quote: Darryl Spicer

---

The limited information that I could find on the film was that the DVD was to be released in the Full Screen format. So for those people who want to by the DVD, it means that you will not be seeing all the picture that the Director intended you to see.

---

One clip I saw of Bubble on IFC suggested this show was shot on videotape, yet cropped to 'scope aspect ratio. I'm not even sure if it was HD quality for that matter.

If that is indeed the case, I'm certainly not going to make the effort to see something like that in a movie theater. I'll likely not bother to see on TV either. Most movies shot on videotape, then processed through a film step to try to look like film just wind up looking like really shitty video quality. The guys would have been far better off just leaving the video looking like video. Honestly, if "digital" and "digital video" is so freaking great, why try to make it pretend to look like something else. Those D-Cinema proponents need to grow a pair and stand behind the video-ish look of video.
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 01-27-2006, 10:29 AM:
 
Not only was BUBBLE shot digitally (in hi-def), I think I read it's also only being projected digitally in the few theatres (mostly Landmark) that are showing it.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-27-2006, 01:47 PM:
 
How do you know it wasn't shot in 4:3 and cropped for theatrical exhibition? Sodaburger makes crap videos anyway, so why does anyone even care?
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-27-2006, 03:03 PM:
 
I'm told that it will screen on the Sony 4k digital system at Landmark's Kendall Square location. Not sure if they're getting a backup print or if it will be screening on film at other locations.
 

---

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 01-27-2006, 03:09 PM:
 
I'd like to see if Soderbergh would be willing to do this for say, Ocean's 13 (supposedly in development) or another big budget film, rather than some low budget film with no names that no one's going to see anyways. When this thing starts happening to the latest Brad Pitt or Mel Gibson film, then it might be worthy of news but to something starring Joe Bob Smith shot on video? Nah.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-27-2006, 03:51 PM:
 
Currently "Bubble" is playing at the Little Theatre in Rochester. Rochester Gannett newspaper critic Jack Garner only gave it a 4 out of 10:

http://www.little-theatre.com/

http://www.little-theatre.com/moviePage.php?filmID=365

quote:

---

With BUBBLE, Oscar-winning director Steven Soderbergh proves that one doesn’t need a huge Hollywood budget and larger-than-life actors to craft an affecting motion picture. Following his star-studded spectacle OCEAN'S TWELVE, Soderbergh returns to the small-scale roots of his breakout hit SEX, LIES AND VIDEOTAPE and his no-budget romp, SCHIZOPOLIS. The result is a genre-bending exercise that is a truly original cinematic experience. Set in and around a doll factory on the Ohio/West Virginia border, the film tells the story of Martha (Debbie Doebereiner) and Kyle (Dustin James Ashley), coworkers who have formed an unlikely friendship. But when the pretty Rose (Misty Dawn Wilkins) arrives, hidden layers of emotion begin to surface, culminating in an unspeakable tragedy.

Like a gifted documentarian, Soderbergh uses his nonprofessional cast to present a slice of everyday American life that is unflinchingly, achingly honest. Combined with Coleman Hough’s more traditionally crafted plot, BUBBLE becomes something wholly inventive. Shot on digital video by Soderbergh, and featuring a score from former Guided by Voices frontman Robert Pollard, BUBBLE resonates long after the credits have rolled. At only 72 minutes, the film nonetheless casts a strangely haunting spell. This is the first of several low-budget digital video projects that Soderbergh plans to shoot all across America.

---

quote: Scott Norwood

---

I'm told that it will screen on the Sony 4k digital system at Landmark's Kendall Square location. Not sure if they're getting a backup print or if it will be screening on film at other locations.

---

4K projection? Of something that might have been shot in an HDTV video format that isn't quite 2K, or even a standard 480p video format that isn't even close to 1K?


This makes me think of the fucktards who put together ads for print publications using low res photos grabbed from web pages.
---"What do you think of my ad, Bob?"
---"Well, your ad sucks total ass. I can plainly see the pixel grid on all your photos. All your obvious GIF logos have chewed up edges and pixels visible like boxes on a checkerboard. Vector-based art just wouldn't do, huh? Don't quit your day job."

 

---

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 01-27-2006, 06:37 PM:
 
Why didn't the theaters get together (for a change) and refuse to run anything that is released at the same time in theaters and DVD? NATO has to to stop sleeping and get their act together, or it will become the National Assocation of Television Sets.
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 01-27-2006, 07:30 PM:
 
In this unique cinematic experiment from acclaimed director Steven Soderbergh, an unlikely love triangle is born at a doll factory in a small midwestern town fallen on hard times. Lonely and isolated, long time employees Martha and Kyle have become friends by default in spite of their drastic age difference, but their dynamic is upset by the arrival of a new worker: young, attractive single mother Rose. As Martha grows increasingly wary about Rose’s dubious character, she discovers Kyle and Rose developing a relationship of their own.

One morning, Rose is found dead, strangled in her own home. An investigation begins, one that will call into question our established assumptions about these characters and life in their small town. Featuring a cast of non-professional actors from the Ohio location, Soderbergh brings this tragic story of characters striving to establish and maintain meaningful connections to life with startling realism.

Bubble is the first of six films Steven Soderbergh is directing for HDNet Films that will be shot in high-definition and released simultaneously in theaters, on DVD and on cable television. Todd Wagner and Mark Cuban are experimenting with this day-and-date model utilizing various media properties they own, with a goal of giving consumers a choice of how, when and where they wish to see a movie.

The first film of the group, Bubble, will open in theatres across the country on January 27 and will be shown digitally in Landmark Theatres where available. On the same night, HDNet Movies will show the television premiere of Bubble twice, at 9:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. EST. Magnolia Home Entertainment will release the DVD through retail outlets on Tuesday, January 31, immediately following the theatrical release, as Tuesday is the standard release day for DVDs throughout the retail market. For the first time, consumers will truly have their choice of how they want to watch a new film.

Magnolia Pictures

You can click on playdates for a list of Video theatres playing the movie. None of them have a major name.
 

---

Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 01-27-2006, 09:51 PM:
 

quote: John Walsh

---

Why didn't the theaters get together (for a change) and refuse to run anything that is released at the same time in theaters and DVD? NATO has to to stop sleeping and get their act together, or it will become the National Assocation of Television Sets.

---

quote:

---

Wagner and Cuban also own 100% of Rysher Entertainment, Landmark Theatres, and Magnolia Pictures Distribution, and an interest in Lions Gate Entertainment. The duo also own two movie production companies, 2929 Productions and HDNet Films, along with HDNet and HDNet Movies, two general entertainment high-definition television networks available on most major cable and satellite providers.

---

quote: Mike Heenan

---

All the video stores I've been to have separate sections for new releases and older "catalog" releases. AFter a certain amount of time I'm sure they move them over to the general section.

---

Blockbuster Video, Hollywood Video, Hastings, Video Giant and all the other mom and pop stores in my area all seem to operate the same way. The new releases at all of these places are indeed piled into that "best renters" category of releases that can be up 1 or 2 years old (or even older than that).

The Hastings store here in Lawton is by far the biggest of the bunch (this video/music/books store is housed in what used to be a large supermarket). Their best renters section wraps a long circuitous route past lot of new and used DVDs for sale racks and old movies racks. There has to be at least a couple thousand different titles in that bunch of $3.99 rental DVDs. Basically, you sort of need to already know what you're going to rent before even walking into the store. If you just browse until you find something that peaks your interest you may be in there for a while. The only way one can tell the newest releases apart from everything else is by checking the retail sell-through displays near the front of the store. And there's not very many of those.
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 01-28-2006, 03:25 PM:
 
BUBBLE is presented in 2.35:1 on the DVD. I was planning on going to see this movie yesterday in the theater. There was really no doubt in my mind, because I had not wanted to wait until Tuesday to get the DVD instead. But on Thursday night, I saw it on the shelf at my local video store. I really had a hard time deciding whether to get it right there and then, or to go see it on the big screen. After much internal debate, I opted for the DVD. Why should I take 2 trains and walk a mile in the freezing cold to see something which would be badly transferred to film at a theater which is known for scratching prints when I could watch it at home on my properly calibrated video projector with my properly calibrated sound system? I think I made the right choice, and I think it's sad that we've gotten to a point where the theater is not always automatically the right choice.

As a side note, Soderbergh has said that he hates how digital movies usually look, because people are mimmicking film instead of treating it as something with its own unique aesthetics. That's what he tried to do with BUBBLE.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-28-2006, 03:41 PM:
 
I don't think Soderbergh's complaints let him off the hook. He's committing the same crime.

First of all, what's with the 'scope aspect ratio on this kind of a movie? It's a small drama about ordinary people. Artistically, he would have brought the point across a lot better if he had videotaped the show in 1.77:1 ratio, or even 4:3 on ordinary consumer camcorders. It is so pretentious as hell to shoot something that obviously looks like video, but crop it to a CinemaScope aspect ratio? Durp.


And, yes, I'm going to keep beating the drum of just how shitty digital movies look when run through a film step. To any movie makers that might be reading this: hey, buddy, you're not fooling anyone -we know it's video! Stop fucking up the image quality by making it pretend to be something it is not! Any director of Soderbergh's stature is going to have little problem of getting enough funding to shoot a feature on film.

If the director is going to make a statement of how great digital video-making is (I refuse to call it "digital film making") then by all means stand behind the video look of that process. Seriously, HD quality video shot well really looks pretty great. What the hell is wrong with leaving the video looking like video? You can still use all sorts of dramatic lighting, atmospheric effects and then drop in lots of visual effects, colorizing effects and more in post.

Maybe some of the folks in the indie movie racket might pick up on this. Maybe they'll forego that pretentious chemical film-look step and leave the video image quality intact.

Little edited in addtion:

Sin City and SW: Episode III are notable exceptions of movies shot on video that look pretty good. But I suspect those movies were not put through some straight yet crude optical film print step to try to mimic the film look. They look as though some other computer-based (and likely more costly and time consuming) process was applied instead. Nevetheless, I think Sin City would have looked just as good, if not better, if the video look had been left intact.

Collateral deserves a somewhat honorable mention. However, it was pretty easy to tell apart the film-based elements from the stuff shot on video. And some of the video had some evidence of image smearing, likely the downside of shooting in some low light conditions. Camcorder CCDs, even the big expensive ones in those HD cameras, are going to perform only so well.
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 01-28-2006, 04:21 PM:
 
I don't quite see the problem with framing a digital movie in scope. Scope is cool no matter how small your screen is. This movie specifically is made up almost entirely of wide master shots. He did this so that his actors could do what they wanted without having to worry about hitting cues and such. Sure, he could have not masked off the top and bottom of the frame, but then it wouldn't have been as pretty. Besides, he has always seemed very deliberate about his choices for aspect ratio. According to the imdb (which isn't saying much), his next movie will be in 1.66:1.

As for digital content transferred to film, yeah, it's crap. Has anyone seen Nanny McPhee? Don't. It hurts. Both your eyes and your soul. I'm sure that BUBBLE looks like crap too. That's a big reason why I watched it at home. But Soderbergh is all crazy in love with the DLP. He even thinks that the 1.3K projectors look good. So I'm guessing he'd agree with what you're saying. But you're right. It doesn't let him off the hook.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 01-28-2006, 06:35 PM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

It is so pretentious as hell to shoot something that obviously looks like video, but crop it to a CinemaScope aspect ratio?

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Collateral deserves a somewhat honorable mention. However, it was pretty easy to tell apart the film-based elements from the stuff shot on video.

---

quote: Mike Schindler

---

There was really no doubt in my mind, because I had not wanted to wait until Tuesday to get the DVD instead. But on Thursday night, I saw it on the shelf at my local video store. I really had a hard time deciding whether to get it right there and then, or to go see it on the big screen.

---

quote: Jeremy Jorgenson

---

I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying, Bobby ... that part about aspect ratios & pretentiousness just bugged me. Then again, how often do you find artists that aren't pretentious to some degree?

---

Artists who are pretentious is another whole ball of wax. It reminds me of a comment made by a story board artist I know: "all actors are whores."


Still, I contend shooting a movie on HD video tape, yet framing it at 2.39:1 is indeed a pretentious act. You have a entirely different video origination process trying to act like a film process. It is copying the CinemaScope aspect ratio, a film process. Then they throw the imagery through a photo-chemical step to try to remove the video-ish look many associate with the 6 O'Clock news or daytime soap operas. Again, this is at the height of pretentiousness.

The digital movie makers go on and on about how "digital" is so much better than film, but then they try to make their "digital" product look like film -and fail most of the time in doing so. In the end, they just wind up screwing up the look of their video to where it looks a lot worse in quality than what I see in videotaped news, sports or even soap opera programs.

Finally, you have a numbers issue. Cropping a 1080 HD video image to 2.39:1 throws away a lot of pixels. The cropping cuts that 1080 number down to around 800 vertical pixels. For the 'scope print, the existing pixels are magnified even further. The image quality would actually be better if the movie maker had left the entire 1.77:1 image intact and had it printed flat. Basically, it's like taking the very worst aspects of Super35 movie print making and stooping to a quality standard even lower.

 

---

Posted by Joel N. Weber II (Member # 3530) on 01-29-2006, 02:24 PM:
 

quote: Darryl Spicer

---

I hate renting movies on DVD. Unless you can get it before someone screws it up by scratching the disc, you have to sit there and watch your DVD player go crazy or just quit working because nobody gives a shit about how they handle a rental DVD.

---

quote: Joel N. Weber II

---

My general experience with Netflix has been that the vast majority (95% or something) of the discs are just fine, using a Plextor drive in my computer. The version of ogle I use happens to have the ``feature'' that it will immediately just stop running and print an error message saying that dvdreadblocks failed if it ends up not managing to read any part of the movie, and then I will generally request a replacement and or switch to using mplayer (which will play what it can of the DVD). So it sounds like either the customers of your local video store are far more abusive than Netflix customers, or else your DVD player may not be particularily good at reading marginal DVDs.

---

quote: Darryl Spicer

---

There is just no guarantee that the DVD you get from a rental store is going to play correctly. When you bring it home and it is scratched or has finger prints all over it, it will not play correctly.

---

That is the truly irritating thing about renting DVDs. So many in the general public are disgusting, uncaring pigs when it comes to handling DVDs. They need the taste slapped out of their mouths for their inconsiderate behavior.

Naturally, no such justice will happen. I'm just surprised the video stores don't have some kind of accountability applied to customers who ruin discs. Back in the 1980s I remember some video stores actually checking the condition of returned tapes and billing for damages. Today, uncaring renters ruin discs with impunity. Like I said, they need a smack.

OTOH, some video stores have really stupid methods of packaging their movies, thus damaging the movies through their own volition.

Our local Hastings Music Books and Video has by far the best selection of DVDs to rent. However, some complete irredeemable fucktards in the company to this day still insist on only using plastic single disc jewel case sized containers to hold all releases. 2 disc release? They always cram both discs into the single disc case, expecting them both to stay put on that tiny spindle. They ruin the discs almost immediately. After a single week's worth of rentals you will find all copies of a 2 disc movie with one disc secured on the spindle and the other one loose in the container. I have written Hastings about this numerous times and they have never responded back or changed their packaging. Fucktards, I say! Fucktards!


So, whenever a 2-disc DVD is released that I want to rent, I usually have to visit Hollywood Video or Blockbuster and then hope there is a widescreen copy available. 95% of what they put on their shelves is idiotic fool-screen versions.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-29-2006, 09:33 PM:
 
Back on topic: From boxofficeguru.com:

Steven Soderbergh's Bubble, which opened in theaters and debuted on the HDnet cable channel this weekend, posted a soft opening with an estimated $72,000 from 32 theaters for a mild $2,250 average.
 

---

Posted by Jon Morgan (Member # 3059) on 01-30-2006, 04:13 PM:
 

quote: Paul Linfesty

---

I think I read it's also only being projected digitally in the few theatres (mostly Landmark) that are showing it.

---

Magnolia is definitely distributing 35mm prints of this film. I hate the release strategy, and I hate Mark Cuban in general, but I liked the film. It did all right for our theater's standards. Certainly better than plenty of the smaller independent features.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-30-2006, 05:29 PM:
 
From MovieMarshall.com...
>>On the indie circuits were: Steven Soderberg's weird 'Bubble' bombed with $72,000 earning a puny $2,250 in 32 locations.<<

So much for that experiment...

It was a nothing film that needed a gimmick like this to let it make ANYTHING at all. It was even on the news here about how it was going to change the way films are released. Well, one independent movie doing a stupid release like this won't make me stay up nights. You want to impress me? Release something big like this...say Star Wars 7 and I'll take notice. In the meantime...they're going to be flat out making back their $2million production budget.

Disney execs...please take note of this failure.

John
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 01-31-2006, 01:32 PM:
 
It's on sale for $22.99 at BestBuy.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-01-2006, 05:05 AM:
 
Well here's a telling tidbit....there are a bunch of pirates who sell their bootleg ware on the corner of Flatbush and Nostrand Avenues in Brooklyn. They have almost ever current title that are in theatres. I once called the cops to ask them what's being done about that kind of thing. The sergeant who answered the phone was very polite, but he said that kind of thing was handled by a special unit that worked in conjunction with the FBI and they don't do anything unless the FBI directs them. I didn't press it -- his tone had an unspoken statement (hear between the vowels) that said: "Are you kiddin, Bub? Our guys are out their fighting muggers and rapists." Anyway, that's not the point, the point is, I went over to this bootleg guy's array of first run DVDs all sprawled out on the sidewalk along with CDs as well and I looked for BUBBLE (not in 3D) and didn't see it. I figured, surely THIS title would be right there seeing as how it wouldn't even take the time to get a camcorder into a theatre to record it -- all they needed to go was buy it and make as many perfect copies as they needed and with no audience noise like the rest of their bootleg copies (which this guy claims is a PL:US -- his DVD give you the "audience experience, just like you're in the theatre). So I asked him "Do you have BUBBLE." His answer was, "What?" "BUBBLE," says I. "Never heard of it," he replies.

So much for where this Soderbergh "experiment" is going. I have a friend who works for TLA a DVD retailer. In a week or two I'll find out what kind of sales it's doing.

Has anyone seen ANY advertising campaign on this thing?

Below is an imaginary telephone conversation I had yesterday when I saw the ad that TLA bulk emailed to me:

In theatres 4 days ago. On DVD today.
Own Steven Soderbergh's Bubble
for just $19.99 at TLA Video!

BTW, It's only playing on ONE screen at that Landmark and nowhere in Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island or Bronx, which are all more populated parts of New York City than Manhattan. Not exactly "at a theatre near you" (well, not near me, at any rate).

Imaginary phone call:

Hello, Landmark? Can I speak to the Manager please? pause

Hello, are you the manager?

Can I reserve the theatre for a showing of BUBBLE?

I can?

Good, we will have about 100 patrons coming. We are willing to pay full ticket price, it's just I want to be sure we will have that many seats available in one theatre.

No problem? Oh excellent.

This Thursday for the 8pm show. I'll come buy with cash to purchase tickets in advance if that's ok. I want to avoid having everyone needing to pay at the door.

Wow, really? Free small popcorns for each in the party?

Thank you; that's very nice of you.

Sure, I would be glad to write a letter of commendation to your home office about our experience after the film.

Goodbye.

10 minutes later:

Hello....you are the gentleman who I just spoke to about the party of 100 for a screening of BUBBLE?

Hello again. Listen, I feel really bad about this, but we are going to have to cancel that party of 100 for BUBBLE

That's right.

Well, you see, BUBBLE is already out on DVD and our film club has our own new DLP projector -- isn't that just like the DLP projectors that they use in the theatres now?

Not the same?

Well anyway, we never go to the theatre to see a film that is already out on DVD. We just show it at Gena's finished basement....with the projector on a big screen. It actually is better than in the theatre....it's digital you know.

Perhaps you should write to you home office and ask them why they would play a movie that is already out on DVD.

Oh, I AM sorry, you sound depressed. If you like, I can still write to them to tell them what a very nice phone manner you have.

Well, thanks for your help. Goodbye...Oh wait, do you think we can come buy and pick up those free popcorns you offered?

Hello?

Of course I would never do this to a fellow theatre operator, tempting as it is. And just in case any of you are wondering about the quality of this Soderbergh "film," I give you:

REVIEW
A short-film idea interminably stretched to (barely) feature length, Bubble is a half-assed "experiment" from director Soderbergh that fails in both ambition and execution. It tells the story of workers in a small-town doll factory on the West Virginia border, specifically handsome Kyle (Ashley) and dowdy middle-aged Martha (Doebereiner), who have formed a special bond of friendship. When sexy young jailbait Rose (Wilkins) joins the staff, a love triangle of sorts rears its head, and is the possible cause of an ensuing murder. All this, including the police procedural that follows, is filmed flatly...and acted that way as well by the non-professional cast. The end result is a lot like Full Frontal without the starpower. Soderbergh makes the additional mistake of underdirecting his non-actors, who recite the bland, improvised dialogue with even less impact than one would expect. Bubble was somewhat heralded as the first film (albeit shot on video) to be released in theatres and on DVD simultaneously; it will be forgotten just as quickly.
-- David Gorgos

To be perfectly honest, this sounds EXACTLY like the kind of "film" that they release DIRECTLY to DVD without any theatrical release. They have been doing this rip-off for years, even back in the days of VHS....you would see them on the rental store shelves and wonder what the hell is THAT title. They put more money into the graphics on the box than into the film. That was the trick....make the box so eye-catching and with such exciting plot summary text, in other words make it so much a look-alike as a REAL film that someone is a liable to pick it up and buy or rent it thinking it WAS a real movie that they must have somehow missed when it came around the theatres. Clever these charlatans; not much difference between them and the street corner bootleggers....both selling junk disguised to look like the real thing.
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 02-01-2006, 07:25 PM:
 
To be fair, Gorgos' review is oversimplified. The film's plot is very much rooted in those bad direct-to-video genre cliches, but the other elements, such as acting, sound design, and photography, go completely in the other direction, creating this huge contrast between the two. It has a very complex structure with many many layers. It's also unfair to say that the concept is half-assed. This format is something that Soderbergh's been playing with here and there since TRAFFIC. The other five films that he's releasing under this deal will all be made in a similar fashion, with local non-actors, available light, etc.. That's a pretty big commitment to something so experimental, especially when he could be doing something "safe" like OCEAN'S THIRTEEN.

I'm not saying that most people will like the movie, and I totally understand why they wouldn't. But I don't think it can be dismissed as something that was just thrown out there to make a quick buck.

Jon, how did it look on 35mm?
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 02-01-2006, 09:01 PM:
 
We don't need an Ocean's 13. We really didn't need 12.
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 02-01-2006, 10:13 PM:
 
My point exactly. Why should we have to see the same old crap when we could be seeing entirely new crap? That being said, OCEAN'S TWELVE rocks, and I'll be the first in line (at the theater!) to see OCEAN'S THIRTEEN.
 

---

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 02-02-2006, 12:19 PM:
 

quote: Frank Angel

---

this sounds EXACTLY like the kind of "film" that they release DIRECTLY to DVD without any theatrical release.

---