The Library of Congress today announced the next 25 films that will be added to its National Film Registry. This annual selection chooses American films from any point in the 100+ years of film-making that have "cultural, historic, or aesthetic significance." Those movies that are added to the Registry are actively archived and preserved in the Library of Congress's vaults so that prints that are as near-perfect as possible will exist for future generations. Prominent names among the chosen this year include The Terminator, Johnny Guitar, and Asphalt Jungle. The list is not restricted to blockbusters or critically acclaimed pieces, however: Variety has an interesting description of Disneyland Dream, a film chosen for preservation, though few people have heard of it. That same Variety piece has a list and description of all movies that were added to the Registry this year. To see a full list of the more than five-hundred films that the Library of Congress has already put in it's vault, simply follow this link.
I think this process is a wonderful idea, and I only wish that films could be added to the Registry more often. The process of ensuring that the reels of the movies are preserved and/or restored must be a lengthy and costly one, however, and is probably a reason that only 25 films a year are selected. Still, it is nice to know that future generations will be able to watch gangsters attempt a bank robbery in Asphalt Jungle, or hear Arnold Schwarzenegger utter "I'll be back." There are some things you just have to experience first-hand.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Monday, December 29, 2008
Tales of Beetle the Bard: The Movie?
As the holidays wind down, I have begun perusing the hefty build-up of news stories I have not yet had time to read. It was this wandering that brought to my attention a bulletin from early December: Warner Bros. reportedly has expressed interest in bringing The Tales of Beedle the Bard to the big screen. The volume of five short stories was written by Harry Potter author J. K. Rowling and was based on a fictional book of the same name mentioned in the last Harry Potter book, The Deathly Hallows. The Vault's gut reaction: Why must every studio milk a franchise dry? A purely rhetorical question, of course, as it is common knowledge that money makes the world go 'round, and to not wring every last dollar from a gold mine is considered sacrilege. And as Cinema Blend's Josh Tyler points out, with only a few more films left in the Potter
-franchise, "the magical gravy train is coming to an end," leaving Warner Bros. to look for a new source of income.
But can the WB seriously be considering making Tales into a film? It would take an extremely lucky combination of talent to turn the book into a successful feature length film. This is not simply because of the short story aspect of the material; some critically acclaimed films are based on short stories: Rear Window and Fort Apache are the first movies that pop into my mind. But these are a combination of five eclectic short stories. It is highly unlikely that even an fervent audience of Potter fans would sit through a film that is based on the premise of a wizard reading aloud the Tales to children, with each subsequently appearing on screen. These stories would have to be taken individually and expanded upon. Would the films be connected to the wizarding world established by Rowling or made to stand on their own two feet, with a quick credit to Tales for inspiring the material? Not all the short stories seem ideal for film adaptation (small spoilers ahead): while the exploits of a wizard who uses dark magic to prevent himself from falling in love seems like potential material, will the saga of a boy and his pot with a foot really garner any critical acclaim?
Obviously the rumors of a film based on The Tales of Beetle the Bard are still just rumors. But what do you think? Is there a future franchise in the making?
-franchise, "the magical gravy train is coming to an end," leaving Warner Bros. to look for a new source of income.But can the WB seriously be considering making Tales into a film? It would take an extremely lucky combination of talent to turn the book into a successful feature length film. This is not simply because of the short story aspect of the material; some critically acclaimed films are based on short stories: Rear Window and Fort Apache are the first movies that pop into my mind. But these are a combination of five eclectic short stories. It is highly unlikely that even an fervent audience of Potter fans would sit through a film that is based on the premise of a wizard reading aloud the Tales to children, with each subsequently appearing on screen. These stories would have to be taken individually and expanded upon. Would the films be connected to the wizarding world established by Rowling or made to stand on their own two feet, with a quick credit to Tales for inspiring the material? Not all the short stories seem ideal for film adaptation (small spoilers ahead): while the exploits of a wizard who uses dark magic to prevent himself from falling in love seems like potential material, will the saga of a boy and his pot with a foot really garner any critical acclaim?
Obviously the rumors of a film based on The Tales of Beetle the Bard are still just rumors. But what do you think? Is there a future franchise in the making?
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Buried Treasure: Should Studios be Allowed to Sit on Projects?
Amidst the hustle and bustle of the holiday season, news has been spread around the Internet that has stopped the heart of fanboys and girls world wide: a judge has ruled that 20th Century Fox has the rights to Watchmen, not Warner Brothers. With legal dust still flying through the air, many are anxiously wondering how this decision will affect the film's early March release date. The case raises an interesting question: Should studios be allowed to buy the rights to material if they then sit on it a
nd don't use it for years or even decades? Take the current Watchmen saga. According to the time line laid out by Nikki Finke at Deadline Hollywood, Fox bought the rights to the graphic novel Watchmen starting in 1986. Over the years, it had sold some of the rights in complicated deals with various producers and studios, but never made a move to develop the project itself. Fast forward to 2006, when Warner Bros. bought the rights to the film from Larry Gordon, one of the earlier-mentioned producers with whom Fox had negotiated with. That leaves a twenty-year gap where Fox, if they completely win their case, theoretically could have dusted off the comic book and turned it into a movie. Twenty years with no hint of working on the project. Now Warner Bros. has come along and not only made the film, but made a film that looks to be raking in a good deal of money.
Legal issues of who owned what when aside, should Fox have a claim to something they ignored for two decades? Should any studio for that matter? On the one hand, there is something to be said for allowing material to gestate. Clint Eastwood bought the rights to Unforgiven years before he made it, and has said that the time allowed him to "age into" the role; one can only imagine that ruminating over a script for ten-plus years allowed Eastwood to fully flesh out his ideas into the Academy Award picture it became. In addition, technology has been gradually developing over time, making films possible that would have been difficult to pull off in the past. It's very possible that producers were stymied on how to make the effects-laden Watchmen in the early 1990s--special effects has grown considerably in the last two decades. But consider the other side of the coin. A studio can buy a book or a comic and keep it off the market until they decide they no longer want it. But what if a studio with better resources or more will-power comes along? Fox never made Watchmen, but now wants control of the movie after Warner Bros. finally stepped up to the task. After twenty years of no movement on the project, does Fox really deserve the rights they are demanding? It seems to me that options on property should be restricted to a finite period of, say, five-years; after-which, if the studio in question has not made definite steps towards developing the film, it forfeits its rights. That way, if another production company comes along and is interested in the material, they can have access to it.
Granted, this is an idyllic situation. Studios spend millions of dollars to acquire the rights to books and TV shows and expect that they will be able to use them whenever they have an inkling to do so. And there are ways for one company to purchase scripts from another company. But although Fox might have the more solid legal claim to Watchmen, Warner Bros. is still the one who put the effort forth to develop the movie. Surely they should be rewarded for taking the initiative to unearth this forgotten piece of work and to polish it into a respectable looking film?
Leave your thoughts and comments on this developing story below!
nd don't use it for years or even decades? Take the current Watchmen saga. According to the time line laid out by Nikki Finke at Deadline Hollywood, Fox bought the rights to the graphic novel Watchmen starting in 1986. Over the years, it had sold some of the rights in complicated deals with various producers and studios, but never made a move to develop the project itself. Fast forward to 2006, when Warner Bros. bought the rights to the film from Larry Gordon, one of the earlier-mentioned producers with whom Fox had negotiated with. That leaves a twenty-year gap where Fox, if they completely win their case, theoretically could have dusted off the comic book and turned it into a movie. Twenty years with no hint of working on the project. Now Warner Bros. has come along and not only made the film, but made a film that looks to be raking in a good deal of money.Legal issues of who owned what when aside, should Fox have a claim to something they ignored for two decades? Should any studio for that matter? On the one hand, there is something to be said for allowing material to gestate. Clint Eastwood bought the rights to Unforgiven years before he made it, and has said that the time allowed him to "age into" the role; one can only imagine that ruminating over a script for ten-plus years allowed Eastwood to fully flesh out his ideas into the Academy Award picture it became. In addition, technology has been gradually developing over time, making films possible that would have been difficult to pull off in the past. It's very possible that producers were stymied on how to make the effects-laden Watchmen in the early 1990s--special effects has grown considerably in the last two decades. But consider the other side of the coin. A studio can buy a book or a comic and keep it off the market until they decide they no longer want it. But what if a studio with better resources or more will-power comes along? Fox never made Watchmen, but now wants control of the movie after Warner Bros. finally stepped up to the task. After twenty years of no movement on the project, does Fox really deserve the rights they are demanding? It seems to me that options on property should be restricted to a finite period of, say, five-years; after-which, if the studio in question has not made definite steps towards developing the film, it forfeits its rights. That way, if another production company comes along and is interested in the material, they can have access to it.
Granted, this is an idyllic situation. Studios spend millions of dollars to acquire the rights to books and TV shows and expect that they will be able to use them whenever they have an inkling to do so. And there are ways for one company to purchase scripts from another company. But although Fox might have the more solid legal claim to Watchmen, Warner Bros. is still the one who put the effort forth to develop the movie. Surely they should be rewarded for taking the initiative to unearth this forgotten piece of work and to polish it into a respectable looking film?
Leave your thoughts and comments on this developing story below!
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Glasses of the Future?: A Review of Bolt and 3-D
A little over a month ago, I posted at the Vault my thoughts on the future of 3-D film making, writing that I believed that the technology has a viable future in cinema. This weekend, I had the good fortune to find friends who would indulge me in my request to not only see the new Disney animated feature Bo
lt, but to see it in a three-dimensional screening as well. The film, which was the first at Disney to be produced under Pixar-head John Lasseter, follows the saga of titular hero Bolt, a dog who is unaware that his "super powers" are the result of television special effects, a fact he discovers as he journeys cross-country to find his owner, Penny. The movie is also the first of several using the 3-D process to be released by animation companies over the next few years. While my experience revealed that the use of 3-D is by no means flawless, I saw hope for the technique.
To start with, the perennial glasses provided by 3-D company RealD are a step up from the bulky contraption I used the last time I saw a film of this nature. They were as lightweight and as comfortable as everyday sunglasses, resting easily on the head and causing no problems during the film. As for the screening itself, I found myself agreeing with the test audiences of the 3-D Journey to the Center of the Earth mentioned in an article in The Guardian in my last post. Those viewers complained that too many cuts made them unable to appreciate the depth of the images created by watching a film in three-dimensions. My impression of the action sequences of Bolt was that they were distracting because of their blurriness; before the picture could settle and my eyes could reestablish the 3-D effect, there would be a cut to another shot. Since the opening ten minutes of the canine movie was a lengthy chase scene, I worried that the quality of 3-D was not what I had hoped. Later parts in the film, though, proved my doubts wrong. Quieter, more contemplative scenes that allowed for long camera holds showed how powerful the depth of field of 3-D could be. At one point, Bolt and his friends sit in a hilly meadow, and I felt like the grassy plains really did extend into the distance. Another powerful moment contained Bolt clambering through a burning building. The three-dimensional effect of iron beams resting askew on top of each other provided a perilous jungle environment that looked real enough for a person to clamber over. These instances lead me to believe that the technique of 3-D will definitely have a place in cinema in the future.
What do other bloggers think of 3-D and Bolt? Karen Dahlstrom of Big Picture Big Sound was mesmerized by it, writing that the technique was "appropriate and seamless." She also gives the interesting observation that since it renders the animation on a more realistic scale, it might be "too harrowing for young children." Bruce Handy at The New York Times is more of the opinion that Hollywood is going through another fad, making comparisions to the earlier three-dimensional boom of the 1950s. He makes great use of news articles from that era to show the relative rise and fall of the technology during its first foray into mainstream cinema. Finally Sherwin Loh of The Straits Times thinks the movie is a definite step up from the usual gimmicky affairs associated with 3-D, as Disney focused more on enveloping viewers in the environment than in making them duck from flying objects. The bottom line, however, is that it will take more than one successful application of the process in a film to prove that 3-D is here to stay. With several such movies slated for release next year, we will have to wait to render a more thorough analysis.
lt, but to see it in a three-dimensional screening as well. The film, which was the first at Disney to be produced under Pixar-head John Lasseter, follows the saga of titular hero Bolt, a dog who is unaware that his "super powers" are the result of television special effects, a fact he discovers as he journeys cross-country to find his owner, Penny. The movie is also the first of several using the 3-D process to be released by animation companies over the next few years. While my experience revealed that the use of 3-D is by no means flawless, I saw hope for the technique.To start with, the perennial glasses provided by 3-D company RealD are a step up from the bulky contraption I used the last time I saw a film of this nature. They were as lightweight and as comfortable as everyday sunglasses, resting easily on the head and causing no problems during the film. As for the screening itself, I found myself agreeing with the test audiences of the 3-D Journey to the Center of the Earth mentioned in an article in The Guardian in my last post. Those viewers complained that too many cuts made them unable to appreciate the depth of the images created by watching a film in three-dimensions. My impression of the action sequences of Bolt was that they were distracting because of their blurriness; before the picture could settle and my eyes could reestablish the 3-D effect, there would be a cut to another shot. Since the opening ten minutes of the canine movie was a lengthy chase scene, I worried that the quality of 3-D was not what I had hoped. Later parts in the film, though, proved my doubts wrong. Quieter, more contemplative scenes that allowed for long camera holds showed how powerful the depth of field of 3-D could be. At one point, Bolt and his friends sit in a hilly meadow, and I felt like the grassy plains really did extend into the distance. Another powerful moment contained Bolt clambering through a burning building. The three-dimensional effect of iron beams resting askew on top of each other provided a perilous jungle environment that looked real enough for a person to clamber over. These instances lead me to believe that the technique of 3-D will definitely have a place in cinema in the future.
What do other bloggers think of 3-D and Bolt? Karen Dahlstrom of Big Picture Big Sound was mesmerized by it, writing that the technique was "appropriate and seamless." She also gives the interesting observation that since it renders the animation on a more realistic scale, it might be "too harrowing for young children." Bruce Handy at The New York Times is more of the opinion that Hollywood is going through another fad, making comparisions to the earlier three-dimensional boom of the 1950s. He makes great use of news articles from that era to show the relative rise and fall of the technology during its first foray into mainstream cinema. Finally Sherwin Loh of The Straits Times thinks the movie is a definite step up from the usual gimmicky affairs associated with 3-D, as Disney focused more on enveloping viewers in the environment than in making them duck from flying objects. The bottom line, however, is that it will take more than one successful application of the process in a film to prove that 3-D is here to stay. With several such movies slated for release next year, we will have to wait to render a more thorough analysis.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Home Screening Centers: A Look at Hulu and YouTube
While keeping tabs on Hollywood, I came across the news that MGM has signed an agreement with YouTube to allow the site to legally carry certain movies and video clips. While the offerings are by no means of top quality (they include installments from the original American Gladiator competition and the recent kung-fu movie Bulletproof Monk), this announcement is yet another instance of the studios of Tinsel Town slowly feeling out the possibilities of online posting. For instance, Netflix is gradually expanding its "Instant Watch" library, signing contracts with CBS and Starz to let subscribers access their content on the Internet. CBS is also sponsoring its own channel on YouTube, including not only episodes from its current programs, but also classic episodes from such series as the original Star Trek adventures. These developments made me wonder what attracted companies to certain web-based "on demand" video platforms, and what deals were being made around advertising to support these airings. To get a sense of the g
eneral opinion about these media players, I visited various blogs, leaving my comments as I went. The first relevant entry I found was by Mike Boland of the Kelsey Group blog, a company that focuses on analyzing "business, social, economic and technology trends" and how they affect markets. His post "Online Experiment: Losing the Remote" looks at streaming site Hulu and why it is increasing its audience (for a complete discussion, be sure to check out part two, which discusses the implications of Hulu on advertising). I then turned to Bits, a New York Times blog run by Saul Hansell, who explains why "YouTube Pales Next to Hulu's Spiffy Multiplex," an examination of YouTube and how certain of its traits may prevent it from attracting the films of big name studios. As always, my comments are posted below for ease of reference.
"Online Experiment: Losing the Remote" by Mike Boland
Comment:
Thank you, Mr. Boland, for your thoughts on the world of online video! As I read your post, I was suddenly struck by the realization that my situation is similar to your own, namely that nearly all of the programs I watch can be viewed on the web; indeed, I have come to prefer watching shows on my laptop as it allows me to access entertainment at my leisure instead of rushing desperately about to make sure that I am in front of the TV at the correct time. In addition, the quality of streaming video seems to be improving and the image is often better than the low reception my television gets on basic channels. While the clarity of picture does not, as you point out, equal that of HD, I am hesitant to agree that this handicap alone will stem the tide of those favoring online viewing over cable. It seems to me to be a small price to pay for fewer interruptions and more flexibility, and I believe that the number of people watching television on the Internet can only increase, especially given the trend of studios making content legally available, like MGM's recent deal with YouTube. Based on this, I was interested in your thoughts on the future of advertising in this medium. I have read Part II of your post and your discussion of Hulu's "limited commercial interruption" tactic. Do you think the five-minute ad break on regular TV will eventually become a thing of the past, in favor of these shorter, simpler marketing campaigns? Even if cable television remains active, this seems a likely scenario. Since DVRs make it easy to fast-forward commercials, stations may find it necessary to negotiate for "mandatory" advertising, in a similar fashion to web-based players, which suspend the ability to skip ahead until one thirty-second announcement finishes playing. Also, the practice of one company sponsoring an entire TV show is not an entirely new concept; programming decades ago used to be dedicated to the promotion of one product. Soap operas, for instance, got their start from detergent companies trying to take advantage of a target audience. I find it slightly amusing that the industry seems to have come full circle and is taking a page from the early days of its existence.
"YouTube Pales Next to Hulu's Spiffy Multiplex" by Saul Hansell
Comment:
Thank you, Mr. Hansell, for your analysis of the flaws of YouTube! It is indeed a cluttered, difficult-to-navigate website which can be frustrating to use. It seems geared towards driving visitors to wander aimlessly around in the hopes of coming across something mildly interesting. Hulu, while not perfect, appears to have higher quality streaming and, as you say, much more easily acces
sible video. Granted, it is difficult to organize material when new eclectic entries are posted every day by anonymous users, but it would be advantageous to create a seperate area on the webpage for sponsored content, instead of burying it among the myriad of other media. I was interested in your belief that studios are hesitant about mixing their films with the homemade material of the average viewer, for fear of tarnishing their product. It is a very valid point; in my mind I seem to equate watching YouTube with junk television, a connotation which indeed carried over when I began looking its CBS channel. Mike Boland at the Kelsey Group Blog (http://blog.kelseygroup.com/index.php/2008/11/11/losing-the-remote-will-drm-win-over-content-producers/) says that part of the attraction of YouTube for its average user is its "faux underground appeal." Based on that, how likely is it that Google will overhaul the website? Are there any worries about alienating its consumer base? I feel that any aesthetic changes could only be a benefit and make the site more palatable to a mainstream audience, so long as the mechanics of posting remain the same. I am actually surprised that YouTube has managed to make deals at all with companies like CBS and MGM, given the issues that you have discussed. But the content they have agreed to distribute indicates just how hesitant they are about the platform; is airing episodes of the original American Gladiator going to gain YouTube any prestige? Doubtful. I wonder if these steps are made by studios to entice the website to step it up a notch and enhance its services, in the hopes of snagging more prominent material in the future.
eneral opinion about these media players, I visited various blogs, leaving my comments as I went. The first relevant entry I found was by Mike Boland of the Kelsey Group blog, a company that focuses on analyzing "business, social, economic and technology trends" and how they affect markets. His post "Online Experiment: Losing the Remote" looks at streaming site Hulu and why it is increasing its audience (for a complete discussion, be sure to check out part two, which discusses the implications of Hulu on advertising). I then turned to Bits, a New York Times blog run by Saul Hansell, who explains why "YouTube Pales Next to Hulu's Spiffy Multiplex," an examination of YouTube and how certain of its traits may prevent it from attracting the films of big name studios. As always, my comments are posted below for ease of reference."Online Experiment: Losing the Remote" by Mike Boland
Comment:
Thank you, Mr. Boland, for your thoughts on the world of online video! As I read your post, I was suddenly struck by the realization that my situation is similar to your own, namely that nearly all of the programs I watch can be viewed on the web; indeed, I have come to prefer watching shows on my laptop as it allows me to access entertainment at my leisure instead of rushing desperately about to make sure that I am in front of the TV at the correct time. In addition, the quality of streaming video seems to be improving and the image is often better than the low reception my television gets on basic channels. While the clarity of picture does not, as you point out, equal that of HD, I am hesitant to agree that this handicap alone will stem the tide of those favoring online viewing over cable. It seems to me to be a small price to pay for fewer interruptions and more flexibility, and I believe that the number of people watching television on the Internet can only increase, especially given the trend of studios making content legally available, like MGM's recent deal with YouTube. Based on this, I was interested in your thoughts on the future of advertising in this medium. I have read Part II of your post and your discussion of Hulu's "limited commercial interruption" tactic. Do you think the five-minute ad break on regular TV will eventually become a thing of the past, in favor of these shorter, simpler marketing campaigns? Even if cable television remains active, this seems a likely scenario. Since DVRs make it easy to fast-forward commercials, stations may find it necessary to negotiate for "mandatory" advertising, in a similar fashion to web-based players, which suspend the ability to skip ahead until one thirty-second announcement finishes playing. Also, the practice of one company sponsoring an entire TV show is not an entirely new concept; programming decades ago used to be dedicated to the promotion of one product. Soap operas, for instance, got their start from detergent companies trying to take advantage of a target audience. I find it slightly amusing that the industry seems to have come full circle and is taking a page from the early days of its existence.
"YouTube Pales Next to Hulu's Spiffy Multiplex" by Saul Hansell
Comment:
Thank you, Mr. Hansell, for your analysis of the flaws of YouTube! It is indeed a cluttered, difficult-to-navigate website which can be frustrating to use. It seems geared towards driving visitors to wander aimlessly around in the hopes of coming across something mildly interesting. Hulu, while not perfect, appears to have higher quality streaming and, as you say, much more easily acces
sible video. Granted, it is difficult to organize material when new eclectic entries are posted every day by anonymous users, but it would be advantageous to create a seperate area on the webpage for sponsored content, instead of burying it among the myriad of other media. I was interested in your belief that studios are hesitant about mixing their films with the homemade material of the average viewer, for fear of tarnishing their product. It is a very valid point; in my mind I seem to equate watching YouTube with junk television, a connotation which indeed carried over when I began looking its CBS channel. Mike Boland at the Kelsey Group Blog (http://blog.kelseygroup.com/index.php/2008/11/11/losing-the-remote-will-drm-win-over-content-producers/) says that part of the attraction of YouTube for its average user is its "faux underground appeal." Based on that, how likely is it that Google will overhaul the website? Are there any worries about alienating its consumer base? I feel that any aesthetic changes could only be a benefit and make the site more palatable to a mainstream audience, so long as the mechanics of posting remain the same. I am actually surprised that YouTube has managed to make deals at all with companies like CBS and MGM, given the issues that you have discussed. But the content they have agreed to distribute indicates just how hesitant they are about the platform; is airing episodes of the original American Gladiator going to gain YouTube any prestige? Doubtful. I wonder if these steps are made by studios to entice the website to step it up a notch and enhance its services, in the hopes of snagging more prominent material in the future.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Censored: Are Review Embargoes Outdated?
Movie reviews. The world takes them for granted. They are the columns that let readers know which pieces of cinema to avoid, which are good for children, and which are sure genius, a feature we accept as an everyday convenience. So it may be surprising to find that this commonplace piece of criticism has become the source of a heated debate. When reading Patrick Goldstein's Los Angeles Times blog The Big Picture, however, that is exactly what I discovered. His post "We're reviewing Milk whether Focus Features wants us to or not" discusses a long-standing practice called "review embargoes," where a studio screens a film for the press, with the caveat that they cannot print their critiques until a certain date. The controversy, which has been ongoing for som
e time, is currently centered around the circumstances of recent reviews for Oscar-hopeful Milk: Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, two trade magazines with considerable clout, were allowed by Focus Features (producers of Milk) to run their analyses of the picture weeks before any of the other critics who attended the preview showing, leaving pundits for smaller outlets to cry foul, or in Goldstein's case, to break the ban. Once one gets past the finger pointing, the heart of the matter is that, due to the wide-spread use of the Internet, the complicated rules of review embargoes about who can publish what and when are an increasingly outdated form of marketing control.
The biggest problem with review embargoes is the multitude of dates when the embargo is lifted for various critics, especially since the current system does not adequately handle the impact of the World Wide Web on journalism. On the surface, there is a logical progression to when reporters can publish their reviews, based on such factors as whether their news medium comes out once a week or daily. But there are even more guidelines that allow certain trade magazines (publications that are aimed at workers in an industry) like Variety to be free of restrictions well in advance of anyone else. David Poland (pictured below), an outspoken critic of embargoes, argues that this is especially outmoded since most "are no longer primarily a trade magazine. They are websites." In the past, Variety would have largely been seen by a small, select group, mainly those employed in the film business of Hollywood, a fact that partly justified--or at least minimized the impact of--its special treatment. But now that Variety is also online, it has a much wider circulation than it did in the past, spreading reviews well beyond hard-copy subscribers to anyone with Internet access, unfairly scooping every other newspaper and column in the process. Some may argue that this is part of the business; certain reporters get breaks ahead of others. It is one thing, however, to follow a lead or to get a tip that gives one an advantage over the competition. It is quite another to have a company give all columnists the same information and then tell all but two of them to wait three weeks before they run the material. If studios want to allow certain journalists to write their notices early, they should get a separate screening, a tactic that is more akin to granting an exclusive story. In addition, this privilege should be rotated around so that one or two outlets cannot monopolize the market for first reviews. For the rest, the embargo should be lifted on the same date, leaving the papers with the final decision about when to print their thoughts.
Another complication in the mechanics of review embargoes is the argument over what exactly constitutes a "review," especially given the influence of the Internet. As a case in point, examine this post by David Poland, made through his iPhone immediately after viewing Milk. Patrick Goldstein in his aforementioned blog states that Poland's entry "looks like a post" to him. But Poland claims that it is in keeping with Focus Features guidelines, which allowed reporters to distribute "their brief thoughts" on the movie. The difference between "brief thoughts" and a "review," aside from the obvious variation in word count, is highly subjective, with the ultimate decision on the definition residing with the studios themselves. This is further complicated by the changing face of who is writing these critiques. In his denouncing of embargoes, Poland cites multiple instanc
es where a person has managed to skirt around the rules because a studio did not officially classify him as a "film critic" and therefore did not force him to agree to the same contract as the rest of the members of the press. Is a blogger a "film critic"? Today, the ability to reach a mass audience is no longer restricted to accredited journalists. If a blogger manages to secure a ticket to an advance screening, is he bound by the same embargo rules? What of the reporter who works mainly by blogging for a major newspaper? When is he allowed to publish his thoughts? There are dozens of new complications brought to the foreground by the Internet, and even the intricate rules of the embargo cannot cover all the loopholes.
Why do studios stick with a policy that is increasingly flawed? The answer appears to be that they are still trying to maintain control in a culture that revolves around the free flow of information. As Ben Child of the Guardian points out, marketers are notorious for attempting to suppress negative press on a movie before it comes out to prevent potential revenue loss. Aintitcool.com was forced to pull its early bad review of The Clone Wars, though Empire Online's fairly positive feedback was untouched. If a product does not look like it will do well at the box office, the embargo may be held as long as possible, up to the day of its release, in an endeavor to contain the momentum of poor word of mouth. Journalists cannot do much to fight this, as those who break the ban risk not being issued a pass for the next movie screening, something they are not willing to hazard. On the one hand, marketers have an obligation to make sure that their films succeed in the box office. But should they be allowed ultimate control over which critiques are available to the public? It is tactic that benefits the companies' pocketbooks, but not the consumer, who has a right to know if a picture is worth their time and money. Keeping columnists from spreading the word that a film is not worth either seems to be lying by omission. In an ideal situation, the studios should control when a movie is screened, but not what happens afterward. When and where a review is posted needs to be left to the journalists, not to those who have it in their best interests to avoid possible bad press. As long as studios control who gets early access to a picture, however, it is doubtful that a revolution is anywhere in the making.
e time, is currently centered around the circumstances of recent reviews for Oscar-hopeful Milk: Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, two trade magazines with considerable clout, were allowed by Focus Features (producers of Milk) to run their analyses of the picture weeks before any of the other critics who attended the preview showing, leaving pundits for smaller outlets to cry foul, or in Goldstein's case, to break the ban. Once one gets past the finger pointing, the heart of the matter is that, due to the wide-spread use of the Internet, the complicated rules of review embargoes about who can publish what and when are an increasingly outdated form of marketing control.The biggest problem with review embargoes is the multitude of dates when the embargo is lifted for various critics, especially since the current system does not adequately handle the impact of the World Wide Web on journalism. On the surface, there is a logical progression to when reporters can publish their reviews, based on such factors as whether their news medium comes out once a week or daily. But there are even more guidelines that allow certain trade magazines (publications that are aimed at workers in an industry) like Variety to be free of restrictions well in advance of anyone else. David Poland (pictured below), an outspoken critic of embargoes, argues that this is especially outmoded since most "are no longer primarily a trade magazine. They are websites." In the past, Variety would have largely been seen by a small, select group, mainly those employed in the film business of Hollywood, a fact that partly justified--or at least minimized the impact of--its special treatment. But now that Variety is also online, it has a much wider circulation than it did in the past, spreading reviews well beyond hard-copy subscribers to anyone with Internet access, unfairly scooping every other newspaper and column in the process. Some may argue that this is part of the business; certain reporters get breaks ahead of others. It is one thing, however, to follow a lead or to get a tip that gives one an advantage over the competition. It is quite another to have a company give all columnists the same information and then tell all but two of them to wait three weeks before they run the material. If studios want to allow certain journalists to write their notices early, they should get a separate screening, a tactic that is more akin to granting an exclusive story. In addition, this privilege should be rotated around so that one or two outlets cannot monopolize the market for first reviews. For the rest, the embargo should be lifted on the same date, leaving the papers with the final decision about when to print their thoughts.
Another complication in the mechanics of review embargoes is the argument over what exactly constitutes a "review," especially given the influence of the Internet. As a case in point, examine this post by David Poland, made through his iPhone immediately after viewing Milk. Patrick Goldstein in his aforementioned blog states that Poland's entry "looks like a post" to him. But Poland claims that it is in keeping with Focus Features guidelines, which allowed reporters to distribute "their brief thoughts" on the movie. The difference between "brief thoughts" and a "review," aside from the obvious variation in word count, is highly subjective, with the ultimate decision on the definition residing with the studios themselves. This is further complicated by the changing face of who is writing these critiques. In his denouncing of embargoes, Poland cites multiple instanc
es where a person has managed to skirt around the rules because a studio did not officially classify him as a "film critic" and therefore did not force him to agree to the same contract as the rest of the members of the press. Is a blogger a "film critic"? Today, the ability to reach a mass audience is no longer restricted to accredited journalists. If a blogger manages to secure a ticket to an advance screening, is he bound by the same embargo rules? What of the reporter who works mainly by blogging for a major newspaper? When is he allowed to publish his thoughts? There are dozens of new complications brought to the foreground by the Internet, and even the intricate rules of the embargo cannot cover all the loopholes.Why do studios stick with a policy that is increasingly flawed? The answer appears to be that they are still trying to maintain control in a culture that revolves around the free flow of information. As Ben Child of the Guardian points out, marketers are notorious for attempting to suppress negative press on a movie before it comes out to prevent potential revenue loss. Aintitcool.com was forced to pull its early bad review of The Clone Wars, though Empire Online's fairly positive feedback was untouched. If a product does not look like it will do well at the box office, the embargo may be held as long as possible, up to the day of its release, in an endeavor to contain the momentum of poor word of mouth. Journalists cannot do much to fight this, as those who break the ban risk not being issued a pass for the next movie screening, something they are not willing to hazard. On the one hand, marketers have an obligation to make sure that their films succeed in the box office. But should they be allowed ultimate control over which critiques are available to the public? It is tactic that benefits the companies' pocketbooks, but not the consumer, who has a right to know if a picture is worth their time and money. Keeping columnists from spreading the word that a film is not worth either seems to be lying by omission. In an ideal situation, the studios should control when a movie is screened, but not what happens afterward. When and where a review is posted needs to be left to the journalists, not to those who have it in their best interests to avoid possible bad press. As long as studios control who gets early access to a picture, however, it is doubtful that a revolution is anywhere in the making.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Pop Oscars: Do Box Office Winners Deserve a Chance at the Academy Awards?
After taking a look at the growing interest in three-dimensional movies, it is time for The Vault once again to train its eyes on the vigorous debates that surround the Academy Awards. A stone was recently thrown into the pond when the New York Times ran an article by Michael Cieply and Brooks Barnes about a trend they are calling the "pop Oscars." The term refers to the apparent recent dominance of big box office movies in the award race, as The Dark Knight, Wall-E, Tropic Thunder, and even Iron Man are increasing their bids for nominations. As a result, Cieply and Barnes argue that there is a shift in studio focus from quieter films such as No Country For Old Men which are "critic-friendly but [have a] limited audience" to blockbusters with mass appeal. Indeed, the reporters characterize the move as "pushing" these big-budget movies into the limelight. Quite a bit of discussion has been generated around the blogosphere by the derogatory tone the article takes towards the idea of letting any of these films anywhere near a golden statue. Deciding to get involved in the o
ngoing dialogue, I first commented at Monkey See, a blog by Linda Holmes on the website of NPR. Her post "Beware the Pop Oscars! (Whoops, Hang On: False Alarm)" rightly points out the ludicrousness of eliminating a film from award consideration simply because it was popular. Similarly, Brad Brevet of RopeofSilicon.com critiques the article from another angle, analyzing the logic used by the writers, as well as details they gloss over or ignore. My comment to his post "Oscar Update: Blockbuster vs. Contender...Setting the Record Straight" as well as my comment at the blog Monkey See have been posted below for easy access.
"Beware the Pop Oscars! (Whoops, Hang On: False Alarm)" by Linda Holmes
Comment:
Thank you, Ms. Holmes, for your extremely well-written critique of the New York Times article on the supposed phenomenon of the "pop Oscars." I particularly liked your use of humor to point out how the fears of Cieply and Barnes are largely ridiculous. Their harsh reaction to the bids of these prominent films probably has quite a bit to do with their worry that the chances of independent movies to secure an award will be diminished as a result. There are, after all, only five nomination spots, and every one that is taken by a multimillion-dollar grossing film is one that a small-budget film cannot fill. But while there are certainly many lesser-known pictures that should gain attention, they should not automatically take precedence over the "Popular Movies." Success should not be penalized. It is unfortunate that, as you point out "Good Movies" and "Popular Movies" are today regarded as mutually exclusive categories. I believe that it is possible for a "Good Movie" to speak to themes that are important to everyone and to do so in a way that appeals to a mass audience. Wall-E was well-reviewed, dealt with materialism and environmentalism and was both genuinely funny and touching; all of those elements just happened to appeal to movie viewers enough to make it one of the best box office grossers of 2008. Why should all the merits of Wall-E be discredited simply because it happens to be well-known? The fact that it managed to entertain millions of people with its message should only be a tick in its favor. On another note, do you think that a film necessarily has to deal with weighty issues to be worthy of Best Picture? To me, that category implies that those involved in making the movie took all the elements of cinema and united them better than anyone else did in Hollywood that year. If a comedy (which you point out is widely shunned by Academy voters) can accomplish this as well as any drama, it should at least be considered for an Oscar.
"Oscar Update: Blockbuster vs. Contender...Setting the Record Straight" by Brad Brevet
Comment:
Mr. Brevet, thank you for a wonderful post on the flaws of the "pop Oscars" article in the New York Times. I think it particularly enlightening that Cieply and Barnes fail to adequately mention how both Wall-E and The Dark Knight were extremely well-reviewed. While they do mention the attention Wall-E got for some of its more innovative cinematic techniques, there is no mention of The Dark Knight's critical success. What is more, the writers obviously think that popularity tarnishes a movie's reputation, regardless of how much praise is heaped on it by critics across the country. The fact that it appealed not just to movie commentators, but to the public at large, should only enhance its status, not degrade it. You also rightly ridic
ule the idea that the Warner Bros. suddenly "decided" to campaign for a nomination for The Dark Knight, as if they looked only at box office receipts and not the dozens of reviews that hailed it as a seminal piece of work. Any studio that possesses a film as lauded as The Dark Knight would be looked at incredulously if it did not attempt to ride the momentum to the Academy Awards. On the other hand, do you think there is any validity to the worry that big-budget movies could overwhelm smaller independent films in the Oscar race? Given how many pictures in the competition over the last few years have been relative unknowns, I do not believe the trend will reverse overnight. After all, only three or four of the films in the running for the major categories are what the Times would label "pop"; the vast majority are in the same vein as contenders from past Oscar ceremonies. I was also as baffled as you were about the notion that Academy voters were unaware they could nominate a film for both Best Picture and Best Animated Feature. I would certainly hope that voters would have the wherewithal to double-check the regulations before they submit their ballots. It seems that the New York Times is merely trying to predict the doom of Wall-E before the votes are even cast.
ngoing dialogue, I first commented at Monkey See, a blog by Linda Holmes on the website of NPR. Her post "Beware the Pop Oscars! (Whoops, Hang On: False Alarm)" rightly points out the ludicrousness of eliminating a film from award consideration simply because it was popular. Similarly, Brad Brevet of RopeofSilicon.com critiques the article from another angle, analyzing the logic used by the writers, as well as details they gloss over or ignore. My comment to his post "Oscar Update: Blockbuster vs. Contender...Setting the Record Straight" as well as my comment at the blog Monkey See have been posted below for easy access."Beware the Pop Oscars! (Whoops, Hang On: False Alarm)" by Linda Holmes
Comment:
Thank you, Ms. Holmes, for your extremely well-written critique of the New York Times article on the supposed phenomenon of the "pop Oscars." I particularly liked your use of humor to point out how the fears of Cieply and Barnes are largely ridiculous. Their harsh reaction to the bids of these prominent films probably has quite a bit to do with their worry that the chances of independent movies to secure an award will be diminished as a result. There are, after all, only five nomination spots, and every one that is taken by a multimillion-dollar grossing film is one that a small-budget film cannot fill. But while there are certainly many lesser-known pictures that should gain attention, they should not automatically take precedence over the "Popular Movies." Success should not be penalized. It is unfortunate that, as you point out "Good Movies" and "Popular Movies" are today regarded as mutually exclusive categories. I believe that it is possible for a "Good Movie" to speak to themes that are important to everyone and to do so in a way that appeals to a mass audience. Wall-E was well-reviewed, dealt with materialism and environmentalism and was both genuinely funny and touching; all of those elements just happened to appeal to movie viewers enough to make it one of the best box office grossers of 2008. Why should all the merits of Wall-E be discredited simply because it happens to be well-known? The fact that it managed to entertain millions of people with its message should only be a tick in its favor. On another note, do you think that a film necessarily has to deal with weighty issues to be worthy of Best Picture? To me, that category implies that those involved in making the movie took all the elements of cinema and united them better than anyone else did in Hollywood that year. If a comedy (which you point out is widely shunned by Academy voters) can accomplish this as well as any drama, it should at least be considered for an Oscar.
"Oscar Update: Blockbuster vs. Contender...Setting the Record Straight" by Brad Brevet
Comment:
Mr. Brevet, thank you for a wonderful post on the flaws of the "pop Oscars" article in the New York Times. I think it particularly enlightening that Cieply and Barnes fail to adequately mention how both Wall-E and The Dark Knight were extremely well-reviewed. While they do mention the attention Wall-E got for some of its more innovative cinematic techniques, there is no mention of The Dark Knight's critical success. What is more, the writers obviously think that popularity tarnishes a movie's reputation, regardless of how much praise is heaped on it by critics across the country. The fact that it appealed not just to movie commentators, but to the public at large, should only enhance its status, not degrade it. You also rightly ridic
ule the idea that the Warner Bros. suddenly "decided" to campaign for a nomination for The Dark Knight, as if they looked only at box office receipts and not the dozens of reviews that hailed it as a seminal piece of work. Any studio that possesses a film as lauded as The Dark Knight would be looked at incredulously if it did not attempt to ride the momentum to the Academy Awards. On the other hand, do you think there is any validity to the worry that big-budget movies could overwhelm smaller independent films in the Oscar race? Given how many pictures in the competition over the last few years have been relative unknowns, I do not believe the trend will reverse overnight. After all, only three or four of the films in the running for the major categories are what the Times would label "pop"; the vast majority are in the same vein as contenders from past Oscar ceremonies. I was also as baffled as you were about the notion that Academy voters were unaware they could nominate a film for both Best Picture and Best Animated Feature. I would certainly hope that voters would have the wherewithal to double-check the regulations before they submit their ballots. It seems that the New York Times is merely trying to predict the doom of Wall-E before the votes are even cast.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Blast from the Past: The Future of 3-D Films
The latest news to be brought to the attention of readers of The Vault is this: a decades-old fad may soon be coming to a theaters everywhere. On October 1, Disney, Fox, Paramount, Universal and Lionsgate signed a deal with Regal Cinemas, AMC and Cinemark to cover "the majority of the costs" to upgrade their cinemas with new digital systems. Roughly 14,000 locations will be affected by this agreement, which will take three years to fully enact. While the main benefit is that films can now be transfer
red to venues "over a phone line" instead of in physical reels, studios are licking their chops about an intended side effect: these 14,000 screens will now be ready to play 3-D pictures. The contract is the newest manifestation of what seems to be a growing interest in this format, as evidenced by its use over the last year in the films Beowulf and Journey to the Center of the Earth. Disney announced in September that it is developing sixteen three-dimensional movies, including the nearly completed Bolt, which is scheduled to release in November. The prominent animation company is not the only one diving headfirst into this niche in the market. Given that this style of filmmaking has often been much maligned, it may be surprising to some that the technology is being invested in so wholeheartedly. But the revelation that the three-dimensional version of Journey to the Center of the Earth sold three times as many tickets as the standard version has many rethinking their past criticisms. It is my opinion that a combination of poor content and inadequate projection capabilities has been largely responsible for the failure of 3-D to gain traction. Both of these obstacles appear to be well on their way to being conquered, making the format a viable medium for the future.
As I just mentioned, a large hurdle preventing the proliferation of 3-D films has long been the technology itself. In his article on the history of three-dimensional effects, Andy Rose of Movie Maker discusses how early products created "severe eye strain after short periods of time" or required the head to be held at a precise angle for the effect to work. This is certainly not an experience that will garner repeat business. But today, companies such as RealD 3D have resolved many of these problems through such innovations as digital projection and polarized glasses that allow freedom of movement and prevent physical pain. RealD has even made it possible for those who are color-blind to view three-dimensional pictures. Not everything is completely solved, however, as filmmakers are still discovering the best way to handle the new medium. When Journey to the Center of the Earth was screened for test audiences, they showed a dislike for the rapid cuts inherent in an action movie and instead wanted longer sequences that would allow a full appreciation of the depth of the image before them. This may mean that the three-dimensional method should not be used for fast-paced adventure films and instead be reserved for more contemplative pieces that allow for longer camera shots. Like all new techniques, it will take some time for a total understanding of 3-D to be realized, but this should not discourage its use altogether.
The process of 3-D is hardly new and innovative. Jeremy Kay at The Guardian explains that it is actually over a century old. It gained popularity during the 1950s as studios tried to compete with television by providing an experience that could only be found in theaters. But the craze died out, aside from a few sporadic re
leases over the next few decades. Why? A good portion of the blame can be charged to poor storylines that most likely would have failed even without the added projection "gimmick." By examining a list of 3-D movies during the 1950s (scroll down to find the relevant section) one can discover such gem titles as Cat Women of the Moon, Revenge of the Creature and Jesse James vs. the Daltons. Admittedly, some, like Kiss Me, Kate and Hondo, were of quality content, but by and large these were overshadowed by the plethora of cheaply made horror and fantasy flicks. Films in later decades were hardly better; Jaws 3D is a prime example. With the future of 3-D resting on the above-mentioned material, it is little wonder that studios saw small promise in the format. But the pictures that are slated for development seem to be aiming for a higher level of excellence overall. For instance, Disney's Pixar, which has turned out one hit movie after another, will release all of its future products in 3-D according to the announcement I referenced earlier in this post. Studios with solid credentials such as these can hopefully be trusted not to sacrifice elements like plot when putting this new technology to work.
Some, including none other than prominent film critic Roger Ebert, believe that 3-D detracts too much from the story itself; Ebert goes so far as to say he will view Journey again in standard form "to see the movie inside the distracting technique." I concede that, for a long time, his criticism has held true. As Ebert points out, viewers of many 1950s movies were unable to become engrossed in the plots since they were continuously being startled by "thrown" objects. But 3-D was a novelty several decades ago and as such, the studios could not resist showing it off. Today's audiences are much more familiar with the process and are already accepting of how the film is being presented, allowing them to enjoy the experience as a whole. I recently had the opportunity to view Hondo in a restored three-dimensional print. Although the Western was not devoid of spears hurled towards the camera, the intimate feeling it created, akin to watching a stage show, albeit on a large scale, impressed me. The screening proved that 3-D can enhance a performance by being an adornment that aids in the overall production, not the key idea around which a film is constructed. The technology will most likely continued to be perfected to render the clearest picture possibles. It is up to the artists of the cinema world to make the most of it.
red to venues "over a phone line" instead of in physical reels, studios are licking their chops about an intended side effect: these 14,000 screens will now be ready to play 3-D pictures. The contract is the newest manifestation of what seems to be a growing interest in this format, as evidenced by its use over the last year in the films Beowulf and Journey to the Center of the Earth. Disney announced in September that it is developing sixteen three-dimensional movies, including the nearly completed Bolt, which is scheduled to release in November. The prominent animation company is not the only one diving headfirst into this niche in the market. Given that this style of filmmaking has often been much maligned, it may be surprising to some that the technology is being invested in so wholeheartedly. But the revelation that the three-dimensional version of Journey to the Center of the Earth sold three times as many tickets as the standard version has many rethinking their past criticisms. It is my opinion that a combination of poor content and inadequate projection capabilities has been largely responsible for the failure of 3-D to gain traction. Both of these obstacles appear to be well on their way to being conquered, making the format a viable medium for the future.As I just mentioned, a large hurdle preventing the proliferation of 3-D films has long been the technology itself. In his article on the history of three-dimensional effects, Andy Rose of Movie Maker discusses how early products created "severe eye strain after short periods of time" or required the head to be held at a precise angle for the effect to work. This is certainly not an experience that will garner repeat business. But today, companies such as RealD 3D have resolved many of these problems through such innovations as digital projection and polarized glasses that allow freedom of movement and prevent physical pain. RealD has even made it possible for those who are color-blind to view three-dimensional pictures. Not everything is completely solved, however, as filmmakers are still discovering the best way to handle the new medium. When Journey to the Center of the Earth was screened for test audiences, they showed a dislike for the rapid cuts inherent in an action movie and instead wanted longer sequences that would allow a full appreciation of the depth of the image before them. This may mean that the three-dimensional method should not be used for fast-paced adventure films and instead be reserved for more contemplative pieces that allow for longer camera shots. Like all new techniques, it will take some time for a total understanding of 3-D to be realized, but this should not discourage its use altogether.
The process of 3-D is hardly new and innovative. Jeremy Kay at The Guardian explains that it is actually over a century old. It gained popularity during the 1950s as studios tried to compete with television by providing an experience that could only be found in theaters. But the craze died out, aside from a few sporadic re
leases over the next few decades. Why? A good portion of the blame can be charged to poor storylines that most likely would have failed even without the added projection "gimmick." By examining a list of 3-D movies during the 1950s (scroll down to find the relevant section) one can discover such gem titles as Cat Women of the Moon, Revenge of the Creature and Jesse James vs. the Daltons. Admittedly, some, like Kiss Me, Kate and Hondo, were of quality content, but by and large these were overshadowed by the plethora of cheaply made horror and fantasy flicks. Films in later decades were hardly better; Jaws 3D is a prime example. With the future of 3-D resting on the above-mentioned material, it is little wonder that studios saw small promise in the format. But the pictures that are slated for development seem to be aiming for a higher level of excellence overall. For instance, Disney's Pixar, which has turned out one hit movie after another, will release all of its future products in 3-D according to the announcement I referenced earlier in this post. Studios with solid credentials such as these can hopefully be trusted not to sacrifice elements like plot when putting this new technology to work.Some, including none other than prominent film critic Roger Ebert, believe that 3-D detracts too much from the story itself; Ebert goes so far as to say he will view Journey again in standard form "to see the movie inside the distracting technique." I concede that, for a long time, his criticism has held true. As Ebert points out, viewers of many 1950s movies were unable to become engrossed in the plots since they were continuously being startled by "thrown" objects. But 3-D was a novelty several decades ago and as such, the studios could not resist showing it off. Today's audiences are much more familiar with the process and are already accepting of how the film is being presented, allowing them to enjoy the experience as a whole. I recently had the opportunity to view Hondo in a restored three-dimensional print. Although the Western was not devoid of spears hurled towards the camera, the intimate feeling it created, akin to watching a stage show, albeit on a large scale, impressed me. The screening proved that 3-D can enhance a performance by being an adornment that aids in the overall production, not the key idea around which a film is constructed. The technology will most likely continued to be perfected to render the clearest picture possibles. It is up to the artists of the cinema world to make the most of it.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Hollywood Insight Roundup: A Look at Useful Websites and Blogs
It is no secret that the internet is abounding with a plethora of websites and blogs to provide any and all information a person could want to know. But the sheer amount of data can make it difficult to find quality resources to use. This week the Vault, using Webby and IMSA criteria, will point readers in the direction of a variety of online sites that are useful in perusing the goings-on in Hollywood. The most basic of these, of course, are those that are a vast repository of film knowledge that provide visitors a quick stop to find basic facts regarding movies. One of the most popular of these is the Internet Movie Database (also known as IMDb.com). Its main strength lies in the ability to connect one to an incredible amount of information in a matter of seconds, with a nicely laid-out front page and easy-to-use search engine. Navigation becomes tricky beyond the front page, however, as the number of links in tiny print becomes overwhelming. Contrasting with this is the more user-friendly Hollywood.com, which focuses on current and upcoming releases in both film and television. It encourages interactivity among its guests by giving them a space on the site to create their own personal fan page. Hollywood.com is hamstrung by a few faulty features, such as a theatre locator which only sporadically works. For those looking for the latest box office tallies, look no further than the helpful Box Office Mojo. The shoddy visual design hides a treasure trove of data that can be delved into through the use of logical links that allow the guest to progressively narrow the scope of the figures provided.
Several websites are useful for a daily perusal of stories, including Cinema Blend (left). Its layout makes navigating a simple task, but is literally overshadowed by film advertising pop-ups that take over the screen until they have completed playing. EW.com, companion site to the magazine Entertainment Weekly, is hampered by a tabloid-like layout that makes it a bit difficult to take seriously, though the "Today's Most Popular" sidebar allows quick access to hot stories. The Video Network found on The Hollywood Reporter o
ffers a change of pace in stories done in video fashion. Text stories, on the other hand, are difficult to search through as they are lumped on the pages in tiny print, making the Reporter middling at best. The New York Times: Movies section employs a diversity of media in a much better way that provides amazing features such as DVD-like commentaries on movie sequences by directors; detracting from this well-done content are film reviews that contain barbed political comments that are irrelevant to the reviews themselves. Another good mainstream source of Hollywood stories is Variety which makes maneuvering easy through a navigation bar that uses dropdown menus to break its news and resources into concise categories to allow readers to find exactly what they need, though the slow loading of its pages on some computers can discourage extensive browsing. For a look at Hollywood from outside the U.S., look at British Times Online: Arts and Entertainment. An outdated Oscar section mars an otherwise decent website that does a good job of providing a variety of content that is sometimes arranged in unique categories, such as "Countdown to the New 007." Combining a look back at the classics with a look at new releases is film critic Leonard Maltin's Movie Crazy which easily allows readers to purchase recommended movies through well-placed links to Amazon, but whose visual design causes entries to blur together, making Movie Crazy a bit disappointing. First Showing, a website focusing on upcoming releases, is well-designed, including a marquee that slowly flashes featured articles to examine, though some pages are not kept current, which keeps First Showing from being polished. To truly stay up-to-date with Hollywood, turn to the MTV Movies Blog, which provides the latest news and interviews to its readers in a concise manner. Its functionality and versatility is exemplified in the video footage that is placed directly in stories for effortless use, but a lack of an archive feature means that looking for a past story involves backtracking page by page. Another good blog is The Big Picture by Patrick Goldstein. It contains a timely, critical look at the intersection of entertainment and pop culture, with multiple posts a day; the blog could be improved with more links inside the posts to point its readers in the direction of other or complementary views to his own.
There are also a host of sites dedicated to official organizations within Hollywood. The National Film Preservation Foundation, a solid site that has clips from some of the footage it has restored available to view online, allowing the guest to get a feel for the work of the NFPF. It does not allow much other interactivity, however, which gives it a static feel. The American Film Institute, on the other hand, is full of things to do in its well-designed website, complete with video, podcasts, and movie quizzes that provide a variety of media to enjoy. Its lack of a forum or other discussion area is one of the few things that stops it from being truly interactive. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has a pleasing layout that unfortunately turns austere when one realizes that this is an informational website that allows no interactivity at all. The Hollywood Foreign Press Association, the official website for the Golden Globes, does a wonderful job of employing video footage by providing a navigable video gallery of acceptance speeches and interviews from the last awards show, though lack of updating when the Globes are not ongoing makes the pages a bit stagnant.
For Academy Award discussion, one should turn to In Contention, a site devoted to every bit of minutia related to the Oscar awards coverage. The ability to comment on every article or post made on In Contention, as well as daily round-ups of links to relevant news stories, makes it a great springboard for discussion among those who have a passion for the Oscars. Unfortunately, the poorly organized posts make it difficult to sift through
stories. The Envelope (right), the Los Angeles Times's self-professed "Awards Insider," does a good job of making news stories easily accessible with links arranged into categories, but sometimes provides outdated links that can lead to details for previous award years, instead of current information. Within The Envelope lies a rather good blog entitled Gold Derby, written by film critic Tom O'Neil. O'Neil combines his analysis with comments from other critics, complete with links to the original source, that allows easy access to a host of opinions. There is no permanent section of links to sites outside of the Los Angeles Times, however, which does not provide the reader resources to further his exploration of other Hollywood news. But the Vault does provide a linkroll, and it is my hope that it will provide guests with many venues to delve into the world of Tinsel Town.
Several websites are useful for a daily perusal of stories, including Cinema Blend (left). Its layout makes navigating a simple task, but is literally overshadowed by film advertising pop-ups that take over the screen until they have completed playing. EW.com, companion site to the magazine Entertainment Weekly, is hampered by a tabloid-like layout that makes it a bit difficult to take seriously, though the "Today's Most Popular" sidebar allows quick access to hot stories. The Video Network found on The Hollywood Reporter o
ffers a change of pace in stories done in video fashion. Text stories, on the other hand, are difficult to search through as they are lumped on the pages in tiny print, making the Reporter middling at best. The New York Times: Movies section employs a diversity of media in a much better way that provides amazing features such as DVD-like commentaries on movie sequences by directors; detracting from this well-done content are film reviews that contain barbed political comments that are irrelevant to the reviews themselves. Another good mainstream source of Hollywood stories is Variety which makes maneuvering easy through a navigation bar that uses dropdown menus to break its news and resources into concise categories to allow readers to find exactly what they need, though the slow loading of its pages on some computers can discourage extensive browsing. For a look at Hollywood from outside the U.S., look at British Times Online: Arts and Entertainment. An outdated Oscar section mars an otherwise decent website that does a good job of providing a variety of content that is sometimes arranged in unique categories, such as "Countdown to the New 007." Combining a look back at the classics with a look at new releases is film critic Leonard Maltin's Movie Crazy which easily allows readers to purchase recommended movies through well-placed links to Amazon, but whose visual design causes entries to blur together, making Movie Crazy a bit disappointing. First Showing, a website focusing on upcoming releases, is well-designed, including a marquee that slowly flashes featured articles to examine, though some pages are not kept current, which keeps First Showing from being polished. To truly stay up-to-date with Hollywood, turn to the MTV Movies Blog, which provides the latest news and interviews to its readers in a concise manner. Its functionality and versatility is exemplified in the video footage that is placed directly in stories for effortless use, but a lack of an archive feature means that looking for a past story involves backtracking page by page. Another good blog is The Big Picture by Patrick Goldstein. It contains a timely, critical look at the intersection of entertainment and pop culture, with multiple posts a day; the blog could be improved with more links inside the posts to point its readers in the direction of other or complementary views to his own.There are also a host of sites dedicated to official organizations within Hollywood. The National Film Preservation Foundation, a solid site that has clips from some of the footage it has restored available to view online, allowing the guest to get a feel for the work of the NFPF. It does not allow much other interactivity, however, which gives it a static feel. The American Film Institute, on the other hand, is full of things to do in its well-designed website, complete with video, podcasts, and movie quizzes that provide a variety of media to enjoy. Its lack of a forum or other discussion area is one of the few things that stops it from being truly interactive. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has a pleasing layout that unfortunately turns austere when one realizes that this is an informational website that allows no interactivity at all. The Hollywood Foreign Press Association, the official website for the Golden Globes, does a wonderful job of employing video footage by providing a navigable video gallery of acceptance speeches and interviews from the last awards show, though lack of updating when the Globes are not ongoing makes the pages a bit stagnant.
For Academy Award discussion, one should turn to In Contention, a site devoted to every bit of minutia related to the Oscar awards coverage. The ability to comment on every article or post made on In Contention, as well as daily round-ups of links to relevant news stories, makes it a great springboard for discussion among those who have a passion for the Oscars. Unfortunately, the poorly organized posts make it difficult to sift through
stories. The Envelope (right), the Los Angeles Times's self-professed "Awards Insider," does a good job of making news stories easily accessible with links arranged into categories, but sometimes provides outdated links that can lead to details for previous award years, instead of current information. Within The Envelope lies a rather good blog entitled Gold Derby, written by film critic Tom O'Neil. O'Neil combines his analysis with comments from other critics, complete with links to the original source, that allows easy access to a host of opinions. There is no permanent section of links to sites outside of the Los Angeles Times, however, which does not provide the reader resources to further his exploration of other Hollywood news. But the Vault does provide a linkroll, and it is my hope that it will provide guests with many venues to delve into the world of Tinsel Town.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Oscars, Oscars: Comments on Award Hype and the Status of the Awards Show
Last time at The Vault, I posed the idea that current Oscar hype is unnecessarily overwhelming. Given 24-hour news services, we are inundated with constant updates on the smallest tidbit of information that could affect who is in the lead in the race to secure an Oscar nomination. These updates are often superficial, sometimes including analysis of movies that have not even come out yet. But, as reader Teddy Riley points out in his comment on that post, not all Oscar coverage is necessarily bad. Looking at promising upcoming films is a good way to alert movie audiences of films that might otherwise slip under the radar. There is a fine line, however, between critically parsing a film's components to look for Oscar worthiness and bestowing an Oscar crown just because the plot and the lead actor sound like they fit the Oscar formula. I went out into the world wide web in hopes of finding Oscar predictions that can be examples of the better ways to handle our innate desire to choose the winner of any competition--even if the contest is still five months off. I found what I was looking for at Cinemablend.com, where Katey Rich recently wrote her thoughts about current contenders for the Oscar race in her post "Oscar Prediction Mania 09: Let the Games Begin!" What sounds like another superficial post based on little more than hype is actually a thoughtful, well-put-together look at films who may be Oscar contenders, based on word
from previews at film festivals and Ms. Rich's own viewing of films that have actually been released. On top of looking for decent analysis of the Oscar race, I also looked at responses to the recent announcement of who will produce the upcoming 2009 Oscars, namely Laurence Mark (right side of picture) and Bill Condon (left side), who respectively produced and directed Dreamgirls. This announcement has created a flurry of debate in the blogosphere and elsewhere on the state of the Academy Awards Ceremony itself, comments that are summed up nicely in a post entitled "Can the Oscars Be Saved?" by Patrick Goldstein of The Big Picture, a blog that is featured on the Los Angeles Times's website. For ease, I have posted my comments down below, as well as the links where you can find the original article and comment.
"Oscar Prediction Mania 09: Let the Games Begin!" by Katey Rich
Comment:
Ms. Rich, thank you for your detailed thoughts about the Oscar race! I particularly like that you have managed to separate yourself from the superficial hype that many pundits engage in when covering the Academy Awards and instead ground yourself in films that have already been released, either in film festivals or to the general public. After all, if the film has not been released yet (or as you mention, even completed yet!) how can one make a genuine claim about its Oscar chances? On that note, you mentioned that with so many Oscar potential films being released in December, some are bound to "get lost in the shuffle." Do you think that this will lead to a new look at marketing strategies as films try to stand out among the myriad of Oscar hopefuls? For instance, the marketing department at Warner Bros. seems to be pulling out all the stops in their attempts to get The Dark Knight recognized, re-releasing it in January and offering free Blu-ray copies of the film to Academy voters. Do you think other studios will start looking at employing similar tactics, or is this something they are already doing? On a similar note, I'm interested in your prediction that The Dark Knight will increase Oscar viewership during the upcoming Awards ceremony. Do you think there is a chance that the lengthy coverage of Heath Ledger's Oscar chances will burn out potential audience members by the time the Academy Awards rolls around in February 2009? While I agree that people are attracted to rooting for films they've actually seen, there may be a chance that some people will be numb to Ledger Oscar talk since it has been on everyone's minds since his untimely death. It will be interesting to see if The Dark Knight does indeed have the effect you predict. Given how the Oscars have become such a slow, dragged-out affair, I remain doubtful that even The Dark Knight can pull its ratings out of the mire. Many of those who root for its success may be satisfied finding updates online instead of wading through the ceremony itself.
"Can the Oscars Be Saved?" by Patrick Goldstein
Comment:
This is an excellent look at the reactions to the appointment of Mr. Mark and Mr. Condon! It is helpful to have a compilation of the various views on the state of the Academy Awards so that they can be compared easily. You also have some interesting ideas about how to fix the Oscars. I am intrigued about your suggestion to split the technical awards off from the main awards ceremony. This would certainly have the benefit of shortening the main broadc
ast, as well as reducing it to the awards that viewers care the most about, such as Best Picture and the various Best Acting categories. But conversely, since the technical categories are the ones that people are the least interested in, is there any guarantee that anyone will watch them if they have their own awards show? True, the younger generation may be more attracted to categories having to do with special effects and the like. And, as you suggest, it might be a good place to experiment with new, more effective ways of handling the ceremony. I feel, however, that such an awards ceremony will be much less of a draw than the current incarnation of the Academy Awards and would not be a successful endeavor. Indeed, I am not sure that there is any real way to fix the Oscars. It is already a dragged-out affair. The skits, musical numbers and tributes do serve to break up the monotony from the slew of presenters handing out the awards. Unfortunately, this also lengthens the proceedings, creating the need for more distracting gimmicks, creating a vicious circle in an attempt to balance length with entertainment. The shortest way to handle the affair would be to cut the films down to just handing out the awards, but this obviously would be an extreme solution. Other than splitting the technical awards off from the show, do you have other suggestions for how to improve the Academy Awards? What changes should be made for the 2009 ceremony? Besides better-staged musical numbers, is there anything else you hope that Mr. Mark and Mr. Condon will bring to the show?
from previews at film festivals and Ms. Rich's own viewing of films that have actually been released. On top of looking for decent analysis of the Oscar race, I also looked at responses to the recent announcement of who will produce the upcoming 2009 Oscars, namely Laurence Mark (right side of picture) and Bill Condon (left side), who respectively produced and directed Dreamgirls. This announcement has created a flurry of debate in the blogosphere and elsewhere on the state of the Academy Awards Ceremony itself, comments that are summed up nicely in a post entitled "Can the Oscars Be Saved?" by Patrick Goldstein of The Big Picture, a blog that is featured on the Los Angeles Times's website. For ease, I have posted my comments down below, as well as the links where you can find the original article and comment."Oscar Prediction Mania 09: Let the Games Begin!" by Katey Rich
Comment:
Ms. Rich, thank you for your detailed thoughts about the Oscar race! I particularly like that you have managed to separate yourself from the superficial hype that many pundits engage in when covering the Academy Awards and instead ground yourself in films that have already been released, either in film festivals or to the general public. After all, if the film has not been released yet (or as you mention, even completed yet!) how can one make a genuine claim about its Oscar chances? On that note, you mentioned that with so many Oscar potential films being released in December, some are bound to "get lost in the shuffle." Do you think that this will lead to a new look at marketing strategies as films try to stand out among the myriad of Oscar hopefuls? For instance, the marketing department at Warner Bros. seems to be pulling out all the stops in their attempts to get The Dark Knight recognized, re-releasing it in January and offering free Blu-ray copies of the film to Academy voters. Do you think other studios will start looking at employing similar tactics, or is this something they are already doing? On a similar note, I'm interested in your prediction that The Dark Knight will increase Oscar viewership during the upcoming Awards ceremony. Do you think there is a chance that the lengthy coverage of Heath Ledger's Oscar chances will burn out potential audience members by the time the Academy Awards rolls around in February 2009? While I agree that people are attracted to rooting for films they've actually seen, there may be a chance that some people will be numb to Ledger Oscar talk since it has been on everyone's minds since his untimely death. It will be interesting to see if The Dark Knight does indeed have the effect you predict. Given how the Oscars have become such a slow, dragged-out affair, I remain doubtful that even The Dark Knight can pull its ratings out of the mire. Many of those who root for its success may be satisfied finding updates online instead of wading through the ceremony itself.
"Can the Oscars Be Saved?" by Patrick Goldstein
Comment:
This is an excellent look at the reactions to the appointment of Mr. Mark and Mr. Condon! It is helpful to have a compilation of the various views on the state of the Academy Awards so that they can be compared easily. You also have some interesting ideas about how to fix the Oscars. I am intrigued about your suggestion to split the technical awards off from the main awards ceremony. This would certainly have the benefit of shortening the main broadc
ast, as well as reducing it to the awards that viewers care the most about, such as Best Picture and the various Best Acting categories. But conversely, since the technical categories are the ones that people are the least interested in, is there any guarantee that anyone will watch them if they have their own awards show? True, the younger generation may be more attracted to categories having to do with special effects and the like. And, as you suggest, it might be a good place to experiment with new, more effective ways of handling the ceremony. I feel, however, that such an awards ceremony will be much less of a draw than the current incarnation of the Academy Awards and would not be a successful endeavor. Indeed, I am not sure that there is any real way to fix the Oscars. It is already a dragged-out affair. The skits, musical numbers and tributes do serve to break up the monotony from the slew of presenters handing out the awards. Unfortunately, this also lengthens the proceedings, creating the need for more distracting gimmicks, creating a vicious circle in an attempt to balance length with entertainment. The shortest way to handle the affair would be to cut the films down to just handing out the awards, but this obviously would be an extreme solution. Other than splitting the technical awards off from the show, do you have other suggestions for how to improve the Academy Awards? What changes should be made for the 2009 ceremony? Besides better-staged musical numbers, is there anything else you hope that Mr. Mark and Mr. Condon will bring to the show?
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Buzzed Out: The Overdone Coverage of the Oscar Race
In a world of mass media, pundits predict award winners like they pick derby winners, while business gurus sit back and rake in the profit. Sound like a bad movie plot? You would not be far off. While the above may be a bit of an exaggeration, it is what the coverage of the Academy Awards has become. Commonly known as the Oscars, these awards are a way to recognize excellence in film. But while this remains true, the mass media has turned the Awards into a race blown out of proportion, something to be tracked and commentated on avidly, where predicting the correct winner is a cold calculation that has little to do with the individual merits of a film. Silently encouraging this disproportionate enthusiasm are the movie studios, who know that Oscar talk is a golden ticket to bigger profits.
Box Office Mojo, run by movie analyst Brandon Gray, provides the data to validate this claim. Michael Clayton, nominated for Best Picture of 2007, earned $55,000 the weekend before its nomination (Jan. 18-21) and over two million dollars the weekend following its nomination (Jan. 25-27), as we can see in the data table to the right. All Best Picture nominees for the 2007 Oscars show similar, if not as drastic, boosts in their weekend grosses following their nominations. Audiences are drawn to Oscar-nominated films because they want to see what all the fuss is about. With this monetary incentive, one can easily see why studios would like to bolster any discussion of their film's chances for an Oscar, even if it is only July.
The main culprit responsible for this inundation of awards coverage is none other than the mass media itself. With the rise of 24-hour news mediums, entertainment news outlets are pressed to fill their minutes and hours with any story they can find. And what better provides material than a long, extended race? This formula has already proven itself for political news media in the shape of the 2008 presidential election. For months, America has had daily reports, like this one by CNN, on the latest election polls, with analysis of every minute shift in the percentages. With a new poll every day, pundits are guaranteed to have at least one thing to talk about in their columns and television broadcasts. Entertainment news mediums unsurprisingly have duplicated this approach when handling the road to the Academy Awards. Everything from trailers to interviews is game to be analyzed for Oscar potential.
The handling of the coverage of The Dark Knight is one of the biggest examples of awards buzz gone wild. Rumors began as early as March that Heath Ledger was in the running for a posthumous Oscar for his portrayal of the Joker in The Dark Knight; as the film's release date approached, the number of articles seemed to increase exponentially. Now Warner Bros. has announced a re-release of the film in January, the time when Oscar nominations are made and votes are cast, undoubtedly in a last push to garner awards. If Ledger is successfully nominated for Best Actor, America will have had a full year of speculation and debate about the likelihood of his winning an Oscar. Undoubtedly, speculation about Ledger's prospects increased in part because of his death and in part because of his genuinely impressive performance. But the year-long coverage of his prospects is an overload and just one symptom of a culture dominated by mass media.
The biggest sign of how out of hand the Oscar coverage has come to be is not the daily columns dedicated to th
e subject, but the websites tracking probabilities of nominations and wins like bookies calculating the spread on a football game. A prime example is the website In Contention which takes Oscar tracking to an extreme. In Contention features a detailed set of predictions about the final composition of the nominations list. These predictions are not limited to the usual categories of Best Picture or Best Actor, but extend to such obscure categories as Sound Mixing and Art Direction. The vast majority of these films have not even been released yet. The image to the left shows their predictions for Art Direction, containing only one film that has shown in theatres. How anyone can claim to know that the sound mixing for Defiance is Oscar worthy before seeing (and hearing) the film seems to defy comprehension. Those who run this website have an idea of what kind of superficial components an award-winning film should have and seem to make their predictions on that basis alone. If predictions are to be made at all about who will win an Oscar, it should be made after a film is released and viewed, not before. For those who think that In Contention is merely an unusual case in the vast consortium that is the Internet, I invite them to take a look at Buzzmeter, a feature to be found in the Los Angeles Times's website. Like In Contention, this site tracks "who's hot and who's not in key awards races." This description is not the language of a website that is looking at the merits of a film, but of a website that is keeping a popularity poll.
e subject, but the websites tracking probabilities of nominations and wins like bookies calculating the spread on a football game. A prime example is the website In Contention which takes Oscar tracking to an extreme. In Contention features a detailed set of predictions about the final composition of the nominations list. These predictions are not limited to the usual categories of Best Picture or Best Actor, but extend to such obscure categories as Sound Mixing and Art Direction. The vast majority of these films have not even been released yet. The image to the left shows their predictions for Art Direction, containing only one film that has shown in theatres. How anyone can claim to know that the sound mixing for Defiance is Oscar worthy before seeing (and hearing) the film seems to defy comprehension. Those who run this website have an idea of what kind of superficial components an award-winning film should have and seem to make their predictions on that basis alone. If predictions are to be made at all about who will win an Oscar, it should be made after a film is released and viewed, not before. For those who think that In Contention is merely an unusual case in the vast consortium that is the Internet, I invite them to take a look at Buzzmeter, a feature to be found in the Los Angeles Times's website. Like In Contention, this site tracks "who's hot and who's not in key awards races." This description is not the language of a website that is looking at the merits of a film, but of a website that is keeping a popularity poll.But the media alone is not responsible for the continuous Oscar talk. The movie studios themselves have a vested interest in keeping the "buzz" alive, driven by what every corporation at heart is driven by: the need to make money. It is doubtful that a studio is troubled that people who have yet to see their picture are predicting it will be nominated for an Academy Award. And being nominated for, let alone winning, one of the more prestigious Oscars is a sure way to increase the profit margin.
Box Office Mojo, run by movie analyst Brandon Gray, provides the data to validate this claim. Michael Clayton, nominated for Best Picture of 2007, earned $55,000 the weekend before its nomination (Jan. 18-21) and over two million dollars the weekend following its nomination (Jan. 25-27), as we can see in the data table to the right. All Best Picture nominees for the 2007 Oscars show similar, if not as drastic, boosts in their weekend grosses following their nominations. Audiences are drawn to Oscar-nominated films because they want to see what all the fuss is about. With this monetary incentive, one can easily see why studios would like to bolster any discussion of their film's chances for an Oscar, even if it is only July.The coverage of the Academy Awards has grown into a unwieldy creature that detracts from the value of the films that are under consideration. Admittedly, much of the coverage of any aspect of the entertainment world is somewhat superficial, focusing on the glitz and the glamor of a world that revolves around publicity. But many of the films that are nominated for an Academy Award have real merits which should be considered as the voting for the coveted Oscar commences. Quite a bit, though not all, of the media's analysis of Oscar films focuses on if the films fit the model of what an Oscar winner is, rather than an actual critical analysis of the components of a film. Unfortunately, this trend is not likely to end anytime soon. Our culture is one that thrives on the latest gossip and rumors swirling around Tinsel Town, and the latest whispered aside on a film's chances for the golden statue is just one more tidbit that people are ready to jump on. In the meantime, we will have to continue living through this rather bad movie plot until someone comes up with a better script.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
