Steven Soderbergh bites the hand that feeds him!

[Luis Caffesse]

I'm with Laurence... I think DVD as it is kills a lot of Cinema audiencies (simply because a lot of people decide to wait for the DVD release), and if we go the way Sodeberg wants us to, then Cinema will be dead very soon.

This is the same thing that was said about VHS, cable, as well as DVD.
Theaters are still open, and I think they will continue to stay that way.

Look at this thread...it seems to be split half and half.
And you can't assume that everyone chiming in would go to the theater to see a particular movie. There are quite a few movies I don't mind seeing on DVD, and if given the option I'd probably pay a higher rental fee to get them as soon as they're released in the theater (I'm sure others would do the same).

Part of that first run revenue (from DVD, cable, etc) is going to theater owners, if you read the article. So, theaters will be fine, and we'll have more options for distribution and viewing. Hopefully the theater experience will be better, seeing as those who would rather see the movie at home will stay home, and not talk behind me the entire time I'm sitting in the movie theater.

Whether or not Soderbergh is "sh*t" is kinda beside the point.

[Joshua Starnes]

Originally Posted by Joel Guy

If I have to pay $3 more to watch film projected, then I'll gladly pay the $3 and see the FILM the way it was intended to be seen. Just as when movies are shot digitally, I expect to see them projected that way.

What on earth does the medium of capture have to do with the medium of delivery. I may shoot a movie on HD but want it scanned onto film and projected onto film because that's the way I as the director intend it to be seen. But the two aren't connected in any way.

[Dave Ferdinand]

Luis, I think the situation is very different. With VHS, DVD, etc. you never had simultaneous releases on Cinema and any of this formats.

As to this debate being split 50-50, I hardly take people's opinions from this forum to coincide with that of the average Joe. MacDonalds is the most successful restaurant in the world, and that should serve us as a warning. I think the masses will opt for buying the DVD, that they can keep and lazily watch at home as many times as they wish, as opposed to buying a ticket for a one-time session only.

I don't think Soderbergh being crap is besides the point at all. If we're going to be led to a revolution by someone that isn't any good anyway, why should we follow?

[Luis Caffesse]

Luis, I think the situation is very different. With VHS, DVD, etc. you never had simultaneous releases on Cinema and any of this formats.

You may have a point, though I still think that we won't see revenue drop that much. I suppose we'll have to wait and see.

As to this debate being split 50-50, I hardly take people's opinions from this forum to coincide with that of the average Joe.

Perhaps, although I also think most people do not think of themselves as 'the average Joe.' I didn't mean that we could draw any hard conclusion from this little debate, obviously. All I meant was that it seems clear that there will always be a part of the population that will go see movies in the theater, no matter what.

Also, let's keep in mind that the simultaneous DVD sales will be more expensive than your usual DVD sales today. They've said they would drop the price to a standard price after the usual amount of time has passed.
How many people do you think will pay more than they are used to for a DVD instead of going to the theater? Keeping in mind that the DVD revenues will be shared with the theaters, I really don't think the theaters are in any trouble.

MacDonalds is the most successful restaurant in the world, and that should serve us as a warning. I think the masses will opt for buying the DVD, that they can keep and lazily watch at home as many times as they wish, as opposed to buying a ticket for a one-time session only.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

I don't think Soderbergh being crap is besides the point at all. If we're going to be led to a revolution by someone that isn't any good anyway, why should we follow?

Well, he's not proposing people change the way they make movies, only that he's going to change the way he distributes his work. I would say debate the distribution model, that is what is relevant. Why is his work relevant? Is Mark Cuban a great filmmaker? If not, then why should we listen to anything he has to say about movies?

Either way, Soderbergh's talent, or lack thereof, is obvioulsy a matter of opinion... and I don't see what that has to do with simultaneous release of his movies.

In the end, it's going to happen, they are already working on it...and the best thing we can all do is vote with our wallets.

Let's keep in mind, this is one guy with 6 very small movies.
Cuban may seem big, but he's not Paramount, Warner, etc.

[Josh Bass]

I just wanna chime in and say that the awfulness of the theater-going experience must be city and theater specific.

I live in Houston. I can do a movie, and dinner, for two people, for $30 or less. The noisy crowd thing--not really an issue, EXCEPT AT CERTAIN THEATERS. There are several theaters that for some reason seem to be magnets for the young'uns, while others, not so much. Either way, it's usually not an issue. People are mostly quiet.

As for the scratchy/out of focus/dim/etc., also, seriously, not really an issue most of the time. Every once in a while you get a clusterfuzzuck, but most of the time it's okay.

So, uh, there. Dudes.

[Michael Struthers]

Wow, lots of Soderberg jealousy on this thread ;-)...I don't think the guy is trying to wipe out theatres. He just wants to make sure he has distribution for a bunch of small movies he might want to make, or farm out (a la Indigent).

[John Locke]

Hi Ken! I have to wonder... do you go over to the park to watch, or just pull up a chair to your window?

That's exactly what I'd had in mind... too bad smaller places don't follow the examples of the big cities more often.

Luis, I have to say I think your standards are extremely high. In my opinion, any film that can afford Julia Roberts isn't a "small" film. But isn't that really the heart of the matter? With this type of distribution, whole new avenues will appear to allow "small" productions the chance to see the light of day.

One other comment you made..."Is Mark Cuban a great filmmaker? If not, then why should we listen to anything he has to say about movies?"... I'd steer clear of schools and universities having said that...and add to that consulting firms, critics, etc. You've pretty much broadsworded away their raison d'etre.

I don't see the reason for getting upset. "Microcinemas" and "concurrent releases" will have the same effect on cinema as microbreweries had on the big beer breweries. The big guys will remain the big guys... it's just a matter of adaptation and making a bit of elbow room for others. Nothing wrong with that.

[Chris Hurd]

Howdy from Texas,

Originally Posted by Joel Guy

The film was not spliced together by a incompetent drunk, but rather by a trained employee.

Er... as a former projectionist back in my early college days, let me assure you that "incompetent drunk" and "trained employee" are NOT necessarily mutually exclusive terms. I've spliced film both ways.

[Joel Guy]

Originally Posted by Joshua Starnes

What on earth does the medium of capture have to do with the medium of delivery. I may shoot a movie on HD but want it scanned onto film and projected onto film because that's the way I as the director intend it to be seen. But the two aren't connected in any way.

Film and Digital Video are two ontologically different mediums. Of course, if you shoot a film on HD, and you transfer it to film, then it should be seen that way. That was your choice to transfer it to film, for the aesthetic qualities that film projection lends your work, or for commercial reasons. Either way, that was your choice. That, however, is not the choice that everyone makes. When you project a film, light streaming through a strip of film, it is different than what a digital projector can produce; and not just in resolution, or the flicker, but in the actual quality of the light. I don't mean to say that it is better, just different. So when someone makes the choice to shoot on film, and wants it projected that way, then it should be. Projecting it digitally will not produce the experience they intended, at least not with today's digital projectors, which are incapable of replicating the film projection experience. Maybe truly replicating it is impossible, because, as I said, we are talking about different mediums. But I'm sure (or rather, I hope) that as technology advances, they will get closer and closer to the physical qualities of film projection.

[Luis Caffesse]

"Luis, I have to say I think your standards are extremely high. In my opinion, any film that can afford Julia Roberts isn't a "small" film. But isn't that really the heart of the matter? With this type of distribution, whole new avenues will appear to allow "small" productions the chance to see the light of day."

I've been acussed of many things in my life, but having high standards isn't usually one of them.
:)
I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to when you say my standards are extremely high.

You are right, that to people like us any film with Julia Roberts is not a 'small' film, but I was speaking in terms of the film industry. The article mentioned that Soderbergh's films would have a budget of around 2million dollars. Now while I feel that I could do wonders with that much money, the reality is that a 2million dollar film is definitely considered a "small" film in a time where the average movie budget is somewhere in the ballpark of 40million.

And I absolutely agree, I personally think this is a great move that may eventually offer more opportunities for smaller films and for independent filmmakers. I'm not sure what I said to give the opposite impression.
If you go back and read my posts throughout this thread, especially at the start, you'll see that I said I thought it was a "brilliant" idea.

[John Locke]

Luis, sorry if I misunderstood your intent. I've just reread, but to be honest, I still got the same impression. Anyway... as you pointed out, we're on the same page.

One thing you said sticks with me... that a "2 million dollar film is a small film by industry standards". I guess what I'm not getting across is that I think (or hope) that what Soderberg is doing will be a leap forward in changing the assessment of films by their budgets and revenues (not saying you do this, just talking in general). Sure, it's a business and the goal of any business is to make money. But it's always seemed odd to me that we base the success on the dollar intake, rather than focus on the quality with the dollar intake being a consequence. It's kind of like Ferrari reporting, "We're the best car company in the world because we made a gazillion dollars last year!" Should be "We make the best car...period...and here's why." And then as an aside, if even necessary, "We made --- dollars last year."

I just hope that this type of distribution will make it easier for people to attempt to make and release a film. And then, if it's successful on a local level, to see it spread to eventually a major release. This, of course, would be a case where the cream would rise to the top, but invariably, the media about it would be "made for only $15, it has brought in a billion dollars in sales!"

[Laurence Maher]

Well, I guess anyone could make a piece of crap mini-dvflick if they had 2 million and were friends with half of Hollywood. That's what he'll make, you know. A series of crappily shot films with CRAPPY cinematography showing the "power of indie filmmaking", starring the indie actors Julia Roberts, Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Bernie Mac, Catherine Zeta Jones, Matt Daemon, and whatever other indie stars feel like doing a cameo that day. My butt. There is a door you go through when you're nominated for 2 director's acadamy awards simultaneously. It's called the HOLLYWOOD DOOR. He's part of the machine, and sinse he is one of the few who was lucky enough to get there, I don't think he should slap us in the face, patronizing/hypnotizing the indie audience because we make mini-dv films too (which for the most part I shoot film by the way, because it simply is more professional). The fact remains that if you shoot a movie on mini dv (unless it's a porno, hee hee) The chances of you finding descent distribution for it is almost non-existent. Acquisition executives get a pile of them to look at on their desk EVERY DAY. Something must make yours stand out, like it being inmistakably wonderful, or star power. If it's on mini-dv, you've already lost some of your good points in image quality. And come on, most of this mini-dv crap is nothing more than feature length home movies. It's really a joke, man. Maybe for straight to video, ya the 24p mini-dv can do okay, but dude, theaters are almost out of the question. But hey, if Sodenberg can do it, then he'll prove us all validated in our futile efforts, right? Wrong.

When he did Full Frontal, it started some trend for EVEN MORE people to try shooting a feature on mini-dv because it gave them a cruel hope. A false hope. His got distribution becasue it was by Sodenberg. The average shmo will get distribution from the desk to the garbage can based on the mini-dv format alone. Believe me. I did the festival circuit. One of the first questions buyers ask before even seeing your flick is "What was it shot on". Saying 16mm instead of 35mm film is bad enough. Say "mini-dv" and the next/last words you hear from them are (Ya, I'll be there, I look forward to it.) And he turns to someone else. Of course, there are the occasional sucesses like "open water" that get lucky, but that's becasue they have a gimmick . . . like a true story of a couple of people left by a boat and most likely eaten by sharks. But the movie stunk, so.

Now when this DVX-200 camera comes out, maybe we'll be talking. But if you're not blowing up to a theater to make use of all that image quality . . . the point would be? Hmm?

Anyone who chooses DVD over theater experience has obviously never seen movies like Die Hard or Heat in an incredible theater. No comparison. Litterally like TV and radio. Just not the same thing.

P.S.

If you've never seen Heat, it has the best/most realistic gun battle ever put to film . . . if you don't think so, try seeing it in a theater if you get the chance or cranking the HELL out of your 5.1 audio system at home (which of course isn't as good as the theater, but there are ways to dampen the sadness.)

[Bob Zimmerman]

That gun fight in Heat on the big screen was great and it lost alot on DVD.

[John Locke]

Speaking of alternative methods of distributing your film...

[Glenn Gipson]

Laurence wrote: >>(which for the most part I shoot film by the way, because it simply is more professional).<<

How does shooting film over DV simply make you more "professional?" My thesis project was on 16mm, and I can tell you that shooting film is easier then shooting DV. If anything, it should be the other way around. If one makes a good DV movie, vs. another person that makes a good 16mm movie, the one who makes the good DV movie has far more skill then the film guy. True, there is a lot more garbage on DV then on Film, but that is ONLY because DV is so cheap. If 16mm were as cheap as DV then there would be a lot more garbage on 16mm then on DV, because 16mm is easier to shoot with then DV. Shooting film doesn't mean you're more professional....just means you have more money.