Bubble

[MacGuffin]

'Bubble' bursts film tradition
Soderbergh's mystery closes the gap between theater, cable and DVD releases, but widens a rift within the industry.
Source: Los Angeles Times



Hollywood is abuzz over "Bubble."

It's not that Steven Soderbergh's new art house movie is expected to break any box office records when it opens Friday. A low-budget murder mystery set in a doll factory and made with non-actors, it's hardly blockbuster material.
 
But because it's the first feature by an Oscar-winning director ("Traffic") to be released in theaters, on cable television and on DVD in a four-day span, "Bubble" is forcing everyone in town to wrestle with this question: Is the great American tradition of going out to the movies on its way out?

Already, Soderbergh's push to close the months-long window that traditionally separates a film's debut in theaters and its availability in other formats has triggered heated debate in the industry's creative and business communities.

Several veteran directors interviewed for this article said that although they understand that movie studios face increasing pressures from consumers who want to be able to choose when and how they view entertainment, Soderbergh is nevertheless on dangerous ground.

"Would I rather see 'Munich' in the comfort of my home? Hell, no!" said Jonathan Demme, whose credits include such hits as "Philadelphia" and "The Silence of the Lambs." "Doesn't it seem like the movie business is devouring itself because it can't wait to get to home video?"

Tim Burton, director of last year's "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" and the animated "Corpse Bride," called the notion of simultaneous release absurd. Obviously, he said, cinema is a business, "but everything should be done to treat it as an art form — it's a visceral medium."

Ron Howard, whose latest release is "Cinderella Man," agreed. "Viewing in a theater is the optimum experience," he said. "It needs to be preserved…. But, at the end of the day, technology and viewers are going to tell us what they really want."

Similar discussions — and arguments — are raging inside Hollywood's executive suites. Although Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Bob Iger and Time Warner's Dick Parsons have publicly suggested that the simultaneous release of films across multiple formats is inevitable, their own movie studio chiefs are cautioning that preserving the communal moviegoing experience is vital not just to the culture but to the bottom line.

"As to our corporate bosses in New York, it's not my place to say their view is incorrect," Alan Horn, president of Warner Bros., said of his colleagues at Time Warner. "But … while we embrace new technologies, we do so with deliberation, caution and forethought."

Although last year's industry-wide domestic box office receipts were down about 5% and attendance dropped about 8%, Horn says releasing a movie in a theater "does more than prime the pump" for its release in DVD and beyond. In 2005, Warner's movies generated $3.3 billion in worldwide ticket sales.

"That's real money," Horn said.

Traditionally, studios have culled hefty profits from various distribution outlets by delaying the so-called ancillary markets — DVD, pay cable (such as HBO) and free TV — until after a theatrical run.

Those who argue to toss out this traditional approach believe it may be more lucrative to give consumers the choice of seeing movies however, whenever and wherever they want. Because at least half a film's revenue today comes from DVD sales, executives ask, why not make discs available at a premium price right away?

But for every media mogul who sees simultaneous release as a way for studios to increase profits (by stemming piracy and consolidating marketing campaigns, among other things), there's another who disagrees.

Sony Pictures Vice Chairman Jeff Blake is among the skeptics: "I don't think anyone has shown how you can keep up the level of revenue we have now, much less make more money."

Jim Gianopulos, co-chairman of 20th Century Fox, agreed. He said the tiered system that has been in place since home video emerged 25 years ago "is not random. It's not accidental. There's logic to it." What advocates of simultaneous release are proposing "makes no sense."

Walt Disney Studios Chairman Dick Cook also defended the sanctity of the theatrical window. He finds himself engaged in "a constant dialogue" about the future of release windows with his Disney colleagues, including Iger, his boss.

It was Iger who broke the issue wide open last summer when he told a conference of investors and media analysts that simultaneous release was no longer "out of the question."

Echoing Soderbergh, who just a few months earlier had called Hollywood's existing economic model outdated, Iger said that just as the rules of consumption had changed, so should old distribution patterns be "called into question."

Theater owners, who fear such a shift would kill their already profit-challenged business, went nuts. John Fithian, president of the National Assn. of Theatre Owners, shot back that Iger should know better than to tell consumers "they can have it all, everywhere, at the same time."

Then M. Night Shyamalan, the director of such blockbusters as "The Sixth Sense" and "Signs," stepped forward to make a passionate case for why theater-going is an important collective experience. Alarmed by Soderbergh's plan to make six high-definition video movies for same-day release, Shyamalan publicly vowed he'd rather forsake filmmaking altogether than see his movies debut on the small screen.

Soderbergh, known both for his provocative indie films that include 1989's "sex, lies and videotape" as well as such studio hits as "Erin Brockovich" and "Oceans Eleven," declined to comment.

But Mark Cuban, the financier and distributor of "Bubble," was happy to take a shot at Shyamalan's fervent opposition to change.

"He should stop making movies then," the controversial entrepreneur said via e-mail. "He should also remove his existing titles from DVD release. That should make him very, very happy."

Cuban and his partner, Todd Wagner, who became dot-com billionaires when they sold Broadcast.com Inc. to Yahoo in 1999, will simultaneously open "Bubble" on Friday at 19 of their own Landmark Theaters and 16 other art houses. That same day, the film will debut on their high-definition HDNet Movies, a subscription service that is available on several cable and satellite systems. Four days later, they will release the DVD through their Magnolia Pictures.

The $1.7-million "Bubble" — a 72-minute drama about an unlikely love triangle that stars the residents of the town at the Ohio-West Virginia border in which it was shot — is their second simultaneous release. Last April, they debuted the feature documentary "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room" in art house theaters and on their HDNet Movies TV network.

That film grossed $4 million at the box office — a lot more than many documentaries. But "Enron" director Alex Gibney said that although the release strategy was — and remains — "a worthy experiment" that enabled a concerted marketing push, ultimately it was "bad for the movie." That's because the nation's largest theater chains, led by Regal Entertainment, refuse to play any film that's released the same day in multiple formats.

Cuban and Wagner aren't the only ones trying simultaneous releases. Rainbow Media, a division of Cablevision Systems Corp., plans to release as many as 24 indie films a year in art house theaters and via a new video-on-demand service it's pitching to cable operators.

Proof of how divisive the simultaneous release issue has become can be found in some big-name directors' silence.

Contacted by The Times, Steven Spielberg's longtime publicist Marvin Levy said, "Steven is not going to comment on this."

A spokesperson for Martin Scorsese said, "He doesn't want to get into the public fray."

Even the powerful Directors Guild of America is loath to take a formal position on the issue.

"It's a fast-moving horizon, and as things develop, individual directors form different opinions on how the narrowing distribution windows will affect their films reaching the audience," said DGA President Michael Apted, whose credits include the 1999 James Bond film "The World is Not Enough."

But among those who spoke to The Times, there is agreement on one thing: Whether one's gadget of choice is an iPod or cellphone or something else, as technology changes how Americans entertain themselves, movies will have to adapt.

"Commerce always has to win," said Sydney Pollack, a director for more than 40 years whose movies include such classics as "The Way We Were" and "Tootsie."

Pollack, who is developing a movie project with Soderbergh, says he understands why his fellow director is "experimenting" with the new release strategy on his smaller films.

"On the one hand, the businessman in me understands it," Pollack said. "But the lover of movies in me wants desperately to hang on to the movie house as a collective experience with the audience."

Woody Allen, whose current release is "Match Point," agreed.

"I know it's hard to argue with the convenience and immediacy of large high-definition TV screens in the comfort of your home versus the often irritating rigmarole of going out to the movies," Allen said in an e-mail. "But, I would still argue for it."

For his part, Michael Mann, whose "Miami Vice" is due in theaters this summer, said that although he frames every shot of his movies for big-screen viewing and he cherishes the "social experience" of going to the cinema, "the problem is technology has shown up and provided different distribution pathways."

When asked if he believed that simultaneous release was inevitable, Mann said the debate is moot.

"Once you can download 'Desperate Housewives' for $1.99 onto your iPod, we're there."

[modage]

yes, ideally i prefer going to the theatre to see everything.  but going to the theatre SUCKS when they try to gouge every fucking penny out of you and show you fucking commercials.  so FUCK YOU theatre owners.  until you wise up and start treating the theatres like an EXPERIENCE and a NIGHT OUT and not just a few hours in front of a big tv with a bunch of assholes then i hope you choke.

[pete]

well, on the one hand, it's might sift out the people you don't want in a movie theater--the people that treat the theater like it's their livingroom, the people who talk to the screen and to each other.  On the other hand, the opening weekend box office performance might become way more crucial, and the studios might therefore take even less chances with movies that didn't open well.  Films would be even more driven by trailers and marketing, and films like Napoleon Dynamite and Shawshank never would've become the video phenomenons that they were.

[Weak2ndAct]

http://suicidegirls.com/words/Steven+Soderbergh

DRE: What will happen to the back end?

Soderbergh: See, this is my whole point. All of this stuff needs to be redesigned. The whole thing from top to bottom, the risk reward ratio. How people are compensated up front and how they are compensated in the back. It's in bad shape and someone needs to sit down and figure it out.

DRE: What should be done?

Soderbergh: There should be a true partnership between people who make material and the people who finance. That means that a lot of people who are being over compensated up front would have to be willing to take it on the back and that's fine. It's good to take it on the back if the people that you're dealing with can be trusted to pay you. The great news for me personally is that Warner Bros is actually one of the few studios that pays people when they owe them money. I've made movies with Universal and only one of them made any money and I was paid. I didn't have back end there. I had these triggers that if the film hit certain performance levels then I got a bonus and I got my bonus. The economics right now are just totally out of whack.

I'm not too crazy about the whole day/date release strategy, but this is an agenda I can get behind.  I truly loathe how the signing of talent can balloon a budget and torpedo the profitablity of a project.  Good work should be rewarded, shit work should be punished.  How an actor can get paid 20 mil. just for signing a contract just blows my mind.

[pete]

but to punish "shitwork" in a film is very dangerous because really, whose fault is it if the film does badly?  is it the actor's?  the director's?  the studio's?

[Redlum]

This simaltaneous, multi-format release buiness is pretty sadenning to me. It seems like another instance of convenience gone crazy. I applaud how Soderbergh uses his inside-outsider status but I question his take on this in the same way that I'm dismayed by Lynch's newfound faith in digital video. I'm not going to argue with his understanding of the economics involved but like most of the directors in that article I will not see the cinema experience damaged anymore than it has been.

Digital projection isnt going to make the least bit of difference to the situation, either.

I was considering buying Bubble on DVD but now I realise that would be extremely foolish.

[matt35mm]

Well, realize, it's opening in limited release.  There's nothing to do about the fact that most people will watch this on video.  I know it's already in my Netflix queue.  I simply can't contribute to the theater grosses of the film, and neither can most people. 

This is effectively a straight-to-video that is also playing in a couple of theaters in NY and LA.  So how Bubble performs in theaters means absolute squat, even if every screening is sold out.  It'll still be the $500,000 in theaters compared to the millions on DVD.  It's simply SET UP that way.  It's not even the issue that it's being made out to be.

If it were truly equal opportunity in every case, then it would be interesting to compare.  But it's not, so it's not.

The whole thing is simply to get people to talk more about a straight-to-video release.  That's the genius of the whole thing, to get people talking about it, to have it be headline news on Yahoo!, to have Ebert & Roeper devote half their show to it, without having to distribute very many prints in theaters,  and instead making profits right off the bat.  Other than as a promotion tool, it is not innovative in the slightest.  Bubble has no real place in a serious discussion of where cinema is  headed, as far as I can see.  It has opened up a discussion about it, but it is not a factor itself.

[jigzaw]

The cruddy thing is that this leads the way to shuffling off independent/low budget movies to a couple screenings in NY and LA and straight-to-DVD.  Movies like Capote, Brokeback Mountain, etc.. and we'll have megaplexes with 4 or 5 screens of King Kong and Aeon Flux and not much else.

[Gamblour.]

The cruddy thing is that this leads the way to shuffling off independent/low budget movies to a couple screenings in NY and LA and straight-to-DVD.  Movies like Capote, Brokeback Mountain, etc.. and we'll have megaplexes with 4 or 5 screens of King Kong and Aeon Flux and not much else.

Very true. No cinematic experience for smaller films.

[w/o horse]

Spoilers.

Soderbergh is so versatile it's ridiculous. The film here felt sincere, not a cast of actors doing their own make up; there weren't even any actors here. Which perhaps you could sometimes tell in curious beats.  The tone was rigid, I feel like I know the job and the people enough to  be sick of them myself.  I am sick of them. I wanted to smack Martha and Kyle by the end. I wanted the people to start talking faster and I wanted something to happen. I wanted the damn rooms to be well lit.  Clearly he achieved what he was going for. The story is 9/10 building the atmosphere and characters and then 'here's the murder mystery' is the final tenth.

It is a real world movie, inside and out. Aside from the mention of murder, there isn't a hint of the film universe here. Characters fumble over word choice and comment on the exciting looking Aruba they seen on TV. Two of the main characters don't have a car but it's not a big deal to them. One is saving up; he's got a jar of money in his dresser drawer. These little real life things are there, only here they're not ironic and there's no detachment and indeed there's no adventure.

I liked it. Is what I'm saying. I liked it okay.

[jigzaw]

well, on the one hand, it's might sift out the people you don't want in a movie theater--the people that treat the theater like it's their livingroom, the people who talk to the screen and to each other.  On the other hand, the opening weekend box office performance might become way more crucial, and the studios might therefore take even less chances with movies that didn't open well.  Films would be even more driven by trailers and marketing, and films like Napoleon Dynamite and Shawshank never would've become the video phenomenons that they were.

Actually, I'm not so sure it would sift out undesireable moviegoers as much at it'll sift out all but the special-effects driven "blockbusters" from the theatre, which of course will still draw the loud assholes to the theatre.  What it looks like is that only King Kong and Star Wars and Steven Spielberg movies will even make it into the theatres (cause more than half will go out of business under this new "model", and no way are they going to take any chances with independent/foreign/low budget movies), and those of us who love movies will stop going to the theatres rather than the obnoxious audience members.

Napoleon Dynamite and Shawshank would not have ever gotten to the theatres, much less been noticed on video.  Think of this, if Quentin Tarantino had come about 10 years from now instead of 10 years ago, his movies would not have been shown in theatres and instead of bieng a household name, he'd be a cult-guy with 100,000 fans on straight-to-video.
If you couldn't tell, I really don't like this idea.  I've enjoyed Soderberg's movies before, but I will not contribute one dollar to this experiment.  I'm hoping it bombs in both the theatre and DVD so it becomes a non-event.

Anyway mark my words:  if this becomes the norm, it won't lead to a glorious day of all kinds of movies on DVD and the big screen, it'll lead to ONLY 200+ million-dollar movies ever being shown on the big screen and EVERYTHING else being straight-to-video.  Not to mention half of the movie theatres would go out of business.  It would end movie theatres the way Nintendo ended the arcades.

[modage]

yeah, you're crazy.  napster is killing the music industry!

[killafilm]

I'm on the fence about it.

I saw Donnie Darko in the theater back in 2001.  It played in the theater I worked at for ONE week.  I seriously think Mod and I could've been two of like 50 people who saw it there.  When I wanted my friends to see it we had to drive into the city to a little dingy hole in the wall theater to see it again.  And again it was only there for like two weeks. 

If it had been on DVD the whole time it would've gotten it's cult following a bit faster.

I don't think Hollywood has anything to fear.  In the end people need to escape and a large part of that is the theater experience.

[Weak2ndAct]

Spoilers.

Soderbergh is so versatile it's ridiculous. The film here felt sincere, not a cast of actors doing their own make up; there weren't even any actors here. Which perhaps you could sometimes tell in curious beats.  The tone was rigid, I feel like I know the job and the people enough to  be sick of them myself.  I am sick of them. I wanted to smack Martha and Kyle by the end. I wanted the people to start talking faster and I wanted something to happen. I wanted the damn rooms to be well lit.  Clearly he achieved what he was going for. The story is 9/10 building the atmosphere and characters and then 'here's the murder mystery' is the final tenth.

It is a real world movie, inside and out. Aside from the mention of murder, there isn't a hint of the film universe here. Characters fumble over word choice and comment on the exciting looking Aruba they seen on TV. Two of the main characters don't have a car but it's not a big deal to them. One is saving up; he's got a jar of money in his dresser drawer. These little real life things are there, only here they're not ironic and there's no detachment and indeed there's no adventure.

I liked it. Is what I'm saying. I liked it okay.

http://www.imdb.com/user/ur2926660/comments

So are we cutting and pasting xixax reviews for imdb, or vice versa?  Either way: odd.

[grand theft sparrow]

I didn't like Bubble, the first Soderbergh film I can honestly say that about.  I respect what he was trying to do, just not in the manner in which he did it.

For his next movie, he should get real actors.  Even if he grabs them from local repertory theatres or something, that's fine, so long as they have some sort of acting training.  It seems like Soderbergh was trying to do some sort of neo-Dogme/experimental van Sant thing but it didn't work for me.  With the exception of the detective, who Soderbergh said on NPR was really a detective so he was just doing his thing, the cast wasn't very good.  It's not their fault; some people just can't act.  Under the circumstances, they didn't do too badly but for a film with some sort of major release by an Oscar winning director.  Even if this were a first time director's film, it still would be a disappointment.

That all being said, I give Soderbergh points for having the balls to do something like this; it may be a failed experiment but a noble one, in my estimation. 

But I have gripes about the HD projection.  I don't know if it was being projected incorrectly or what but some of the lower light scenes looked like video, some of the out of focus objects looked more pixellated than out of focus, and the sound was off just a split second so the actors' lips were moving just a bit before we heard the dialogue.  And I was getting dizzy during some of the scenes, maybe because I'm not used to HD projection, I'm guessing.  Anyone else get any of these?