Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Bursting Hollywood's 'Bubble'

By Monica Mehta, AlterNet. Posted January 27, 2006.


Steven Soderbergh's new flick just might be the end of the megaplex.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Q: A movie you want to see is releasing today in simultaneous formats. Would you rather:

1. See it in your living room, where it will air on pay-per-view cable TV at 9 p.m. and 11 p.m.?
2. Go to a theater and see it on a big screen?
3. Wait four days, when it comes out on DVD, and buy and see it then?

Today, the movie industry will have America's answer to this question.

It's the first time a high-profile director will be releasing his film in theaters, on DVD and on cable television simultaneously. And it might mean big changes in the way Hollywood does business over the next decade -- much the way downloaded music has changed the way the music industry operates.

The groundbreaking film in question is called "Bubble," and the director is Steven Soderbergh, who helmed such greats as "sex, lies and videotape," "Traffic," "Erin Brockovich" and "Che." Critics have called the movie "too indie" and "the weirdest goddamn movie ever released by a major American filmmaker," but the plotline seems fairly standard: A love triangle develops between workers at a doll factory in a small Midwestern town. A murder occurs. Mayhem ensues. Soderbergh used mostly nonprofessional actors from the West Virginia and Ohio locales where he shot the film and spent a mere $1.7 million making it. He had no script, instead teaching the actors to improvise scenes based on a screenwriter's outline, and the movie is a mere 73 minutes long.

Nothing too out of the ordinary so far. But it's the marketing strategy that has given the movie enormous buzz. It will be shown in theaters across the country and aired on HDNET movies on Friday at 9:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. EST. The following Tuesday, Magnolia Home Entertainment will release the DVD for sale. Typically, movies have a few months' lag time between theatrical and DVD release. After the theater, studios will release them on pay per view, then DVD, then cable networks, and eventually on broadcast TV, to capitalize on the profits of each phase's sales. Typically, a movie makes about 50 percent of its revenue on home video, and about 25 percent from theaters. The rest comes from selling its TV and other rights.

But Soderbergh and his backers, internet billionaires Todd Wagner and Mark Cuban, say this new simultaneous release strategy, dubbed the "day-and-date model," is a way to get the upper hand on a trend that's already begun.

"Name any big-title movie that's come out in the last four years," Soderbergh said in a recent interview. "It has been available in all formats on the day of release. It's called piracy. Simultaneous release is already here. We're just trying to gain control over it."

It's well-known that theaters have been hit hard by the recent slump in box office sales. Ticket sales in 2005 continued their four-year downward spiral, going down 7 percent from 2004, according to box-office tracker Exhibitor Relations. A number of factors have been cited: online piracy, counterfeit DVD sales, thanks to DVD-burning technology, increased theater ticket prices and pre-movie ads, and the plethora of big-screen TVs and home entertainment systems. People aren't as willing to shell out $20 for a ticket and concessions unless the movie is a big-screen blockbuster like "King Kong."

Soderbergh says the independent film industry has been hit particularly hard by this trend. Fewer theaters will show indie films, which typically draw smaller crowds. Through simultaneous release, he says he's allowing his audience to choose for itself how it wants to see the movie. The new strategy would also let studios leverage the millions of dollars they spend marketing new movies. To compensate for lost ticket sales, the initial DVD sale price of "Bubble" will include a $10 premium, and 1 percent of sales will be given to theaters that show the movie.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Monica Mehta is a writer based in San Francisco and a former AlterNet associate editor.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Follow the money
Posted by: KatieMcQ on Jan 27, 2006 12:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The important thing to remember is that Cuban/Wagner own not only Landmark Theatres, but also HDNet, and Magnolia. No matter what venue the consumer chooses, money ends up in their pockets. The dvds will be sold in Landmark theatres, which I suppose is good for them (or us--disclosure: I work there) to some extent, but the key is that the method of sale doesn't matter, only that money is made in one way or another. Most of the employees fear that this is bad for all independent film--Landmark owns a significant chunk of the indie market, and if it can't make as much money as it did, and if it closes, a lot of cities will be down to one indie venue (or none at all). But Cuban can afford to gamble since he has other sources of money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

popcornlady
Posted by: popcornlady on Jan 27, 2006 4:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One audence that will herald this change are those who love movies and are hearing impaired. I just successfully finished a legal challenge of a multiplex in Maine on behalf of my son - for four years they refused to have a working assistive listening device for all the screens in the theater. And, even with a listening device, he still misses much of the dialogue. Captions on dvd's have been a godsend, and since theaters are resisting rear seat captioning with all their might, television viewing of dvd's and pay-per-view will be welcomed by these folks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

wrong!
Posted by: simplisticton on Jan 27, 2006 5:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
CD sales haven't slumped due to privacy or the ease of downloading the music on line... if that were true, the largest growth market in music wouldn't be the on-line music stores like iTunes (which it is -- look it up). CD sales are declining because the way people buy music is changing. People don't want to buy a whole CD at $19 a pop for one song and a bunch of filler. They'd rather go on-line and pay $0.99 for that one song.

The movie business is changing similarly. People don't want to go a filthy, uncomfortable theatre where they're lectured by a teenage usher to pick up after themselves, then subjected to half an hour of product and anti-piracy commercials (a sweet irony, considering you're showing these anti-piracy commercials to paying ticket holders!), pay $20 for a soda and some popcorn, only to have your experience ruined by the jackass sitting behind you talking to his girlfriend and the house lights coming up before the credits end.

The dinosaurs of the old distribution methods are dead. It's time for them to move on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: wrong! Posted by: drmeow
Disaggregating the causes of lower profits
Posted by: CounterCorp on Jan 27, 2006 6:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When describing the alleged plight of the movie industry, Ms. Mehta lists "online piracy" as one of several factors. But in describing the music industry, she simply states that it took a "huge hit" as a result of downloading. No proof is offered, nor are any other possible reasons for a decline in sales. The effect of this is to analogize what she says happened to the music industry to what will happen with the movie industry.

Several studies by organizations not affiliated with the former, however, found little conclusive evidence that downloading is to blame for lower profits; in fact, the studies indicated that CD sales had actually increased precisely when the industry claimed to be suffering most from downloading -- in part because filesharing led to purchases that otherwise would not have occurred.

It is fascile to assume that when Person A downloads a song, the renevue for the song was "stolen" from Corporation X. That implies that Person A would otherwise have bought the CD, that CD prices are fair, and that the industry offers a variety of quality music that people want. None of that is true. It also fails to consider other factors that contribute to lower profits -- e.g., mismanagment, losses from unrelated ventures, poor marketing, etc.

In addition, it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright, which was never intended as a means of maximizing profits for those who produce (or merely own the rights to) content. As Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote, "The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but [t]o promote the progress of science and useful arts." Everyone who creates something should be rewarded for it, but corporations -- which make huge profits from the labor of others, while giving them only a small fraction of it -- can hardly assert an unfounded "right" to profit from people who make no attempt to profit from the files they download.

The article's underlying assumption is that corporations are entitled to equal or greater profits every year, when neither copyright (nor, for that matter, any other aspect of our "corporate socialism" economic system) is intended as corporate profit insurance. Let the corporations (and their lazy shareholders) lose money just like the rest of us.

www.countercorp.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Get rid of the ads
Posted by: jpinder on Jan 27, 2006 6:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unless someone pays for my movie ticket, I refuse to go. Why should I pay $12 for a movie I know is going to suck! Worst of all, I have to watch 10 min. of advertising, shouldn’t I pay less for watching that shit! But I will pay for an Indie, no ads. The industry must face the fact that home theatres will be, if not already, the most popular choice because we choose what we want to watch, a bit of power on our side, finally.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Get rid of the ads Posted by: dsnider
oh boo hoo
Posted by: schnoggi on Jan 27, 2006 7:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
corporations are always crowing about how too much regulation impinges on their right to an uninhibited market economy. well, here's your free market in action. keep on peddling your soulless overblown cookie-cutter blockbusters, keep on looking for that giant lowest-common denominator hit, good luck with that. my video projector takes up the same visual radius as a movie screen, plus I can rewind, pause to make out, and make my own popcorn without that crappy faux butter. and i can skip the ads and sucky previews. hooray netflix and PPV!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Movie theatres should evolve
Posted by: dsnider on Jan 27, 2006 8:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With the increasing use of automation and digital technology, it would be trivial to offer more consumer choice and flexibility to movie-goers.

People only want to go to a theatre to see a movie that is impressive on the big screen -- and that means a movie with amazing cinematography (and/or special effects) and soundtrack, or possibly a cult-classic or personal favorite movie.

If a movie isn't a guaranteed blockbuster, then it should likely be released to DVD and Pay-Per-View at the same time it is released in theatres to get the most sales -- but do note it should never skip a movie-theatre release unless it was meant to go straight to home video.

Yes, movie-going rates are down due to much improved home theatre systems, and also due to lack of quality movies (movie piracy has been around for decades, and has very little impact on movie-going). If Hollywood is going to continue to release big-expensive over-hyped dud movies, then they are going to continue to lose money. Examples? The Hulk. FearDotCom. I'm certain that people that pirate such duds weep over the wasted bandwidth and DVD media. Need I go on?

My big suggestion to the movie theatre conglomerates is to make a few of those theatres that are auto-playing dud movies to empty seats available to play old favorites as voted on by interested movie-goers, or for those who have a group of say ten or more people who wish to see a movie of their choice. I'm positive that there is a large untapped market here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good Idea
Posted by: monkeywrench on Jan 27, 2006 10:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What's not to love about seeing movies in a theater? First, you drive for miles through choking traffic to get to a crowded parking lot, then stand in line (I guess they're shorter now...) to buy a $10+ ticket, pay $3.50 for 5 cents worth of soda and more for popcorn, sit in a theater with sticky floors (and occasionally sticky/wet seats), fight other patrons for the armrest and to see the screen, sit through 10 or 15 commercials and an equal number of previews at ear-splitting audio level, then put up with ringing cell phones, blabbing audience members and screaming infants. And at the end of this not-so magical mystery tour, you get to crawl through the same traffic to return home.

Why leave in the first place? The frig is right aroud the corner, with food at competitive prices, you can tell noisy people to shut the h*ll up (what are families for?), and you can stretch out with your feet up. And –– should the movie be a little sexy and the two of you are alone, well. . . .

I think Mr. Soderberg is onto something.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Huh?
Posted by: TariffDude on Jan 27, 2006 11:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't you guys have discount theaters? I see movies in the theater for $1.50...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Huh? Posted by: Techubus
Long Live The Movie Theater
Posted by: LesSalt18 on Jan 27, 2006 3:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The "day-to-date" model envisioned by Mark Cuban and co. is absolutely disgusting and more importantly brings up two very important problems. First is the anti-trust laws of 1948 established by the Paramount decision which made it illegal for one company to produce, distribute and exhibit films. This is exactly what is happening with Bubble. It's produced by Magnolia, distributed by Magnolia and screened in theaters that are owned by the same folk as Magnolia. So it's very easy for Cuban and Co. to say this is the film going experience of the future. It directly benefits them. Also, are y'all aware that the Bubble DVD is like $30. The second problem is it hurts those theaters around the country that are independently owned and operated. That have no affliations with major studios, or major exhibition chains and that operate strictly on the passion of a few folks who believe that independent films, art film, and foreign films still mean something. So before y'all offhandedly bash the film going experience, take some time to not exaggerate tritely about how the theaters are dirty, how it's overpriced, etc. and think about what is mean to actually get off you butt and go to see a show. Because it's very likely that that experience will no longer exist. And it will be the direct result of these lunatic futuristic fantasies a couple of white rich boys have.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

rover
Posted by: Roverton on Jan 27, 2006 3:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Something about sitting in a huge dark room with a bunch of total strangers and agreeing. Sharing common reactions to images. It's a little like a rock concert. An event. It's akin to safety.

Watching a download at home is not the same bonded sensation, by any means.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

M. Night Shyamalan should stop making movies anyway.
Posted by: rollo on Jan 28, 2006 2:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He only had one good one, his first.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

theaters are for those that "have"
Posted by: DaBear on Feb 1, 2006 12:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For parents who are have-nots, theaters are those shiny things that clog up parking lots we're trying to escape from after dragging kids to see a fountain... that's our affordable entertainment.

We base theater viewing on the following protocol:
a) is it a big-screen worthy film (special FX, good cast, good writer, good director, etc.)? is yes, continue. If no, forget it.
b) can we schedule it in? kids schedules, work schedules between 4 jobs and two people all compound the scheduling issue. if yes, continue. if no, forget it.
c) can we afford a sitter before the film leaves the theater (most films are gone within 10 days or less)? if yes, continue. If no, forget it.
d) can we swing the ticket price (forget popcorn, parking, etc. that on top of the child care fees already pretty much makes theater going a non-starter)? if yes, continue. If no, forget it.
e) will we be too tired to stay awake anyway? if yes, continue, if no, forget it.
f) can we stand the military recruiting ads, the obnoxious Republikaaner cult members who hang out at the cineplex, the outrageous price for crappy concessions, the sloth of patrons who leave their garbage on the floor after the show as if someone else put it there, the two inch deep layer of gooey filth on the floor and the ratty seats, all of which we have the pleasure of paying for with a $12 ticket per person? Mostly not. So, come to think of it, just forget it altogether.

With such a protocol we've developed a reasonable library of second hand DVD's and a neighbor-gifted DVR. While we love the idea of the communal experience of the theater, the giant screen & theater audio to immerse us, we either cannot afford it, cannot find time to do it even if we could, or can't stand the level of filth and social aggravation it requires to bother with the theater. If the studios don't comprehend that yet, well, I'm not going to waste my time crying them a river. When the corporate elites lower themselves to the reality of most Americans, and the theater management/owners have to pay for and access their overpriced filthy establishments too, we'll be happy to discuss their issues with them. Until then, just put out the damned DVD and shut the hell up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

saluting soderbergh
Posted by: fairbrother on Aug 14, 2006 9:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was no less than George Lucas himself, self-styled King of the Brainless Popcorn Blockbuster, who pointed out that when pro-football was first televised, some sports promoters predicted the death of live-game attendence. Instead, it made the games accessible to people who couldn't attend, and opened up a new market beyond the dedicated fans who know that there's no real substitute for being there.

Soderbergh and Co. deserve credit for being, so far as I can tell, the only Hollywood players who've even bothered considering how to tailor the distribution of a film to the demands of its audience. Who can blame those who'd rather view a movie in the comfort and privacy of their living room than venture out to pay good money for, what is generally conceded to be, a mediocre experience at a multiplex? I can't. But I'm still one of those die-hard fans who will always prefer to "be there" for the event. Both camps have strong numbers, and each is prepared to prove it by opening their wallets. Where is the problem with this? To hear M Night Shyamalan tell it, this will spell doom for cinemas as a movie-going venue. Err, only if the idiots financing and over-hyping evermore M Night Shyamalan movies (ooh, another surprise ending! How'd ya come up with that one, Night?) stick with present trends to their careers' dying breath, in which case viewers will almost certainly save their money and stay home with a DVD. Diversifying movie distribution is the only way to SAVE cinemas.

It's a shame that Bubble [for the record: an amazing little movie], even with all the buzz, didn't actually perform financially, because it attests to the air of indifference that surrounds cinema at the moment. Too many Da Vinci Codes and X Men 3s and The Break-Ups have made people cynical about Hollywood's histrionic hype-machine in that snide, easy way of cliche-come-true. With media-savvy now approaching saturation-point even in the youngest demographics, of course attendence is declining, people are getting sick of seeing the same old sensationalism over and over again: yet movies are still making almost as much money now as they ever have, with new (if increasingly obscure) records being broken every other opening weekend. People still love the idea of the movies but, to quote the man in the song, the thrill is gone. It has the air of an unfulifilled spouse begrudgingly acting out their partner's wierdest sexual fantasies in the slim hope of saving a loveless marriage.

In the industry imagined by 2929, the viewer has a broader choice. Smaller films cost less to make, meaning less risk for financiers, meaning more finance could be found for more artists to make more films, meaning more options to the consumer again... all good things. The so-called "teething pains" of adopting the date-day scheme would be experienced only by execs losing grip on their precious monopoly and (dare I say?) artists who's movies simply didn't sell in any format, so they'd be no worse off anyway while we, the audience, still enjoy the benefits of greater choice (including lower prices).

Over and above this, I'd love to see the "megaplexes" - those of the sticky floors, plucky ushers, excessive advertising, "copyright" guilt-trips, and fickle, inconsiderate patronage - go belly-up so audiences might enjoy a return to movie-houses of character and style, where the proprietors are operating out of a personal passion as much as a financial motivation. There'd be room in the market for such ventures to thrive, if only a few fingers could be loosed from Hollywood's corporate stranglehold. Personally, I wouldn't mind paying $14.50 to see an interesting flick in a clean, comfy, welcoming cinema in the company of other grown-ups. And McCinema franchises owned by indifferent pencil-pushers and staffed by bored kids merely in transit between fast-food and their first office jobs? Fahgeddabout it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]