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 general 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 accessible 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.

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 ongoing 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 ridicule 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.

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 transferred 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 releases 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.