that was quick...
The 43rd New York Film Festival
September 23 - October 9, 2005
BUBBLE, Steven Soderbergh, USA, 72m. 2005. Magnolia Pictures.
http://www.filmlinc.com/nyff/nyff.htm
Oscar-Winner Soderbergh Slams Reality TV
Steven Soderbergh, who used a cast of nonprofessionals to make "Bubble," a murder story set in a bleak Ohio town, says fiction on screen is more real than reality TV.
The Oscar winner for "Traffic," and director of "sex, lies, and videotape" and "Erin Brockovich," Soderbergh was in Venice this weekend for the out-of-competition premiere of "Bubble."
"I tried very hard not to disturb the cast. We designed the story to fit the town," Soderbergh said at a news conference on Saturday. He said he wanted to "incorporate much of their own lives into the story."
"The initial idea was three characters who worked in a factory of sorts, doing manual, repetitive labor," the director said. He decided on a doll factory, which when he scouted the location turned out to be "even more surreal and bizarre than I could have imagined."
Soderbergh slammed reality TV for being "as far from reality as you can imagine and more fictionalized than the movies you see."
"They're forcing the issue onto characters," Soderbergh said, contending reality TV's goal is to "force these people to be humiliated."
In "Bubble," Soderbergh said he was "taking a real environment and taking real people in a way that's much more fluid and much less aggressive" than reality TV.
On reality TV, "the humanity has been taken away from these people," said Soderbergh, who asked if the trend in TV entertainment had caught on in Europe.
He was told it had, in a big way.
Soderbergh said he is curious about audience reaction to "Bubble."
Some people "haven't any interest in seeing their lives on film ... Many will say, 'I want to escape" by watching more classic entertainment, Soderbergh said.
The movie will be shown at the New York Film Festival, which begins Sept. 23.
In the town in "Bubble," most people are either unemployed or working two jobs to stay afloat, the director said. One of the characters laments how they are stuck there because they don't have enough money to move.
"Bubble" is the first of six high-definition format films he will produce over the next five years, he said.
The film is being released simultaneously in movie theaters and on DVD, pay-per-view cable and satellite television.
"This is where the business is going. Give consumers a choice for how they want to see films," he said.
This whole project seems like a reverse-version of the short-lived FOX reality show "Murder in Small Town X", which would have been really, really good if it hadn't sucked utterly and completely.
I absolutely adored this.
damnit! why are they going to hold a press screening BEFORE the film festival?
Press screenings for the NYFF begin a week before the public NYFF.
A Synopsis: How does the protean Steven Soderbergh—the rare indie trailblazer inventive and confident enough to play in Hollywood on his own terms—follow up a glossy studio picture starring some of the world's most glamorous movie stars? By shooting an absolutely riveting little tragedy in High Def in an Ohio doll factory, starring non-professional actors as enthralling in their untrained sincerity as George Clooney is in his expert panache. The stunted tale of doll-assembler Martha (an astonishing, sustained performance by real-life cashier Debbie Doebereiner), her young factory friend Kyle, and Rose, the thorny new hire, packs shades of mystery, menace, triangular romantic jealousy, and everyday punch-the-clock ennui into its documentary-style contours. And that's even before the violent death.... This haunting experimental project is the first in a series of low-budget dramas Soderbergh plans to shoot around America. 72 min. USA, 2005 A Magnolia Pictures Release.i thought the film was okay. many of you will love it, but even with it's moments it never really picked up any steam or became totally involving. the whole thing just feels a bit slight. it's very low key and it seems to be missing a lot of his most soderbergian traits. perhaps to better suit the feel of the town and its characters he has slowed things down a bit and forgone dialogue overlapping other scenes and jump cuts in favor of a slowly unfolding portrait of 3 characters. with the freedom he had i would've even liked to see him go a little more experimental, but besides using non-actors, it was pretty conventional. they did do a good job though. C-
soderbergh said he would do the next 2929 film in early '07 and that bubble would be released in january. he also said that all hte 2929 films would be filmed in different areas of the country and that the area would heavily inform the film (as it does here).
the best part was getting to partially rectify this situation...
Quote from: modage on May 8th 2003at a screening for solaris i was sitting a few feet away from Steven Soderbergh AND James Cameron taking notes for them but was so completely flabergasted i didnt talk to them. my ultimate nerdy regret.
with Traffic and Solaris dvd's now signed, i am halfway toward nerd redemption.
the modage alphabet:
ACDEFG...
can the powers that be please change my title -
i find it really upsetting and can not concentrate -
anything else would suffice
"shot on Betacam" would even be less upsetting
or "wathches VHS tapes", something to that effect
or anything else you see fit, and don't think about anything derived from the boondock
The "Another Steven Soderbergh Experience" thing really bothers me. If not for that bit it would be a very good poster. (still excited to see the film).
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.moviegoldmine.com%2Fimages%2F876964000024.jpg&hash=7c5bfbdc0b249f6a9dd1e3f21201e3b9fb1f0b48)
i agree - the poster is quite wonderful - the text is fairly pretensious
my prediction is that this movie will be loved on xixax in a fairly low-key gus van sant way.
that text (except with my name) is what i put on my movies freshman year of high school. it's not pretentious, just stupid.
Quote from: JimmyGator on December 09, 2005, 02:38:45 PM
it's not pretentious, just stupid.
Unless you're Jimi Hendrix, it's pretentious.
TEASER: http://www.themoviebox.net/movies/2006/0-9ABC/Bubble/trailer.php
CLIP: http://www.cinematografo.it/Trailers/00003271.html
BUBBLE opens January 27th.
That teaser......is awful.
It honestly made me want to not see the film.
Yeah, pretty shitty.
reminds me of A Clockwork Orange.
He should have totally set the trailer to a New Order song.
You all realize that, regardless of whether or not you want to see it, we all have to do our part and see it in a theatre opening weekend, or the days of the movie theatre will be numbered as they will have tangible proof that most people will opt for DVD if given the choice.
Quote from: lockesparrow on December 26, 2005, 10:24:54 PM
You all realize that, regardless of whether or not you want to see it, we all have to do our part and see it in a theatre opening weekend, or the days of the movie theatre will be numbered as they will have tangible proof that most people will opt for DVD if given the choice.
maybe we can get M Night to pay for all of us. A field trip of sorts...
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2FB000C3L2P2.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg&hash=da06b49d468e45b6f50d0f349b1f93343b94e966)
DVD Cover ^^^
In Theatres Jan 27
or (in the shortest window from Theatres to DVD EVER!) Pre-order it from Amazon for Jan 31st here. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000C3L2P2/qid=1135796250/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-8151131-5175344?n=507846&s=dvd&v=glance)
Quote from: Tictacbk on December 16, 2005, 04:47:32 AM
That teaser......is awful.
It honestly made me want to not see the film.
yeah, it pretty much sucks...now i see the reason for the dvd/theatrical release...
http://www.bubblethefilm.com/
includes quicktime interviews with Soderbergh about Bubble, the Simultaneous Release and MORE!
I saw it today when the projectionist was setting it up on landmark theater's new state of the art digital projection. All I can say is Bubble looks really really amazing and crisp on 4k projection. I mean, you know, it doesn't have the warmth of celluloid but WOW the detail and the clarity! 4k!
but how was the movie?
I don't know, didn't watch the whole thing.
hmm...well i do have a 25 dollar pass to kendall square cinemas. think it's worth it?
you could buy it on dvd for that money!
jimmygator: I freaking work at the kendall. I probably sold your mom/ uncle/ whoever actually thought it to be a good idea to give gift certificates from an indie theater.
just come and look for a goofy asian kid with glasses and ask me if I was Pete. I'll say yes and let you in. If I'm there.
Quote from: hacksparrow on December 26, 2005, 10:24:54 PM
He should have totally set the trailer to a New Order song.
You all realize that, regardless of whether or not you want to see it, we all have to do our part and see it in a theatre opening weekend, or the days of the movie theatre will be numbered as they will have tangible proof that most people will opt for DVD if given the choice.
I'm bothered by this release as well, but I don't know if I even want to dignify it with a theatre viewing. I'll probably ignore it altogether and hope it's a bomb. Why do I have the distinct feeling that Soderberg is being used by the money guys who blew a lot of smoke up his ass about being "experimental" and got him to help kill the theatrical industry? As an aspiring filmmaker I want my work to end up in a theatre, and this just makes me think that in the near future films by new directors and all low budget films will instantly become dvd-only releases, kind of how the Oscars started only allowing "stars" to get up on stage to accept their awards. More exclusivity and higher barriers. I'm pretty pissed at Soderberg over this.
'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
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fmedia%2Fphoto%2F2006-01%2F21559121.jpg&hash=4cb72bb16cef4e0aa1827ca4556276806e928f0d)
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."
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: jigzaw on January 23, 2006, 09:30:40 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: pete on January 22, 2006, 10:36:37 PM
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.
yeah, you're crazy. napster is killing the music industry!
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.
Quote from: Losing the Horse: on January 25, 2006, 01:31:50 AM
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.
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?
Quote from: Weak2ndAct on January 28, 2006, 05:16:47 AM
Quote from: Losing the Horse: on January 25, 2006, 01:31:50 AM
Spoilers.
Things about the movie
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.
Sometimes I get the hankering to post about a movie on IMDb. It's kind of like an online movie journal, you know. I log in, there are my mini-reviews with dates.
My IMDb has nothing to do with Xixax and my Xixax has nothing to do with my IMDb outside of if I write something for one I'll put it on the othe as well.
Quote from: Losing the Horse: on January 29, 2006, 10:32:53 AM
My IMDb has nothing to do with Xixax and my Xixax has nothing to do with my IMDb outside of if I write something for one I'll put it on the othe as well.
And he was thinking about us the whole time he was writing there.
'Bubble' Release Deemed Success by Backers
The independent film "Bubble" was barely a blip at movie theaters this weekend, but its pioneering multi-pronged distribution strategy has created more than its share of buzz.
The film, directed by Academy Award-winner Steven Soderbergh, is the first of six films to be produced under a partnership between Soderbergh and 2929 Entertainment. Founded by Todd Wagner and Mark Cuban, the company owns Magnolia Pictures, which distributed "Bubble" in partnership with Landmark Theaters and HDNet Movies, the cable TV channel that aired it twice Friday. On Tuesday, the film arrives on DVD, as well.
The movie took in $70,664 from Friday through Sunday according to box office tracking firm Exhibitor Relations. The film played on 32 screens, mostly at Landmark and other independent theaters, for a per screen average of $2,208.
Orders for the DVD have been four times "normal expectations" according to a press release Monday from Magnolia Films. The company did not say how many individual DVDs were ordered.
While the film's box-office performance was modest because major theater chains refused to run it, the film's backers declared victory for their release strategy.
"We are very happy with the results so far of this first day-and-date release, and while theatrical performance was not as high as we would have liked, it compared favorably to other similar films released this weekend," Cuban said in a press release.
The film cost $1.6 million to produce, a paltry sum even by independent film standards.
The release stirred controversy because of the high-profile director attached to it and because at least one major media executive suggested the idea might make sense for more mainstream Hollywood fare.
Theater owners attacked the plan, saying theater chains would lose millions of dollars if other studios adopted similar strategies.
The company said it is considering a similar release strategy for nine other films in addition to the ones to be directed by Soderbergh.
Bubble Grosses $5M Its Opening Weekend
Source: Wagner/Cuban Companies January 30, 2006
HDNet Films and Magnolia Pictures announced today that their day-and-date release strategy for Bubble has grossed approximately $5 million in total revenues in its opening weekend, including box office, DVD pre-orders and other revenues. The Steven Soderbergh film exceeded the companies' total revenue expectations.
"We are very happy with the results so far of this first day-and-date release, and while theatrical performance was not as high as we would have liked, it compared favorably to other similar films released this weekend," said Mark Cuban, co-owner of HDNet Films, Magnolia Pictures and Landmark Theatres. "More importantly, when combined with DVD pre-orders and other revenues from our composite strategy, our opening weekend performance firmly registers 'Bubble's' day-and-date release as a profitable venture."
The film earned $72,000 on 32 screens, a $2,250 per screen average.
"With a production budget of $1.6 million and a modest marketing budget that covered both theatrical and DVD releases in one spend - one of the cornerstones of the day-and-date program - this proves the strategy can work," said Todd Wagner. "We are very pleased with the overall results of this first step, and we plan to refine the marketing strategy and continue to release more films in this manner."
The following HDNet Films productions are being considered for day-and-date release in the near future:
One Last Thing - a bittersweet comedy written by Barry Stringfellow and directed by Alex Steyermark, starring Michael Angarano and Cynthia Nixon;
Diggers - a 70s-era period piece written by Ken Marino and directed by Katherine Dieckmann and starring Paul Rudd, Maura Tierney, Josh Hamilton and Lauren Ambrose
All Fall Down - a sophisticated urban drama directed by Matt Tauber and starring Anthony LaPaglia, Isabella Rossellini and Viola Davis;
Quid Pro Quo - a dark comedy written and directed by Carlos Brooks and produced by Midge Sanford and Sarah Pillsbury;
Hunter - the story of the life and death of infamous gonzo journalist Hunter S. Thompson, from Alex Gibney, director of Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room, and producer Graydon Carter;
Herbie Hancock: Possibilities - a performance-driven, behind-the-scenes look at the making of the acclaimed musician's just-released album "Possibilities," featuring Hancock's collaboration with such musicians as Sting, Santana and John Mayer;
S&Man - a film directed by J.T. Petty that explores the relation between voyeurism and horror films;
Fay Grim - from maverick director Hal Hartley and Parker Posey and starring Jeff Goldblum, a funny and provocative take on the world of international espionage;
Surfwise - produced by Graydon Carter and delves into the life of legendary Malibu surfer Dorian "Doc" Paskowitz, who introduced the sport to Israel in the 1960s; and
A Soderbergh-directed documentary about the never-performed monologue Spalding Gray left behind before he committed suicide last year.
Quote from: modage on February 02, 2006, 08:43:54 AM
Bubble Grosses $5M Its Opening Weekend
They'd be smart not to expect those kinds of numbers again for any of those films with the possible exception of the Spalding Gray doc. That and I'd like to know where more DVDs were sold and more HDNet viewings were, in the regions where it was playing or where it wasn't.
But I am excited about the prospect of seeing Hal Hartley's new film and then being able to buy the DVD on the way out of the theatre.
This was a great little movie, and perfectly simple. The acting really worked for me.
By the way, check out Netflix's description. Sometimes I wonder if the description writers actually see the movie, but this time I know they haven't. I would put a spoiler warning before this, but, well..
Moving on from high-profile Rat Pack remakes, director Steven Soderbergh tests out a new method of moviemaking that involves low-cost digital camerawork and employs -- get this -- no-name actors. Set in a crumbling Ohio town that revolves around the local doll factory, this offbeat film follows the antics of townsfolk turned detectives who try to unravel a murder mystery -- and end up discovering a bizarre love triangle.
Did they accidentally watch an episode of Twin Peaks?
that $5M was the most self-congratulatory and misleading number ever. I mean, they just claimed that from all these dvd-presales on the websites and video stores and whatnot, but nobody's really bought $5M worth of dvds yet.
I quite enjoyed this. The acting really did work.
Spoiler?
It felt like I was watching a reality show that lead up to a real murder. The commentary and other minor extras were great too. I love how they found these folks, especially finding the woman at the drive through at KFC. I want to cast the sweet old woman with a sense of evil in her that works at the Del Taco near my house. She'll say, "There's a couple of extra soft tacos in there for ya, love" then shoot me a wink with the color of del scorcho sauce appearing in the whites of her eyes... chills. But you bet I'll be paying her a visit tonight.
wow, what did like 5 people see this? why do we even have a soderbergh forum?
me and my friends were all set to go the friday after it was released and it was gone. this wasn't the typical sodenbergh outing, and it shouldnt be a fair judgement of how many people here like him.
Quote from: modage on February 11, 2006, 08:22:59 PM
wow, what did like 5 people see this? why do we even have a soderbergh forum?
I'm still a chump who goes to Blockbuster, my local branch of which ordered precisely
one copy of Bubble. So here I am, still waiting.
ordinarily this would be where i told you to go to netflix, but *sigh. not anymore. :cry:
Well, if you sign up with Netflix, I'm sure they'll ship you a copy real soon.
But for me, the "frequent-renter," it's been on my queue since it came out. In fact, I returned a movie which they recieved on the Tuesday morning the movie was released, but they sent it out to the less-frequent renters before they got to sending me a movie, so I got sent the next movie on my list. Psh. It's been unavailable ever since. I'll get it after everybody else has seen it, though. I have many more great movies on my list to hold me over until then.
hey man, if it's not a box-office sensation, mod doesn't wanna hear about it.
SPIELBERG AND JAMES CAMERON (RIP) FORUMS ONLY FROM NOW ON UNDER MOD'S LAW
well it doesnt have to be a box office sensation but you'd think if it were a director people were excited about there would be a little more interest when they have a film come out. especially one available to everyone and not rolling out in major cities slowly. granted it is a 'smaller' release but still.
Bubble's a bad example, though, because I think a lot of us (and by "a lot of us" I'm referring solely to myself) don't really think of it as real Soderbergh movie. Real Soderbergh movies have people like George Clooney and Benicio Del Toro and Nicky Katt in them, and are 90 minutes long (or longer!). I'm not saying its right to think that way, just that we (me) do.
I don't. It is a
real Soderbergh movie. It's a great project and I'm excited he's doing a string of these. Just the idea of finding these regular folk...
Quote from: The Artist Formerly Known As on February 04, 2006, 05:38:43 PM
I love how they found these folks, especially finding the woman at the drive thru at KFC.
...and putting them on film. Just picking a town and creating a story there with these real life people should be enough to spark your interests. Using nothing but available light, the real homes where these people live (no set design) and capturing things unplanned along the way... just how most of us make our short films. It's a case of a successful filmmaker going back to his roots (in a way), and I don't know how you wouldn't want to rush to see something like that (if you're a fan that is). Plus he also gives an inspiring commentary with Mark Romanek.
I think polkablues is essentially right... this is a Soderbergh movie (and a good one), but it's a lightweight Soderbergh movie. It's a tad innovative, but not very daring... and it's no Full Frontal.
Quote from: modage on February 11, 2006, 08:22:59 PM
wow, what did like 5 people see this? why do we even have a soderbergh forum?
Make it six, mutha-f'er. Happy now?
Yeah, I saw this too. It's pretty great, although the short running time reveals the film's biggest flaws-- the murder mystery. Soderbergh and Hough were one turn of the screw away from really taking the story to another place, but they made it so simple, so easy that you blinked your eyes and the film was over. That being said, I admired the film a whole lot, especially the performances Soderbergh were able to get. When I heard about this project, I expected it to be more free-wheeling, dogme-esque, having to burn hours of tape to find the good stuff-- but it's stillness makes it seem all the more natural.
P.S. The alternate ending cracked me up-- a realistic spin on 'Psycho'?
Quote from: Weak2ndAct on February 17, 2006, 01:55:13 PM
P.S. The alternate ending cracked me up-- a realistic spin on 'Psycho'?
yea, I'm very happy they changed it. "Bubble" was outstanding. I know some people who live these kinds of lives. every conversation in the movie rings true. it also goes to show that sometimes non-actors can be more natural than the professionals who've been acting for years.
Just saw it. I admire Soderbergh for continuing to do experimental films in between more commercial fare. I liked all the non-actors. They were very natural, nothing seemed forced. Also, having unknown actors adds to the atmosphere of the film.
This was quite a decent film that held me captivated throughout even though the people seemed bland and had quite routine lives. It really didn't seem like a Soderbergh film but I think that really showed how different he can be with his filmmaking. I know these types of people all too well and had a couple of girlfriends that were a little like Rose was in this was. Everyone was right when it came to the non-actors. Nothing seemed forced or superficial. On the other hand, I felt it was very slow moving up to a point. Until the murder. Then it really focuses and makes all the mundane actions before, just as desperately sad.
Quite a haunting film.