NEW LINE NEWSBREAKS FOR WEDNESDAY 8/2/06 – MAILED 1:10 AM – IF LINK IS BROKEN, PASTE URL INTO BROWSER
Return to Concept|Copy · Return to Art|Design
NEW LINE NEWSBREAKS FOR WEDNESDAY 8/2/06 – MAILED 1:10
AM – IF LINK IS BROKEN, PASTE URL INTO BROWSER
(1: COMING SOON) Someone with some smarts has noticed that "the agenda of journalists and the media has never been more prevalent than it has been this summer where everyone is picking a side on every new movie" and ruining it for fans
The original
source for the material cited below is at the following link:
www.comingsoon.net/weekendwarrior/2006/aug4.php
Your Weekly Guide to New Movies for August 4, 2006
By Edward Douglas - warrior@comingsoon.net
Greetings and welcome back to the Weekend Warrior, your weekly guide to
the weekend's new movies. Tune in every Tuesday for the latest look at
the upcoming weekend, and then check back on Friday for final
projections based on actual theatre counts.
THE BATTLE CRY!
(If you have anything to say about this or anything else written in the
column, feedback and Email is always welcome, and almost always
responded to.)
Agenda is the enemy of every good journalist and critic.
I can already hear my editor grumbling, “What does this have to do with
movies, Ed?”
Well, let me tell you. I'm sure I've mentioned before how I feel that
most, if not all, critics are biased even before they walk into the
theatre or screening room, but the agenda of journalists and the media
has never been more prevalent than it has been this summer where
everyone is picking a side on every new movie and then drilling home
the point whenever they're right or lambasting others when they're
wrong.
If a journalist/critic hates a movie and gives it a bad review, they'll
harp on the fact that it bombed, proving that they were right, or vice
versa. If a journalist/critic has had a problem with a filmmaker in the
past, they might spend more time talking about their issues than with
the actual movie. Good examples of this are the recent movies by Kevin
Smith and M. Night Shyamalan. Frankly, you probably read more about
them, their personalities and their public feuds in the last two weeks
than about their actual movies.
Before Lady in the Water came out, everyone was talking about “The Man
Who Heard Voices,” Michael Bamberger's new tell-all book about M.
Night's dealings with Disney on the movie. It quickly overshadowed the
movie, and as the reviews came in, it was pretty obvious that critics
were taking Night to task more for his attitude and ego than for his
movie.
SPOILER! (scroll in space below to read)
(I mean, let's face it, he plays an influential writer and kills the
film critic character after a blatant slam about the occupation.)
Because Lady in the Water opened so weakly compared to Night's previous
movies, we've been seeing all these stories this past week about how
all the critics were right about it being a bad movie and it served
Shyamalan right for not listening to Disney, etc. (Even “Entertainment
Weekly,” which is owned by the same company who released Lady, is
offering Shyamalan career advice. Where were they when Michael Bay, Rob
Cohen and Wolfgang Peterson needed advice?) Not every critic hated the
movie, and some brave ones were honest about it. I don't even think
everyone who saw the movie hated it. But it's all about reporting by
agenda. The media has decided it was time to take Night down a few
notches after The Village, and this was the perfect opportunity to do
so.
The same can be said for Bryan Singer's Superman Returns, which after
months of being criticized before a single frame was seen is now being
declared as an out-and-out bomb because it hasn't reached $200 million
yet (and might not). Granted, compared to its production budget, which
is well over that mark, it would be considered a bomb, but because of
the agenda of the media, they spin the numbers to try to make it look
far worse. I'm sorry, but $185 million for ANY movie in this day and
age isn't bad. What ultimately happens is that people who might have
wanted to see it, don't. Seriously, who wants to see a movie that is
claimed to be a bomb even if millions of people who saw it enjoyed it
and consider it one of the better superhero movies?
The problem is that it's irresponsible journalism. It's criticism and
commentary based on agenda, rather than the quality of the movie or
hard facts. And it's very selective agenda reporting, too. No one is
hailing the Wayans as genii after the critically slammed Little Man
opened higher than their last movie White Chicks, which was also
slammed before anyone saw it. It's business has slowed down a bit but
it's already over $50 million.
Most of it isn't even “news.” It's more about bringing down the icons
after building them up for false reasons, and it's become a regular
staple the more the internet becomes overdriven by “news” blogs and
egotistical reporters who think that what they say can actually control
the thinking of the masses. There are critics/journalists who actually
take credit for bringing filmmakers down by their “investigative
reporting,” and it's really dangerous stuff because the more the media
thinks it controls the decisions of the moviegoers, the more it will
become a self-fulfilling prophecy since way too many people believe
everything they read and are easily swayed by false information, a lot
of which is being driven by personal agendas.
Next week, a more innocuous topic, that of animation and how there are
no new or original ideas anymore.
(4:
MOVIE CITY INDIE) Will there ever be a piece of
marketing technology -- software, hardware, firmware, vaporware
(underware?) -- that will automate or lubricate dealing with
bureaucracies like the MPAA?; This Film Is Not Yet Rated wants
to know!
The
original
source for the material cited below is at the following link:
www.mcnblogs.com/mcindie/
Taking MPAA shots: has This Film is Not Yet Rated
inoculated its interviewees?
So how on earth did Kevin Smith get that R rating on a single pass from
the notoriously dodgy and inconsistent MPAA, considering that they warn
us that it's filled with "pervasive sexual and crude content including
aberrant sexuality, strong language and some drug material"? (As Smith
put it to me, "When the dust settled, I was just like... Are they
fucking nuts? Did they see the same movie?") ... Dick has suggested
that the filmmakers he interviewed for This Film Is Not Yet Rated could
be inoculated from future ratings battles with a press-shy MPAA. Smith
was notably harsh toward ratings board chair Joan Graves in Dick's pic;
other frank interviewees include John Waters, Matt Stone, Kimberly
Peirce, Atom Egoyan [pictured], Darren Aronofsky, Mary Harron and
distributor Bingham Ray.
Over at Filmmaker, Anthony Kaufman gets Dick to expand on this notion.
As for his own future dealings with the board, the filmmaker says "I
think there is a clever construction of the film: since it is about the
MPAA, I think it’s very unlikely that they would come after me or IFC
because they’re already portrayed negatively in the film and they would
be portrayed in the press even more negatively. The amount of publicity
around the film would double. The MPAA is very savvy in the way that
it’s dealt with its public relations... If I submit a film for a
rating, I’m certain some of them might harbor those feelings towards
me. But on the other hand, I think, myself, and all the filmmakers who
appear in the film, we’re inoculated in a way, because the press will
pay attention, particularly, if my film goes in front of the rating
board. The last thing that the MPAA wants to do is bring attention to
the process. It wants to operate under the radar as much as possible. I
don’t think they’d cut me any breaks, but I don’t think they’d be
exceedingly harsh on my films."
There's valuable material about the film's application of Fair Use in
the interview, and in a piece on the film's post-production, Elina
Shatkin describes another rights issue. "The third act also contains
the film's most clever visual trick. Dick recorded his initial phone
conversation with Joan Graves, chair of the MPAA's ratings board. For
subsequent conversations, Graves did not give her consent to have her
side of the conversation recorded. Dick's side of the calls were
filmed, however, so Dick had voiceover actors re-enact Graves' side of
the calls. The final image is a split-screen, with the actual video
footage of Dick talking on the phone on one side and a Waking
Life-style animated version of "Joan Graves" on the other."
(5:
MOVIE CITY NEWS) Perhaps the VSDA convention is now a bummer because the"expectations of continued exponential growth have surrendered to marketplace realities" ... but that assumes a whole lot about Hollywood's view of reality, doesn't it?
The
original
source for the material cited below is at the following link:
www.moviecitynews.com/columnists/dretzka/2006/060728.html
VSDA
It’s literally taken two weeks for me to work up the energy and
enthusiasm necessary to write about my experiences at this month’s VSDA
convention. It would be easy to blame this tardiness on the “extreme
heat” we’ve been experiencing here and in Los Angeles, but, then, it’s
almost always unbearably hot this time of year.
Fact is, this year’s gathering of the Video Software Dealers
Association was nothing to blog home about, and hasn’t been for most of
the last 10 years. What once was a terrifically entertaining summer
pastime for store owners, distributors and media, alike, now, in its
25th year, had devolved into a poor excuse to go to Vegas in July. What
business there is gets conducted in suites high above the casino floor
of the Venetian Hotel, and attendees long ago stopped expecting to be
amused by the studios hoping to inspire them to trade free food for
precious shelf space in their stores.
No need to conjure up visions of a “slump,” similar to the one invented
last year by headline-hungry reporters and entertainment-industry
Cassandras to explain last year’s non-alarming dip in raw numbers. The
video/DVD dodge remains a tremendously lucrative enterprise for almost
everyone involved, even if expectations of continued exponential growth
have surrendered to marketplace realities.
As reported by the Digital Entertainment Group, sales of DVD hardware
and software remained “stable” for the first half of 2006, with nearly
14 million players being sold to American consumers. This was a virtual
repeat of last year’s numbers, which, lest we forget, weren’t bad: in
2005, alone, consumers spent $22.8 billion renting and buying DVDs.
Nearly 85 million American households, representing 80-plus percent of
all homes, now have at least one DVD appliance. Approximately 52
percent have more than one player.
In the first half 2006, as well, more than 740 million DVDs were
shipped to retail outlets, 4 percent short of last year’s total. The
total number of units shipped since the launch of the DVD format, not
even a decade ago, is 6.3 billion discs. Because DVD playback units are
among the most dependable of all such products, it’s logical to assume
that many American consumers simply don’t need new boxes.
Those who’ve prophesized that the well may soon run dry also ought to
consider that the 60,000 DVD titles extant represent less that half of
all the titles made available in VHS. This is one extremely deep and
fertile well.
“What we’ve seen in the first half of the year is a natural, expected
slowing of DVD sales,” said Steve Nickerson, DEG Communications
Committee Member and Senior Vice President, Market Management, Warner
Home Video. “(While) DVD sales are virtually flat … the industry is
seeing growth from such genres as music DVD and special interest films,
including documentaries.”
Movies continue to make lots of money for investors, and movies are
where DVDs come from … they’re the tail that wags the dogs of
Hollywood. Just as international box-office revenues have surpassed
domestic returns – even with inferior exhibition options -- DVD
penetration worldwide isn’t expected to reach 30 percent until 2010.
America will continue to supply an inordinate amount of entertainment
product to the global marketplace, and, thus, no one need shed any
tears for the studios or buy into any self-serving slump theory.
The larger truth is that audiences are as predictably fickle as they
are occasionally discerning, and the swine that wallow in the troughs
of Wall Street are never satisfied with mere success. Their insatiable
appetite explains why the huge numbers generated by Pirates of the
Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest weren’t sufficiently massive to save the
jobs and livelihoods of the 650 Disney employees who soon will receive
pink slips. (In all likelihood, none were given the same golden
parachute as Nina Jacobson, who famously took time away from her
partner’s birthing contractions to bug Dick Cook about her job status.)
Apropos of all this corporate mishigas, it also became clear from
demonstrations and discussions at VSDA that no one in Hollywood or
Tokyo should expect miracles anytime soon from the next big leap in
playback technology. Blu-Ray and HD-DVD software is slowly finding its
way to stores and early adopters of digital appliances, but the launch
has been botched so badly almost no interest has been generated in the
marketplace.
The product simply was introduced too soon, and much harm has been done
by trumpeting hi-def as the best thing to happen to film lovers since …
well … DVDs.
More than anything else, consumers are wary of investing in one
competing format over another. Memories of the Beta/VHS conflagration,
which took a far greater toll on consumers than it did on manufactures
and content providers, remain fresh. DVD promoters had to quash upstart
Divx before consumers would jump on board. Once that happened, sales
soared.
To the untrained eye, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are identical in their ability
to translate hi-def images for mass consumption. Add digital
downloading to the list of options, and no one could possibly blame
consumers for sitting on the sidelines.
Then, too, most of the titles currently in the hi-def pipeline derive
from standard studio fare, much of which was ignored by moviegoers in
their theatrical release. Basic Instinct 2, 50 First Dates, Rumor Has
It and Stealth are among the early releases, and no one in their right
mind is going to drop a grand to see those pictures. The bonus features
available on Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are terrific, but are they enough to
drive sales for such dogs as Aeon Flux and Brothers Grimm? Probably not.
Existing technology is perfectly adequate for the needs of 90 percent
of all DVD enthusiasts, most of whom would have to invest thousands of
dollars into new playback units, appropriate video monitors, advanced
sound systems and redundant software to take advantage of either format.
There’s also the problem of not having enough product extant to
adequately supply merchandisers, rental outlets and critics. Browsing
customers aren’t able to sample hi-def products, and get excited enough
by the visuals and features to consider purchasing a unit. Neither can
freelance DVD critics -- many of whom are only one or two assignments
away from the poorhouse -- afford to purchase one, let alone two, new
playback units for their reviews, and test players aren’t yet being
made available, either. And, generally speaking, no press, no buzz.
Look for backers of HD-DVD to spend around $150 million on a marketing
campaign, which will run from August to February. That will help build
awareness. Better, someone should introduce a machine that plays both
formats and VHS, and retails for under $500.
On the plus side, VSDA exhibitors demonstrated that there’s no scarcity
of titles being sent into the standard DVD marketplace. Niche, genre,
docs and arthouse films from around the world are showing up with
increased frequency. And, while some are of little worth, others are
quite wonderful.
More on that in my next column from VSDA.
