage of silver, and were therefore more expensive.

The communal experience of cinema. Yeah right! That's why everyone uses the bus and public transport. Crowds stopped being fun 30 years ago when people lost their manners.
Reasons why I don't go to the cinema anymore:
1. The cost
2. Arranging the trip/finding the time
3. The seats
4. Other people's kids
5. The low availability of decent films
6. The price of all the add-ons (food & drink)
7. It will be on TV next year and DVD for the same price before Xmas.

I still don't think his plan will work until he decides whether he is making the film for the multiplexes, the TV or Broadband and charges appropriately.

Wow, I didn't know things were that bad out there...While I only go to the theaters 4-6 times a year, I just don't hear and see all the things everyone's complaining about...Cell Phones, virtually never... Out of focus, Usually fixed quite rapidly, but rarely an issue...Screaming kids, rarely a problem, as I can't stand to see the movies parents will take those kids to...

Maybe it's because I'm in Seattle, and people here are rumored to be polite, but loud obnoxious people are simply not the issue for us.

We do go to the movies as an event, and are very selective as to what we will spend our family bucks on. Movies are very expensive, and I don't need to waste valuable money and time on some of the re-tread movies or politics that Hollywood offers.

One of our local billionaires (Paul Allen) in fact bought our local Cinerama theater a couple years ago, spent millions upgrading the seats, screen, projection, etc, with the thought that he wanted to keep the single screen theater alive. (As part of his projection offerings, I believe he installed complete digital capabilities, which I don't think has been used yet. ) For a true event, we go to this theater, which almost always involves HUGE lines circling the building, and almost always sold out screenings.

If you come to the Seattle area, and like the movies, it's certainly worth going to.

"Reasons why I don't go to the cinema anymore:

1. The cost
2. Arranging the trip/finding the time
3. The seats
4. Other people's kids
5. The low availability of decent films
6. The price of all the add-ons (food & drink)
7. It will be on TV next year and DVD for the same price before Xmas."

Not to knock on you personally, these are just my arguments:

1. The cost (can't argue much there---the big whigs did that one to themselves, and deserve the cutback in audience, the bloodsuckers. But if it's a movie I REALLY want to see (like 3 times a year), I'm willing to pay for myself and my girl. You might try matinees on the weekend.

2. Arranging the trip/finding the time---What? Man, I live for movies, it's what I want to do with my life. I look forward to managing time to go. Now maybe managing a family is one thing, but I don't have one. Any "die hard filmmaker" who doesn't want to arrange the time to enjoy what he "loves" puts himself into the next category down of "general audience", IMHO.

3. The seats---get there a bit early. You do for work, right? Other things, yes?

4. Other people's kids: Only bothered me a couple of times in my whole life. Maybe my general area is different than yours.

5. Low availability of decent films---Absolutely no arguements there. Hollywood cranks out pieces of crud most of the time. But I'd like to see the rare good ones in a theater.

6. The price of all the add-ons---Don't buy them. I almost NEVER do. Heck, for that matter, just sneek a candy bar and coke in via your girlfriend's/wife's purse. I always carry a backpack in. No one cares. Or, fill up on dinner and desert before the flick.

7. It will be on TV next year and on DVD for the same price before XMAS---

Okay, here's the big one, man. Really try to take no offense, I don't mean it personally, however . . . LAME. Let's watch something on TV with all the language cut out, some scenes entirely changed, limited vilolence and all that, not to mention commercials, because THAT way, we'll really see what the filmmaker intended. Oh, DVD you say? No problem. Just cut that screen size down there to 1/3 . . . wait a minute . . . okay, 1/10 . . . I mean . . . Awww heck, let's just listen to the freak'n radio. Given the right movie, the difference between theater and home viewing is a MAGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE. Now, the Star Wars films suck right now anyway, so it may not be a good example, but . . . take a Star Wars film, say. You really think you're gonna get the magnitude of the effects and stuff on a small screen? Answer: No.

Personally, it doesn't surprise me that many think this way. Society seems to be heading more and more towards us all just being hooked via brain transmitter to whatever media we want, but come on guys, is this really how we want to live our lives as filmmakers? Our only chance to get our work seen by our audience is them shifting through channels or internet or video stores? Indie films will NEVER be noticed in that fashion. When a film is showing in a theater, it gives it a type of integrity that (wheather the film was good or not), it actally is playing in a theater. With that integrity gone, films like Blair Witch become nothing, just another box on a shelf you've never heard of. That will be you with your greatest work my friend, audienceless, save for your friends and family patting you on the back and telling you how much the last 2 hours spent watching your film made your 2 years of work all worthwhile.

I love theatres, as Laurence said: it's just the plain exitement of going to a sacred place of watching movies on a big screen. BUT... with the costs of these days, I go to theatres just at very few times...
Really I love it, but I read an article about a research they had done (in The Netherlands) that tickets have become 44% more expensive!
C'mmon, if you do that, AND ask ridicoulously high prices for a popcorn and a coke, then don't come b*tching you don't see any folk anymore.

Theatres should be comfortable, with little popcorns and cokes but not the whole complete almost food-industry they have become now.
THEN, people went every weekend to the theatre, it was a tradition. But now... now...

(PS, off-topic: the same can be told about Hollywood: it has become an industry that has a true lack of real emotion and feeling. Look at all their remakes of Asian movies, it's just become laughable. Now I heard they are going to remake Old Boy too. Every time a foreign movie that's really good appears, you can already tell: Hollywood will make a remake that won't top the original - only a few times they do, but last time it's just a trend of remakes. They don't make anything original anymore, it seems)

I will say this: I miss the "excitement" I felt as a kid watching a James Bond movie on the big screen. Man oh man... I can remember my heart pounding during the pre-credits sequence and listening to how the sound echoed throughout the theatre. I know those days are gone because I see things through jaded adult eyes and th etheatre does not hold that type of excitement for me any more (plus the things I added in my earlier post). I am definitely content watching my movies in the comfort and peace of my living room, eating the snacks I want to eat.

Perhaps movie theaters will become like stage theatres.

Independent movies will play to small houses, like local theatre, and tickets will cost about $20.

Huge movies will play in a few huge houses, like Broadway-type, and tickets will cost $40-$200 a seat.

Though... I guess not because you can't rent a live performance to watch at home.

Well, given the varied responses to this thread, it seems clear that some prefer the theater experience, and some prefer watching something at home.

Sounds to me like this distribution model is going to find an audience no matter what. The ramifications will be interesting to see.

Digital projection can be quite nice. No scratches.

I saw a leading-edge (TI/DLP) projection of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy in Manhattan last week. The image quality was pretty good--it's the best I've seen, for digital. And certainly it was cleaner than most film projections. But it didn't make up for the fact that the film was just OK.

A couple of days later I saw half of Trainspotting on a friend's TV, a TV that happened to have a Y-axis deflection problem that distorted the image. I still found it twice as compelling and satisfying as watching HHGTTG. Cause Trainspotting is a better movie, and no amount of fancy projection can change that.

A well-projected, well-made film is fantastic. It's better than anything I've seen projected digitally so far. A badly-projected film is pretty awful, and I imagine switching to digital will eliminate a lot of projection defects just because the system has fewer moving parts and doesn't degrade in the same way.

I still haven't seen anything projected digitally that matched the beauty of a film like Million Dollar Baby. Not to say it won't happen. But I sure hope we'll still have movie theatres. Despite the feeble-minded idiot that sat next to me mumbling throughout the film when I saw it, I still loved the size of the image and the emotional intensity and the sense of communion. It's something I almost always experience when I watch a movie in a movie theatre. I'd sure as hell miss it, and no suburban living room--even with a 5' screen--can ever match it.

Michael

Then you'll get underground theatres with people who DO in fact project digitally, on big screens, and offer popcorn and such at a low price, and then it will become illegal, and there will be theatre-gangs, fighting each other,...
Okay, I need more sleep, I know.

I don't think theatres will ever go away, but they will have to change their policies (and prices!) if they want to keep having people.
(Little movie theatres, playing more alternative movies are already a step forward: low prices, no food industry, still the old atmosphere -sometimes - ...)

Maybe since the focus of going to a theater will shift completely to the theater-going experience, theaters will get a bit more creative in their viewing environments. Austin has some great venues... an outdoor theater with benches and grocery store bag-size popcorn, theater in the park on a grassy hillside and also by a lagoon, at the Alamo Drafthouse (cinema's equivalent to microbreweries will be microcinemas with their own productions), the Paramount theater which is a revised turn-of-the-century theater where drinks are served.

I, for one, would like to see more places to view movies in a grown up environment where you're not sitting elbow to elbow... where you can sip gin and tonics, maybe have a nice meal, and settle back in comfy chairs that aren't stacked practically on top of each other.

But in some cases, our litigious nature is what's holding us back. I wanted so see about projecting classic films on the wall of a building in a park, but by the time I paid the event liability insurance and the mandatory EMS and police standbys, it would've wound up being more expensive than going to the theater.

Hey John!

Funny you should mention this. The City of Chicago sponsors just such a series of screenings literally across the street from my home. It's been a very popular program! Folks make evenings of it, having family picnic dinners out in Butler Field while they watch these wonderful vintage films. Yes, all of these films are widely available on home video. But there is just something about watching them on a big screen in a community environment on a warm summer night that makes for a very different experience than home video.

This will be the 3rd year for this program. Here's a link to last year's line-up: http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/w...lName=HomePage

(I live atop that tall building near the center of that photo...convenient!)

I'm with Laurence... I think DVD as it is kills a lot of Cinema audiencies (simply because a lot of people decide to wait for the DVD release), and if we go the way Sodeberg wants us to, then Cinema will be dead very soon.

I think watching a film in the Cinema is great; Sure it has its drawbacks, mostly to do with obnoxious, uneducated people that go watch a film and decide to speak troughout its entirety, but those are usually a hand full. Just move off your seat and find somewhere else to seat, I'd rather not to, but sometimes you're left with no chance.

I also agree Sodenberg is sh*t. His best film is Sex, Lies & Videotapes, and it's hardly a great film, just 'good'. Traffic was boring and the acting from Douglas and Jones was embarrissing; I won't even mention Erin Brockovich (it's crap). Cannes made him big, but he still stinks.

Update the projection system if you want, but don't distribute films simultaneously onto Cinema, DVD and PvP. Instead, Sodenberg should be worried why Hollywood allows Directors like him to produce mindless garbage all the time. It's the content that should change, above all the rest.

I'm with Laurence... I think DVD as it is kills a lot of Cinema audiencies (simply because a lot of people decide to wait for the DVD release), and if we go the way Sodeberg wants us to, then Cinema will be dead very soon.

This is the same thing that was said about VHS, cable, as well as DVD.
Theaters are still open, and I think they will continue to stay that way.

Look at this thread...it seems to be split half and half.
And you can't assume that everyone chiming in would go to the theater to see a particular movie. There are quite a few movies I don't mind seeing on DVD, and if given the option I'd probably pay a higher rental fee to get them as soon as they're released in the theater (I'm sure others would do the same).

Part of that first run revenue (from DVD, cable, etc) is going to theater owners, if you read the article. So, theaters will be fine, and we'll have more options for distribution and viewing. Hopefully the theater experience will be better, seeing as those who would rather see the movie at home will stay home, and not talk behind me the entire time I'm sitting in the movie theater.

Whether or not Soderbergh is "sh*t" is kinda beside the point.

What on earth does the medium of capture have to do with the medium of delivery. I may shoot a movie on HD but want it scanned onto film and projected onto film because that's the way I as the director intend it to be seen. But the two aren't connected in any way.

Luis, I think the situation is very different. With VHS, DVD, etc. you never had simultaneous releases on Cinema and any of this formats.

As to this debate being split 50-50, I hardly take people's opinions from this forum to coincide with that of the average Joe. MacDonalds is the most successful restaurant in the world, and that should serve us as a warning. I think the masses will opt for buying the DVD, that they can keep and lazily watch at home as many times as they wish, as opposed to buying a ticket for a one-time session only.

I don't think Soderbergh being crap is besides the point at all. If we're going to be led to a revolution by someone that isn't any good anyway, why should we follow?

Luis, I think the situation is very different. With VHS, DVD, etc. you never had simultaneous releases on Cinema and any of this formats.

You may have a point, though I still think that we won't see revenue drop that much. I suppose we'll have to wait and see.

As to this debate being split 50-50, I hardly take people's opinions from this forum to coincide with that of the average Joe.

Perhaps, although I also think most people do not think of themselves as 'the average Joe.' I didn't mean that we could draw any hard conclusion from this little debate, obviously. All I meant was that it seems clear that there will always be a part of the population that will go see movies in the theater, no matter what.

Also, let's keep in mind that the simultaneous DVD sales will be more expensive than your usual DVD sales today. They've said they would drop the price to a standard price after the usual amount of time has passed.
How many people do you think will pay more than they are used to for a DVD instead of going to the theater? Keeping in mind that the DVD revenues will be shared with the theaters, I really don't think the theaters are in any trouble.

MacDonalds is the most successful restaurant in the world, and that should serve us as a warning. I think the masses will opt for buying the DVD, that they can keep and lazily watch at home as many times as they wish, as opposed to buying a ticket for a one-time session only.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

I don't think Soderbergh being crap is besides the point at all. If we're going to be led to a revolution by someone that isn't any good anyway, why should we follow?

Well, he's not proposing people change the way they make movies, only that he's going to change the way he distributes his work. I would say debate the distribution model, that is what is relevant. Why is his work relevant? Is Mark Cuban a great filmmaker? If not, then why should we listen to anything he has to say about movies?

Either way, Soderbergh's talent, or lack thereof, is obvioulsy a matter of opinion... and I don't see what that has to do with simultaneous release of his movies.

In the end, it's going to happen, they are already working on it...and the best thing we can all do is vote with our wallets.

Let's keep in mind, this is one guy with 6 very small movies.
Cuban may seem big, but he's not Paramount, Warner, etc.

I just wanna chime in and say that the awfulness of the theater-going experience must be city and theater specific.

I live in Houston. I can do a movie, and dinner, for two people, for $30 or less. The noisy crowd thing--not really an issue, EXCEPT AT CERTAIN THEATERS. There are several theaters that for some reason seem to be magnets for the young'uns, while others, not so much. Either way, it's usually not an issue. People are mostly quiet.

As for the scratchy/out of focus/dim/etc., also, seriously, not really an issue most of the time. Every once in a while you get a clusterfuzzuck, but most of the time it's okay.

So, uh, there. Dudes.

Wow, lots of Soderberg jealousy on this thread ;-)...I don't think the guy is trying to wipe out theatres. He just wants to make sure he has distribution for a bunch of small movies he might want to make, or farm out (a la Indigent).

Hi Ken! I have to wonder... do you go over to the park to watch, or just pull up a chair to your window?

That's exactly what I'd had in mind... too bad smaller places don't follow the examples of the big cities more often.

Luis, I have to say I think your standards are extremely high. In my opinion, any film that can afford Julia Roberts isn't a "small" film. But isn't that really the heart of the matter? With this type of distribution, whole new avenues will appear to allow "small" productions the chance to see the light of day.

One other comment you made..."Is Mark Cuban a great filmmaker? If not, then why should we listen to anything he has to say about movies?"... I'd steer clear of schools and universities having said that...and add to that consulting firms, critics, etc. You've pretty much broadsworded away their raison d'etre.

I don't see the reason for getting upset. "Microcinemas" and "concurrent releases" will have the same effect on cinema as microbreweries had on the big beer breweries. The big guys will remain the big guys... it's just a matter of adaptation and making a bit of elbow room for others. Nothing wrong with that.

Howdy from Texas,

Er... as a former projectionist back in my early college days, let me assure you that "incompetent drunk" and "trained employee" are NOT necessarily mutually exclusive terms. I've spliced film both ways.

Film and Digital Video are two ontologically different mediums. Of course, if you shoot a film on HD, and you transfer it to film, then it should be seen that way. That was your choice to transfer it to film, for the aesthetic qualities that film projection lends your work, or for commercial reasons. Either way, that was your choice. That, however, is not the choice that everyone makes. When you project a film, light streaming through a strip of film, it is different than what a digital projector can produce; and not just in resolution, or the flicker, but in the actual quality of the light. I don't mean to say that it is better, just different. So when someone makes the choice to shoot on film, and wants it projected that way, then it should be. Projecting it digitally will not produce the experience they intended, at least not with today's digital projectors, which are incapable of replicating the film projection experience. Maybe truly replicating it is impossible, because, as I said, we are talking about different mediums. But I'm sure (or rather, I hope) that as technology advances, they will get closer and closer to the physical qualities of film projection.

"Luis, I have to say I think your standards are extremely high. In my opinion, any film that can afford Julia Roberts isn't a "small" film. But isn't that really the heart of the matter? With this type of distribution, whole new avenues will appear to allow "small" productions the chance to see the light of day."

I've been acussed of many things in my life, but having high standards isn't usually one of them.
:)
I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to when you say my standards are extremely high.

You are right, that to people like us any film with Julia Roberts is not a 'small' film, but I was speaking in terms of the film industry. The article mentioned that Soderbergh's films would have a budget of around 2million dollars. Now while I feel that I could do wonders with that much money, the reality is that a 2million dollar film is definitely considered a "small" film in a time where the average movie budget is somewhere in the ballpark of 40million.

And I absolutely agree, I personally think this is a great move that may eventually offer more opportunities for smaller films and for independent filmmakers. I'm not sure what I said to give the opposite impression.
If you go back and read my posts throughout this thread, especially at the start, you'll see that I said I thought it was a "brilliant" idea.