tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-66225406506093704672024-03-14T05:33:30.274-07:00Behind The BizA Perspective Of Hollywood IntellectualismScott Hummelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17824831121346334428noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6622540650609370467.post-43766687399600594592010-10-12T00:08:00.000-07:002010-10-12T00:32:06.927-07:00'The Town'<div class="entry-content"> <p><span style="font-style: italic;">The Town</span> is like <span style="font-style: italic;">Oceans Eleven</span> mixed with the sights and sounds of <span style="font-style: italic;">The Departed</span>… (or better, like <span style="font-style: italic;">Oceans Eleven</span> recast and set in Boston—the dialogue from <span style="font-style: italic;">Oceans Eleven</span> and the accents from <span style="font-style: italic;">The Departed</span>). It also has some of the most badass robbery masks you’ve seen since <span style="font-style: italic;">Point Break</span> (1991).</p><p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKELxNndqXG8lr5YzOd6i-7xcQlo7JWLVR6_tSCJL2FQ9PwywCmlvzX__RzEt2AUKcZd0RqWeiiC-1wC2b2xofXKnqg1QiiG0ZczIOz8jw52fqG4tSdH1msPVIYLKQbjWFzjKMQIcO1us/s1600/Screen+shot+2010-10-12+at+12.11.41+AM.png"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 229px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKELxNndqXG8lr5YzOd6i-7xcQlo7JWLVR6_tSCJL2FQ9PwywCmlvzX__RzEt2AUKcZd0RqWeiiC-1wC2b2xofXKnqg1QiiG0ZczIOz8jw52fqG4tSdH1msPVIYLKQbjWFzjKMQIcO1us/s400/Screen+shot+2010-10-12+at+12.11.41+AM.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5527058453790213730" border="0" /></a></p> <p>(Photoshop pic with Ben and Jeremy’s heads on the Oceans scene with Boston skyline in the background)</p> <p>And Blake Lively MUST have sent this SNL reel in for her audition tape so she could say 20 lines in the movie: <object width="512" height="288"><param name="movie" value="http://www.hulu.com/embed/AoSfVXxKz0d_7QNv72S-nA"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.hulu.com/embed/AoSfVXxKz0d_7QNv72S-nA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="512" height="288" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object><br /></p> </div>Scott Hummelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17824831121346334428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6622540650609370467.post-28387710797004491762010-09-18T10:41:00.000-07:002010-09-18T11:02:59.603-07:00Secretariat<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-mA0ebxu0A8Yh8M0L9IDpwfiM35JTcf7n9t8lsFG8APkmLzW0lFUTGK34qvFw0U4Fos24cZse5KxRbUNIPpK8791Gy9CDlreJ46LRaR2Xe8KdJTQS0_zlcKewyLpZ86joheSD_9HTLp0/s1600/Secretariat-Movie-Poster.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 266px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-mA0ebxu0A8Yh8M0L9IDpwfiM35JTcf7n9t8lsFG8APkmLzW0lFUTGK34qvFw0U4Fos24cZse5KxRbUNIPpK8791Gy9CDlreJ46LRaR2Xe8KdJTQS0_zlcKewyLpZ86joheSD_9HTLp0/s400/Secretariat-Movie-Poster.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5518315565861889970" border="0" /></a><br />Advance screening of Disney's <span style="font-style: italic;">Secretariat </span><span>in Norris Cinema Theater on Thursday 9/16 for Maltin's CTCS 466.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Overall Grade</span>: C<br /></span><ul><li><span style="font-weight: bold;">Story</span>: Just develops way too slowly and fails to maintain interest... and the dialogue is too often corny and overdramatic.<br /><br /></li><li><span style="font-weight: bold;">Acting</span>: Diane Lane is probably perfect in the role of Penny Chenery, but brings nothing new to the table. Malkovich, too, plays a very "John Malkovich" character-- albeit French--who's at least much more fun to watch on screen. Maybe Disney's move was to increase the stock of AJ Michalka (as the daughter--and artist behind the film's credit song!), but she's laughably awful.<br /><br /></li><li><span style="font-weight: bold;">Cinematography</span>: The color and lighting is great, and the horse-racing sequences are beautiful (and original-- e.g. the slow-mo and track shots).<br /><br /></li><li><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sound</span>: Nothing much to speak of... the music during the final race at the Preakness is memorable.<br /></li></ul>Scott Hummelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17824831121346334428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6622540650609370467.post-4802452797036234252010-01-26T01:00:00.001-08:002010-01-26T01:04:52.828-08:00"All good things are wild, and free"Hey USC-- Keep an eye out for Uni swag and prizes promoting their new releases on campus.<br /><br /><script type="text/javascript" src="http://static.ak.connect.facebook.com/js/api_lib/v0.4/FeatureLoader.js.php/en_US"></script><script type="text/javascript">FB.init("0ff36b7524491537c21ca62a1a0f423d");</script><fb:fan profile_id="267063118961" stream="0" connections="10" logobar="1" width="300"></fb:fan><div style="font-size: 8px; padding-left: 10px;"><br /><br /><a href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/Universal-Pictures-USC/267063118961">Universal Pictures | USC</a> on Facebook</div>Scott Hummelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17824831121346334428noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6622540650609370467.post-25775490836273943322009-12-05T18:02:00.000-08:002009-12-07T21:58:47.499-08:00Na'vi is the 21st Century KlingonJames Cameron's <span style="font-style: italic;">Avatar</span> really is an enormous project-- you've undoubtedly heard about the reported $300 mil. production budget, which is indeed the largest for any movie in the history of film. But when it hits theaters on Dec. 18th, I think that movie-goers are really going to witness how large-scope Cameron and 2oth Century Fox have made <span style="font-style: italic;">Avatar</span> to be.<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-0WY0unI7Hi7CzZJ-racdtjBRPcyzQICO-Z96XXgFllJ9Z55jsnDoscsNqfUEeI23zfoSSwYnzlB8MM8rfAPI_nt0QjDxZHWYEnZKZaysn_CZ8wddA7tUTnTDNaBGQ2UqkaeQ730xKME/s1600-h/avatar-still.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 217px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-0WY0unI7Hi7CzZJ-racdtjBRPcyzQICO-Z96XXgFllJ9Z55jsnDoscsNqfUEeI23zfoSSwYnzlB8MM8rfAPI_nt0QjDxZHWYEnZKZaysn_CZ8wddA7tUTnTDNaBGQ2UqkaeQ730xKME/s400/avatar-still.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5412740764107465346" border="0" /></a><br /><br />The <span style="font-style: italic;">LA Times</span> reported that Cameron, who wrote and directed the film, sought the help of a linguistics specialist and USC professor, Paul R. Frommer, to create an <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2009/11/usc-professor-creates-alien-language-for-avatar.html"><span style="font-style: italic;">entire language</span></a>-- with proper phonology, syntax, and lexicon--for the Na'vi tribe that will be used by the characters in the story (<a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1018017/">Frommer</a> is also now credited on IMDB as "alien language creator"). Considering the four years the language took for completion, the time devoted to such detail highlights the notion that <span style="font-style: italic;">Avatar</span> intends to be something much bigger than a movie. The world that Cameron created is clearly something he's endeavored to represent substantial depth and complexity. Even the camera work done for the flick is hyped to be an integral part of the most sensational and realistic 3D film ever to be shown. Could this be the sci-fi movie that rocks a generation like Lucas' <span style="font-style: italic;">Star Wars</span> did back in the 70s?<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvVGk9fETYHKjU25NNbo0ANf0YoUN9mrKrkjn7obpQsFKtghLrbkXyXQeO0OnRAFr7PhGRsFC-FeLz3NXGCj39YzKSjxrX8rzVH_oj6uUpu-6OG4BASjCXiBpv3iZmbHXCgpTcuksaNTM/s1600-h/frommer"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 193px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvVGk9fETYHKjU25NNbo0ANf0YoUN9mrKrkjn7obpQsFKtghLrbkXyXQeO0OnRAFr7PhGRsFC-FeLz3NXGCj39YzKSjxrX8rzVH_oj6uUpu-6OG4BASjCXiBpv3iZmbHXCgpTcuksaNTM/s400/frommer" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5412426117496306594" border="0" /></a><br />It's all impressive, and I have a feeling that it won't be long until we start seeing repeats of <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2009/12/dad-spoke-only-klingon-to-his-son-for-three-years-1.html">this guy</a>... who thought it would be meaningful to raise his child to speak fluent Klingon (the popular original language created in Star Trek).<br /><br />What a Skxawng.Scott Hummelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17824831121346334428noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6622540650609370467.post-14598913739289914092009-11-16T17:19:00.000-08:002010-10-14T01:09:14.564-07:00And with the magic of marketing, they disappear!<br /><br />US Promo Poster:<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6EcKzO9-_aCRc4Rr_JulhMQIp5kbw3Fre_gCRAoZUpyVT-ntczMBmLN_J8wdrkaNCXKy1nULNV33AEdXG-D-u7beHEHOoHi1pfPDaxPZHG19lG6aKLiPiUs4cFDnXqEwCddZm5cM4h6s/s1600/pseudoblog_couplesretreatus600.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 253px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6EcKzO9-_aCRc4Rr_JulhMQIp5kbw3Fre_gCRAoZUpyVT-ntczMBmLN_J8wdrkaNCXKy1nULNV33AEdXG-D-u7beHEHOoHi1pfPDaxPZHG19lG6aKLiPiUs4cFDnXqEwCddZm5cM4h6s/s400/pseudoblog_couplesretreatus600.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5404915841823443314" border="0" /></a><br /><br />UK Promo Poster:<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgncUDam-jLJzA12b3APjzeavDopPjRHQOFG9MDK_ol2P5_vYy12ji2EQ7fIrRDM7Z0XQU151gx2DtvWtg_n8-J0o12EFENjLyi-Bv-qzSbmKfYsLG9b7Dn0GOdqHC5j0MRUqdlB0-654o/s1600/pseudoblog_couplesretreatuk600.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 253px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgncUDam-jLJzA12b3APjzeavDopPjRHQOFG9MDK_ol2P5_vYy12ji2EQ7fIrRDM7Z0XQU151gx2DtvWtg_n8-J0o12EFENjLyi-Bv-qzSbmKfYsLG9b7Dn0GOdqHC5j0MRUqdlB0-654o/s400/pseudoblog_couplesretreatuk600.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5404915934614610322" border="0" /></a>Scott Hummelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17824831121346334428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6622540650609370467.post-74914459864638171542009-11-12T17:33:00.000-08:002009-11-13T15:46:26.579-08:00Not Worthy of any Uproar<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_1DVI56H4lYdd6cIrB_MTplrr_7K9Xxxe4ZsLIJcxe6nEilg6fe0apklstW6PB0F2kedQ8MQGjRjmRdAVpfifEWJQBr_XS6GOuSPUsipUMuTBaJlKv5BcOgEAN3aKznKkWGGi2Hn44Xk/s1600-h/mgm2.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 156px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_1DVI56H4lYdd6cIrB_MTplrr_7K9Xxxe4ZsLIJcxe6nEilg6fe0apklstW6PB0F2kedQ8MQGjRjmRdAVpfifEWJQBr_XS6GOuSPUsipUMuTBaJlKv5BcOgEAN3aKznKkWGGi2Hn44Xk/s400/mgm2.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5403529073573611058" border="0" /></a>If the reports are true that MGM’s studio library and logo are headed for the auction block, then I hope to see that their properties are sold to a studio that can try to do it right. MGM is one of the oldest major studios in Hollywood (since 1924) and has a long history of success. But today, the roaring lion logo isn’t so intimidating and has seemed less of a major player and more of a non-factor.<br /><br />No surprise there though, judging by a laundry list of telling problems including: turnover of upper management (after firing CEO Harry Sloan last summer), financial difficulty (having to restructure $3.7 billion in debt), and finally as a motion picture business, being unable to produce any sizeable hits.<br /><br />This is MGM reaching basement level after a long way down.<br /><br />Where’s the will to survive as a studio? Not that it’s any measure of good business sense to be churning out movies left and right, but MGM doesn’t release nearly as many films per year as the other five major studios. For the sake of comparison, Warner Bros. was involved in releasing 118 films over the last five years, whereas that same number for MGM is 56. The past year has definitely been a part of MGM’s vanishing act by putting out a whopping three movies in 2009—<span style="font-style: italic;">The Pink Panther 2</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">The Taking of Pelham 123</span>, and <span style="font-style: italic;">Fame</span>.<br /><br />That’s one sequel and two remakes. All three of which underperformed. Where’s the creativity? Movie audiences love falling for it the second time around (which is valid unless it's <span style="font-style: italic;">Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel</span>), but MGM is desperately resting on its past successes thinking it can re-invent itself. The web home page is so hopelessly nostalgic it’s shocking. Apart from the ad for “Stargate Universe”, you’d be hard-pressed to figure out what kinds of new entertainment this studio is anxious to sell to their consumers.<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyukqwNHmvjAlZJh3jaIH4LJVT-VDa7C2Nv_V4_XbP4Fat6JIIgq0Rr5cUBN3GYwxsnv3IjL-H7cbnzmY60tnatdHJ61rnvb4k3JP6UDXfUZlvkmUQ9opcjF5J8ddY-Ti92Ulhgjzr53U/s1600-h/MGM.png"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 249px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyukqwNHmvjAlZJh3jaIH4LJVT-VDa7C2Nv_V4_XbP4Fat6JIIgq0Rr5cUBN3GYwxsnv3IjL-H7cbnzmY60tnatdHJ61rnvb4k3JP6UDXfUZlvkmUQ9opcjF5J8ddY-Ti92Ulhgjzr53U/s320/MGM.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5403523280972969474" border="0" /></a>But it’s not because the webmaster is incompetent or the online marketing team couldn’t get it right—it’s a real problem that’s probably best illustrated in the upcoming “more movies” box (on the right) that doesn’t even fill the space. Sure, movie icons like Hannibal, Rocky, and Bond (MGM’s knight in shining armour) lend to a storied past, but what’s on the horizon?<br /><br />A quick glance at a list of slated releases for the next two years reveals that only another eight projects are in the works; the one particularly intriguing one being Guillermo Del Toro’s <span style="font-style: italic;">The Hobbit</span> which is a co-production with Warner Bros./New Line Cinema and WingNut Films. Maybe that’s all the more reason that Time Warner should bid harder. Fox and Lionsgate have also been mentioned as potential buyers.<br /><br />The studio with the lion logo acts more like a deer—lost in the Hollywood headlights. MGM has been slowly retreating into its grave for a while now, and it’ll be up to someone else to bring back its dignified roar if they’re auctioned off in the next couple of weeks.Scott Hummelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17824831121346334428noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6622540650609370467.post-37518871276002725612009-11-06T17:42:00.000-08:002009-12-07T15:32:01.094-08:00'IT' is a Fact: Death Sells in Hollywood<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpOAaSmjnNDapPRh31sBEDlNaRr_4EXkD9SXlTzmUgE5HiCkPou5Uz4jmj884QCiXdjMc5cXmr-qEdPtmhNZrzr3JXIAb04hdInF9gC_0xEGgaOvzxyzs3kb2poaE1OFnuXOehbU9zXp4/s1600-h/this-is-it.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpOAaSmjnNDapPRh31sBEDlNaRr_4EXkD9SXlTzmUgE5HiCkPou5Uz4jmj884QCiXdjMc5cXmr-qEdPtmhNZrzr3JXIAb04hdInF9gC_0xEGgaOvzxyzs3kb2poaE1OFnuXOehbU9zXp4/s400/this-is-it.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5401764705629949490" border="0" /></a>
<br /><meta name="Title" content=""> <meta name="Keywords" content=""> <meta equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"> <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 2008"> <meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 2008"> <link rel="File-List" href="file://localhost/Users/smhummel/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/msoclip/0clip_filelist.xml"> <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:documentproperties> <o:template>Normal.dotm</o:Template> <o:revision>0</o:Revision> <o:totaltime>0</o:TotalTime> <o:pages>1</o:Pages> <o:words>41</o:Words> <o:characters>237</o:Characters> <o:company>USC</o:Company> <o:lines>1</o:Lines> <o:paragraphs>1</o:Paragraphs> <o:characterswithspaces>291</o:CharactersWithSpaces> <o:version>12.0</o:Version> </o:DocumentProperties> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng/> </o:OfficeDocumentSettings> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:trackmoves>false</w:TrackMoves> <w:trackformatting/> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:drawinggridhorizontalspacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing> <w:drawinggridverticalspacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing> <w:displayhorizontaldrawinggridevery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery> <w:displayverticaldrawinggridevery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> <w:dontautofitconstrainedtables/> <w:dontvertalignintxbx/> </w:Compatibility> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="276"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--> <style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Cambria; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style> <!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} </style> <![endif]--> <!--StartFragment--> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-indent: 0.5in; line-height: 200%;">
<br /></p> <!--EndFragment--> Another icon dies and Hollywood looks to make a killing off of it. Literally. They know people will still pay to mourn a death or celebrate a life-- but the memory (and even more so, the work) of celebrities and artists lives on, so it's only fair that business carries on as usual.
<br />
<br />The norms of American society determine that there is a boundary of what’s acceptable (and when) for entertainment media to use someone’s death as a source of amusement value. Whether it’s turned into a quip by a late night talk show host or into a week-long program honoring a life of achievement, the story of a death is very marketable in entertainment. Since Michael Jackson was reported dead last June, the entertainment industry has done nothing but make millions off of his memory. But what makes the issue so touchy is that there’s no formula or framework that can explain precisely when selling the event of someone’s death is and is not socially appropriate; especially when there’s plenty of money to be made at their expense. While this concern is reflected amongst some in the consumer population, Hollywood studios shouldn’t spend any time worrying about sending the wrong message by dabbling in the story of someone else’s demise—unless they believe it will negatively affect ticket sales. Moviemaking is a business; and as such, the consumer audience should recognize that ultimately they have the power to decide which movies earn support and recognition.
<br />
<br />As Sony Pictures’ <span style="font-style: italic;">This Is It</span> opened in theaters earlier last week, the recently deceased Michael Jackson graces the big screen with exclusive rehearsal and backstage footage from his would-have-been summer tour. It’s no secret that Jackson’s enormous fame and media popularity (or notoriety?) reached a new summit following his surprising death last June. So it only makes business sense that Sony were to ride his ongoing wave of media attention as it marketed the film heavily and anticipated lasting box office success from a wide distribution across the US and overseas. But is this posthumous encore, which Sony Pictures acquired rights to before Jackson’s death, made and released in good taste? It doesn’t really matter if the film does enough to “honor” the King of Pop, but just that it turns a profit by capitalizing on the media frenzy surrounding his sudden death. This movie seems to fulfill both (which is a best-case scenario), but that’s not the rule. For Sony as a business, the only way the former matters is if it helps the bottom line.
<br />
<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">This Is It</span> is alrea<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihlHNR3z0mCbiw10hJZ6i4ZDbAAN7V4UTVQ-aQxXXflZ_Y1Z4V6FSYdez_E6j2WLJWmvkdR7He63IpRPgn86Th49nXfvgRz5HKbJYVy345WeS4ezjoSVNizFxK1BxhdCb7XBCdjIZtG98/s1600-h/Worldtrade.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 215px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihlHNR3z0mCbiw10hJZ6i4ZDbAAN7V4UTVQ-aQxXXflZ_Y1Z4V6FSYdez_E6j2WLJWmvkdR7He63IpRPgn86Th49nXfvgRz5HKbJYVy345WeS4ezjoSVNizFxK1BxhdCb7XBCdjIZtG98/s320/Worldtrade.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5402033941024573762" border="0" /></a>dy the highest-grossing concert film of all time, bringing in $43.8 million domestically and $103.9 million internationally to date. The report is that Sony Pictures is even considering an Oscar campaign for the picture… à la Universal’s Oscar-winning <span style="font-style: italic;">Ray</span> back in 2004. So it’s good to see that Sony isn’t struggling with any backlash from a “too soon” standpoint. It’s just that the fine line that determines a studio’s endeavor to either mourn (the death) or celebrate (the life), or make a profit, through a movie which raises concern. For film, an example of the industry dealing with the “when is too soon” issue occurred fairly recently. Both Paramount’s <span style="font-style: italic;">World Trade Center</span> and Universal’s <span style="font-style: italic;">United 93</span> weren’t released into theaters until 2006—nearly five whole years after the terrorist attack in September 2001—as a measure in caution regarding the extreme sensitivity of each film’s subject. This was a smart business move, because if released much sooner, these films might have opened to an American audience who had no interest in seeing them.
<br />
<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNdQUfGfSXPEPoJNVEhirZSX2NXZqHhWYixclJ1I_bgL21qwOzwmshiV2YY5Kj8wyulunmNvgVyAyyKKiq1CPNJNkkPY5gq6HeguEo7dgBmSLT_awZUgnJ6oHDxu0LP9M-U7rGgDhGucQ/s1600-h/United93.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 216px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNdQUfGfSXPEPoJNVEhirZSX2NXZqHhWYixclJ1I_bgL21qwOzwmshiV2YY5Kj8wyulunmNvgVyAyyKKiq1CPNJNkkPY5gq6HeguEo7dgBmSLT_awZUgnJ6oHDxu0LP9M-U7rGgDhGucQ/s320/United93.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5402034011170594578" border="0" /></a>At the very least, it’s encouraging to see that Sony’s homage is earning the praise of both critics and movie-goers alike. The producers were smart to assume that they could be most successful by keeping everything simple. It’s the nature of the film as a behind-the-scenes documentary that’s special because <span style="font-style: italic;">This Is It</span> is NOT some tribute that’s been the subject of much artistic re-creation. Michael Jackson was wildly popular because he was such an incredibly talented entertainer—and in that sense, <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"></span></span>Director Kenny Ortega simply delivers him in all his glory to fans on a big screen. It doesn’t take any elements and “Hollywood-ize” them (in a potentially debasing fashion), jeopardizing the support of the hardcore MJ fans. People will pay because they want to see the King of Pop.
<br />
<br />Whether or not Sony Pictures does justice with this film doesn’t take anything away from the fact that they are primed to make a huge return on their investment. Although it may be better off left unsaid, it’s clear that the excitement of Jackson’s sudden death works in the favor of selling tickets. I can admit that I’ve been planning on making my contribution in the form of a ticket stub soon, and I look forward to seeing where the movie stands in the BO come Monday.Scott Hummelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17824831121346334428noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6622540650609370467.post-67743035065282342672009-10-31T11:12:00.000-07:002009-11-19T14:49:25.466-08:00OMG Tweenz luv CWAfter trying to resuscitate the "Melrose Place" franchise to no avail earlier this fall (set for cancellation after its 19-episode run), the CW needs to know that they only missed the mark in one area. Nobody who'd watch the CW cares about the awkward love triangles and bedroom secrets of the show's characters... unless they have some sort of superpowers! So the only logical thing now is to pick up a show that fits better with the mold they know will work. "Gossip Girl" is a fluke-- but the ninth season of "Smallville", fifth of "Supernatural", and shameless bandwagon-fantasy-romance newcomer "Vampire Diaries" are all locks for a reason.<br /><br />So in the search process, the CW needs to consider adding another quality program about a group of attractive people with supernatural ability, but who are also in high school, and consequently, whose lives are monopolized by sexual tension and teen angst.<br /><br />This Saturday's SNL Digital Short featuring Taylor Swift (yes! The real-life flame of <span style="font-style: italic;">Twilight</span>'s werewolf) parodies what <span style="font-style: italic;">should</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">actually</span> be something that CW execs could consider sinking their teeth into...<br /><br /><object height="296" width="512"><param name="movie" value="http://www.hulu.com/embed/1LlmU9Hkd-Y0tZNjFYPXWw/1063/1189/i1113"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><embed src="http://www.hulu.com/embed/1LlmU9Hkd-Y0tZNjFYPXWw/1063/1189/i1113" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" height="296" width="512"></embed></object><br />Happy Halloween.<br /><a href="http://www.blogger.com/%3Cobject%20width=%22512%22%20height=%22296%22%3E%3Cparam%20name=%22movie%22%20value=%22http://www.hulu.com/embed/1LlmU9Hkd-Y0tZNjFYPXWw/1063/1189%22%3E%3C/param%3E%3Cparam%20name=%22allowFullScreen%22%20value=%22true%22%3E%3C/param%3E%3Cembed%20src=%22http://www.hulu.com/embed/1LlmU9Hkd-Y0tZNjFYPXWw/1063/1189%22%20type=%22application/x-shockwave-flash%22%20allowFullScreen=%22true%22%20%20width=%22512%22%20height=%22296%22%3E%3C/embed%3E%3C/object%3E"></a>Scott Hummelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17824831121346334428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6622540650609370467.post-49463733632576529072009-10-24T12:33:00.000-07:002009-12-07T15:47:42.351-08:00Ratings Renaissance<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnK05yt8p2HybjLgN5AfQLHs2ooawr6YH_HBKsSDXbycnMEQlBis7QaJ_cw0VvW1TUPs0MjZTVs16zFLcprbn-nYDlqh9HUJv4Avtm6OK5P-PdrkceoHMSVrrC7oSW0aO_7i4I3B_diQ4/s1600-h/realitytv_cartoon.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 271px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnK05yt8p2HybjLgN5AfQLHs2ooawr6YH_HBKsSDXbycnMEQlBis7QaJ_cw0VvW1TUPs0MjZTVs16zFLcprbn-nYDlqh9HUJv4Avtm6OK5P-PdrkceoHMSVrrC7oSW0aO_7i4I3B_diQ4/s400/realitytv_cartoon.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5397218642585685538" border="0" /></a><br />Sometimes it pays to lose touch with reality. It's bad enough already without television networks selling more of it back to us day after day through the lives of utter strangers. To even think that years ago people would escape to their TV sets in order to achieve the opposite effect.<br /><br />There was a time when reality was king, but the tides are changing and viewership is slowly growing tired of the long reign of reality that dominated the greater part of the past decade. After unsuccessfully airing re-runs, spin-offs, and some original programming, Fox announced just last week that it will be shutting down all operations for the Fox Reality Channel. In this case, Fox took the hit for being out of touch with the viewing needs of the American audience, but other net execs are bound to soon swallow their poor investment in reality television as well.<br /><br /><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The major television networks are in dire need of a reality check: reality-type programming is past its prime but is still on air consuming huge timeslots in primetime schedules. Overall network ratings are down (again) this fall, but it’s some of the rookie, scripted-fare shows—“FlashForward”, “Modern Family”, and “Glee”—that are turning heads and exhibiting viewership promise. The American TV audience is slowly growing weary of the long reign of reality that dominated the greater part of the past decade. So now more than ever before, network executives should jump at the chance to win back the droves of TV viewers and resurrect the popularity of quality dramas and sitcoms for the sake of good business and the intrinsic value of true art. They have put far too much faith into a genre that lacks the viewership support it used to enjoy, and are being exposed to the business reality they can’t seem to come to terms with: reality television goes stale fast.<br /><br /><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Overall network ratings that are down (again) this fall—leaving the much of the blame to rest upon the reality-type shows that dominate the largest chunks of network schedules. Many of these reality franchises horde an extended amount of peak hours on network schedules, sometimes with individual shows running for consecutive hours on several nights each week.<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEho51ie7uVHuPv93N5Mjf-VW0UgHizeSYb94CwPY9uDB9JGFMmYQMfqKF-hjbvfdePCvsycIgdpe0505NEScgq8aWEjRKDOg7zZnuOtOku8XbOkUIHRiIxpF4qjL6-4Uz9vAnjfuEamnCA/s1600-h/abc+fall+sked.gif"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEho51ie7uVHuPv93N5Mjf-VW0UgHizeSYb94CwPY9uDB9JGFMmYQMfqKF-hjbvfdePCvsycIgdpe0505NEScgq8aWEjRKDOg7zZnuOtOku8XbOkUIHRiIxpF4qjL6-4Uz9vAnjfuEamnCA/s400/abc+fall+sked.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5397139940151692050" border="0" /></a>ABC and Fox aren’t really putting their best foot forward by devoting three hours weekly to “Dancing With The Stars” and “So You Think You Can Dance” (respectively) on two separate nights in their lineups. The lackluster ratings that these have-been shows are producing can be explained in part by the American viewer who is less willing to sit through a show with no real content (or are more prone to record and fast forward if they care at all). Little value is added to the viewing experience by having a “live-air” show one night, and then producing a next-night “results” show with re-hashed footage and padded with unnecessary fluff. Despite the warning signs, the networks seem hopelessly devoted to reality programming and determined to fix the problem the only way they know how—by having shows like “American Idol” assume a spot (or two) on Fox and “Celebrity Apprentice” parade onto the NBC schedule later this season.<br /><br /><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The most glaring business problem is that there’s no investment in something that the networks can count on as an enduring source of revenue; all they succeed in doing is turning a quick profit on content that is cheap and easy to make. Viewership on the first airing keeps these shows afloat, but no one cares enough to re-watch last week’s “The Bachelor”. And why should they care to tune in and catch what they missed, since after all, there’s practically no developing plotline and no crucial character development. If there’s any value to the episode as part of a larger season, it’s only to discover the ending result (who advances to the next round, who has been voted off, etc.)—something that’s sooner read in the grocery store checkout. Other than that, the content is worthless.<br /><br /><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Additionally, there is almost no afterlife for these shows through syndication on other cable channels (Fox learned this the hard way), and there is very little market interest for them in the home entertainment department. Viewers don’t care enough to buy the season DVDs because their redeeming qualities, again, are too few to make them enjoyable a second time around.<br /><br /><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>As long as the networks are content to back unscripted reality-type TV that hijacks primetime slots, they will continue to do themselves a financial disservice by assisting in the death of their quality shows. In essence, the half-hour success of “Cougar Town” doesn’t have the weight to affect the big picture when three hours of “Dancing with the Stars” is on steady decline. Simple enough—and yet, only CBS has strayed from the trend, choosing to build a schedule with less reality emphasis. Their “Survivor” and “The Amazing Race” air only in hour-long segments each week. Fancy then that CBS holds the current top spot in overall TV networks ratings for viewers, and fares well in most all of the distinct age ranges.<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPllQqKSYtQTQbOsQhrSeKqbB8llAPoUgykkls8FfivWvzwxfbr429eNkqy5kDj5UKo7i3AEt5lQuLUX1PUYFYEYoEoPbqyiLVkSKrO67DbSkL_xns4Rr-R3T2LJDSP-5I7vCgRicM5r0/s1600-h/CBS+ratings.gif"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 317px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPllQqKSYtQTQbOsQhrSeKqbB8llAPoUgykkls8FfivWvzwxfbr429eNkqy5kDj5UKo7i3AEt5lQuLUX1PUYFYEYoEoPbqyiLVkSKrO67DbSkL_xns4Rr-R3T2LJDSP-5I7vCgRicM5r0/s400/CBS+ratings.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5397140251682207714" border="0" /></a><br /><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The idea is that quality shows need to first get competitive ratings and attention to earn the corporate backing that they deserve; television is a business, and no right-minded net-exec has the unabashed courage to schedule a show (no matter how great it is) if nobody is watching. Let CBS be a test case; people will respond to the actually creative process that includes intelligent writing, talented actors, and skilled direction and cinematography. Now is the time for network executives to promote more quality programming first and foremost within their industry and stop falling back on cheaper, easier productions just because Americans supported them in years past. Industry trends are changing and viewer response regarding the current fall lineup is an indicator that a “renaissance” of the ratings is waiting only for the networks to get with the times.Scott Hummelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17824831121346334428noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6622540650609370467.post-60865081087876369192009-10-15T16:11:00.000-07:002009-10-17T16:01:12.841-07:00Expected Rain on the B.O. ParadeAfter recording the two biggest single-day openings of all time with <span style="font-style: italic;">The Dark Knight</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen</span> (respectively), seeing new films such as <span style="font-style: italic;">Iron Man</span> establish themselves as franchises, and witnessing seasoned sequels like <span style="font-style: italic;">Har</span><span style="font-style: italic;">ry Potter</span> show no signs of slowing, Hollywood has a lot to brag about as an industry today.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixYdJhYTACmKZBN5_aRmqorymmAJsukAMzofs2hfpJUr4wpAGwUu6Og8itpW4v4F8WlyCuRayyZDW8DjqtrBqId3f3wQPT1xeAFjJOeIGKGXUfR6fem8n5BSN2QfJHlARpElaIgLIPjPA/s1600-h/movie-theater-own-400ds0813.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixYdJhYTACmKZBN5_aRmqorymmAJsukAMzofs2hfpJUr4wpAGwUu6Og8itpW4v4F8WlyCuRayyZDW8DjqtrBqId3f3wQPT1xeAFjJOeIGKGXUfR6fem8n5BSN2QfJHlARpElaIgLIPjPA/s400/movie-theater-own-400ds0813.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5393116274452299330" border="0" /></a><br />While totals for 2009 won’t be in for another couple months, the report from all of the six major studios back in January of this year was that they had either matched or surpassed their yearly box office revenue:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Ticket sales for the year -- Jan. 2, 2008, through Jan. 1, 2009 -- clocked in at $9.63 billion, ahead of the $9.62 billion earned in 2007. Admissions were down roughly 4%, far less than declines in other sectors of the economy</span>.<a href="http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117997933.html?categoryid=1082&cs=1">1</a><br /><br />It’s this type of success that has prompted many experts to proclaim that the entertainment industry—and the film going audience in particular—is recession-proof; that even in a time when theater ticket prices continue to get steeper, the public is willing to hand over the $12 or so it costs to call a Friday night flick a form of escapism.<br /><br />And all of that is great news within the industry, but big success at the box office is really only impacting a smaller section of the profitability pie. The single largest portion of revenue is earned through the home entertainment market where “DVD revenue accounts for about half of a film's income, with the remainder split evenly between theatrical receipts, both domestic and international, and television, both pay and free channels.”<a href="http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-moviebiz6-2009oct06,0,702751.story">2</a><br /><br />The truth is that Hollywood can’t deny (and would be smart not to neglect) that it is bleeding heavily in this very department thanks in large part to technological advances that have made copyright infringement harder to police in the States—and even more so in black markets overseas. So much, in fact, that some studios have opted to shut down production of DVDs intended for distribution in once-profitable foreign markets.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdYEIbMwAfHQXCHtIM2MAa5hTSeUnaIt8J-DxLGhq1Bj_9w1FvZ2n-z-vJb2UF6tAdQiqu3_2AP5FLIXphvj1mp9Wnht38U78P4kXybYw8iuVqsEDUE95jJR3WTFU9zgCAlGnfD7edYUY/s1600-h/Untitled.png"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 260px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdYEIbMwAfHQXCHtIM2MAa5hTSeUnaIt8J-DxLGhq1Bj_9w1FvZ2n-z-vJb2UF6tAdQiqu3_2AP5FLIXphvj1mp9Wnht38U78P4kXybYw8iuVqsEDUE95jJR3WTFU9zgCAlGnfD7edYUY/s400/Untitled.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5393111600396066146" border="0" /></a>Celebrating B.O. dominance is always warranted, but the Hollywood studios are going to have to find a way to change their<a href="http://theozzone.com/images/Records/tv_tributes/arrested_development/starla.jpg"> business model </a>and stay out in front of the black clouds that have caught up with the majority of American industries. Check the forecast. The market is shifting away from DVDs that have been the standard for so long; our global society is constantly moving towards greater digitization and the studios should know well enough to recognize that purchasing physical technologies (read: discs) is rapidly going out of style.<br /><br />Hollywood needs to do a better job of catering to that home market by addressing consumer interest to have the convenience of content <span style="font-style: italic;">when they want it </span>and <span style="font-style: italic;">where they want it</span> on a wider variety of media devices.Scott Hummelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17824831121346334428noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6622540650609370467.post-11267653916982648502009-10-10T10:31:00.000-07:002009-11-08T13:48:41.510-08:00Entertainment: America's National Novelty<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpFehSDQ7b7fnYi-MLH6aiODTLCB9b3QzUfKg2JAkpN7tbFuBj4dWh__5IUgduZFayCVc-6cqsvdTdBSXgGZwUHvUdWmx7P6T2USPuMDI9N7Vu5rb1Fq9irR64rNjfpjqHKvtBAz9RdsE/s1600-h/image.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpFehSDQ7b7fnYi-MLH6aiODTLCB9b3QzUfKg2JAkpN7tbFuBj4dWh__5IUgduZFayCVc-6cqsvdTdBSXgGZwUHvUdWmx7P6T2USPuMDI9N7Vu5rb1Fq9irR64rNjfpjqHKvtBAz9RdsE/s400/image.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5398602470982962626" border="0" /></a>With unemployment on the rise and the economic crises weighing down heavily on American shoulders, the federal government agreed to pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act last February to remedy the debilitated condition of the United States. A small provision within the ARRA to fund the non-profit art sector is a way to help ensure employment for millions of Americans and stimulate the billions of dollars the US arts and entertainment industries generate annually. What’s at stake here is the frightening notion of losing a non-profit arts sector that contributes to the cultural education and creative inspiration of the American people. Although the provision is a necessary step in assisting our ailing national economy and thereby improving the political and social framework that comprise our national culture, it still may not produce any sizeable improvement for the US entertainment industry.<br /><br />If the economy is poor, then how can we expect non-profit organizations to continue to secure the same grants, endowments, or donations that they have received in the past? In a thriving national economy, the booming success of corporations and their industries helps to provide for the existence of non-profit enterprises. However, the current economic situation in the US is characterized by no such success as individual companies struggle just to put out fires on their own doorstep. Therefore, it would be ridiculous to assume that anyone else besides the federal government could afford to have the interest in keeping the doors of these non-profit enterprises open. In the arts, the shutting down of museums, city concert halls, and other non-profit programs can only take away from the exposure and consumption of truly American creative culture. Unfortunately, a similar trend could be following suit in the private sector—collectively setting up a regrettable wipeout of our own cultural impact. In the profit driven realm of movies for example, our films are already surrendering their American cultural identity in order to “translate” better internationally and pull in a greater return. Whereas American film used to reflect its own culture in a sophisticated and thought-provoking manner, most big studios are more interested in depicting nationally-ambiguous and shallow-structured cookie-cutters that can sell easily across cultures (Hirschberg 2004, 2). Losing the non-profit arts sector might leave an already fragile American culture exclusively and dangerously in the hands of corporate moguls more concerned with turning a profit. But it is unlikely that this small portion of the stimulus package will be able to produce immediately significant results, simply because the enormous companies create a much bigger cultural and economic wake.<br /><br />We cannot forget that private entertainment companies, from movie studios to magazine publishers, already provide millions of jobs and use their industry’s power and appeal to generate massive sums of money in our national economy. We must also understand that these media markets are ultimately run by an elite group of mega-corporations that make up the oligarchies of their respective industries—which in many cases are massive conglomerations with a stake in several of the different media industries. The problem is that smaller start-up companies that could potentially offer job prospects and economic worth cannot compete with the “big dogs” like Viacom, AOL Time Warner, or News Corporation (to use cable TV channel owners as an example). TV mogul Ted Turner was quoted in an article by professor and media expert Robert W. McChesney’s as saying, “The days of starting up a cable-television network or trying to do it from outside the media business are over. It’s almost impossible” (McChesney 2004, 179). But this is applicable to much more than just television; it is the little guy trying to make it in music, motion pictures, book publishing, etc. So without the prospect of non-profit enterprises providing jobs for the market in the entertainment industry, no “newcomer” companies can be counted on as a large-scale reliable source of employment. Instead, jobs would have to be secured with the conglomerates, or not in the arts at all. However, this is not meant to condemn the success of these companies because their success is the true barometer of the entertainment industry. Therefore, it would be foolish to assume in our recession economy that the small clause of the ARRA aimed at rescuing the non-profit art sector is a make-or-break issue for the industry. It is important because some attempt at a financial rescue is worth a lot more than no effort, but the beast that is the entertainment industry isn’t teetering on the brink of collapse without it.<br /><br />This is especially true since $50 million is very nominal for a national project with a sweeping goal and pales heavily in comparison to the overall $787 billion allocated by the stimulus package. Conceivably, the economic ramifications of investing this small amount on the non-profit arts could prove to be an equally unimpressive endeavor. It’s not that the validity of the $50 million provision to the bill should be in question; rather, it is a meaningful sign showing that the federal government cares about the economic value that the non-profit entertainment industry has provided. The money is certainly not wasted as any financial boost can help fuel the independent success of these organizations that, in turn, produce jobs and contribute financially to the national economy. But the reasoning behind such an unsubstantial number is a matter of concern, and may serve as a future explanation as to why this part of the bill could have an insignificant impact.<br /><br />If the ARRA plans to preserve US cultural infrastructures in the entertainment industry, then it has done right by first providing financial aid as a means of economic revival. Although this is no intentional appeal to a sort of neo-Marxist ideology, most culture (including the social power of the creative arts) is heavily influenced by the state of the economy. But how the arts and the economy work together to create a cultural impact is a matter of debate. McChesney argues that creativity spurs from the social and political impulses of artists that are autonomous from the commercially driven interests of media owners (McChesney 2004, 193). On the other hand, Cowen sees the entertainment market as a cooperative and positive force for artist creativity, citing several creative geniuses who admittedly found their true art after first finding great wealth (Cowen 1998, 18). Both are probably true for different people because the creative process is also a very personal one. However, there is something insincere and counterfeit about Cowen’s explanation for creativity in the arts, and I do not believe that a similar pattern can be as true in an economic recession. Artists will have a difficult time chasing scarce money while they develop their true passion for their respective art. Though the economy may have supported this practice in the past, it is not a valid method for success anymore. Cowen sees the success of the market and the artists’ individualism going hand-in-hand, insisting that any involvement with government aid would take away from market influences and add an undesirable bureaucratic element (Cowen 1998, 40). At the other end of the spectrum, McChesney points to the commercial fat cats in the entertainment industry as their own hindrance to a competitive free market for the arts. What’s different now with the economic recession is that the current American market doesn’t have nearly the same funding from consumers and private donors that graced the arts when he wrote his piece about a decade ago. Times have changed and industry needs federal support where it previously did not. The passage of the $50 million for non-profits could help re-inspire the wonder of artistic creativity in people who truly care about honing a talent rather than selfishly looking to turn a profit—a realization that might be the solution to help turn the struggling economy.<br /><br />The provisional stimulus can help improve the arts sector and its economy, but the effort to produce true art is a necessary stipulation. The role of the artist is to come up with something that is innovative, different, and exciting by using other artistic influences to create something uniquely their own. Yet the tendency of the creative markets is to sell the public on products within a “formula” that has already proven successful. But how can we rationally rely on such a business model that is already weakened in the current economic crisis? As the media market gets bigger, McChesney blames the failure of current arts on the pressure to give people what they want (and have always gotten) as a means to maximize profits and trample genuine creativity in its path (McChesney 2004, 199). As a result, destructive barriers are set to keep out new artistic talent while the overall quality of the entertainment industry’s product becomes diluted with rehashed mediocrity. According to Hollywood producer Jonathan Taplin (Mean Streets, Under Fire), the overabundance of remakes and sequels has started to dissolve their reputation as sure-fire moneymakers, as recent box office evidence shows audiences have grown weary of the worn-out trend (Taplin 8). If the ultimate goal of the stimulus package provision is to ensure growth and continued forward expansion within the entertainment industry, then we cannot let the conservativism of staying with what always worked before serve as some economic rescue plan. The American consumer is too smart—or perhaps now too money-conscious—to buy shameless replications of past entertainment successes. Nor will they help bail out an industry that cannot strive to create something original and worthwhile. Subsidizing the arts with public funding is counter-intuitive and hopeless if the industries cannot do their part to help themselves as well.<br /><br />In principle however, the objective of the provision for the creative arts is to help stimulate growth to prevent a situation where the entertainment industry can no longer support itself. As evident in the current economic crisis, the economy drives the market—and not the other way around. It is perfectly understandable that people may not have the financial means to indulge in media the same way that they did in years past, and as a result, the creative arts industry is hurting. A current solution to maintain low-budget production and maximize profit is illustrated by the overflow of US reality-TV, in which the void of creative labors of paid actors and writers is filled by consumers who willingly work on the same product they consume. Certainly this has its own issues of whether quality in content is being compromised, even though these types of shows continue to have significant popularity. But suppose that the economic downturn were to hit the US entertainment industry hard enough that these companies were unable to afford the number of creative minds and resources necessary to create a good product. Then it would be rational to assume that the American public would have no reason to purchase or invest in US entertainment goods because they are better served looking to offshore markets. If America no longer had the capacity to produce anything worthwhile or valuable, then how could any audience (not just US citizens) be expected to buy American? In this case, the cultural impact would likely be a serious decline in American “soft power”. What is scary is that we are already experiencing this very problem. Although some blame can be chalked up to the issue of “anti-Americanism” and the vast advancements of foreign entertainment industries, “the time when America was the world’s dominant pop culture power may be ending…in the music business, regional artists are already replacing the global superstar and it is possible that this balkanization of world culture will affect all audiovisual mediums” (Taplin 20). So in this sense, the stimulation package could help America re-establish a global influence to some degree, and consequently help improve the economy with profits made overseas.<br /><br />With its massive conglomerations and exceedingly powerful private sector, the American entertainment industry is a juggernaut with or without the provision in the ARRA. Nevertheless, the non-profit art enterprises should mean a great deal to American citizens who are concerned with the entertainment industry because the two sectors—though structured very differently—share fundamental similarities. They both have a tremendous impact on United States culture and how it is perceived in domestic and international markets; and peoples’ response to the culture we present directly affects the economic success of the industry in terms of consumption. There was a time when the arts and entertainment were likely America’s greatest export and the rest of the world valued this contribution. If the US hopes to recover from the current economic recession, then any initiative to improve such a national novelty is money well spent.<br /><br />Works Cited<br />Cowen, Tyler. 1998. “The Arts in a Market Economy”. In In Praise of Commercial Culture, 15-43. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.<br />Hirschberg, Lynn. 2004. “What is an American Movie Now?”. New York Times, November 14. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/movies/14HOLLYWOOD.html<br />McChesney, Robert W. 2004. “The Market Uber Alles”. In The Problem of the Media, 175-209. New York: Monthly Review Press.<br />Taplin, Jonathan. Crouching Tigers: Emerging Challenges to U.S. Entertainment Supremacy, 1-21. http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~jtaplin/CrouchingTigers.pdf.Scott Hummelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17824831121346334428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6622540650609370467.post-91172147590263344612009-10-01T10:00:00.000-07:002009-10-06T15:46:23.512-07:00Hollywood's Version of Wall Street<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>So you’re pretty convinced that you know what’s what in Hollywood—you were repping Zach Galifianakis long before he famously roofied the bachelor party in <span style="font-style: italic;">The Hangover</span>; you led the Paul Blart bandwagon all the way to complete box office takeover; and finally, you had the deathly inkling that ABC’s "Pushing Daisies" was bound only to accomplish just that. We get it.<div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Well, then HSX may be right up your alley.<br /><br /><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The Hollywood Stock Exchange is an online stock trading simulation which allows users to manage a profile of shares in upcoming movies, TV shows, celebrities, and more.<br /><div><br /></div><div><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 356px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9fo0vD-O6x6ntIwAACMWv2D02SYs5c2hD0kTiZ6kVfF7bzylKsB7BPqX1cmCQ58vjSq7lg05ffPctjArr4Wg8_67Iap0g2-TiPvDFAfD95bQy8kwJYUC_o0Skyrew6Y-HNHp643COZYo/s400/Screen+shot+2009-10-01+at+11.38.59+AM.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5387773685526618066" border="0" /><div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The site seamlessly tracks the latest BO charts, TV ratings, and celebrity popularity, allowing the user a very realistic opportunity to tinker in Hollywood investing.<br /><br /><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>While following the trades and keeping your finger on the pulse of the biz certainly helps, HSX is awesome for anyone who has an interest in entertainment industry trends or considers themselves a movie or TV regular.<br /><br />Highly recommended—check it.<br /><a href="http://www.hsx.com/">www.hsx.com</a></div></div></div></div>Scott Hummelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17824831121346334428noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6622540650609370467.post-10479284321209608912009-09-25T11:42:00.000-07:002009-10-05T02:55:32.730-07:00Staying Atop The Dogpile<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4acbF5KDNeESmIeFxKLWNaK_DWNoqP_EV9m60RmliCHDBtdckyShnbLSNrkubRerS39UZBwUQ7A1K01yNzEjj8Nc2kGf5XXIOOKTCQwUKk4lvri-u-0n7TipSy3csXDWZgl8tBRhQNlI/s1600-h/disney2_319.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 319px; height: 232px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4acbF5KDNeESmIeFxKLWNaK_DWNoqP_EV9m60RmliCHDBtdckyShnbLSNrkubRerS39UZBwUQ7A1K01yNzEjj8Nc2kGf5XXIOOKTCQwUKk4lvri-u-0n7TipSy3csXDWZgl8tBRhQNlI/s400/disney2_319.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5387773043322784786" border="0" /></a><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"></span>The number of competitors in the Hollywood arena seems a constantly shrinking number, as exciting news of giant media companies swallowing each other’s properties (over billion dollar acquisition deals) continue to pop up.<br /><br /><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Take the almighty Walt Disney Company—who within the last several years, acquired chief ownership of Pixar Animation Studios; entered in an agreement with DreamWorks Studios to handle their live-action film distribution for the next five years (while Paramount distributes their animation); and most recently, purchased Marvel Entertainment in a $4 billion transaction.<br /><br /><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>And it’s not that anyone should be worried about some looming lack of competition within the movie marketplace that’s bound to affect the quality or range of movies being produced. It’s just that the Hollywood juggernauts would sooner work together than against each other. Right?<br /><br /><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>What might appear to be entertainment companies setting aside their competition over the marketplace in order to join creative forces, is really just the biggest warring studios gathering more troops to go to battle. Really, what we are seeing is just the old-school Hollywood studio oligarchy—in particular, the “Big Six”—maintaining their utmost control at the top.<br /><br /><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>These are the same elite six that have been doing business since Hollywood’s Golden Age; gobbling up smaller motion picture success stories is how they remain competitive and stay in business.<br /><br /><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>In disguise, the overarching significance is just how difficult it would be today to successfully establish a place among the Hollywood upper echelon because the top dog studios would much rather make room for successful mini-majors under their big corporate umbrella than share any room at the very top.<br /><br /><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Undoubtedly, the arena is growing larger as technology improves and the creative resources required to create film becomes more available and more affordable to the Average Joe. But the well-established major studios are still running the game, and at the end of the day, all the “buzzworthy” acquisitions and joint business ventures doesn’t do as much to change the playing field as it might seem.</div>Scott Hummelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17824831121346334428noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6622540650609370467.post-60520960313897115412009-09-19T12:22:00.000-07:002009-10-16T01:52:43.812-07:00Forming the Future Faces<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The future of any industry truly rests upon the caliber of the upcoming generation whose responsibility it is to take the reigns and trudge onward and upward—successfully.<br /><br /><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Take, for example, Walt Disney Studios chairman Richard Cook who, after 38 years with the juggernaut studio, has seen the House of Mouse expand into the international empire it is today. But as Disney plans to head in new directions, the ousting of Cook makes for more room at the top.<br /><br /><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Upper Management: exit stage left, cueing relative newcomers, center stage in the spotlight.<br /><br /><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The continued success of the entertainment industry then rests so heavily on the schools and universities—the teachers of upcoming writers, directors, producers, and executives—to cultivate the creativity of the next generation. But if the industry is committed to improvement and growth, that next generation will have to do much more than simply ‘learn the ropes’. The USC School of Cinematic Arts has taken this initiative to teach cutting edge technology and challenge the well-established form of traditional film.<br /><br /><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>By cultivating talent that is best suited to lead in the direction that the industry is headed—not necessarily in where it’s already been—the USC School of Cinematic Arts continues to establish its place as a front runner in creative media <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3m6z73IgBT-DrFJi21n12VP7mJjdkOfOzKSMeL93NDgFA0_2c5e_AbVO5YY7CIcQXwOY9AsduaLkGKalOK5gMdkfg_wo73-HQKMw1ecAWzqoogsU8QQG-WlP7EOAwLqXue_5WZQAeifc/s1600-h/3D-movie-theater.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 311px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3m6z73IgBT-DrFJi21n12VP7mJjdkOfOzKSMeL93NDgFA0_2c5e_AbVO5YY7CIcQXwOY9AsduaLkGKalOK5gMdkfg_wo73-HQKMw1ecAWzqoogsU8QQG-WlP7EOAwLqXue_5WZQAeifc/s400/3D-movie-theater.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5393113814553225666" border="0" /></a>education. With the introduction of a stereoscopic 3D (S3D) technology program (and state-of-the-art facilities and equipment to practice on), students are encouraged to tackle the very kinds of technology that aim to revolutionize movies and the movie-going experience.<br /><br /></div><div><br /><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>In fact, this is the very technology that industry experts from television, film, sports, and gaming met to discuss at the 3D Entertainment Summit last this past Thursday and Friday. It was there that a perplexed Jeff Katzenberg—CEO of DreamWorks Animation—addressed the conference with the confidence that S3D format is the next greatest technology that many companies still have yet to get on board with.<br /><br /><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>"To the degree to which they are innovative and entrepreneurial and think about their customer, they end up with a phenomenal new business. To the degree they don't, and stay entrenched in old models, they will lose, the enterprise will slip right out of their fingers."<br /><br /><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLX4_Ra8rAi9KknnV9Rc-ssoezGp5BFhVIr0_d_m9doQ1DP6FsDEz82hMJS5qVLNB1JEhbZ0CAfzJRr3vPD8Kzr0GRUTSb_yZ-5AtTgjH59a6nLn5GFVGZVyfjQMj_ZXzA5XEz1gUkBJM/s400/e2781982-6611-49e0-b3c9-3b838b62e665_RBanner_6.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5387771413206212130" border="0" /><br /><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>His challenge to the rest of Hollywood is something that fresh-faced newcomers should take to heart—the biz is in a constant state of change, but this may be the start of a more revolutionizing takeover than the older generation is ready to accept.<br /><br /><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>There was a time that even Richard Cook was a newcomer, fresh out of his alma mater USC. Out with the old, in with the new.</div>Scott Hummelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17824831121346334428noreply@blogger.com0