Well done, you.

According to Boxofficemojo.com, Bloodrayne only screened in 985 theatres at its widest release.

So, prints for over five times the number of actual theaters it played in were "accidentally" ordered. Nice.

US cinema chains refusing to show Bubble

Bubble, a low-budget movie made with untried actors, is being sold on DVD and shown on cable TV the same day it debuts at the theatre.

Theatre chains in more than 15 states have refused to show the film, saying Soderbergh's plan will take a big chunk out of their bottom line.

"It's the biggest threat to the viability of the cinema industry today," John Fithian, president of the National Association of Theater Owners, said of the so-called "day and date" release strategy.

If a high-profile Hollywood name like Soderbergh, director of Sex, Lies and Videotape, Erin Brockovich and Traffic, is trying simultaneous release, there is too great a danger of the strategy becoming acceptable to the mainstream, the group says.

Cinema owners are losing out because North Americans no longer go to the movies as often. Part of the reason for their reluctance is the opportunity to see the film on DVD just a few weeks after its release.

The prospect of rapid release of films on the internet or even via cell phone also threatens theatre owners.

Bubble opens Jan. 27 and so far will be shown only at Landmark Theaters, which holds a handful of cinemas across the U.S. and is owned by the company that backed the film.

I was wondering if that would happen.

If a cinema (and the movie) make going to the theatre a worthwhile and fun experience, then I'll go. I'm disappointed when my schedule prevents me from seeing an "event" movie on the big screen.

But I'm a little more intent about these things than the average moviegoer, I'm guessing. The DVD/theatre release doesn't really affect what medium I'll watch the movie on.

For me it really breaks down to how much I want to see the movie. If I'm eager for something, I'll go out for the full cinematic experience. But there are lots of things that I'd rather pay $4 to rent and watch in my own home.

I'll go out and see an "event" picture. So I can't blame theater owners for ignoring an "improvised" low-budg movie with no stars (or actors, for that matter) or marketing. That's aside from the fact that they are being asked to buy a nonexclusive license that is part of an experiment with a strategy that hurts their entire business model. Smooth move, Magnolia. I'll remember that if I'm ever asked to pay for something practically worthless in order to make it easier for non-market participants to take my piece of the pie.

I can't blame theater owners for ignoring an "improvised" low-budg movie with no stars (or actors, for that matter) or marketing

Absolutely. The concurrent release thing--maybe if Peter Jackson asked them to do it, but why this?

For me it depends a lot on the movie. Brokeback Mountain, with all those sweeping vista shots and such, was something I wanted to see on a big screen. Likewise Serenity or any other SF movie with space battles.

Character-driven slices of life set in a Duluth office? I generally figure they won't lose much going to the smaller screen. I'll still shell out the bucks to see them in the theater if it's a social thing--catching a movie with my friends and all that. But I don't feel that I'm gaining much of anything as far as experiencing the movie.