Mark Cuban Goes To The Theaters

I'm one of those guys who goes to Landmark Theaters, the ones that Cuban is in charge of. Landmark Theaters have been something of a godsend because they show films that otherwise would be hard to watch elsewhere. My beef with it is that I have two choices. There's one in Bethesda, which is convenient to go to, and there's one in DC on E Street, that takes more work for me. You might think they would show the same movies, but E Street consistently shows the better films. It's almost as if they've decided that hip movies go to E Street, and the Merchant/Ivory films go to Bethesday (I know, Merchant passed away recently).

That's not what I wanted to talk about, however.

Recently, Mark Cuban issued a challenge, of sorts, to his readers. Mark is in the movie business. One of the issues that vexes Cuban is how expensive it is to get people to watch films. Most filmmakers would love a film like the second Pirates of the Carribean, which raked in a ton of money, on the strength of how much fans loved the first one (the second one, by the way, didn't live up to expectations).

Before getting to my idea, I want to think about why the filmgoing experience, for lack of a better word, sucks. First, obviously, is price. It costs around ten bucks to go watch a movie. I remember once upon a time when it cost 3.50 at non matinee prices. That was quite a while ago. Parents find the price of taking the whole family to be awfully prohibitive. A family of four might spend 30 bucks on tickets alone.

And food? Prices at theaters are like prices at airports or prices at some sports arena. Large Coke? I mean enough Coke to choke on? Four bucks. This is for like two liters of soda. Thanks for contributing to obesity. I know. Theaters have no choice. The distributors make the lion's share of the profits, and theaters only start taking a decent cut many weeks in.

Theaters need blockbusters, something that stays for weeks. And of course, they make money on outrageous prices. And people will pay for it too. Some classier theaters (like the Silver AFI) offer wine, beer, or Häagen-Dazs ice cream. They're overpriced too.

Because of the pricing, people are decidedly more selective when it comes to film watching, and it takes a lot of work to convince a person to shell out the money and time. Families like the idea that the cost of renting a DVD and staying at home costs, what? Five bucks? Instead of thirty or more? For those with small kids, it's a no brainer. And the theater experience? Have you seen the size of televisions these days? Fifty inches of high-def goodness.

Let's think about the after film experience. What do you do next? Hmm, well, you leave the theaters. Maybe there's a brief discussion of the film afterwards with the buddies, if you have a large group. But otherwise, it's time to head home.

Let's contrast this with television. Lately, television shows have been trying to hook viewers by having an ongoing storyline. What used to be anathema to television networks has now been seen as a boon. In the old days, if you had a series that hooked people so watching it in the middle would leave viewers stranded, then no new viewers would watch it. Not something the networks wanted.

But then came the saviour. DVDs! If you missed a few episodes, or a whole season, you could just buy the DVDs for the season you missed. The shows benefitted doubly. First, with rabid viewers who had to watch what happened next. Second, with Johnny come latelys who bought the DVDs so they could catch up. The premier show that does this is ABC's Lost.

Even shows that didn't have such a strong central storyline earned a following because fans simply liked the characters. Whether it be Whedon-philes who helped resurrect Firefly into a film (though the film was perhaps not the best thing for the series, as it tried to advance to many plot lines at the same time), or fans of Friends, Seinfeld, and so forth.

Television is offering the kind of hook that movies can't compete with. Movies must engross you in two, maybe three hours tops. You have to like the characters or the story really soon because there isn't a lot of time to do character development. You like a movie for its adrenaline rush, or its deep issues, or for its quirkiness, but once it's gone, you have to wait a while before the next film comes out.

I want to address all these problems simultaneously, although it would take some money to make it happen, and I can't guarantee how well it would work.

Before I give you the idea, I want to tell you that I've begun rereading Ender's Game for maybe the third or fourth time. I'll blog about this in another entry, but I have an idea for how to direct this film, even though I lack any experience as a film maker. I won't go into those details now, but I did want to talk about its history.

Orson Scott Card wrote Ender's Game in 1977, the same year Star Wars came out. He had submitted his story to Analog magazine, at the time, one of two science fiction serials (the other being Issac Asimov's Science Fiction). His novelette was expanded to its current form in 1985, where it won Hugo and Nebula awards for best novel.

My point? Card got his start with a much shorter form, and there was a forum for his short story.

Here's the idea. Start creating movies that last half an hour to an hour tops. To attract viewership, these films should be shown in coffeehouses and bookstores. This is where it gets a little expensive. Coffeehouses and bookstores would need to be retrofitted to have theaters that hold, say, 60-100 people in three rooms. Charge people five bucks to watch a film. Refreshments are part of the coffeehouse/bookstore.

Where are we headed with this?

First, why short films? Several reasons, but first and foremost. They are short. Unlike a two hour film, where you have to get tickets, wait in line, and watch, and leave. By the time the film ends, you've spent three plus hours on this evening. Short films mean less of a cost to watch a film.

Secondly, because it's shorter, it should cost less money to make the film. Indeed, the next Orson Scott Card of film might be able to distribute these films to eyes that would never have seen them before. Established filmmakers may want to try more experimental subjects on a shorter time scale.

And, you could get fans to vote afterwards about how much they liked the film. If there's enough groundswell of support, it could be used to dynamically adjust what films are shown at other theaters.

Lesser known fare, such as anime, could be shown as well. People used to watching anime at home could now watch it on Anime Thursday and have a discussion group afterwards to talk about it.

Why put it in a coffeehouse or bookstore? This is to tap in to the next problem with movie theaters. When you're done, there's nothing more to keep you there. You simply leave. But bookstores, for example, (and coffeehouses) potentially have the space to hold a discussion after the fact. That could be an informal discussion, such as you and your friends. Or it could be more organized with a person ready to lead up discussions. Bookstores already invite people to come over to talk about books. Movie makers could come by. Someone could sponsor a series of films and try to get patrons to come by.

How to start this off? First, try to get a few of the big names to make not just one short film, but a series. This harkens back to the days before television. Serials have worked out well for television, and used to be the mainstay of theaters. Thus, Steven Spielberg make a two hour films, but breaks it up into four half hour chunks.

Each half hour chunk costs five bucks to watch. The whole two hours? Twenty bucks! People spent ten bucks for two hours, now spend twenty for the same twenty bucks.

Now, again, why bookstores and coffeehouses. People already spend a lot of time in bookstores and coffeehouses, often hours. Maybe one person likes to read books, open up a laptop, and just hang out. You tell your friend, hey, I'll be watching the anime that just came on for half an hour, and I'll be right back after that.

This is why the short time is necessary. It makes the cost of watching a film much more palatable. You're hanging out at the bookstore. It's showing something every half an hour (you'd likely need to stagger theaters every ten minutes, and then have one room that is empty per half hour, so it could be cleaned).

What we have here is synergy. You get people to show up to watch a film. They hang out at a bookstore/coffeehouse afterwards or beforehand, a place they might not otherwise have gone to. Or, they already hang out at such a place, and you give an option that they can take without a great investment in time or money. Advertise? You can now go to some other techniques, such as email, with previews (should a person want to watch) or read about.

And it should benefit filmmakers. The Orson Scott Cards of films of the world would get their start in short films then graduate to full-length features. If you want to get more, you could watch two films in a night. They're short enough. I think you'd find directors like Lynch or Soderbergh or numerous others willing to try a much shorter format. Also, by putting films in coffeehouses/bookstores, you might actually improve the quality and diversity of film being made.

Well, there it is. Something to think about.