Bursting the BUBBLE
The following was posted in our forum by Collin A and scooped up to the front page by me ... we've got some clever folk in there and I think Collin's put something together here that deserves a bit more reach. So, voila ...
With the impending release of Soderbergh’s social realist crime drama BUBBLE in theaters, on cable, and DVD all at once, it’s hard not to consider what it might foreshadow regarding the future of film distribution.
Like a lot of people, I’m increasingly fed up with theater-going - too many ads, uncomfortable seats, rude neighbors, fussy babies (at HOSTEL, people – f---ing HOSTEL!?!?), deafening audio levels and poor print quality, outrageous prices. That being said, I probably see a film in theaters once a week. I love the grandeur, the sense you might experience something special with other people, just plain getting out of the house (even if it is just to encamp in another walled-off space). So to say I have mixed emotions about all this is an understatement, as I’m sure it is for a lot of film lovers. But it is happening, very soon, and seems only likely to continue (with Soderbergh under contract for five more multi-platform-release pictures and IFC having announced their intent to do simultaneous theatrical/cable releases).
It’s hard to think this experiment isn’t a snowflake poised to start an avalanche. When theater chains over-built in the 1990s and found themselves in bankruptcy in the 2000s, did anyone see the ramifications playing out the way they have?. Slow to embrace digital projection because of cost (the last number I saw was $200,000+ to retrofit an analog projection space) and unable to build modern facilities because of their financial woes and the disappearance of prime real estate during their respective build-outs, theaters found people displeased with the quality of their services and more apt to stay home and stare at their pristine 55” plasma displays with up-converted DVD signals of a blockbuster which was released only three or four months ago.
How have theaters made up for their over-eager expansion policies? By enhancing their shortcomings - higher ticket and concession prices, more real estate on-screen and off- for advertisements, dedicating more and more screens to “sure” things… the list goes one. Unable and unwilling to meet demands for quality in terms of overall experiences, theaters are in a bad way. It speaks volumes that Regal, the nation’s largest chain with over 6,000 screens, publicly denounced 2929 Entertainment’s strategy for BUBBLE and refused to carry the film. If you can see the week's big releases at home, at your leisure, with high-quality audio and video, for most people what's to consider?
Of course, as mentioned, there are intangibles to the theater-going experience. There’s no way to replicate certain aspects, and if that’s what your particular movie-going experience is about (like when my fiancé and I took her grandmother to see KING KONG, since she had lined up to watch the original in 1933; or when I and five friends drove 45 minutes to catch BLOODRAYNE in the only theater still showing it for hundreds of miles simply to goof on Dr. Boll) then there’s no substitute. However, the best way to film-watch for the sake of film-watching, at least in my book (and I suspect a growing number of others), remains open to great debate, especially in light of BUBBLE’s proposition.
One aspect of this scenario which, at least for now, intrigues is that 2929 Entertainment, which is bankrolling Soderbergh’s dice-roll, owns BUBBLE as well as Landmark Theaters, which will be hosting the film in some – if not all markets – exclusively. Can a future be foreseen wherein studios will control most (if not all of) their distribution outlets? After all, AOL-Time Warner-whatever-the-hell-it-is-anymore could release its film on DVD and air it on TNT and TBS. It loses some money to the brick-and-mortar outlets on DVD sales, but not much (certainly not the 50% theater chains take for a good portion of a film’s run). If it was feeling generous, perhaps it pacts with Regal and does an exclusive release through that chain’s screens. IFC reps something of the same business model 2929 has enacted – while its films are being released in theaters owned by other companies, it owns the films and its cable outlet. These types of business structures seem pretty ideal for their respective owners. Will we see more deals like Soderbergh's for filmmakers in the future?
Ultimately, it seems unlikely that BUBBLE’s release will make huge waves up front. It’s a bold move however, and if it succeeds even to a degree you’re sure to see more and more groups proposing similar schemes. What will the end result be? It’s impossible to say. One hope would be that theater chains would move toward being more competitive with home entertainment outlets. Another, that studios will look at more creative strategies to place smaller films like BUBBLE in smaller markets faster. Again, the list could continue on and on. All I know is something is happening, and happening now.
What, fellow ScreenAnarchy readers, do you think lies in the future of distribution?
