If I have this correct, and I may not, Cuban's strategy is as follows. Landmark is one of the only chains that will allow films to show that have day and date deals. Comcast wants to promote that it has day and date releases available on demand. Cuban hopes that by freezing out Comcast, they will not find any theatres willing to release day and date, and thus will not be able to truthfully market their own day-date service, forcing them back into negotiations with HDNet.
Sounds vaguely logical in a corporate-battle way, with plenty of small-time filmmaker casualties.
Isn't making a film and having it released bloody hard enough already?!

HDNet is a stupid name anyway. Everything's going to be HD soon. I don't see any SDNets out there. Okay, maybe I'm getting too worked up.

Im curious, where if anywhere Jonathan Marlow posted his comments about me. He is entitled to his opinion, but did he fail to note that Landmark is opening the film, day and date in non Comcast markets ?

This isnt about day n date. We are fully supportive. And if IFC was showing the film day n date on Charter or Time Warner VOD. No problem. If they were showing it PPV day n date on Dish or Directv. No problem.

I dont have a problem being painted the bad guy in this. But the reality is still there for future film makers.

THe good news in all of this is that there are indie theaters that will book day n date and thats good for indie film makers everywhere.

And as far as our name...You got to have better things to think about..dont you ? Names are easy to change. Putting indie film makers in a position to succeed isnt as easy. Along the way you are going to piss people off.

As for the name, you are perfectly right (both as far as my being petty, and the name change). I happened to be at work editing HD all day so I had it on the brain, and my boss actually came in and for some reason our conversation veered on to the name (probably the HD edit sitting in front of us)...

Meanwhile, I certainly do appreciate your willingness to get involved in the debate. You're certainly in a position to sit back and not say anything at all.

This film, for some reason, is particularly dear to me (this may or may not have come through in my review, mentioned in David's first paragraph here) and it's suffered a few blows in the last year.

Mark,

You and Todd can do whatever you want with your media empire. I wouldn't begin to tell you how you should run your various businesses since you both seem to be doing quite well without any advice on my part. Just don't expect us to congratulate you when you use such a feeble leveraging point as I am a Sex Addict in your fight against Comcast. You know that pulling the film in certain markets isn't going to bring an end to your squabble with them.

Admittedly, I have no great fondness for Comcast. Still, I cannot fathom why your issue with them should prevent IFC from signing this deal. It isn’t about you. I’d be delighted if IFC wanted to make Sex Addict available as part of our Video-on-Demand service. However, that isn’t the direction they went. Should we now stop mentioning the film as a result of their decision? Should we remove any references to Sex Addict from our site because IFC opted for other VOD partners?

As for hypocrisy, I recall a comment at the aforementioned panel about the difficulty in convincing theater-owners to accept Bubble day-and-date as a viable business model. A model, that is, that wouldn’t undercut their abilities to get people to the cinema to see the film. I wager that you’re adding credibly to their arguments by placing these unnecessary restrictions on IFC’s efforts to follow the same path. Your issue with pulling Sex Addict in these markets is what, exactly? That you don’t want to use the Landmark chain as a platform to promote the film’s availability on Comcast? Isn’t that the precise issue that the theater-owners had with the one-off availability on HDNet and its simultaneous appearance on DVD?

I fully support your efforts to try new distribution methods. In fact, we’ve relentlessly promoted the merits of day-and-date to wary filmmakers and distributors for the last two years. However, your strong-arm tactic with IFC, even in an attempt to convince them to support your side of the Comcast/HDNet disagreement, is rash behavior at best. Don’t expect us to sit on the sidelines and not call you on it.

opinionatedly,
Jonathan Marlow

As co-founder of Landmark Theatres I can proudly state that we always tried to break traditional theater rules and be the adventurous ones in the market. Many independent filmmakers loved us for taking chances with their movies and others hated us for not taking chances with their films. We made a business decision based on our feelings about the potential audience and how effective the filmmakers and our marketing people could be in convincing audiences to take a chance on a little film wth no advertising budget and guerilla marketing tactics.

We installed one of the earliest video projectors and had a sattelite dish in place for conferencing and special presentations back in the early 80s. We played day and date with cable on THE PIRATES OF PENZANCE when nobody else would touch it.

The day and date controversy is a challenging one for exhibitors. With the closing video window the public percpetion is that they don't have to wait. Build your home theater and who needs to go out to the theater and deal with noisy teens, ringing cell phones, video games in the lobby and an often clueless staff?

Of course they miss the magic that has made a night at the movies special for over 100 years...that communal experience in the dark with a bunch of new friends you don't have to meet.

I think the Cuban/Landmark and IFC experiments are interesting because they allow audiences in most of America to see films that will never get to their towns...and do so when the marketing is at its peak. The filmmakers and distributors also stand to benefit from revenues they never would have earned in the traditional release pattern.

It will take several films and at least a couple of successes in all simultaneous release platforms before we can really evaluate the true success for the films and the damage to theaters.

But it seems to me that Cuban's position hurts his grand day and date scheme as well as Landmark's potential to make money from successful films.

I am not one to complain because independents like myself might have a chance to grab a few more films that would otherwise go to Landmark. We expect to do very well with I AM A SEX ADDICT at the Balboa in San Francisco.

But if I AM A SEX ADDICT opens to big bucks, there wil be a rush to book it and it will be interesting to see if Landmark is in the stampede.

Fascinating, insightful discussion!!

(A somewhat longer version of this missive was also sent along to Mark Cuban directly...)

dear Mark,

You've likely already seen these comments elsewhere and opted not to comment. I don't blame you. It makes much more sense at this point to continue (or discontinue) your dialogue directly with Caveh Zahedi and, I presume, IFC...

I would like to add one or two things, however. I don't believe that [the excerpted private correspondence that referred to you as a "hypocrite"] was entirely fair... I was taking Todd [Wagner]'s comments at the SXSW panel and your comments and pointing to a conflict between the two. The message, I wager, was a bit more eloquent in its complete form. You and Todd can certainly have independent and differing views on the same issue.

Ultimately, you have every right to decide what should screen at Landmark and what should not. Comcast similarly has every right to refuse carriage to HDNet. In your efforts to get Comcast (and now IFC) to change their ways, you can use whatever strategies make sense to you. This certainly doesn't require implicit or explicit permission from GreenCine or anyone else within the industry. The issue remains that I am a Sex Addict was booked to open in this market at your theater. A mistake was evidently made, either by IFC, Landmark or both. Pulling the film was clearly not the solution. Perhaps we can all agree on that now?

Other arrangements have been made to keep the film in the neighborhood. In fact, this could work out as an unexpected benefit for Caveh since you've inadvertently generated quite a bit of chatter about the situation. Therein, some thanks are certainly due to you for aiding in the guerilla marketing of this film.

respectfully,
Jonathan

postscript -- This isn't the first time that we've had a disjointed, indirect conversation. Several years ago, we did much the same thing on the pho list...