What Happens When a Film is Released on DVD, Screen and Pay TV on the Same Day?

[Audioholics]

<A href="http://www.audioholics.com/news/editorials/bubblemoviereleased.php"><IMG style="WIDTH: 91px; HEIGHT: 100px" alt=[bubbleposter1] hspace=10 src="http://www.audioholics.com/news/thumbs/bubbleposter1_th.jpg" align=left border=0></A>Today could mark the first breeze in a tremendous wind of change to come for the entertainment industry. Bubble is a small budget film being released today that normally wouldn’t make any waves at all. But this film has some major Hollywood talent behind it. Directed by Oscar winner Steven Soderbergh (Traffick, Erin Brockovich) Bubble’s release takes an innovative approach as the film is released on the same day to theaters, DVD and pay TV. Could this be the sign things to come as Hollywood adapts to 21st century challenges?

[Read More]

 

[Sheep]

I hope.

took forever for team america to come out.

SheepStar

 

[Shadow_Ferret]

What a brilliant way to kill theaters.

Why would I bother seeing this movie at the theater if I can now go immediately to Blockbuster or Netflix and rent it? The only reason I go to the theater is because I don't want to wait for something to come out on DVD.

 

[~JC~]

This may actually be a good idea, I think time will tell. Certainly for me, the theater is an experience. I think of movies in terms of which ones I would like to experience on the big screen. Even if they released it on broadcast tv the same day, I would still go to see it in the theater. Other movies I might want to see, but would never go to see them in the theater, I just wait to see them on DVD. Often, I forget them by the time they are released. With simultaneous release, the ads for the movie would remind me to go rent/buy the dvd. Won't kill the theater from my perspective. Actually will have no effect.

 

[mpompey]

I have to agree with JC. I think this is a good idea. I love movies and I love my home theatre. However, for me going to the theater is for the experience. And is slowly being relegated to BIG releases. In no way would I have preferred Jackson's King Kong at home versus the on a huge THX rated screen. I think that's what theatres should be focusing on improving, the experience. Forget trying to be the sole venue for films to be seen first. Its a losing battle. Forget DVDs, they still have to face ON DEMAND cable, and the internest.

THe one things that the other options don't offer is that big theatre feel. Raise the price a bit, but deliver on the expectations and theatres will always have a place in the cultural landscape. Hollywood is going anywhere we all know that, the chains are the ones in jeopardy. If they don't make some changes soon, they may end up like the drive ins.

 

[Shadow_Ferret]

Big theater experience? What is that? Painful seats. Sticky floors. Obnoxious patrons who talk throughout the movie. Stale popcorn.

And raise the price for that experience? I think it's too damned expensive now.

Forget it. If they release it to Blockbuster or Pay-Per-View the same day I'm going to watch it at home. And I know a lot of people who feel the same way.

Simultaneous releases gets rid of the only reason most people I know go to the theater, they see the ads and want to see the movie NOW instead of a few months from now.

 

[ducker]

I was watching the show about this last night on nightline. The justification the guy representing the theaters was so out of wack if you ask me... About how people still enjoy "the whole theater experience" wow... he sounded quite out of touch with the public's opinion of "the whole theater experience."

 

[djpain75]

I TOTALLY agree with JC!!! I hate to wait for the movies to come to dvd all to just forget which ones are comming out. I have to keep track of what is comming out when and its annoying. If they came to dvd at the same time... I would spend much more $$ cuz i would be able to instantly go buy them. On the theater side... I would still go and see the "theater" movies that I would normally go see. The big bang movies... etc...

 

[lbjazz]

I've gotta agree with shadow.
I can . . .
Drive to the theater, fight for parking, wait in line, be told that my debit card isn't working (if they even take it) get my ticket, wait in line (again) for overpriced food, hope I get a good seat, be forced to sit through previews, watch the movie on a screen with a funny line running through it, be distracted by the 13 year old girl giggling on her cell phone, etc. etc.
OR
I can add the movie to my Netflix list, have it delivered with my other mail, sit down in the best seat in the house and watch it in my pajamas.

Tough Decision.

I do like the theater experience, but it is rarely what it should be and when it is, is usually when I spend the most.

 

[jonnythan]

People like going to the theater. Period.

It's a "night out." Those with home theaters may prefer the experience of their own theater, but most people don't have anything more than a crap TV with some $50 DVD player. So you go out, get dinner, buy the popcorn, watch the movie on the big screen, hear the loud sound effects, etc etc. It's a way to spend a Friday night instead of staying in the house.

I don't think it would have much appreciable effect on theater patronage.

 

[~JC~]

A long time ago, people said that if you broadcast a baseball game on tv, that noone would ever go to the stadium.

 

[Wayde Robson]

Hi.

I agree with JC.

I'm almost 40 years old now. That's older than I've ever been in my life.

That means I can journey forward through time faster than I used to. If a movie I want to see is released at theaters and I'd rather see it on DVD, I think nothing of waiting.

I still like to go to the movies sometimes. Since my wife and I have created small replicants from our DNA we can't always leave the house to go to movies. Studios are more likely to get my business if they do simultaneous releases. But it won't deter me from going to the movies if we get a baby sitter.

To be honest, my HT living room is TOO comfortable. I have a problem falling asleep halfway through a movie, even good ones. Once the little rug rats are asleep and the wife and I sit down for a viewing it's tough (for me) to stay awake. It's tough being a geezer. If my couch weren't so damned comfy I'd see the endings of a lot more movies.

 

[djpain75]

I hear ya Wayde... I havn't been able to sit through a whole movie in a while. But I think my problem is ADD related =)

 

[Wayde Robson]

I've got a bit of BMADD... Bad Movie Attention Deficiut Dissorder.

To encapsulate my thoughts on this most excellent debate:

I realize the simultaneous release may not be the answer nor appropriate for all movies:

Could this be the sign things to come as Hollywood adapts to 21st century challenges?

But I give Soderbergh and 2929 credit for trying something new.

I've been following Soderbergh's story since he signed on with 2929 productions. My blog story from last May was a decent prediction.

I was wrong about the movie 2929 would use the unorthodox release methods on. .

 

[Naves74]

When you live in the stix and your home theater is 10X better than the movie theatre what is the point of spending 16 dollars to see a movie when you can buy it and watch it as many times as you want?

 

[Sheep]

This is why I like my theaters (have said this numerous times). They are THX cert. so they are comfy, you have a good view from anywhere, and the sound and picture is amazing. Its so loud, the cell phones get downed out.

SheepStar

 

[jmgillespie]

Agreed ^, my setup is 10x better then my local theatre. The local theatre is pretty new but the picture is not sharp and the sound is terrible especially the bass. I do make it to one of the two theatre's in the city 25-35 minutes north of me for movies that I know need to be seen in the theatre or I have been waiting for other then that I would rather just wait then see it at my local theatre. The last 3 movies I've seen in the theatre I've drove 25 minutes to see (underworld evolution, king kong 2 times, and I believe the last before that was War of the Worlds). My friends dragged me to Doom (kind of wanted to see the fps scenes) and they made me see it at the ****ty theatre nearby and I think it might have been watchable at home but not there.

I do not have a problem with driving 25 minutes to see a good picture at a theatre that I know I can not duplicate. The problem is that 99% of the movies the past year have not been original or good. There was only a handful of films that I would say they have to be seen in the theatre (Sin City, King Kong, Star Wars III, 40 year old virgin) and a few that I would have liked to have seen in the theatre if it was a better setup then mine or wasn't 25 minutes away (Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Lord of War, The Constant Gardner, Domino, Jarhead). I'm not saying direct releases is the way to go because I am not sure if movies would become better quality because of it or worse, I am only saying Hollywood make some good original movies please. Home theatre's and dvd's are not killing films, Hollywood is doing it themselves.

 

[Shadow_Ferret]

People like going to the theater. Period.

It's a "night out." Those with home theaters may prefer the experience of their own theater, but most people don't have anything more than a crap TV with some $50 DVD player. So you go out, get dinner, buy the popcorn, watch the movie on the big screen, hear the loud sound effects, etc etc. It's a way to spend a Friday night instead of staying in the house.

I don't think it would have much appreciable effect on theater patronage.

The movie "experience" simply costs too much for families. For a family of 4 you're talking close to $50 out for what? A movie. Add dinner to that and your talking nearly $100 for a movie. Go to Blockbuster, rent it and you've got a night's entertainment for $5.

And that's people who own crap TVs and a $50 DVD player. No one I know owns an HT. (You guys are an aberation.) Give these people the choice between a first run movie at the theater or the same at home, they'll pick home every time.

The drive-in died. I see no reason why movie theaters will stay around except as a few interesting curiosities. No way will they be able to support themselves in the numbers they currently do.

 

[jonnythan]

The movie "experience" simply costs too much for families. For a family of 4 you're talking close to $50 out for what? A movie. Add dinner to that and your talking nearly $100 for a movie. Go to Blockbuster, rent it and you've got a night's entertainment for $5.

And that's people who own crap TVs and a $50 DVD player. No one I know owns an HT. (You guys are an aberation.) Give these people the choice between a first run movie at the theater or the same at home, they'll pick home every time.

The drive-in died. I see no reason why movie theaters will stay around except as a few interesting curiosities. No way will they be able to support themselves in the numbers they currently do.

I guess that's why the theaters are packed every weekend, all weekend.

They *won't* pick home every time because "staying home" is something they don't want to do. Getting out of the house and "going out as a family" (or a couple, or whatever) is something they want to do, and they will consistently pick "go to the movies" even if the movie is out on DVD.

 

[WHALER]

I have not gone to a theater in years, mainly because of obnoxious people, previews, sticky floors and strange smells. CERTAIN PEOPLE if you say anything about their bad behavior get out of their seats and come and sit right next to you. If you go out to get the usher, when you come back they are sitting somewhere else. The poor usher will stand at the back for awhile and the offenders will be angels until he leaves. O once said he would see me outside after the show. I sat in the lobby for a half hour and when I went outside, he was gone. I have read that if a movie is not doing well in the theaters, it will be rushed to DVD while the expensive publicity is still hot. Don't forget that some movies are prescreened (pay people to watch and rate it) and then distributed accordingly.