16 posts tagged “digital joe”
*****
8:46-Judging by the online group I'm taking about the show with, Helen
Mirren can host the entire show by herself because she's so damn
gorgeous. Quoted for Truth, don't ya know!
*****
*****
I freely admit to throwing up just a bit in my mouth anytime I hear the word downloading in reference to movies. Maybe it has to do with my ten-year-old Dell computer, which recently died. See, no matter what I did, the thing would not play movies of any kind, streaming, downloaded or otherwise. When I bought a new laptop, that all changed. With a little trepidation, I tried out one of the video on demand services, Netflix´s Watch It Now feature.
First, you´re going to ask why Netflix. Easy enough to answer: I have a subscription to the service and get a number of hours downloaded as I spend on my monthly rate. With the $10 a month plan, I get 10 hours. Easy enough, right? (A quick glance at competitor Blockbuster Total Access shows they apparently don´t offer downloads, just in-store and by mail movies.)
Second, a word about my operating system. I´m running Windows Vista on a Gateway MT3707 Notebook, Intel Pentium Dual-Core Mobile Processor. 160 GB hard drive, 5400 RPM. If you guys know what that means, you´re smarter than I am. The guy at the store told me this was a good computer; I bought it.
Third and lastly, let me say this is a review solely of the Netflix´s Watch It Now. I have not tried out other online downloading options. So there we have it.
The first thing you´ll notice is you need to download the Netflix Free Movie Player, coming it at 1.42 MB. Shouldn´t be a problem. Mine, with a cable connection, downloaded, opened and installed inside of five minutes. But before you do that, this movie viewer only works inside Internet Explorer 6.0 or higher, no Firefox (my preferred browser). You´ll also need Windows XP or Vista and a couple other technical things the Netflix site tells you about.
Netflix purports to have over 3,000 movies and TV episodes ready for download. A quick look at the television section finds a great deal, well, lacking. Hits like "Lost," "Desperate Housewives," "Grey´s Anatomy," any of the "CSI" shows, "ER," "Friends" and "Veronica Mars" are all MIA. So what is there? "The Office." "Hearts Afire." And a veritable cornucopia of titles from PBS, The History Channel, Showtime, The Discovery Channel and A&E. This is a problem. To get people to use the service, Netflix has to give them content they want to watch. Not many people are lining up to watch "The Addams Family."
The movie section fares better, believe it or not, with entries from every genre you can name. Action, Thriller, Horror, Foreign, Spiritual, Gay, Comedy. And these aren´t cheap little no-name movies, either. "THX 1138" is included. "The Hours." "The Day the Earth Stood Still." "Courage Under Fire." And a whole lot more. This is a good start, but let me stress: it´s only a start.
After choosing a movie to watch-in my case the "Masters of Horror" film "Chocolate"-it took about 10 minutes for the video to completely load. The interface is fairly straight forward: a pause/play button, minute counter, volume control and a full screen option. At first, when I hit full screen, the video looked blocky and compressed. After switching back to the original in-browser window and then to full screen, the picture was remarkably better.
In full screen mode, the control bar appears and disappears as you run the mouse over the bottom middle of the screen. When the cursor moves off it, the bar stays on screen for another couple seconds and then goes away. There were no problems with the pause/play function or with the volume control. And considering how I was watching, the video and audio held up as much as I could have expected. The picture did look a bit bright, but I´d chalk that up to my display settings and not the service.
Believe it or not, I was impressed with this new delivery method. I expected the worst and got pretty close to everything I could have wanted. Two things troubled me, though. First was the lack of subtitles or captions on this English film. Sometimes it´s just too hard to understand the dialogue and we need to be able to read the screen. Let´s not even mention potential customers who are hearing impaired or deaf.
Second, just because you watch a film online does not take it off your queue. You have to go delete it. Why can´t the Netflix system automatically take it out of your queue when the film stops playing? Or ask to take it out for you?
The only other issue I had with Watch It Now-and it´s something destined to be a problem for all downloadable content-was the lack of extras. No commentary, no featurettes, no trailers. On the positive side, the pre-movie ads were all taken away, as well as the perfunctory FBI warning about illegal exhibition or broadcast.
So will I be using Watch It Now again? Absolutely. It effectively
doubles the number of movies I can watch and only requires I sit in my
computer room to do so.
*****
Just as quickly as the high definition format war was upon us, arguably the first nail has been hammered into the coffin. Video on Demand (VOD) is going to be tested by Warner Brothers later this year with the release of "300" in some European markets the same day the DVD reaches stores. Why, you might ask, doesn´t WB just concentrate on getting the high def formats worked out before jumping to the next iteration of home video?
Kevin Tsujihara, WB Home Entertainment Group president, claims there are two factors at work: first, the studio only makes 15-25% profit on DVD rentals, while it stands to rake in almost triple that amount with VOD. Second, in a certain sign of the apocalypse, he wants consumers to be able to get what they want at home without driving to the four corners of the map for it.
Okay, maybe I´m exaggerating a bit on the second point, but the idea remains the same. Tsujihara seems to be perfectly sober when he tells people not to get in their cars. What he doesn´t realize is that for a great many people, VOD simply isn´t going to work, especially at the price points the studio´s are going to want to charge.
Right now, we don´t have any idea what the price per movie is going to be. Just for kicks, lets say it is comparable to current DVD prices. (Sidenote: it surely won´t be for a whole host of reason we´ll talk about in a second.) So, for $20, Mr. Average Joe and Mrs. Average Jane can order up "300" or "Batman Begins" whenever they want it. That price doesn´t include the extras-or the added value content, as some companies like to call them-which justify the $20 DVD price tag.
The studio will tout convenience; all the consumer will see if more money out the window. Not only will every home need some kind of high speed internet connection, they´d also need some kind of receiver connected to an Ethernet port. To make matters worse, no studio is going to give away free internet connections or receivers (hard drives, DVR´s…whatever terminology you want to use). By the time you add up all the miscellaneous add-ons for VOD, that little movie is going to cost a whole lot more than $20.
It should be noted that America Online, the internet folks, is owned by Time Warner…who coincidentally also own WB.
Now, one of the best features of a DVD is the ability to put it on the shelf and watch it whenever you want to. With VOD, that´s not going to be possible…without investing in a DVD recorder and some fairly expensive blank discs. Ah, more money down the drain.
Why in the world would anyone-even the early adopters-want to shell out that much money and time when they can buy a disc at Best Buy on release week for $15, plug it into the DVD player which cost them $40 on sale and watch the movie on an existing television? You´re getting less value for the money (remember those special features?) and if you want a copy forever and ever, there´s even more expense and time.
I by all means believe VOD is going to be the way of the future. Just not "now" future. Not next year future and not 2010 future. 2020, maybe. Why? As we speak, both the HD and Blu-Ray camps are trying to get the average consumer to buy into either format when, in reality, the difference is not as noticeable as it was between VHS and DVD. There´s no reason for Mr. Middle America with a family, mortgage and car payments to fork over another $1,000 just to see the "Blu-Ray" version of "The Departed" or the In-Movie experience on "Batman Begins." As much as movies bring us joy and an escape from everyday life, there are more important items to spend money on…like food and gas.
No matter what happens with WB´s experiment, there will always be people who want a shiny disc (or microchip or whatever) in their hands to put on a shelf in their living room. I´m one of them. It´s the collector in me who likes to put a new purchase on the shelf; it´s far easier to show guests DVD covers when we want to watch a movie than it is to scroll through five pages of stored movies on my TiVO.
Warner, good idea. I´m glad someone is thinking beyond this stupid high
def format war. Disney and iTunes, you can learn a bit from this. But
it´s simply not doable in the United States for the foreseeable future.
*****
Well, the newest thing in movies is upon us: the nostalgia trip. This isn´t a reimagining or the continuation of a franchise; this new genre plays on our emotions for a long lost time. Specifically, it harkens back to a simpler time for the American male, a time when cartoons could be glorified toy commercials. Examples, you ask? "Transformers," "G.I. Joe," "Thundercats"…basically, anything from the 1980s. To a lesser extent such notable blink-and-you-missed-them properties include "Visionaries" and "Dino-Riders" for the boys, "Barbie and the Rockers" and its competition "Jem" for the girls.
What´s the point of this little trip down memory lane? A live action "Transformers" film debuts in July (actually, the second movie about robots in disguise, following the 1986 cartoon version). And news came out of the Joel Silver/Warner Brothers camp last week that a new live action "He-Man" movie is on the drawing board. There is no one who was simultaneously more excited and disappointed over this prospect.
Why? As a child (and a 28 year old man), I love the story of the defenders of Eternia against Skeletor and his evil minions. I´m even on board with spin-off "She-Ra" and the much-maligned "New Adventures of He-Man" (often dubbed "He-Man in space"). When the newest incarnation of the character leapt onto our TV screens, I was front and center for every episode…and heartbroken when it got cancelled. The prospect of further adventures in this universe made me giddy like a…schoolgirl. Fine, I just admitted it.
A fellow He-Man fan-whom I also consider a friend-and I talked about putting together a new live action movie last year. It was really all in joking, but I had hoped it would come true some day. We´d co-write the script, I´d direct and he´d handle the visual aspects. This thought genuinely got me excited. Sure, a pipe-dream…our pipe-dream. But now, with this big budget film on the development slate, that´s gone now.
To show I´m not a sore loser, and to avoid a repeat of the lamentable 1987 Gary Goddard-helmed "Masters of the Universe," here are some tips to Silver and his creative staff from a fan.
First, the story needs to take place on Eternia, not Earth or some other planet. The original "Masters of the Universe" series featured Eternian locales complete with pink trees, mountains of ice and people of every length, width and height. By moving the action to Earth, the movie was robbed of those wondrous settings. Take He-Man to Darksmoke, the Evergreen Forest, the Plains of Perpitua or the Ocean of Gnarl. We don´t need to see anyone slinking around the woods near a fast food chicken joint.
Second, the characters. It´s a forgone conclusion that He-Man and Skeletor will be featured. But who else? A major problem in the original live action film were all the new characters introduced for the film. Gwildor, Blade, Saurod and Karg. Where is everyone´s favorite court magician Orko? Or Mer-Man, King Randor and Queen Marlena, Fisto, Fakor, Zodac and Battle-Cat? There are boatloads of personalities for the film to use and develop its own mythology around; save the new creations for the sequel.
Speaking of mythology, I know I´ll take flack for this, but the story does not have to adhere to what has come before. Yes, Prince Adam needs to become He-Man, Skeletor should be the bad guy, Castle Grayskull is the ultimate prize…just give us something different. I´m not talking He-Man is gay and Teela is suddenly a male; I´m thinking of how Adam finds the power sword and Skeletor being smart for a change. Freshen the whole affair up, all the while being mindful He-Man is not about pointy rifles and an evil Stormtrooper-inspired army (I´m looking at you, "Masters of the Universe").
Tone is going to be very important to the film. If the script is too referential, the common viewer isn´t going to understand. Any wild departures from the source material and the fans are gone too. Man-at-Arms should scold Orko like he would a disobedient child while the court magician supplyies all the humor. (Maybe a joke or two if Ram Man shows up.) Remember, this isn´t camp; respect the material and the characters.
At least once in the film, we need to see Adam raise aloft his sword and say, "By the power of Grayskull." When that moment comes, it will be the sequence the diehard fans have longed to see for over 20 years. A bombastic score with John Williams himself conducting? The man put together the most recognizable themes in movie history (the Imperial March and the theme from "Superman"); why not give him a crack at this project?
And we wind up with the look of the film. I´m not looking for the bright colors of the Filmation cartoon-that would be a mistake of epic proportions. Learn from Bryan Singer´s crew who brought the X-Men to the silver screen. Gone were the yellow spandex jumpsuits. In their place? Slick black leather. Fans laughed at first, but the minute Hugh Jackman walked on screen, everyone agreed the change was brilliant. Come up with something similar by reinventing the franchise.
If this movie is on track for a 2009 release (a big "if" right now, considering Silver and Warner are still negotiating for the rights), debut some footage or a teaser trailer at the San Diego Comic Con next summer. Drop the fans a bone and you´ll guarantee every single one of their asses in seats opening weekend.
Casting…I have one good idea or two right now I´ll freely offer: Helen Mirren as the Sorceress. Another? Angelina Jolie as Teela. Viggo Mortenson as Man-at-Arms. And for the titular role of He-Man? Golly, I don´t really care…just as long as former or current wrestlers are kept out of the discussion. They can´t act their way out of a paper bag. And they´re not exactly great to look at, either.
Mr. Silver, once you get the rights to the characters, I will await your phone call. I´m open for consulting duties, script re-writes…hell, with a little work, I could play He-Man.
Just kidding. King Hiss was so much cooler.
*****
I have a confession to make. I´m looking forward to the upcoming sequel to "Fantastic Four." I know we´ve talked about summer movies quite a bit recently, but every single time I watch the trailer for "Rise of the Silver Surfer," I find myself getting more and more excited, as if this will be the comic book movie the first wasn´t and "Spider-Man 3" certainly wasn´t.
To be perfectly honest, I wasn´t wild about the first film. It was okay, but didn´t live up to the pedigree set by "X2" or "Spider-Man 2." As I´ve watched it more and more over the last two years, I´ve found a certain charm in it. Yes, Sue Storm still looks like a slut to me and Mr. Fantastic has all the personality of, well, a piece of chewed gum. Dr. Doom might have been overplayed just a bit…but it is fun. It was even fun when it debuted; it just lacked the oomph I had expected.
But with this film? I know this isn´t a high brow critique, but "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer" looks cool. There, I said it. Now that I know what to expect from the film, I won´t look for Shakespeare-caliber acting or writing. Nifty effects, some chuckle-worthy one-liners between Michael Chiklis and Chris Evans and I´ll be happy.
Know what else I´m looking forward to? The soon to be announced "Catwoman 2."
Okay, I jest. It has to be the worst comic book movie ever made, bar none. Even worse than the listless and muddled "Elektra." It´s probably behind the Roger Corman version of the "FF"-though I can´t confirm that oh-so-scientific analysis.
Let's look forward for just a minute as to the future of comic book films. Right now, they´re completely en vogue, just like the "Law & Order" franchise was a couple years ago. As both DC and Marvel continue bringing all their characters to the silver screen, I can´t help but wonder when they are going to run out of steam. I mean "The Punisher 2" is in development; a second helping of "The Hulk" is coming; I wouldn´t doubt "Ghost Rider 2" will be on the screen in the next couple of years. We have reinventions of both the Superman and Batman characters; Wonder Woman is in development hell; Flash and Green Arrow are in the rumor mill.
When will enough be enough? When we´re reduced to watching "Spider-Man 12: The Son of the Web-Slinger?" That´s a day I truly dread. Comic movies are a genre just like any other with the inevitable highs and lows. New "Batman" is on tap for next year. "Iron Man" is filming for a 2008 debut. A new "Superman" film might be ready for 2009. And probably more I´m forgetting.
Hollywood is relying on comic films. There´s no debate about that. It´s easier to adapt a book than it is to come up with a brand new concept. Built in fan base, name recognition and a nearly-guaranteed $50 million opening weekend. Script and casting really doesn´t matter, at least in that first weekend.
What happens, though, when the inevitable public backlash occurs? When the fifth "Batman" film doesn´t bring in the money Warner Brothers thinks it should? When the audience doesn´t lap up every little thing Sam Raimi or Chris Nolan put on screen? More whining, no doubt, from Hollywood about revenue being down and costs continuing to rise. Why not head off that problem now by slowing down in the genre?
Prolong the audience´s appetite for our colorful heroes by not loading each year with their cinematic exploits. Don´t throw every single hero up there. More time between films. And, for the love of everything geeky, get someone working on a live action "Justice League" film. Sign Brandon Routh and Christian Bale as the leads. Fill out the cast with relatively unknown actors as Wonder Woman, the Martian Manhunter, Flash, Green Lantern, Black Canary, Vixen and anyone else the script will accommodate.
You have a built in franchise plus dozens of potential spin offs. Isn´t it easier to launch a movie series if the audience is familiar with the big screen version of the character? And if the hero (or villain) doesn´t work in the team-up film, the studio will know ahead of time and not invest more money in a bad concept.
Two things are holding the "Justice League" film back: an effects budget and casting. If you´re going to have just the seven core members (Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Hawkgirl, Green Lantern, Flash, Martin Manhunter) and a couple villains, the effects budget would break the bank. Four flying characters, Hawkgirl´s wings, Lantern´s power ring constructs, Flash running, the Invisible Jet, the Batmobile…even that is enough to give any production accountant a headache.
And then there´s the matter of the current ongoing franchises. Are Routh and Bale going to give up their starring vehicles to take part in this film? I could be wrong, but I don´t think so. Then there´s the matter of the in-development "Wonder Woman" film, to say nothing of "Flash" and "Green Arrow."
I can´t sort any of that out. What I do know for sure is this: the more adaptations that come to the screen, the quicker the audience is going to rebel by not buying tickets. Simple as that. In order to continue bringing in the money, each film will need to up the ante, so to speak. Bigger battles, more enemies, louder explosions. Soon, we´ll have action balloons with the words "Ka-BoOm!" and "POW!" filling the screen in a theatrical version of Adam West´s "Batman."
Now do any of us really want that?
*****
Media companies love synergy. Universal has slated a "special" edition of the 1980 "Flash Gordon" film for August, the same month that company´s Sci-Fi Channel premieres a new TV series starring character. Warner Brothers makes sure to package their animated superhero releases together. Remember last year´s "Superman" blitz? Or how about this year´s "Batman Beyond" and "Justice League Unlimited" sets?
So it´s perplexing to understand why Buena Vista staunchly refuses to release perhaps the two hottest animated comic book properties in their library: "X-Men" and "Spider-Man." Yeah, we have compilation discs out there for each series, but nothing in season sets or chronological volumes. Wouldn´t it be smart to have put together a season or so of "X-Men" to coincide with "The Last Stand" last summer? Or "Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends"-there are only 24 episodes-when this year´s Spidey juggernaut came barreling out of the gate? Are the folks over at BV that clueless?
Chances are the same thing holding up the release of the Adam West "Batman" on DVD is preventing these other programs from hitting the street: money. I won´t pretend to understand the economics; hell, I won´t even pretend to care because, frankly, I don´t. When companies start arguing over percentages, I tune out. It all sounds very narcissistic to me. Warner wants more money because they are corporate siblings of DC Comics; Fox wants more because they received the rights to the series from ABC, the channel the show ran on. (This is terribly simplistic, I understand.) So, instead of the minds coming together to work out an equitable arrangement where everyone can make money, the show sits on the shelf making zero money…and depriving the fans of the series.
Terribly greedy, I think we´d all agree.
BV was able to release a complete box set of the 1994 "Fantastic Four" cartoon in 2005, proving they can do season (and series) releases. They´ve also released Disney-owned cartoons, such as "Rescue Rangers" and "Gargoyles," though the latter is the subject of much heart break among fans since the series won´t be completed.
Again, I ask, what in the world is the hold up? It is M-O-N-E-Y in your pocket if you do just a half-assed job. Remaster the series, include some extras, do a better than half assed job and you will be LOVED by legions of fans. And you´ll make money hand over fist. Until recently, "Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends" aired on Jetix, a block of programming on ABC Family. Take those masters, run them through a little clean up and BAM! Six DVD´s, some cover art and you have a release to ride on the coattails of "Spider-Man 3" this fall.
The problem here, as is the problem with the much-lambasted "music rights" issue, is money. It´s what held the preview trailers and special advertising from being included on any of the modern "Star Trek" series DVD sets. Look what it did to the release of "WKRP in Cincinnati." Guys, DVD is not a new medium. It´s been ten years. Ten bleeding years. We have two new formats all the studios are shoving down our throats. They want us to buy into the advertising they´re throwing at us when they clearly haven´t figured out how to do standard DVD right yet.
What gives any of us the idea they can do high def or high high def or whatever comes next correctly? Whatever happened to perfecting one product before trying something new? Did everyone fail Algebra and then get moved on to Calculus? How many releases of the "Farscape" series have there been on DVD? I´d venture to say another is on the way; Sony recently snapped up rights to at least the first season.
And Hollywood wonders why fans go to illegal means to procure the content they want. What other choice do any of us have? Wait for them to get their sorry asses in gear only to do a half-assed job on the release, using that as "evidence" there is no audience for it? (Yes, I´m looking at you, Mr. George Lucas.) Screw that. You guys created this consumer monster by wrangling over money…and now you´re crying people are going around you to get what they want? You have got to be kidding me. We´re supposed to feel bad you lost a billion dollars or whatever the amount is last year to pirates when you quibble amongst yourselves over profits?
Release the damn product and maybe people won´t have to buy from bootleggers or illegal download sites. How long did it take Paramount to release "Star Trek: The Animated Series?" Until they had exhausted every other "Trek" property, that´s how long. After two separate releases of "The Original Series," "The Next Generation," "Deep Space Nine," "Voyager," "Enterprise," two releases of every movie (except the first)…not to mention "series" packaging for each show. Now other countries are getting new packaging to entice fans to buy again.
Buena Vista, Fox, Warner…all of you guys: sit down and hammer out a
deal where everyone gets a fair piece of the pie. Content isn´t helping
anyone by sitting on the shelf.
*****
It´s finally here. Christmas for cine-philes. Summer movie season. This annual plethora of big bang special effects, sequels, and teen-pleasing action films rakes in untold billions of dollars after initial ticket sales, tie-ins, DVD´s, toys, games, shirts, collectibles and every other part of the merchandising puzzle is tallied up.
We start, this year, with "Spider-Man 3," widely purported to have the biggest budget of any movie ever. True? We won´t know this year; next year´s Sony financial statement might help a bit in uncovering the truth. Needless to say, with record openings in Asia this week, the third film (and last?) in the franchise is the longest and undoubtedly most hyped.
Then there´s the onslaught of other budget busting tentpoles. "Transformers" over the July 4th holiday; family friendly "Shrek the Third" in mid-May; the next "Pirates of the Caribbean" installment; "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer"; new "Harry Potter" in advance of the last book in that set; the long-awaited "The Simpsons" movie; more Pixar goodness in June´s "Ratatouille." And those are just the "name" movies of the summer.
"Evan Almighty" is slated for a June 22 release. It´s being called the most expensive comedy ever made. If we were to combine the budgets of just the films I´ve mentioned, a small country could comfortably live for a year. Isn´t that a much better use of funds? Are any of us really going to hurt if we never see Johnny Depp play Captain Jack ever again? Probably not…I know I won´t. I will be one of the only people on the planet not lining up for "At World´s End" (the surname of the third "Pirates" flick).
I´ve got a list of other films I´m excited about seeing this summer…aside from Optimus, Harry, Homer and Mr. Fantastic. First on that list is "Waitress" (May 2 in limited release), the last film from the late Adrienne Shelly. Don´t think me a sap: I don´t want to see "Waitress" because Shelly´s death was in the news recently. It´s cast is what attracts me to the project. Okay, it´s really only Nathan Fillion, a guy who can´t catch a break on television (see the recently cancelled "Drive" and the criminally underseen "Firefly").
Then there´s May 11´s "Georgia Rule," featuring Felicity Huffman, a fantastic actress stuck on a trainwreck of a television show (at least through it´s second season; I´ve bailed on it). Everytime the trailer comes on the screen at the multiplex, I get a good laugh out of it. Seriously, what more can I really expect out of any summer movie?
Lest you think I´m focusing on chick flicks here, "Bug" (May 25) from "The Exorcist" director William Friedkin has my attention. From early online reviews, I may end up regretting this decision. But it can´t be any worse than "Pathfinder," could it?
I´m morbidly curious about the Russian film "Day Watch" (June 1, limited release). The second in a trilogy, the trailers remind me of "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen"-no, it´s not as bad as the critics claimed. My only hesitation is the, well, subtitles. Will it diminish the impact of the action? I guess we´ll see.
Michael Moore´s latest is set to unspool "hopefully" in June. It´s called "Sicko" and takes aim at the healthcare industry. Say what you will about the man: he has the courage of his convictions no one else in Hollywood does. With a little bit of tweaking, "Fahrenheit 9/11" would have brought people together. Tone down the anger and the potshots just a bit.
A hell of a cast headlines June 29´s "Evening," another one of the "chick flicks" I´m making it a point to watch this summer. (Let´s hope they´re all better than the wretched "The Lake House.") Claire Danes, Toni Collette, Vanessa Redgrave, Meryl Streep, Glenn Close, Barry Bostwick… Please please please be good.
The July 4th-rumored "License to Wed" seems like an offbeat little comedy like last year´s "Little Miss Sunshine." However, it has the curse called Robin Williams. If it´s anything like "RV" or "The Night Listener," no thanks.
Up against "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" is "1408," a paranormal story about Room 1408 at the Dolphin Hotel. John Cusack and Sam Jackson star. It almost sounds like "The Reaping" with a main character trying to debunk supposed paranormal phenomenon.
I´m most curious about the Adam Sandler/Kevin James comedy "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry." Two heterosexual firefighters pretend to be gay and get married for benefits. Initially I was optimistic about the comedy because of Sandler; recent trailers have made me grimace with dread. Let´s just hope this isn´t as homophobic and insulting as Cuba Gooding, Jr.´s, "Boat Trip."
"No Reservations" (July 27) combines some of my favorite things: the movies, cooking and Catherine Zeta-Jones (oh yeah, and Abigail Breslin from "Little Miss Sunshine"). How can it really go wrong?
Two movies with supposed July release dates (information is contradictory at best) are another thriller ("The Strangers" with Liv Tyler and Scott Speedman) and another "Little Miss Sunshine" wanna be ("Fat Girls"). Simply put, Tyler and Speedman are terrorized in a vacation home. Much like Kate Beckinsale and Luke Wilson were terrorized in a hotel room in "Vacancy," I´m guessing. And neither of the lead characters in "Fat Girls" is actually a girl; both are boys in a small town figuring out what it means to be friends.
(I just want to mention the documentary "No End in Sight"-referring to our continuing occupation of Iraq-which may debut in July.)
August is a real bummer in terms of films. Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig´s remake of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" is finally headed to the multiplex (titled "The Invasion," August 17). I don´t hold out much hope for it. The film has been in production since before Craig was cast as James Bond in "Casino Royale." What does that tell you?
"The Ten" may be the most ambitious summer film out there. It is comprised of ten stories taken from the Ten Commandments. Starring Jessica Alba, Michael Ian Black, Adam Brody, Paul Rudd, Famke Jenssen, Justin Therox, Gretchen Mol, Winona Ryder, Oliver Platt and Ron Silver, it opens in limited release August 3.
And finally, Rob Zombie´s reimagining/remake of the "Halloween" franchise gets its debut at the end of the August. What else is there to say about this? August 31 can´t come fast enough.
So there we have it. A whirlwind tour through a few summer films which
will undoubtedly get crushed at the box office, but might end up being
better than any of their competition.
*****
They´re at it again. By "they," I mean the Federal Communications Commission. The "it" refers to regulating television programming. And "again"? Well, this isn´t the first time they´ve pulled this trick out of their hat.
Remember the uproar over Janet Jackson´s nipple in Super Bowl 38? CBS (who aired the game) and MTV (producers of the halftime show) were fined, bringing a crackdown on "indency" during the "Family Hour" of television. (The Family Hour was instituted in 1975 and mandated networks air family friendly programming from 8 pm to 9 pm. It was eventually discontinued in 1977 after court battles.)
This week, a report was released revolving around the nebulous term "violence" in programs aired when children could potentially watch. Never mind the FCC has never defined what is indecent or profane: is it the use of vulgarities, sex, a program with different morals than the "majority" of the country? They´ve resisted calls to give broadcasters a clear idea of what will merit a fine. Instead, they say they´ll "know it when they see it."
So as we now take aim at violence, here are my questions. What constitutes violence? Is it gunshots? Blood? Fistfights? Arguing? Slamming doors? Chases? Blowing up buildings? If any of these things will get a fine, then a whole slew of programming on the networks can merit a fine based on their current timeslot. "Jericho," "Survivor," "Smallville," "Smackdown," "COPS," "The Simpsons"…dare I go on? And if we expand the time frame to the 9:00 hour also…well, there goes the primetime lineup.
It is claimed by the FCC, and backed up by scientific data, that prolonged exposure to violence is damaging, though it can also be beneficial. Which leads to the inevitable set up: this is for the children.
Ah, yes, the children. That equally nebulous demographic used as the sole reason the government wants to further tell us what we can and can not watch. Evidently, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin does agree parents are the first and last line of defense on what their children watch. (What an idea…parental responsibility.) But he also claims getting violence out of the 6 am to 10 pm time slots will be another "tool" to be used by the parents.
Just like television ratings were tools (1997)…and CD ratings (1985)…and video game ratings (1994)…and the V Chip (1999). None of these "tools" is enough, apparently. Parents still can´t do their jobs and be parents. Let´s be completely honest for a minute. How well do any of the other advisory systems work? Frankly, they don´t. It isn´t store owners/employees job to monitor what people buy. It´s the consumers job and, of course, the parents.
Why not enact legislation which would help parents to not need two incomes to survive? How about universal healthcare? What about mandatory salary increases in line with the rate of inflation? How about mandatory 40 hour work weeks so parents can spend time at home? And how about this: telling parents to be a parent? You brought the child into the world; you take responsibility for it.
But that´s too hard and it doesn´t get votes. Telling people to be mature isn´t something any of us are ready for. So, instead, we have the FCC looking to control what comes into our homes. This from the same people who declined to investigate the National Security Agency´s wiretapping scandal last year. Gee, wiretapping or making sure little Johnny doesn´t see any blood on TV. Which is more important?
Moreover, let´s hypothesize that the 8-9 hour does become "family friendly" again. This is all in the name of the "children" remember…and to help the parents who use TV as a babysitter. How many of those parents will tell their child to get in bed at 9? If they have the willpower to get their youngster in bed, they can certainly keep an eye on the television. That´s why making 8-9 FF (family friendly) won´t work. Parents have been emasculated to a point where the kids run the home.
Let´s not forget the advent of the little thing called the internet, a technological breakthrough which delivers all sorts of content to whomever wants it. If you can´t watch "Jericho" at home, then go online or to a friend´s house or record it. For whatever reason, people want their children to live in bubbles to protect their "innocence." Does this also mean all news programs will be relegated to only the 11 pm newscast because of their violent images? Probably not, but no one ever bothers to ask the question.
Another recommendation in this report is to allow all of us to receive only the cable channels we want. Fantastic, I´m on board with that plan. Get rid of ABC Family because I find Pat Robertson to be repugnant. Toss out BET, Fox News (and Bill O´Reilly), the Golf station, Versus…hell, it´s probably easier to list the stations I want to pay for. AMC, TCM, Food Network, Sci Fi, ESPN, ESPN 2…everything else can go in the garbage for all I care.
But cable companies and stations are balking at this. How else are they going to get money for their programs if people can pick and choose what they want to see? How many people are really going to pay to listen to "fair and balanced" news on Fox News? (And just to show I´m not bashing just Fox, I can do without MSNBC and its cousin CNBC, too, as well as CNN.) I can whittle my stations down to two dozen at the most. Just keep in mind that for every station I drop, I want a reduction in my bill accordingly. Betcha that will never pass.
Chances are if Congress passes this law, there will be lawsuits coming out of the woodwork to challenge it. Based on simply precedent (the 1977 Family Hour ruling), it shouldn´t stand a chance. But why even chance it with the current make-up of the Supreme Court?
It´s parental responsibility, nothing more and nothing less.
*****
I´m convinced it´s something in my personality.
What other explanation is there? My collection of "collectible" Slurpee cups; the dozens of "Star Wars" and "Star Trek" figures (and variants!) sitting in the closet; two-disc special limited editions of movies I´ll probably never get around to watching; my now-dismantled collection of "Star Trek"-covered TV Guide magazines. I am a collector.
Why have the standard two-disc edition of "Batman Begins" on the shelf when I can get my hands on the two-disc Deluxe Limited Edition with comic? Why continuously search for the two-disc "United 93," a movie I don´t want to see ever again? Why do I feel left out if I don´t have all the store exclusives available for any release?
(You could argue I´m also anal retentive and obsessive compulsive, but I think "collector" sounds better.)
I don´t like anything being incomplete or feeling like I missed something. Anytime I add a new podcast to my iTunes subscriptions, I have to fight the urge to listen to all the previous episodes. My parents tell a story about me as a young child. They had put me in my crib at my normal bedtime only to have me stand up, banging on the bars, for the following three hours. Apparently, I didn´t want to miss anything.
In a lot of ways, I´m still like that. I read as much as I can, talk to anyone who will engage me, listen to other´s opinions…and watch as much as possible. Now realize I also work a normal work week and have a series of other hobbies and obligations to attend to. Bedtime usually doesn´t come around until I can´t keep my eyes open anymore.
With this backdrop, imagine my sheer horror when I put in the documentary "Fabulous! The Story of Queer Cinema" over the weekend…only to have a relentless barrage of movies I haven´t seen-or heard of-flying at me from every direction. Movies I should see because of their cultural significance or movies that just sound plain interesting.
The same phenomenon happens when I hit start on any podcast. I gave up keeping track of the movies I should get my hands on when the list became wholly unmanageable. Sometime around last November, the list never shrinking got me depressed. Here I was ingesting as many films as I could and yet there were always more on the horizon.
Finally, I came to a realization: there is always going to be more out there in every aspect of life than I can ever get to. More baseball games to watch, more cities to visit, more stories to enjoy, more new food to cook, more situations to experience. It´s neverending. And in the haste to get to "the end," I was missing out of the subtle nuances and the fine things in life: not rushing around the minute I got out of work trying to save the world and expecting too much of myself.
It´s something we all invariably do. We build expectations for our abilities up to such an extent we can´t possibly achieve half of what we set out to do. It´s like that scene early in "National Lampoon´s Christmas Vacation" when Clark asks Ellen when he´s ever held family events to abnormal heights. She responds with holidays, anniversaries, birthdays, graduations…you get the idea. It isn´t until later in the film, when Clark re-watches video of Christmas past, does he realize it´s time to slow down.
There is no way I´m ever going to watch every movie I "should" or have a complete collection of anything. At the end of the day, it´s quite useless, actually, to collect and horde items we can´t take with us when we die. Those things don´t keep us warm at night when the wind howls outside. They can´t engage us by telling a story over a holiday meal or kiss us when we´re injured. Those things are just that: things.
Film is a fantastic experience, but it isn´t the be all and end all of life. So what if I´ve only gotten through ten movies so far this month? My TiVO isn´t going to delete them and my DVD´s aren´t going to disappear off the shelf. It´s the people we should start making time for, not the things. I know that´s tough in our capitalistic society; we´re taught a person´s wealth is defined by their possessions as opposed to the love and goodwill around them.
Now, if you´ll excuse me, I have eight new podcasts downloading and five new magazines sitting on the counter.
*****
Death is a funny thing. Well, maybe not in a "ha ha...that's the most hilarious thing I've ever seen" sense, but funny in our reactions to death. The world loses well-known names all the time. It's a bit of a running joke that when a famous person dies, they usually go in groups of three. We saw Bob Clark, the director of "A Christmas Story," died a week or so ago. And today we're greeted with the sobering news Kurt Vonnegut has left us, as has Roscoe Lee Browne.
I could fill page after page with names, both famous and not so famous, of those who have passed. Each of them touched a life outside of their friends and family in some way. Will the annual "A Christmas Story" marathon be different this year, now that at least two of the people who made that piece of classic cinema are gone? (Darren McGavin passed away in 2006.)
I doubt it. Sure, I'm still going to laugh at the pronunciation of "fragile" and I'm going to smile as Mrs. Parker drops a bowling ball into her husband's lap. But the primary purpose of film and TV is to entertain, to get us away from our daily troubles. Seeing names and faces on the screen reminds us the images we laugh and cry over aren't real. It's a hard pill to swallow.
Some deaths move us more than others. It all depends on the attachment we felt to the person. I'm sure few people will remember the name Jonathan Brandis in ten or twenty years. I will. Brandis, who committed suicide in 2003, was one of my first crushes, thanks to his role on "seaQuest." For 2 1/2 years, we grew up together, him the outsider in a world of adults, me an outsider in a straight world. When Lucas (Brandis in the show) felt lonely or isolated, I could relate to that. And when he yearned for something to do, I understand what he meant.
That December morning when I read the news he died was hard. I couldn't believe it. This person who graced my TV screen was gone. Not just the character, but the living and breathing human being. He didn't walk this planet anymore. No more dates or holidays, birthdays or anniversaries. No more hugs, tears, pain, joy. Nothing. It was simply gone. When someone we "know" dies, it makes us feel vulnerable--human.
It is one of my fears, actually, that one day I'm going to wake up and every actor or actress, every director or writer I respect will be gone. We've already started to loose the ones I grew up with. I absolutely dread hearing another "Star Trek" actor is gone, whether they be a regular or Crewman Number 39 in Episode 52. Those people, all of them, are a part of me in the same way my family is a part of me. Knowing that Bones and Scotty and Sarek would never be on the screen again didn't seem right, in my eyes.
When Anna Nicole Smith died earlier this year, there was an incredible outpouring of bile and hate toward her. Because of what she did with her life and what her public image was, she was called a slut, whore and a whole host of names I can't print here. Why? As far as I can tell, because she used what she had. Never mind she had lost her son recently and she had just given birth to a beautiful baby girl. She was still no good.
Frankly, I was appalled. Did people have no common courtesy anymore? Have we gone so low that it is acceptable to disparage someone minutes after they died? I'm not a fan of Smith, but she was a human being, again with family, friends and people who adored her. So what if she was a former Playboy bunny? So what if she made a questionable decision now and again? She brought joy to innumerable people. Isn't that enough? She didn't kill; she didn't start a war. She showed off what she had and made money from it. Big deal.
I would like to think that when I die, people will remember the good things I did in this world. The times we laughed together, the meals we shared, the lessons we learned, the love...instead of remembering the times I might have messed up or not lived up to expectations. Isn't that common decency?
We all like to see the villain get what's coming to him. Freddy had to be vanquished, each Bond villain blown up, Jaws stopped. It's fun to root for the good guy (and ostensibly against the bad) on screen. There was no greater proponent of a "guilty" verdict for Gaius Baltar in the season finale of "Battlestar Galactica" a couple weeks ago. He committed horrible crimes and deserved, in my eyes, to die.
I never questioned my feelings or resolve; he was wrong, because people died. An eye for an eye dictates he had to die. But it's not so easy to declare death is unwaveringly the answer in all cases. Yes, there are situations death is the only reasonable course of action. And it is okay to want the bad guy to go away...by whatever means necessary. Death, on the screen and in real life, can make us feel vindicated, triumphant, on the side of the angels.
Let's make sure we respect the dead as people. We shouldn't want it any other way.
