This Friday, Academy Award-winning filmmaker Steven Soderbergh will change the way movies are offered to the public, but not in a good way. It is on that day that his new film “Bubble” will be released simultaneously in theatres and on DVD, giving consumers their first ever chance to spend their money in whichever way they desire. For all intents and purposes this is a good thing. After all, there were easily 365, 432 crappy movies that came out last year that were not worth spending the money to see it in theatres, but were well worth it as a Blockbuster or Netflix night. But on the complete other hand, for anyone that has ever wanted to make a movie, or has made one, and, I can’t press this point enough, YOU’RE KILLING OUR WILL TO LIVE!

Ask 100 filmmakers why they make movies, and 99 out of 100 will say that they make movies so that people will see them (and that other 1 guy is just deluded, or he’s Brett Ratner). After all, that’s the point of making art. Yes, you want to satisfy your creative drive, but in the end, you want someone to see it. Film is no different. And while people will still see your movie if they rent it, it’s not at all the same thing as seeing the film on the big screen.

Any kid that went to the movies, fell in love and decided to devote their lives to making movies, wants a different kid to walk into their movie and have it be the one that inspired them to be a filmmaker. We want people to take time out of their lives to make plans with their significant other or friends, to drive to the theater, buy a ticket, buy concessions, sit with two or three hundred people, ignore the talking, the ringing cellphones and the crackling of candy wrappers, and enjoy our movie. To be carried away by the movie. To get lost in the movie. We do not want you to be able to pause it to answer the phone, or have it on in the background while you play on your computer.

But like I said, for all intents and purposes, this is a good thing. Movie ticket prizes have become astronomical, the overall quality of movies is on the decline, the movie theater experience sucks and too many other interesting diversions are now offered to the public at costs significantly lower than your average night at the movies. And doesn’t this give more people the opportunity to see the dual release movie right now, as opposed to having to wait three months or more? So yes, there are real, tangible reasons for releasing a film into theatres and on DVD at the same time.

Except, what’s the big rush? For one, I’m not gonna buy a movie on DVD unless I’ve seen it before and liked it, and two, having a theatrical window gives the consumer time between having seen the film once and wanting to own it so they can see it again and again. It’s like I said before, there are too many entertainment-related diversions out there; I don’t have that much time to devote to any one movie. So if I take the time and spend the money to see a movie in the theater, chances are good that three, four or how ever many months later, I’m gonna want to see it again, and at that point, I’ll buy the DVD.

But if I have the choice, I’m always going to prefer seeing a movie in the theaters because the audio and video are better, and if I don’t like the movie, I don’t own it. For me, the value of buying a product that is lousy is higher than buying the rights to view a product. Put simply, I feel less crummy when I go to a bad movie, than I do when I buy a bad DVD. Also, going to the movies is a thing you do for fun. Don’t take that away from me. And they will, you know. If the trend becomes to sidestep theatrical release and go straight to video, and studios decide that it is more financially viable to do it, than we lose a percentage of our opportunity to go to the movies on a Friday night. This experiment was supposed to give us options, not take them away. Renting a movie or watching a DVD is never as cool as going to the movies, and it never will be. Giving us the option to decide how we see the movie is nice, but I’d rather you take the option away if it means we get to keep the right to go to the movies and press our luck that the movie is any good.

And moreover, as a business decision, it’s a poor one. On the one hand, DVD sales are increasing and theatrical box office is down, so it would seem smarter to go straight to DVD. But the limited theatrical run is what pumps up the DVD sales. The big screen movie has essentially become the teaser trailer for the eventual DVD release. Take the teaser away and the DVD sales will go down. But on the other hand, releasing a movie simultaneously in theatres and on DVD will decrease the theatrical box office, thereby screwing over the exhibitors, a bad idea in a time of a box office slump. Studios need to woo the exhibitors and theater owners. Take their money away and suddenly they don’t want to run your movies. In the end, someone is getting hurt by this decision.

So how do we fix it?

I have two answers. The first is tailored to solving the problem of the ever-shrinking retail window, which only five years ago was steady at one year between the release of the movie in theatres and the release of the movie on video or DVD, but today now stands at merely three months. And the second is an answer to how to increase box office sales to combat the increasing desire of the consumer to “wait until it’s on video”.

1. The Shrinking Home Video Window

When Disney decides to pull a beloved title from its vault and re-release it on DVD they give the title a limited release window, after which it is put back on the shelves and given a retail moratorium (in other words, you can’t buy it anymore after the window closes). Studios should follow the Disney model when releasing their movies. Part of the problem in a shrinking home video window is that of course, if you aren’t that interested in the movie, then you will skip the theaters and wait to see it on DVD. But some people still love going to the movies, and will choose to do so despite only needing to wait another three months save their money and grab the DVD.

As well, I think there’s a portion of people who want to see a movie in theatres but take the release time for granted, figuring that if they miss the opening weekend they still have time to “see it later”. This isn’t always the case for a movie that doesn’t open well. The Chronicles of Narnia may still be going strong after two months in release, but Hostel is pulling out of theatres and prepping for DVD in only its second week. So instead of propagating the myth that a film could be in theatres indefinitely, set a window of opportunity for the film so that the public knows exactly how long they have to see a movie in theatres.

Here’s my plan: Make the theatrical window like a department store sale, thereby increasing the need to see a film in the theatres while there’s still time. A film given a wide-release (1000 screens or more) will only stay in theatres for one month (or four weeks). That’s all you get. After all, if you haven’t gotten to a movie in a month, you’re probably not going. But don’t worry, because as soon as those four weeks are up, the film will be released immediately on DVD. This gives the studio a chance to make some decent box office money, and for exhibitors and theater owners to make their percentage. As well, the DVD comes out sooner so the average consumer has less time to wait, and it still gives people a chance to see a film in theatres if they so desire. Finally, the four-week theatrical window is basically a month long test run and publicity boost for the DVD, thereby increasing DVD sales! My best friend majored in business at UCLA, and is getting a JDMBA at Duke and even he couldn’t come up with a business model this sound. Damn I’m good.

A few things to round out the plan:

1. If a film is successful beyond a certain money point (let’s say $75 million) studios will be given the right to expand the four week window by one week for each $50 million it makes beyond the original money point. So for example, if King Kong comes out and grosses $125 million in its first two weeks, Universal would now have the right to expand the theatrical window to five weeks. This way, the public decides the demand for the theatrical release, and not corporations intent on making DVD money (ahem, Wal-Mart).

2. If a film is unsuccessful at the box office (say, $25 million or less by the end of week 2), you can opt to decrease the window by one week.

3. A film released in less then 500 screens, and therefore considered a limited release, is not subject to the four-week window. However, if the film is successful and then expanded to beyond 1000 screens (the benchmark for a wide-release), the four week window immediately goes into effect. After all, I’m not trying to kill the chances of a quality independent or edgy film, I’m just trying to be fair to all films.

Give me a month to decide whether or not I want to spend the money on a film in the theaters. After that, by all means, release the special edition DVD and let the good times roll.

2. How to solve market saturation?

Why is the box office in a slump? Well, for the purposes of this column, let’s assume it’s because ticket prices are too high ($10 bucks or more) and we no longer want to spend that much money for such a degraded movie going experience. How do you fix that?

Here’s my plan: Create a price plan that is universal. Make opening night exceedingly cheap for every movie. As the film plays week to week, the price of a ticket increases.

The price model looks like this:

• Week 1: Ticket Price = $5.00
• Week 2: Ticket Price = $6.00
• Week 3: Ticket Price = $7.00
• Week 4: Ticket Price = $8.00
• Week 5 - Through the end of the run, all bets are off. Theaters may customize their ticket price.

As of this last weekend, the average motion picture makes more than 60% of their total gross from the opening weekend. But the average drop-off for a summer blockbuster is near 55%. And since we all know that the opening weekend numbers are what determines the “success” of the film, then cap that number and give the film a true test. This works to reward quality films that are well liked by the public. Blockbusters with great special effects but lousy stories would open small, flame out quickly, and would not fool us out of our hard earned money (ahem, Fantastic Four). On the other hand, smart, well-made films would be rewarded for their quality. Now, for example, a “Garden State” has just as much a chance to succeed as a “War of the Worlds”.

Capping the price of the first week box office would inevitably affect the quality of films themselves. Most likely, we would come to see a decreased percentage of films tailored to a quick fix. I’m thinking of films like Catwoman, Flightplan or any of those Jerry Bruckheimer/ Nicolas Cage action movies. Conversely, we would begin to see a higher quality of movies due to the increased pressure to deliver a film people will not only like, but will agree to pay more for, the longer they wait to see it.

It’s the same method for home video. When a DVD is first released it is priced on sale. You can never find that DVD for as good a price. As the weeks go on, and other DVD’s come out, the sale ends and the price goes up. Now the consumer must choose whether or not the film is important enough to pay more for; a great test of the longevity and overall quality of a film.

Now, think about what would happen if the entertainment industry combined both of these plans. You have a four week window to see a movie before it gets released on DVD for ten or fifteen bucks. But if you do go see the movies in theatres, the ticket would average six dollars, only $1.50 more than your average Blockbuster rental. Wouldn’t this increase your desire to see the movie in the theaters and also help your decision to buy the DVD or not? Also, if you don’t want to go the movies, you only have to wait one month instead of three months, you are only inundated with promotions for a film once, instead of twice, and by watching how the public reacted to the limited theatrical window, it would further inform you to the possible quality of the film itself. Now, everybody wins.

Thus endeth the lesson, and my plan to fix the way Hollywood releases their movies and how we decide to pay for them. And if someone of influence reads this and steals my idea, I expect to receive royalties. And if it helps boost the economy, I fully expect to hear from the Nobel people. That would sound nice: The Jay, Nobel Prize Winner. Wouldn’t that be a nice twist of irony after my consecutive “C’s” in algebra and trigonometry? See Dad, I am good at math.

Bangarang!