Whenever a new movie comes out the big center of attention is its grosses during opening weekend. But when you think about it the amount of money that a picture brings in is not a very exact measure of how well it did with audiences. The amount of money a movie makes in one part of the country vs another is not going to let you know how it really did if admission prices are not the same. The variances of admission prices are still greater once a movie plays in foreign markets. Lately one other factor has come into play. Theatrical releases are often now released in both 2-D and 3-D versions with a premium charged for the 3-D. A studio limiting a release to 3-D can distort the numbers and make a picture look like it is doing better than it is. If two pictures would bring in identical numbers of filmgoers, the one in 3-D would appear to be more popular.
The solution to this would be to ditch grosses as a measure of popularity and instead report ticket sales to the general public. The added premium for 3-D would not distort the results and the awareness of actual bodies in theatre seats would be more meaningful to the general public than abstract dollar figures. So what if some audience members would up the numbers by seeing a film several times. If a film is that good it should be rewarded by the numbers. After all it is people who go to see movies, not wallets.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Critics - Can You Trust Them?
I'm not sure when it happened. When did I begin to suspect that movie critics weren't the most reliable source to go to to find out what were the good movies to buy a ticket to? There were certainly some low points. There was the time when the critics were all excited about a film called "Howard's End". It's always good to expand your horizons a little bit and try something a little different but what a mistake this one turned out to be - nine hours of total tedium followed by one minute or senseless violence followed by another 3 hours of excruciating tedium. Ok, I may be exaggerating a little about the actual time that I sat in my seat but if you consider what it felt like, the description is not too far off. Other "winners" the critics have praised? "Saint Jack", a total snore starring Ben Gazzara. "Perfume", surely one of the worst written films in history from Tom Twyker who gave us the brilliant "Run, Lola, Run" but somehow picked up a little arrogance along the way and thought he could force this bit of excrement down our throats. And many other stinkers that are supposed to be good for us.
Ignoring the critics doesn't always work either. There was the comedy "Kung Pow" which appeared from the trailer to have the sort of ridiculousness that I enjoyed in Monty Python films and offerings such as "Kentucky Fried Movies". By no means masterpieces, but dependably funny, entertaining films. What did I actually get when I went to the theatre? A film so bad that I felt embarrassed for the actors that had to take part in it. I not only wanted Steve Oedekerk, the director and the writer of this turd permanently banned from Hollywood, if not the planet, but the executive at Twentieth Century Fox who greenlighted this travesty.
After my many bad experiences with critics, I feel like I can no longer trust them to steer me to a good movie. I have to take everything they write - rave or pan - with a grain of salt.
In the time I've paid attention to them, I've found out a number of things about them that lowers their credibility as a group. First of all, they don' pay to get into the movies that they review. There is no financial risk for most professional movie critics. In fact they are being paid to go to the movies by the organizations that send them. That creates a disconnect from us, the general public - the people to pay to go into movies and expect to be entertained. In fact most movie critics are quite different from the people who read their reviews. Critics have had their opinions shaped by film courses in colleges and universities where the emphasis has been on "great art" over entertainment. They've carried over these attitudes and use their columns to promote films that they decree as good for you, not what you might actually enjoy - a sort of "eat your spinach" aesthetic or as they might state it: "enlightening the masses". Yes, that's you and me, those poor uneducated masses that need their edicts from on high if we are truly to be "cineasts". According to these critics, foreign films are always better than domestic films, art house films are superior to popular entertainment, and winners from international film festivals always are better than films that actually entertaining. Often you will get reviews from critics who don't even like the particular genre of the film they are covering. Is it very useful to the aficionado of action films if the critic hates them and prefers Bergman?
As pure as they are about their great principles, those same critics think nothing about accepting invitations for press junkets paid for on the big studios' dime. Nor do they think it at all slightly dishonest when they don't go to a movie themselves but rather ask one of their friends who when to see a picture what they thought of it and what it was about.
These arbiters of what appears on the silver screen are always full of advice to the directors of these films (directors, those film people they call "auteurs" - authors of the films, as though the writer had nothing to do with it). On the rare occasion where critics have crossed over to the other side, the results have been less than stunning. Roger Ebert crossed over and was the director of "Valley of the Dolls" which doesn't exactly rank in with the classics of cinema". Peter Bogdanovich did a bit better with such films as "The Last Picture Show", "What's Up Doc?", and "Paper Moon" but most of his films have not been the most popular or profitable for the studios. In fact a lot have been in the "what's good for you" category and since the 1970's he's kind of drifted off the radar screen.
Viewers have a few more options today than when they had to depend of review in newspapers and on TV. Ain't It Cool News has made a splash with those more interested in popular entertainment. In fact the site has made it possible to know ahead of time, due to spies within Hollywood, to know about stinkers before the studios have a chance to snow you under with a publicity blitz. The only problem is that the writers there are more likely to be fanboys and will be more likely to write about the latest superhero or action flick, leaving out other categories that you might be interested in.
Another option is Rotten Tomatoes. It seems to be on the right track in that it gives you an overall view of the opinions of lots of critics but the big problem is that a lot of these critics are still of the film snob variety. What would be useful would be if there were a way to match you up with reviews that lined up with your tastes in movies. No critic will line up with what you like 100% but it might be possible to find a way to find those articles that would reflect what you would say if you went to the movie and wrote about it yourself. Perhaps someone could come up with a computer program to do this by having you answer questions about movies and your tastes. That way you would have a way to find movies you would like to see instead of having some critic tell you what he thinks you should see.
Note: Posts are going to be a little more sporatic from now on. Too many other projects are in progress.
Ignoring the critics doesn't always work either. There was the comedy "Kung Pow" which appeared from the trailer to have the sort of ridiculousness that I enjoyed in Monty Python films and offerings such as "Kentucky Fried Movies". By no means masterpieces, but dependably funny, entertaining films. What did I actually get when I went to the theatre? A film so bad that I felt embarrassed for the actors that had to take part in it. I not only wanted Steve Oedekerk, the director and the writer of this turd permanently banned from Hollywood, if not the planet, but the executive at Twentieth Century Fox who greenlighted this travesty.
After my many bad experiences with critics, I feel like I can no longer trust them to steer me to a good movie. I have to take everything they write - rave or pan - with a grain of salt.
In the time I've paid attention to them, I've found out a number of things about them that lowers their credibility as a group. First of all, they don' pay to get into the movies that they review. There is no financial risk for most professional movie critics. In fact they are being paid to go to the movies by the organizations that send them. That creates a disconnect from us, the general public - the people to pay to go into movies and expect to be entertained. In fact most movie critics are quite different from the people who read their reviews. Critics have had their opinions shaped by film courses in colleges and universities where the emphasis has been on "great art" over entertainment. They've carried over these attitudes and use their columns to promote films that they decree as good for you, not what you might actually enjoy - a sort of "eat your spinach" aesthetic or as they might state it: "enlightening the masses". Yes, that's you and me, those poor uneducated masses that need their edicts from on high if we are truly to be "cineasts". According to these critics, foreign films are always better than domestic films, art house films are superior to popular entertainment, and winners from international film festivals always are better than films that actually entertaining. Often you will get reviews from critics who don't even like the particular genre of the film they are covering. Is it very useful to the aficionado of action films if the critic hates them and prefers Bergman?
As pure as they are about their great principles, those same critics think nothing about accepting invitations for press junkets paid for on the big studios' dime. Nor do they think it at all slightly dishonest when they don't go to a movie themselves but rather ask one of their friends who when to see a picture what they thought of it and what it was about.
These arbiters of what appears on the silver screen are always full of advice to the directors of these films (directors, those film people they call "auteurs" - authors of the films, as though the writer had nothing to do with it). On the rare occasion where critics have crossed over to the other side, the results have been less than stunning. Roger Ebert crossed over and was the director of "Valley of the Dolls" which doesn't exactly rank in with the classics of cinema". Peter Bogdanovich did a bit better with such films as "The Last Picture Show", "What's Up Doc?", and "Paper Moon" but most of his films have not been the most popular or profitable for the studios. In fact a lot have been in the "what's good for you" category and since the 1970's he's kind of drifted off the radar screen.
Viewers have a few more options today than when they had to depend of review in newspapers and on TV. Ain't It Cool News has made a splash with those more interested in popular entertainment. In fact the site has made it possible to know ahead of time, due to spies within Hollywood, to know about stinkers before the studios have a chance to snow you under with a publicity blitz. The only problem is that the writers there are more likely to be fanboys and will be more likely to write about the latest superhero or action flick, leaving out other categories that you might be interested in.
Another option is Rotten Tomatoes. It seems to be on the right track in that it gives you an overall view of the opinions of lots of critics but the big problem is that a lot of these critics are still of the film snob variety. What would be useful would be if there were a way to match you up with reviews that lined up with your tastes in movies. No critic will line up with what you like 100% but it might be possible to find a way to find those articles that would reflect what you would say if you went to the movie and wrote about it yourself. Perhaps someone could come up with a computer program to do this by having you answer questions about movies and your tastes. That way you would have a way to find movies you would like to see instead of having some critic tell you what he thinks you should see.
Note: Posts are going to be a little more sporatic from now on. Too many other projects are in progress.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
They Once Had Faces
Something has happened within the last few decades of making movies. Somehow all the stars of today's feature films look somewhat generic. Who knows exactly when it got started. Generally speaking, the actors and actresses of today, tend to look a lot like each other and seem very interchangeable. Most are twenty-somethings who would look more at home on a university campus than on the silver screen as a "movie star". Most of them seem to be transplanted TV actors from television "soaps" (now more generically called "daytime dramas") or nighttime dramas.
Once upon a time genuine movie stars had faces and made their home in the movies. They didn't merely have a face but a distinct face and personality too. There was no mistaking who was Clark Gable, Humphey Bogart, James Cagney or Cary Grant. Likewise, the top tier of actresses - Greta Garbo, Marlene Dietrich, Katharine Hepburn, Joan Crawford, or Bette Davis - could not be mistaken for anyone else. They were totally unique and irreplaceable. They were stars! It was only when you went to the "B" level movies that the actors started looking more average and generic and less like movie stars. Today practically all actors look average and generic.
No matter when the trend began to happen toward the kinds of faces we have in the ranks of our lead actors - whether it was in the 1950's, the 1960's, or later something - something has been lost. Instead of distinct, strong personalities, the trend has been to elevate mere pretty boys and pretty women to the top rank of star. Instead of stars being larger than life, they've become everyday - almost humdrum - and movies seem a lot less like "Movies" with a capital M.
It could be because we know too much about them these days. They are so thoroughly covered by the media, both their public and private lives, there is no mystery anymore. Maybe it is the people in charge who are the problem. With their fear of failure and their total devotion to the sure thing, they've done more than their share to dilute the movie experience. Rather than display imagination and daring, they rely on market research and focus groups, making everything about movies more homogenized and bland. The faces picked now are the ones that the most focus groups agree upon and whose appearances divert the least from the average ideal of beauty. The result is that the stars are, well, "average" and no longer larger than life. So, along with other factors, the movie experience has become bland despite the special effects getting every more strident to distract you from this.
It doesn't have to stay this way. Casting agents, directors, and producers can look beyond simply filling a part and look toward finding someone special. It is possible to consider the idea of creating a Star, despite the old studio system no longer being in existence. The people involved with this process have to be aware of this idea and committed to it. Only then can the concept of stars, as we remember them being, possible.
Once upon a time genuine movie stars had faces and made their home in the movies. They didn't merely have a face but a distinct face and personality too. There was no mistaking who was Clark Gable, Humphey Bogart, James Cagney or Cary Grant. Likewise, the top tier of actresses - Greta Garbo, Marlene Dietrich, Katharine Hepburn, Joan Crawford, or Bette Davis - could not be mistaken for anyone else. They were totally unique and irreplaceable. They were stars! It was only when you went to the "B" level movies that the actors started looking more average and generic and less like movie stars. Today practically all actors look average and generic.
No matter when the trend began to happen toward the kinds of faces we have in the ranks of our lead actors - whether it was in the 1950's, the 1960's, or later something - something has been lost. Instead of distinct, strong personalities, the trend has been to elevate mere pretty boys and pretty women to the top rank of star. Instead of stars being larger than life, they've become everyday - almost humdrum - and movies seem a lot less like "Movies" with a capital M.
It could be because we know too much about them these days. They are so thoroughly covered by the media, both their public and private lives, there is no mystery anymore. Maybe it is the people in charge who are the problem. With their fear of failure and their total devotion to the sure thing, they've done more than their share to dilute the movie experience. Rather than display imagination and daring, they rely on market research and focus groups, making everything about movies more homogenized and bland. The faces picked now are the ones that the most focus groups agree upon and whose appearances divert the least from the average ideal of beauty. The result is that the stars are, well, "average" and no longer larger than life. So, along with other factors, the movie experience has become bland despite the special effects getting every more strident to distract you from this.
It doesn't have to stay this way. Casting agents, directors, and producers can look beyond simply filling a part and look toward finding someone special. It is possible to consider the idea of creating a Star, despite the old studio system no longer being in existence. The people involved with this process have to be aware of this idea and committed to it. Only then can the concept of stars, as we remember them being, possible.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
The Unwritten Contract
Anytime a movie is viewed or a TV show is watched, there is a transaction taking place that is not obvious. Certainly there are the obvious things like the purchase of a ticket or the purchase of an advertisers product but there is more beneath the surface.
When someone decides to view a movie, no matter how it is done or whether or not there is cash involved, they come to it with certain expectations. The largest of all is that their time is not being wasted. Unlike factors such as money, they can never recover the 90 minutes to 2 hours that they might spend watching a movie.
They take a risk every time they watch a feature film and the willingness to risk that time involves a number of other factors beyond just the time used up. For one thing, they expect to be entertained and this can take a number of forms. This might involve vicariously living the life of the hero of the story. This might mean a certain amount of spectacle although it is not just that. Sometimes the movie has to be thought provoking and at other times pure escapism is desired but one thing is for sure: the film must deliver.
Very often filmmakers and the studios under which they work forget about this unwritten contract and let other factors steer the course of their movies. A filmmaker may have some personal story about some family matter that nobody cares about except for them. A filmmaker or some other creative player may do something simply for the money without regard to whether it will create a satisfying audience experience.
Studios, for their part, may do something only because of the money involved, letting obscure foreign tax deals be the source of motion pictures rather than the desire to make good pictures. The focus solely on money can make possible sequels and series that have no creative reason to be other than the hopes for studio executives to continue cranking the cash machine.
Agents, the people who work between the studios and the creative talent, have the least interest in what the audience experiences. Their world is entirely devoted to the art of the deal, so the costs of making movies climb ever higher while the attention to quality declines. Very often the agent and the studios are partners in crime in this matter.
And what about the poor audience? To go out to the movies requires a major undertaking. Schedules have to be coordinated and money allocated - and the price of admission has climbed while the quality of theatres and the movie they show has declined. Not only is there the cost of admission but there is the cost of surrounding factors such as babysitters for those with families, dinner out, and astronomical concession prices.
If the audience chooses to stay home, as so many now do, the risk is still high. The DVDs they are likely to rent still contain the movies that they didn't go to see in the theatres and because of the way the distribution system is set up for most video stores, a lot of the choices have disappeared in favor of only the mainstream releases of the most common films. Although they no longer have to lose the time that they had formerly used up going to and from the theatre, they still have those 90 to 120 minutes of average screen time to negotiate. Even though the financial cost may be lower, they still might come up the loser if they picked the wrong film.
How can filmmakers live up to their end of the unwritten contract? The easy obvious answer is simply to make good movies but what does this involve? One thing to be aware of is that the more the movie financially costs the viewer, the more of a risk it is going to be for them to watch. Studios and filmmakers often forget this when they release movies.
In another industry, the record industry, a similar situation has happened. In the 1960's, well before the introduction of the CD or of music downloads, record albums and singles were much more affordable. It was much more feasible to check out new bands and singers because the risk was lower. Once record companies went to CDs this situation changed. There were no longer inexpensive singles widely available to check out new musical talent. The record companies insisted that you buy the whole album. What usually happened was that these albums consisted of the one or two hit singles with the rest being uninspired filler. Sales went down. Why? Despite the assertions about music piracy, the reason was they broke their unwritten contract with the buyers. In fact the buyers took the matter into their own hands with music downloads because the record companies were not looking after their needs. Now the situation is out of control for these companies and rather than seeing how they might live up to the unwritten contract, they have actually accelerated their decline with their money games and homogenizing of material.
It has happened way too often where a studio has a movie that is a real stinker and they'll over hype and do a blitz advertising campaign to get everyone to see it on opening weekend. The public sees it and word of mouth makes it sink like a rock by the next weekend. The studios hope, of course, that enough people will be suckered into giving it a profit that first weekend but this game is not the sure thing it used to be. The public has the internet now and can find out information in advance, whether the studio wants it or not. Perhaps they could simply concentrate on the movie rather than the money that surrounds it.
If filmmakers and studios could be just a little more willing to fulfill this unwritten contract, the movie business may have a chance. If they could just think a bit more about long term survival rather than short term profits, they might actually be a long term. And lets not forget the exhibitors, for it is there that the breach of the unwritten contract is most obvious. If things could just get to the point where going to the movies could once again become a satisfying experience rather than seeming like the big rip off that it has become, attendance might increase. If a potential viewer is tired after a long week at work, why not give them something at the end of it? Studios, filmmakers, exhibitors - Why not hold up your end of the unwritten contract and watch your business truly grow?
When someone decides to view a movie, no matter how it is done or whether or not there is cash involved, they come to it with certain expectations. The largest of all is that their time is not being wasted. Unlike factors such as money, they can never recover the 90 minutes to 2 hours that they might spend watching a movie.
They take a risk every time they watch a feature film and the willingness to risk that time involves a number of other factors beyond just the time used up. For one thing, they expect to be entertained and this can take a number of forms. This might involve vicariously living the life of the hero of the story. This might mean a certain amount of spectacle although it is not just that. Sometimes the movie has to be thought provoking and at other times pure escapism is desired but one thing is for sure: the film must deliver.
Very often filmmakers and the studios under which they work forget about this unwritten contract and let other factors steer the course of their movies. A filmmaker may have some personal story about some family matter that nobody cares about except for them. A filmmaker or some other creative player may do something simply for the money without regard to whether it will create a satisfying audience experience.
Studios, for their part, may do something only because of the money involved, letting obscure foreign tax deals be the source of motion pictures rather than the desire to make good pictures. The focus solely on money can make possible sequels and series that have no creative reason to be other than the hopes for studio executives to continue cranking the cash machine.
Agents, the people who work between the studios and the creative talent, have the least interest in what the audience experiences. Their world is entirely devoted to the art of the deal, so the costs of making movies climb ever higher while the attention to quality declines. Very often the agent and the studios are partners in crime in this matter.
And what about the poor audience? To go out to the movies requires a major undertaking. Schedules have to be coordinated and money allocated - and the price of admission has climbed while the quality of theatres and the movie they show has declined. Not only is there the cost of admission but there is the cost of surrounding factors such as babysitters for those with families, dinner out, and astronomical concession prices.
If the audience chooses to stay home, as so many now do, the risk is still high. The DVDs they are likely to rent still contain the movies that they didn't go to see in the theatres and because of the way the distribution system is set up for most video stores, a lot of the choices have disappeared in favor of only the mainstream releases of the most common films. Although they no longer have to lose the time that they had formerly used up going to and from the theatre, they still have those 90 to 120 minutes of average screen time to negotiate. Even though the financial cost may be lower, they still might come up the loser if they picked the wrong film.
How can filmmakers live up to their end of the unwritten contract? The easy obvious answer is simply to make good movies but what does this involve? One thing to be aware of is that the more the movie financially costs the viewer, the more of a risk it is going to be for them to watch. Studios and filmmakers often forget this when they release movies.
In another industry, the record industry, a similar situation has happened. In the 1960's, well before the introduction of the CD or of music downloads, record albums and singles were much more affordable. It was much more feasible to check out new bands and singers because the risk was lower. Once record companies went to CDs this situation changed. There were no longer inexpensive singles widely available to check out new musical talent. The record companies insisted that you buy the whole album. What usually happened was that these albums consisted of the one or two hit singles with the rest being uninspired filler. Sales went down. Why? Despite the assertions about music piracy, the reason was they broke their unwritten contract with the buyers. In fact the buyers took the matter into their own hands with music downloads because the record companies were not looking after their needs. Now the situation is out of control for these companies and rather than seeing how they might live up to the unwritten contract, they have actually accelerated their decline with their money games and homogenizing of material.
It has happened way too often where a studio has a movie that is a real stinker and they'll over hype and do a blitz advertising campaign to get everyone to see it on opening weekend. The public sees it and word of mouth makes it sink like a rock by the next weekend. The studios hope, of course, that enough people will be suckered into giving it a profit that first weekend but this game is not the sure thing it used to be. The public has the internet now and can find out information in advance, whether the studio wants it or not. Perhaps they could simply concentrate on the movie rather than the money that surrounds it.
If filmmakers and studios could be just a little more willing to fulfill this unwritten contract, the movie business may have a chance. If they could just think a bit more about long term survival rather than short term profits, they might actually be a long term. And lets not forget the exhibitors, for it is there that the breach of the unwritten contract is most obvious. If things could just get to the point where going to the movies could once again become a satisfying experience rather than seeming like the big rip off that it has become, attendance might increase. If a potential viewer is tired after a long week at work, why not give them something at the end of it? Studios, filmmakers, exhibitors - Why not hold up your end of the unwritten contract and watch your business truly grow?
Monday, November 9, 2009
Could DVD Be the New Medium?
Movies and TV are having big problems these days. The "Suits" (those executives in charge) have pretty much ruined their respective mediums. Since movie studios and television networks becoming part of large conglomerates, it is no longer the people who love the movie and TV who run things. It's board room types from other industries who could just as well be pitching soft drinks or widgets as movies and TV shows. Their objects of lust are money and power. Movies and TV shows be damned.
And what has been the result of their attentions?
In the television arena the schedules that the dwindling number of viewers are subjected to are dominated by game shows and "reality" TV shows. The executives apparently are doing what they can to starve other fare such as dramas and comedy because they cost more to produce. If it doesn't produce money for them IMMEDIATELY, it's "Cancellation City". Gone are the days when a show might be given a chance to build word of mouth. Their habit of shifting shows to other days of the week doesn't help.
For motion pictures the picture has been dismal for a lot longer. The studios have squeezed theatres with extremely high rental rates. The studios take can be as high as 90% during the opening week and will drop each week a movie remains open until it settles in at 50% if it goes for a month. Most movies don't last that long. The result has been that the exhibitors have had to make up the difference with concession stand prices in order to even do the basics like pay for the heat and pay their staff. This hasn't left a lot to maintain their venues and the effect has been shabby theatres and, until digital projection recently came onto the scene, poor projection. Movie goers have naturally stayed away, feeding the cycle.
With the declining revenues, the studios have shifted from creating quality productions to draw people to the theatres, to safe bets and money games so that they can continue collecting their obscenely high paychecks. They've favored such safe bets as superhero movies, remakes, sequels, prequels, frathouse type comedies - anything that they think will attract their target audience - males between 15 and 25. This is the very audience who they think would possibly be dumb enough to put up with bad theatres in order to have a place to take a date.
The executives fear driven obsession with the safe bet has brought in the "modern miracle" of market research into the movie making process. What we have ended up with, instead of exciting and original films, has been bland, homogenized and formula driven comedies, brainless action pictures, and a never ending stream of superheroes which will continue until they've scraped the very bottom of the comic book companies back catalogs.
The difference between watching movies and television has blurred too. Once you could count on getting "away from it all" when going to a movie and avoid those annoying TV commercials. Now they've been added to the experience and people are staying away in droves. They're now watching their movies at home on their home theatre systems, and who can blame them?
The very difference in the forms has drifted closer and closer together. Movie studio executives, with their eyes always on ever escalating profits, are doing whatever they can to push movies to become "franchises" whether it suits the project or not. If they can force a sequel, that's great even though the fans of the original may feel like suckers when their view the inferior follow-up. If they can get a whole series squeezed out of a slender premise, they are in heaven. Some movie projects (such as the original Pink Panther or the James Bond films) lend themselves to such a thing. Most do not. There's even the concept of the "trilogy" for the more "important" films. With escalating prices and declining quality most movie viewers have opted to stay home and to keep their TVs tuned to anything but network television, when they do have them on. And often what they do watch are DVDs.
DVDs have a number of advantages over TV and movies. They can be viewed at any time. The watcher of a DVD is not at the mercy of network television schedules (this applies to remembering to record a program too) if watching television shows that have been put on the format. They can watch one show at a time or several.
For movies, they can avoid all the hassles that make the movie going experience so difficult these days. No need to call a baby sitter. No need to pay high admission prices and high concession stand prices only to find yourself in a shabby theatre watching the very kind of television commercials you can see at home for nothing. You can also stop the movie at any time to use the bathroom or grab a snack. The only thing lacking is the large group experience that movies used to offer, that is, until those audiences were chased away.
For the makers of feature length movies and who make television shows, DVDs show the promise of becoming its own medium. It's not been thought of one presently. It's merely considered a delivery vehicle. Showing first in theatres or on television has up until now been considered the route to legitimacy and greater sales. But the credibility of movies and television have been in the process of being more and more suspect because of their general quality decline. With people staying home and avoiding network television, it has become less and less logical that stories be filtered through the executives who have been so instrumental in the decline of movies and television. "Direct to Video" still holds a certain stigma because of the sorts of things that have gone that route, many originated with executives out for the quick buck. The Disney studio during the Eisner era was a particularly bad offender with their "sequels" of popular animated movies that were made by cheap Saturday morning cartoon animation standards and substandard stories, and voices by second string performers.
What DVDs need, in order to become a form in their own right, is for the best creative people to recognize what they can be. They need to produce stories just for the medium and have the willingness to publicize the fact that these are no typical "direct to video" offerings.
DVDs do not suffer the limitations of the other media. Stories can be as long or short as they need to be without necessarily the artificial separation into being called shorts or features. They can be in the form of multiple episodes, like TV shows or movie series but without the interruptions. With the right delivery system, such as the model that Netflix uses, they can be dependably brought to the viewers on a regular basis. The present big players need not dominate this medium if things are done right. This involves how potential viewers find out about productions. If the way of delivering the DVDs is neutral - independents given as much consideration as the established majors - then there might be a fair chance for original ideas and stories to be seen.
Of course DVDs are physical objects, with all the limitations of physical objects but they are tangible things that people can actually possess and own if desired. There are other ways of delivering stories that are still being devised.
There is the internet, of course, but the combination of present quality limitations and the fact that most people don't gather with their family "round the old computer" to watch a movie limit how much it gets used. It does show the most promise in the long run.
Set top boxes such as the AppleTV and Netflix Roku are an attempt to bridge this gap but once again the control freaks, that studio and TV network executives are part of, have hobbled it. All of these devices have limitations on what you can put on them and whether you can collect movies and shows or not. Some things are available on one box but not another and everything about these boxes is proprietary with all the problems that comes with that.
What it is going to take is for some kind of universal box to be created that will be used to collect content from the internet and display it in a quality way without vendor applied restrictions. It would have to have an easy way to find content, either by using it on its own or by using your computer and it would have to have the option of expandability for those who like to collect movies and other content.
Until that happens DVDs are currently the most viable alternative to movie theatres and TV networks and represent promising creative opportunities - with a potential of unchaining everybody (both creators of stories and viewers) from our ruinous present system of "anything for a buck", market research hugging, boardroom hacks.
And what has been the result of their attentions?
In the television arena the schedules that the dwindling number of viewers are subjected to are dominated by game shows and "reality" TV shows. The executives apparently are doing what they can to starve other fare such as dramas and comedy because they cost more to produce. If it doesn't produce money for them IMMEDIATELY, it's "Cancellation City". Gone are the days when a show might be given a chance to build word of mouth. Their habit of shifting shows to other days of the week doesn't help.
For motion pictures the picture has been dismal for a lot longer. The studios have squeezed theatres with extremely high rental rates. The studios take can be as high as 90% during the opening week and will drop each week a movie remains open until it settles in at 50% if it goes for a month. Most movies don't last that long. The result has been that the exhibitors have had to make up the difference with concession stand prices in order to even do the basics like pay for the heat and pay their staff. This hasn't left a lot to maintain their venues and the effect has been shabby theatres and, until digital projection recently came onto the scene, poor projection. Movie goers have naturally stayed away, feeding the cycle.
With the declining revenues, the studios have shifted from creating quality productions to draw people to the theatres, to safe bets and money games so that they can continue collecting their obscenely high paychecks. They've favored such safe bets as superhero movies, remakes, sequels, prequels, frathouse type comedies - anything that they think will attract their target audience - males between 15 and 25. This is the very audience who they think would possibly be dumb enough to put up with bad theatres in order to have a place to take a date.
The executives fear driven obsession with the safe bet has brought in the "modern miracle" of market research into the movie making process. What we have ended up with, instead of exciting and original films, has been bland, homogenized and formula driven comedies, brainless action pictures, and a never ending stream of superheroes which will continue until they've scraped the very bottom of the comic book companies back catalogs.
The difference between watching movies and television has blurred too. Once you could count on getting "away from it all" when going to a movie and avoid those annoying TV commercials. Now they've been added to the experience and people are staying away in droves. They're now watching their movies at home on their home theatre systems, and who can blame them?
The very difference in the forms has drifted closer and closer together. Movie studio executives, with their eyes always on ever escalating profits, are doing whatever they can to push movies to become "franchises" whether it suits the project or not. If they can force a sequel, that's great even though the fans of the original may feel like suckers when their view the inferior follow-up. If they can get a whole series squeezed out of a slender premise, they are in heaven. Some movie projects (such as the original Pink Panther or the James Bond films) lend themselves to such a thing. Most do not. There's even the concept of the "trilogy" for the more "important" films. With escalating prices and declining quality most movie viewers have opted to stay home and to keep their TVs tuned to anything but network television, when they do have them on. And often what they do watch are DVDs.
DVDs have a number of advantages over TV and movies. They can be viewed at any time. The watcher of a DVD is not at the mercy of network television schedules (this applies to remembering to record a program too) if watching television shows that have been put on the format. They can watch one show at a time or several.
For movies, they can avoid all the hassles that make the movie going experience so difficult these days. No need to call a baby sitter. No need to pay high admission prices and high concession stand prices only to find yourself in a shabby theatre watching the very kind of television commercials you can see at home for nothing. You can also stop the movie at any time to use the bathroom or grab a snack. The only thing lacking is the large group experience that movies used to offer, that is, until those audiences were chased away.
For the makers of feature length movies and who make television shows, DVDs show the promise of becoming its own medium. It's not been thought of one presently. It's merely considered a delivery vehicle. Showing first in theatres or on television has up until now been considered the route to legitimacy and greater sales. But the credibility of movies and television have been in the process of being more and more suspect because of their general quality decline. With people staying home and avoiding network television, it has become less and less logical that stories be filtered through the executives who have been so instrumental in the decline of movies and television. "Direct to Video" still holds a certain stigma because of the sorts of things that have gone that route, many originated with executives out for the quick buck. The Disney studio during the Eisner era was a particularly bad offender with their "sequels" of popular animated movies that were made by cheap Saturday morning cartoon animation standards and substandard stories, and voices by second string performers.
What DVDs need, in order to become a form in their own right, is for the best creative people to recognize what they can be. They need to produce stories just for the medium and have the willingness to publicize the fact that these are no typical "direct to video" offerings.
DVDs do not suffer the limitations of the other media. Stories can be as long or short as they need to be without necessarily the artificial separation into being called shorts or features. They can be in the form of multiple episodes, like TV shows or movie series but without the interruptions. With the right delivery system, such as the model that Netflix uses, they can be dependably brought to the viewers on a regular basis. The present big players need not dominate this medium if things are done right. This involves how potential viewers find out about productions. If the way of delivering the DVDs is neutral - independents given as much consideration as the established majors - then there might be a fair chance for original ideas and stories to be seen.
Of course DVDs are physical objects, with all the limitations of physical objects but they are tangible things that people can actually possess and own if desired. There are other ways of delivering stories that are still being devised.
There is the internet, of course, but the combination of present quality limitations and the fact that most people don't gather with their family "round the old computer" to watch a movie limit how much it gets used. It does show the most promise in the long run.
Set top boxes such as the AppleTV and Netflix Roku are an attempt to bridge this gap but once again the control freaks, that studio and TV network executives are part of, have hobbled it. All of these devices have limitations on what you can put on them and whether you can collect movies and shows or not. Some things are available on one box but not another and everything about these boxes is proprietary with all the problems that comes with that.
What it is going to take is for some kind of universal box to be created that will be used to collect content from the internet and display it in a quality way without vendor applied restrictions. It would have to have an easy way to find content, either by using it on its own or by using your computer and it would have to have the option of expandability for those who like to collect movies and other content.
Until that happens DVDs are currently the most viable alternative to movie theatres and TV networks and represent promising creative opportunities - with a potential of unchaining everybody (both creators of stories and viewers) from our ruinous present system of "anything for a buck", market research hugging, boardroom hacks.
Monday, November 2, 2009
It's Not the Gear, Man!
In any city or town where there is filmmaking or television activity you are going to find them. You know the type. The kind who is obsessed with the gear, whether it be what they currently own or what they would like to get.
For those at TV stations or at video production companies the focus is going to be on the latest Grass Valley switcher or the latest and most advanced visual effects unit. For others with loads of bucks to blow, it may be the latest and greatest Arriflex motion picture camera or the last word in Varicams or CineAlta's. For independent filmmakers, the former attention devoted to Panasonic DVX-100's in all their varieties may have switched to REDs or Panasonic HVX-200s. And the story is the same: they all think that the gear they use is going to make what they produce better.
All of this gear obsession reminds me of when I was in college learning photography. At that time the camera brands everyone was lusting after were Nikons and Hasselblads. Did the photographers with these prized cameras take better pictures? Not necessarily. A lesson I learned at the time was that it wasn't necessarily the camera that made a good picture possible but rather the person behind the camera. Sure, better equipment might make it easier to take that good picture. But without someone with creativity, skill, and imagination behind the camera, the picture was likely to be nothing special. I found out then that a genius with a cheap camera could run circles around the typical well-heeled amateur ("amateur" that is, in the bad sense of the word) with the most expensive camera in the world.
There are many motion pictures from the past that we treasure now. Some from as far back as the silent era are still admired today. If we compare the gear that was used to make those films as well as the film stock available back then to what we have now, what they had to work with is downright primitive. But those pictures still capture our imaginations today.
It was the storytelling behind the films that really made them great. The people behind the camera really knew how to light scenes so that magic could come out from the screen. The lower resolutions and graininess of the film stocks didn't diminish the movies but in some strange way enhanced the experience. I believe it might have been David Lynch who commented that the extreme sharpness and clarity of today's cameras actually diminish the movie going experience because it becomes too real in a way. It becomes more difficult to submerge yourself in a story because it is less like a dream. If you think about it most dreams are not like being awake. There is something different about how a dream is experienced.
There have been many expensive films made with the best cameras available in the world that have sunk without a trace. Despite the advanced gear, it turned out that they weren't very good films to begin with. There have also been examples of films made with very inexpensive gear that have somehow captured our imaginations enough to make them undisputed hits. Two within recent memory (these from the horror genre) have been "The Blair Witch Project" and "Paranormal Activity". With both of these films the producers turned a supposed disadvantage (home video type camcorders with their less than picture quality) into an advantage by using it as a story element.
It is also possible that, with well executed lighting, that even inexpensive cameras can look better than you would normally expect. This leaves open the possibility of more ambitious films. Of course an inexpensive camcorder is never going to look as good as a high-end CineAlta camera or something from Panavision, but it can look respectable with skillful lighting of the scene. And the lighting gear doesn't always have to be expensive professional lights. With a very good understanding of how lighting works, it is possible to substitute inexpensive lights and build home-made lighting accessories to create the look you are going for. The only major difference between your cheap light kit and the the professional variety being it will not likely be as sturdy and the lights will likely not be able to pump out as much light. With careful selection of the shots to be used, however, this problem can be overcome. One factor going for you is that today's camcorders are more light sensitive.
So, if you are a filmmaker, why not consider pushing your equipment further and paying more attention to making good movies than perpectually waiting for that miracle gear to come over the horizon to somehow magically make make you a better filmmaker?
For those at TV stations or at video production companies the focus is going to be on the latest Grass Valley switcher or the latest and most advanced visual effects unit. For others with loads of bucks to blow, it may be the latest and greatest Arriflex motion picture camera or the last word in Varicams or CineAlta's. For independent filmmakers, the former attention devoted to Panasonic DVX-100's in all their varieties may have switched to REDs or Panasonic HVX-200s. And the story is the same: they all think that the gear they use is going to make what they produce better.
All of this gear obsession reminds me of when I was in college learning photography. At that time the camera brands everyone was lusting after were Nikons and Hasselblads. Did the photographers with these prized cameras take better pictures? Not necessarily. A lesson I learned at the time was that it wasn't necessarily the camera that made a good picture possible but rather the person behind the camera. Sure, better equipment might make it easier to take that good picture. But without someone with creativity, skill, and imagination behind the camera, the picture was likely to be nothing special. I found out then that a genius with a cheap camera could run circles around the typical well-heeled amateur ("amateur" that is, in the bad sense of the word) with the most expensive camera in the world.
There are many motion pictures from the past that we treasure now. Some from as far back as the silent era are still admired today. If we compare the gear that was used to make those films as well as the film stock available back then to what we have now, what they had to work with is downright primitive. But those pictures still capture our imaginations today.
It was the storytelling behind the films that really made them great. The people behind the camera really knew how to light scenes so that magic could come out from the screen. The lower resolutions and graininess of the film stocks didn't diminish the movies but in some strange way enhanced the experience. I believe it might have been David Lynch who commented that the extreme sharpness and clarity of today's cameras actually diminish the movie going experience because it becomes too real in a way. It becomes more difficult to submerge yourself in a story because it is less like a dream. If you think about it most dreams are not like being awake. There is something different about how a dream is experienced.
There have been many expensive films made with the best cameras available in the world that have sunk without a trace. Despite the advanced gear, it turned out that they weren't very good films to begin with. There have also been examples of films made with very inexpensive gear that have somehow captured our imaginations enough to make them undisputed hits. Two within recent memory (these from the horror genre) have been "The Blair Witch Project" and "Paranormal Activity". With both of these films the producers turned a supposed disadvantage (home video type camcorders with their less than picture quality) into an advantage by using it as a story element.
It is also possible that, with well executed lighting, that even inexpensive cameras can look better than you would normally expect. This leaves open the possibility of more ambitious films. Of course an inexpensive camcorder is never going to look as good as a high-end CineAlta camera or something from Panavision, but it can look respectable with skillful lighting of the scene. And the lighting gear doesn't always have to be expensive professional lights. With a very good understanding of how lighting works, it is possible to substitute inexpensive lights and build home-made lighting accessories to create the look you are going for. The only major difference between your cheap light kit and the the professional variety being it will not likely be as sturdy and the lights will likely not be able to pump out as much light. With careful selection of the shots to be used, however, this problem can be overcome. One factor going for you is that today's camcorders are more light sensitive.
So, if you are a filmmaker, why not consider pushing your equipment further and paying more attention to making good movies than perpectually waiting for that miracle gear to come over the horizon to somehow magically make make you a better filmmaker?
Monday, October 26, 2009
What are Movies Anyway?
With all the movies that have come out in the past few years based on old TV shows ("The Beverly Hillbillies", "Lost in Space", "The Brady Bunch Movie", "Get Smart"), toys and games ("Transformers", "Lara Croft: Tomb Raider"), and comic book characters ("Iron Man", "Superman", etc.), and all the movies that have come out as series ("Lord of the Rings", "Pink Panther", "Harry Potter", etc.), it has often been difficult to get the clear distinction that we are watching movies. The addition factors of "made for TV movies" and before movie television type advertising at many theatre chains have blurred the distinction even more.
With smaller attendance in the theatres and sky rocketing costs (of the movies themselves, and the cost of attending one), this form has been threatened. In fact on many movies, the theatre run is a loss leader with DVD sales being the goal, along with the sales of soundtrack albums and assorted merchandise.
For those of us who are movie makers and those who love the movies, here is a quick definition of what a movie is" A movie - a feature film, that is - is a self-contained story with a beginning, middle and end that can last as little as an hour and has been known to last as long as 4 hours, but typically runs in length between 90 minutes and two hours. There is another factor to a movie which distinquishes it from a TV show episode: the main character changes. Typically on a TV show, things happen but the characters always return to the way they were when the show started. In a movie, however, the character is not the same as when they began. They either learn something becoming stronger characters at the end and triumphing over the antagonist or the don't change and experience tragedy when the story ends. TV just doesn't to this. TV represents a static situation, movies represent growth and change.
There is something else that makes a movie different from television, even "made for TV" movies: Movies have an audience. Not an audience of people sitting in separate rooms watching separate televisions but an audience made up of a group of people. It is a community experience. The experience is different from television and can most keenly be felt when you are in a packed auditorium watching a good comedy. There is nothing that can replace the magnified feelings you get from a movie when you are in a full auditorium. The poor way the business has been run very much threatens this experience and drives people into home theatres. Although home theatres can replicate much of the experience of being in an actual movie theatre in projection and in sound, it cannot satisfactorily replace the audience experience because the numbers are simply not there. The large theatre chains have successfully driven away the audience numbers that it takes to have this experience out of the home except for the big tent pole franchises that people find worth paying high ticket prices for.
Will movies - the kind you go out to see - die? It's hard to say. Most likely it would survive in pockets of experience, if the current leaders of the movie studio establishment and theatre chains manage to kill it. It is just that there is nothing really to replace the experience you get in a full audience and someone is likely to find a way to make it continue. As for filmmakers themselves, there will always be a market for long form self contained stories no matter where they are seen - movie theatres, DVD, the Internet, or TV (cable or broadcast).
With smaller attendance in the theatres and sky rocketing costs (of the movies themselves, and the cost of attending one), this form has been threatened. In fact on many movies, the theatre run is a loss leader with DVD sales being the goal, along with the sales of soundtrack albums and assorted merchandise.
For those of us who are movie makers and those who love the movies, here is a quick definition of what a movie is" A movie - a feature film, that is - is a self-contained story with a beginning, middle and end that can last as little as an hour and has been known to last as long as 4 hours, but typically runs in length between 90 minutes and two hours. There is another factor to a movie which distinquishes it from a TV show episode: the main character changes. Typically on a TV show, things happen but the characters always return to the way they were when the show started. In a movie, however, the character is not the same as when they began. They either learn something becoming stronger characters at the end and triumphing over the antagonist or the don't change and experience tragedy when the story ends. TV just doesn't to this. TV represents a static situation, movies represent growth and change.
There is something else that makes a movie different from television, even "made for TV" movies: Movies have an audience. Not an audience of people sitting in separate rooms watching separate televisions but an audience made up of a group of people. It is a community experience. The experience is different from television and can most keenly be felt when you are in a packed auditorium watching a good comedy. There is nothing that can replace the magnified feelings you get from a movie when you are in a full auditorium. The poor way the business has been run very much threatens this experience and drives people into home theatres. Although home theatres can replicate much of the experience of being in an actual movie theatre in projection and in sound, it cannot satisfactorily replace the audience experience because the numbers are simply not there. The large theatre chains have successfully driven away the audience numbers that it takes to have this experience out of the home except for the big tent pole franchises that people find worth paying high ticket prices for.
Will movies - the kind you go out to see - die? It's hard to say. Most likely it would survive in pockets of experience, if the current leaders of the movie studio establishment and theatre chains manage to kill it. It is just that there is nothing really to replace the experience you get in a full audience and someone is likely to find a way to make it continue. As for filmmakers themselves, there will always be a market for long form self contained stories no matter where they are seen - movie theatres, DVD, the Internet, or TV (cable or broadcast).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
