AVATAR & the future of filmmaking

Think about going to a movie today versus going to a movie a generation ago - a lot of things are the same. The popcorn is still doused in butter. Coke's original recipe is still in tact (bar some 1980's 'new coke' fiasco). Lines still form for popular movies. Seats are generally still unassigned. There are trailers before the films advertising similar movies that you may want to see in the future... but there are so many differences.

I live in Los Angeles and go to the Grove or Arclight for most of my movie going experiences. With both of their independent websites, I can purchase tickets online and simply walk up to the kiosk, handing only my credit card for my tickets. Also, at the Grove I walk up to a computer and type in my concession order and then just wait for my number to be called. At the Arclight, my seats are assigned - I never have to wait in line. Hell, I can get a quick drink before the show at the bar in the Arclight lounge. Film going experiences are not changing, there is a better word -- they are evolving.

With technology, the films themselves are even evolving. Dated special effects are easy to spot - with newer films possessing CGI that is sometimes undetectable to the untrained populous (cinephiles are still pretty keen at recognizing a CGI shot versus a real shot). The movie that will not just climb one rung, but the whole evolutionary ladder is a film due out in December 2009 ~ AVATAR (poster below is fan art and not an official Avatar poster)

Avatar is the latest project from acclaimed and Academy Award winning director James Cameron. Known for his ability to transport us to 1912 with mind-numbing special effects in Titanic and for close encounters that feel real in Alien, James Cameron wants to top all previous work with his latest creation. Although you may have heard of the 3D U2 concert or the 3D Miley Cyrus concert in your local cineplex or hell, even Chicken Little in Disney Digital 3D... you will have never seen anything like this. On Film.com, Cameron was quoted saying, "We're creating an entire world." For most, this is not an exciting statement. Audiences have seen this all before ala Star Wars. However, principal photography (the thing where the camera shoots the important scenes) is only going to a be a month and half. Most productions have at least 3 months of principal photography with tons of second unit photography (shots the 2nd unit director is in charge of -- aerial shots that establish a location, side-plots that are not necessarily the main focus of the film etc). With only a month and half of principle photography, the majority of the film must be completely done in a computer. According to Cameron, they will use a "new, photorealistic CGI technique invented by Cameron's Lightstorm Entertainment..." Oh, and one more thing, it will all be in 3D!!!

We have recently seen a whole slew of 3D films and it will not stop (check out the trailer for Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D by clicking HERE... be sure to have a barf bag). Just like in the 1950's, Hollywood is 3D happy. However, James Cameron brought back the Titanic from the depths of the Atlantic, made us jump when aliens took over our bodies in the future and in 2009, he will use his revolutionary film direction to bring about the most realistic 3D experience in the history of cinema. When more information becomes available, be sure to check back here at theDigitalMailroom.

Did you Wii an Academy Award

The future is now.

For those of you who watched the Academy Awards, you witnessed the future of advertising and you probably didn't even know it. Jon Stewart, after another generic commercial break, was seen on stage only a wii-mote (the controller for Nintendo's video game system), a little girl with a wii-mote and two screens showing Wii-Tennis, Nintendo's stop selling game for its Wii console (included in WiiSports). The pair played for roughly 15 seconds, showing how an uncooridnated middle-aged talk show host can have just as much fun as little kid. Soon the little girl ran off stage and left Stewart alone. All he muttered was, "Man I am winded" and then he simply proceeded to introduce the next presenters and nominees.

I am not saying that product placement is new, but it seems that now adays cross-placement is becoming ubiqutous with the entertainment industry. The Academy Awards used to exist simply to praise those in the film industry, yet on stage they gave precious time to a video game system. This acceptance of video games on the Kodak Theatre's stage is a landmark moment for the video game industry. Film's not-so-distant cousin seems to have been granted membership into entertainment's sybiotic circle of film, tv and music.

Another new way of cross promotion came about with the new release of the film Jumper. While I was watching tv a trailer came on for Jumper. Thinking this was just another paint by numbers film trailer, I watched with little interest. However, in the middle of the trailer, the commercial jumped to a Dell Personal Computer Ad with tennis star Serena Williams. In Jumper, the main character can transport himself anywhere. In this case, he decides that he is bored with his own trailer and transports himself into this Dell PC commercial. It was fascinating. Now, this might not showcase new technologies (CGI and cross-cutting have been around for decades), but it does showcase how we can use existing technologies in new ways to attact the audiences attention -- the most important thing in any business.

In the future, cross promotion between film and technoloy companies will not stop with the Academy and the Wii and Jumper with Dell. My ambiguous rhetorical question is:

When this cross promotion becomes cheesy and the audience once again is bored, what is the next step?

Animation Discrimination

The year, 1991.

The movie, Beauty and the Beast.

The award, Best Picture at the Academy Awards.

BEAUTY AND THE BEAST REMAINS THE ONLY ANIMATED PICTURE TO BE NOMINATED FOR BEST PICTURE
why should you care?

I am not the most soulful person. I am not the most creative. However, I do recognize when something is beautiful or at a minimum, when a lot of effort has been put into its creation. I have witnessed the creation of animated films first hand and know that just as much work goes into an animated feature as does a live-action feature. The question remains, why have movies like The Lion King, Aladdin, Toy Story etc, been left unnominated.

When Shrek was released in 2001, the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences decided that it was time to created a "Best Animated Film" category. Previously the Academy also created, "Best Foreign Film" and "Best Documentary". The academy claims that all films in these categories can still be nominated for Best Picture, however after doing some research, I have no found one film that was in more than one of the categories. I feel that these categories serve to partition films that fit into them from the Best Picture Nomination.

Here is the question I purpose: Does the Academy purposely separate animated films because they feel that best picture needs to be a live-action? Or are they simply trying to make sure they have enough awards to have a long enough awards show to televise?

Interactive Movies AKA the videogame

The transition from a movie to a videogame is a scary thought for most gamers. Hardly any movie has been properly turned into a videogame. Graphics are bad. There are countless bugs. Check out this music video poking fun at the first big movie/videogame mishap - ET for the ATARI.




When films first came out, people felt that they were transported into a far away place, however it was not interactive. Videogames go the next step. With this technological evolution, can there ever been an instance where the leap from film to videogame is properly conceived and executed. I turned to my readers to answer the following question:

HAS THERE EVER BEEN A GREAT VIDEOGAME THAT CAME FROM A MOVIE? (Goldeneye will not be accepted)

iTunes and a 21st century MADONNA

I don't think the world is ready for the next reinvention of Madonna, but she does not seem to care. Madonna, known for changing her appearance, accent or occupation on the turn of a dime has added DIRECTOR to her resume, right between Children's literature author, horrendous actress and multi-platinum recording star.

Her feature film debut is entitled "FILTH & WISDOM" and it recently premiered at the Berlin Film Festival. Let's just say that the reviews were the opposite of fantastic. In light of such bad press, the pop-star has decided to release the film through the INTERNET - possibly exclusively through iTunes. This would not mark the first feature debut through iTunes, but it showcases something completely different. iTunes, a beacon of hope for up and coming film makers looking for distribution for quality films now represents a digital graveyard where producers can upload horrendous films in hopes of seeing even the tiniest income of cash. Madonna, quoted saying she "doesn't do anything conventionally," might want to stop claming this use of iTunes as a 21st century way of distribution and just say what it really is - the only place where her movie would be distributed. The real question is, why would iTunes take a crap shoot like this movie? The reason is because it is of little cost to put this movie on their servers. If it does not sell, it is as easy and pressing the delete key. Another movie could be uploaded in its place within seconds. In the world of cinema today, if you want to roll out a film in wide release, it costs tons of money to print the celluloid and guarentee the theaters a cut of the ticket. Most, if not all, of this expense is avoided through iTunes (albeit I assume iTunes does receive a cut of each sale)

All in all, it seems iTunes, a service that continues to grow and change the face of digital distribution, has now evolved into a place where films no one wants to see can die a slow, digital death. If only iTunes were around for Lucas' Howard the Duck...

And in the high def battle the winner is....

BLU-RAY. Blu-Ray has officially trounced its opponent, HD-DVD. Similar to the BETA-Max vs. VHS battle, consumers and distributors did not know which format to put them money towards. Slowly but surely companies and consumers chose either HD-DVD or Blu-Ray. As of last week, the battle became very ugly and one-sided when Wal-Mart, Best Buy and Netflix all chose to exclusively endorse Blu-Ray. This trifecta of content distribution put the final nail into the coffin of HD-DVD. What now?

Well all the owners of HD-DVD players are out of luck. The XBOX360 will no longer advertise the HD-DVD add on you can purchase separately. The PLAYSTATION 3 will probably see demand increase because it is a $500 Blu-Ray player (one of the cheapest out there). Finally, a slow phase out of the DVD format is likely to occur in order to force consumers to endorse Blu-Ray.

Stay tuned for more updates on Blu-Ray and how the once equal HD-DVD will disappear from existence.

CGI’s Encroachment Into Hollywood Blockbusters.

To begin, my last blog was about the Writer’s Strike.  It is finally over.  Stay tuned for future updates on how the deal is working out…

We’ve all heard the term CGI before – if you haven’t then you have been living under a rock.  CGI stands for Computer Generated Imagery and it is how audiences witnessed the Titanic sink, how Spiderman traversed throughout NYC and how a green orge named Shrek saved a princess in distress.  All of these instances of CGI were done because CGI was needed.  The issue facing Hollywood Blockbusters currently is: when is there simply too much CGI?

To begin, lets talk about The Matrix.  It is considered a SCI-Fi classic due to its visual effects and its allegorical references to the story of Jesus Christ.  However, following The Matrix’s success, the Wachowski brothers decided to go no-holds bar on the sequels and put more CGI than should ever be put in a film.  Not to say those films did not possess some great advances in stunt work (the Wachowski brothers actually built a highway in the New Mexico desert just to blow it up in a really amazing chase scene in The Matrix Reloaded), but CGI cannot be the backbone of your movie – a strong story will always be the foundation of truly amazing films.  The Matrix sequels epitomize why CGI may not necessarily be the ‘future’ of the business, but rather its Achilles Heal.

The reason I am blogging about this is due to the release of the Indiana Jones IV trailer one week ago.  I am one of the biggest Indiana Jones fans.  This was realized when I was asked what year Indiana Jones was born in a really random board game.  Everyone said that this was an impossible question, but I actually remembered that in the third film the introduction said the year was 1914 and Indiana Jones was 16 years old (something along those lines).  With some simple math, I figured out Indiana Jones was born in 1898.  With this devotion to the character of Dr. Jones, I am very nervous for the upcoming fourth outing.  The reason being that the new trailer brings far more CGI to the table than the previous installments and this emphasizes the question: can there ever be too much CGI in a film?  

Indiana Jones is known for its stunts.  Whether it be the boulder chasing Indiana Jones in Raiders, the ‘cliff-hanger’ ending in Temple or the motorcycle chase in Crusade.  All said films possessed minor effects that used the assistance of the computer, but overall most of the film used real people, in real situations – something modern audiences can tell in the blink of an eye.

The biggest flaw of the trailer comes after Indiana Jones is swinging through a warehouse with his whip.  The truck he is chasing crashes through boxes and explodes through the other side ramming into Soviet soldiers (obviously killing them).  This is impossible to shoot with real actors – the risk of death is far too great.  With the impossibility of actually shooting this scene, Spielberg opted to use CGI to make this scene come to life.  The problem is that PEOPLE KNOW IT IS FAKE.  Spielberg is responsible for some of the greatest films in American Cinema – his first big hit being the 1975 classic Jaws.  Considered one of the scariest films of all time, in the actual film of Jaws, the audience rarely gets to see the shark.  The fear is created in the audience's imagination.  My opinion is to follow a similar path in the Indiana Jones films.   Just allude to the soldiers getting hit.  Cut to Indiana’s face showing disgust at the mess the car has left.  Spielberg did this in Raiders of the Lost Ark.  While Indy was fighting a Nazi soldier, a plane propeller hit the enemy.  Instead of using CGI to show the soldier getting cut up, they cut to the tail of the plane being splattered with blood.  This keeps the realism in tact without insulting the intelligence of the audience.

In closing, CGI will one day be at to the point where the audiences simply will be unable to see any flaws in the final product.  However this is not the issue.  The issue remains on the amount of CGI a director should use.  Just because you have the power to show everything you have ever wanted on the screen – does not mean you should.  Perhaps too much CGI wrecks what could be a truly amazing cinema experience.  I sure hope on May 22^nd, I am not disappointed.

WGA Strike Nears End

The WGA represents nearly 10,500 striking writers and not all are too happy about the current resolution and its stance on new media (Tivo, Internet Downloads, DVD residuals). Many Writer’s are crying out, “Please sir, I want some more!”

Today, in Crowne Plaza in Gotham and the Shrine Auditorium north of USC in Los Angeles, the WGA leadership will reveal the details of the resolution to all WGA members.

If the new agreement is ratified, it will last until May 1, 2011.

The main issue(s) in the resolution revolves around New Media. WGA Presidents emphasized that although all desires were not reached, there were substantial gains in New Media profit sharing. West Coast WGA President Patric Verrone and East Coast WGA President Herb Sargent said, “It is an agreement that protects a future in which the Internet becomes the primary means of both content creation and delivery. It creates formulas for revenue-based residuals in new media, provides access to deals and financial data to help us evaluate and enforce those formulas, and establishes the principle that, ‘When they get paid, we get paid.’ “

The last phrase is what the entire new media negotiations revolve around - the concept that if the studios are seeing residuals from DVDs, online broadcasts, internet sites or downloads, the creators of said content are entitled to a cut.

The WGA Presidents followed continued, “As such, we believe that continuing to strike now will not bring sufficient gains to outweigh the potential risks and that the time has come to accept this contract and settle the strike. Much has been achieved, and while this agreement is neither perfect nor perhaps all that we deserve for the countless hours of hard work and sacrifice, our strike has been a success.”

Only time will tell if the WGA members truly will see great benefits from their 4 months on the pick-it lines.

GENERAL SPECIFICS OF THE WGA DEAL:
- WGA’s terms mirror the DGA agreement on new media jurisdiction
- WGA has jurisdiction over projects with budgets of more than $15,000 per minute, $300,000 per program or $500,000 per series, whichever is lowest.
- Content download (from the internet) saw minimal increase in residuals allotted to writers. This is considered the chink the armor of this agreement.

Stay tuned for more blogs about the entertainment industry and the technology that drives its change.

The Digital Mailroom

Welcome to the Digital Mailroom. In the entertainment industry, the mailroom is the epicenter of all knowledge – every piece of information finds itself in the mailroom at one point or another. The Digital Mailroom will be very similar. Specifically, this site will provide a laymen look at how technology is progressing or hurting the entertainment business.

To begin, let me introduce myself. My name is Chadwick Turner and I have one year left of my undergraduate degree at the University of Southern California. I am studying business administration with a cinematic arts emphasis. My past jobs include videotaping hip and knee replacement surgeries, assistant manager of a Johnny Rockets, Regal Cinemas concessions salesman, Universal Studios Backlot Studio Guide, USC Tour Guide, Vice President/Social Chair of my fraternity, Six Flags Singer/Dancer and being a part of a nationally recognized Show Choir troupe. I currently work at the Gersh Talent Agency where I work part time in the mailroom – so trust me when I say this, the mailroom is the epicenter of all things Hollywood.

This blog will focus upon technology and its impact on the entertainment industry. Whether it be the topic of Internet profit sharing in the WGA (Writer’s Guild of America) strike or the future of distribution in which a feature film’s release will be simultaneously put in theaters and the home (largely due to advances in bandwidth -- fiber optics).

This blog will cover these types of stories. Stay tuned for future updates.