The Digital Mailroom

Chivalry Explained

2011-03-09T07:36:00.001-08:00

LA Girls Suck

2011-03-02T21:00:00.001-08:00

Charlie Zuckerberg

2011-03-02T18:14:00.001-08:00

Oscar 2011 - James Franco stoned?

2011-03-02T17:52:00.001-08:00

$3 Million Dollars for Charlie Sheen - is it worth the side effects?

2011-03-02T14:08:00.000-08:00

2010-10-10T16:26:00.000-07:00

In 2008, while deep in my studies, I wrote an article titled: Blockbuster's attempt to stay affloat. As predicted - they did not stay afloat. More to come - more to come. Stay tuned.

I'm Back and so are Reality TV shows

2008-06-11T12:05:00.000-07:00

Sorry for the absence - I've been celebrating the end of my 3rd year at USC and needed some R&R. However, I am back and ready to continue providing cool articles on what is happening in the future of entertainment.

I will make this next blog short and sweet - TV networks are rapidly switching places for 1st.

Back in the hey day of my youth (10 years ago I think will do it), NBC was king of the sitcoms and had it all - Friends, Fraiser, Seinfeld... Nothing could compete. More recently, CBS has had their CSI spinoffs and have been number one for years. ABC has enjoyed success with Ugly Betty and Desperate Housewives. However, a distant 4th was always FOX. Not any more - guess whose number one - FOX.

HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN? A network that came out of no where 20 years ago is now the number one network? This is simply because people no longer watched sitcoms or tv shows live. They wait for when they are available and simply play it on their DVR. Fox however has EVENTS and not shows. You don't watch the American Idol Finale 2 weeks later and still get the same excitement - everyone around the water cooler has already spoiled the ending. You have to watch it then and there. That is was Fox does right - event television. They got the Emmy's this past go around, they have American Ido and Top Chef and with Fox Reality creating a slew of new television shows on the cheap, Fox will remain number one for years to come.

NBC, the perennial favorite from youth does have the Olympics coming up and those will be a huge help to the struggling network, but I think it is fair to say that FOX, once touted as a joke of network without any quality programming, is now the network to beat. What is ironic is that the same quality of programming is being pumped into FOX, it just turns out that people's tastes are evolving and now FOX provides mostly content that must be viewed then and there - it cannot wait a couple weeks.

With this, I want to write a dirge for all network programming. Days will go away when quality shows like Lost, 24 and others were free. They are simply too expensive for the ratings they deliver. Soon, everything we watch for free will be reality and the only sit-coms, serials or dramas that we can get are on pay cable. I'm sad, but not surprise - it is the nature of the beast - technology makes everyone able to produce shows and with that unlimited ocean of choices, not enough eyes hit the good stuff.

DON'T EVEN GET ME STARTED ON THE RATINGS SYSTEM PROVIDED MY NIELSEN - (a show like ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT gets cancelled, when millions probably watched but just weren't a 'Nielsen Family').

Until next time - God Speed.

C-Wickity

New Ways of 'Reaching' Your Audience

2008-04-26T22:01:00.001-07:00

Precursor: This blog is about technology and its affect on entertainment. Technology is not just new computers and gagets, but rather technological advances can be in the form of new techniques. That is what this blog will focus on - the new techniques employed when marketing a film.

FIRST OFF: Reach, in marketing terms, refers to how many people have literally scene/heard your ads. You want your reach to be as high as possible and be as cheap as possible - these two ideals rarely are attained simutaneously.

To reach an audience with a tentpole film back in 1995, the most expensive marketing campaign was for Toy Story (35 million dollars total). There were some just below that number, but the majority of films were much lower. This summer will see the total money spent on marketing come within striking distance of being the same as the film's entire production budget.

For example, the tentpole films of Indiana Jones, Speed Racer and the Dark Knight could all see their marketing budget be exactly the same as their 150 million production budgets. Now this drastic leap from 35 million to 150 million in just over a decade may sound crazy and simply a waste of money, but the new technology being employed is SUBTLE PRODUCT PLACEMENT.

Sex and the City, a movie that is expected to bring women to the theaters in droves, has deals with Mercedes Benz, Skyy Vodka and Vitaminwater. These deals are not small ventures, but rather multi-million dollar partnerships that translate into marketing budgets that seem astronomical. It simply is not the case.

I posted earlier in March about Speed Racer and its marketing budget exceeding 150 million. Well, after further examination, I have to disagree with my initial assumption that this amount was absurd for a movie that, I felt, would not make that money back. The budget for marketing has increased because the international community has increased (foreign box office is key for a films success and thusly you must spend lots of money on advertisements) and product placement deals have inflated all the marketing budgets to levels that would seem crazy to anyone who does not see the fine print.

I will end with one of the greatest stories I remember over the past year involving product placement. Rolex was James Bond's watch for years. Omega wanted the title. For Casino Royale, the newest Bond film, Omega paid millions of dollars to have this campy dialog.

HOT BOND BABE: (woman is insulting James, looks at his watch) "Rolex?"

BOND: "Omega"

HOT BOND BABE: "Gorgeous..."

Barely recognizable, but that brought the marketing campaign well over 2-3 million dollars from Omega alone. The Bond Franchise should of just had the entire script filled with these references (sarcastic comment -- they did...)

That is all, -- back to the final papers of my 6th college semester year...

QUOTE OF THE WEEK

2008-04-23T15:17:00.001-07:00

This quote describes the future of cash flow for entertainment and I LOVE IT:

“The axiom in Hollywood is that content is king, but those who control access to the king, control the kingdom,” Verrone continued. “Because of federal regulations -- or lack thereof -- that control is in the hands of neither the consumer nor the content creators, but the distributors.”

VERRONE is president of the Writer's Guild of America West.

VIDEOGAMES KILL

2008-04-19T00:00:00.000-07:00

Short post.

I was reading about the April launch of the highly anticipated Grand Theft Auto IV - a titled that has long been delayed.

This title is shipping to stores 3 days before Iron Man (and although industry pundits predict movie goers will be willing to part ways from the game to see the first superhero movie in almost a year), they are worried that the game could cause a ripple effect that will destroy TV and Film revenues.

When Halo 3 launched, TV shows were coming back from Summer hiatus. The only demographic that was down - THE ONLY ONE - was men 18-24. Why? Because they were all cooped up at home with a tub of red vines and a 24-pack of mountain dew trying to frag all their friends in Slayer-mode.

When Super Smash Bros launched a couple months back, the male 18-24 demographic dramatically dropped due supposedly to these men playing the game.

With over 400 million expected to be made by Take-Two (The publishers for GTAIV) in the first week alone, this revenue is seen as a golden ticket for the gaming industry -- I myself have no system but am considering buying one so I can play this game...

Basically, TV and Film executives have new trouble in town - once seen as a passing fad in the 80's when pong and pac-man were hits, videogames now can be considered almost as big a threat to film/tv revenues as piracy. DUNT DUNT DUNT.

I must be going now - I need to finish my brickbreaker game (going for a high score).

IF YOU ARE INTERESTED - MARY THURTLE, a USC Major in Dance and Baller of Choreography, wrote similar statements in a thesis for WRIT-340 for USC - see below:

"Another budding factor that affects crowds at the box office is
> the segmentation of the entertainment industry to include
> untraditional media, such as video games. The online video gaming
> industry is particularly becoming an industry that, like movies
> seen at the theaters, creates a communal experience for its
> participants. Therefore video games are capturing an audience that
> has similar interest in experiencing entertainment in a group.
> Although video games have existed for decades, only recently have
> users been able to virtually connect and network through
> established online communities. For example, Xbox 360, enabled with
> Xbox Live’s online virtual networking, is a new console that
> captures a young audience who had previously opted to the cinema
> for a group activity.
>
>
> This correlation between choosing to play video games instead of
> going to the movie theater is quite apparent. As case in point,
> many film executives believe the September 26th release of the Xbox
> 360 game, Halo 3, was a factor in declining theater attendance the
> weekend of October 5th (Brodesser-Akner). The Heartbreak Kid,
> produced by DreamWorks Pictures, was expected to gross $20-25
> million opening weekend, but instead earned a mere $14 million.
> Further displaying the irregular decline in ticket sales the
> October 5th weekend, the movie industry as a whole made 27% less
> revenue compared with the same weekend in 2006 (Brodesser-Akner).
> To get a sense of how extremely Halo 3 consumes the young target
> movie-going audience, consider the facts that “(Halo 3) players
> racked up more than … 40 million hours by the end of the first
> week… (totaling) more than 4,500 years of continuous game
> play” (Brodesser-Akner). Now that video games are equipped to
> coordinate huge virtual communities, the shared experience that was
> once unique to going to the cinema now applies to more forms of
> entertainment."

Gossip Girls are TOO POPULAR

2008-04-18T12:07:00.000-07:00

That's right.

Gossip Girls, the Josh Schwatz series on the CW is too popular... well online at least.

The show is lagging in the Nielsen Ratings - the entire bread and butter for a show. Without high Nielsen Ratings (or Jericho fans with bags of peanuts) a show simply cannot survive. As of right now, the main views for Gossip Girls are with online streaming - this alone will not pay for the bills.

In fact, the next 5 episodes will NOT be aired online. The VP's of the CW say this is an experiment. With all the fans and their desire to see the show, execs hope that viewers will transition from watching the streaming content to the network broadcast. Only time will tell if this approach will work. At the same time, execs are nervous that the truly avid fans will simply use bitTorrent (or any other download service) to download the episodes once they have aired on TV.

It is interesting seeing a show NOT use streaming for their marketing -- but Gossip Girls cannot survive if they continue streaming their content (a new issue in this constantly evolving media environment).

Time to go back to the mailroom - tootles.

Blockbuster's attempt to stay affloat

2008-04-18T08:53:00.000-07:00

Oh, how the mighty have fallen...

Just 5 years ago, when I was in high school (gulp I am getting old), I remember having a very limited list of activities one could do. You could go cruising (get in your car and simply drive around), go to the theater and see a new release or - last but not least - check out your local video store for some good quality VHS/DVD goodness. I didn't even have a blockbuster until Junior year of high school. I had a video store called Video Update (with a special section curtained off in the back -- only later did I learn that this section was the most profitable...)

Blockbuster was the keystone for any youth trying to find something to do. "What do you want to do?" -- "We could go rent a movie". Those days are far gone. The new conversation, "What do you want to do?" -- "We could rent a movie". No longer do you have to GO anywhere.

This lack of 'going' has caused the once mighty Blockbuster (10 billion market cap at its peak) to plummit to a paltry 600 million market cap today. Blockbuster is trying to save its EXPLETIVE and is doing so by throwing its eggs, not into one basket, but just everywhere it thinks a basket might exist.

At the beginning of this week, Blockbuster and Circuit City (both struggling companies) announced they have been in talks to merge for about 2 months. Blockbuster has been struggling with onDemand and iTunes and Netflix. Circuit City simply cannot compete with Amazon and Best Buy and Walmart and Frys. If my ship is going down and I'm a weak swimmer, I don't try and find another weak swimmer to hold onto when we hit the water. I need to find a strong swimmer to lead me to safety. APPLE, for example, is a very strong swimmer, but sadly, Blockbuster's management thinks it is wise to pick a fight with this entity rather than try and join its bandwagon.

Blockbuster is said to be announcing next week a set top box where people can download movies straight to their computers. No Way!?!? What an amazing idea -- Download movies to a set top box and watch them on your television. Oh that's right, it was an amazing idea when onDemand came out years ago. It was an amazing idea when Apple released AppleTv. It is not so exciting anymore. I think Blockbuster needs to realize that all it has are connections to the film industry and a name that is recognizable to my generation (however, I doubt any youngster requests to go to Blockbuster -- they simply netflix).

THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN FIRST MOVERS ~ BUT NOW THEY ARE TRYING TO BE.

In order for this struggling company to survive, it needs to relize its heydays are over. If it wants to survive, it needs to check its EGO out at the door. I feel like they are an old, washed up athlete trying to pretend the glory days are far from over. THEY ARE OVER. If Blockbuster wants to be an online service - it needs to say goodbye to its brick and mortar business of retail. Otherwise, it is just canibalizing its main area of business.

IN CONCLUSION - BLOCKBUSTER WILL COLLAPSE IF THEIR MANAGMENT CONTINUES THEIR PRESENT PATH OF SELF-DESTRUCTION-- LONG LIVE APPLE.

3D IS THE FUTURE

2008-04-12T19:56:00.000-07:00

I have mentioned this before. I will mention it again. 3D is the future. However, let us learn a new way to use our cinema lexicon. Instead of saying 3D, James Cameron - the man responsible for some of the biggest special fx breakthroughs in modern cinema (Titanic, Aliens, True Lies, Terminator 1 & 2), thinks it best to say, "stereo". This is short for stereoscopic. Cinema is no longer going to be strictly filmed with one camera, but rather will be shot with 2 cameras to create the effect that the audience is actually inside the film.

The big topic revolving around Avatar, James Cameron's big-budget 3D action film, is where can it be played? The film costs roughly 200,000,000.00 and in order to recoup that amount, there need to be theaters that can support the technology. Luckily, with the emergence of digital projectors and digital distribution (largely supplied by Deluxe), most theaters are able to support 3D pictures. Once Avatar is ready for wide release in 2009, over 2,000 screens in the United States will be available for 3D films. While 2,000 screens may sound like a lot, by comparison, Spiderman 3 openly in approximately 4,000 screens. So with this large gap -- how will Cameron recoup his investment?

Cameron knows there are not enough theaters out there with 3D capabilities, so he is shooting the film in a way that it will still be a great film in 2D theaters. Most 3D films (especially the gimicky ones of the 1950's) were merely weak stories with cool special effects. These effects distracted you between terrible plot twists and all your entertainment was coming from the novelty of 3D. Cameron is not about repeating the mistake of the 1950's era 3D. He wants to fully immerse you in the story, because after all, he is a story teller. The ability of using 3D simply helps bring you deeper into the story than ever before. It is not there to be a gimmick, but rather an assistant in reaching into the mind and heart of the audience.

Cameron also points out that with decreasing costs of home entertainment systems, people need a reason to go to the theaters again. 3D is just that ticket according to many industry insiders. Sure, I could watch the 2D Avatar illegally on my computer the day it hits theaters, but I want to see it in 3D. Also, Cameron points out that ticket prices are rising, but the movies have stayed pretty much the same over the last few decades (minus some breakthroughs in special fx). He says there needs to be a reason for audiences to pay more for this entertainment.

Lastly, with Disney Digital 3D pushing 3D (ex. it is reformatting the original Toy Story films for 3D) and Lucas Films reformatting the six Star Wars films for 3D, everyone better prepare themselves for the future of film. No longer will you simply watch passively, but you will be sucked into the screen.

The next steps beyond simply visual 3D:

SMELL-O-VISION: Theaters in Japan synced visuals with smells for the film The New World starring Colin Farrell. The company in control of this was NTT Communications Corp.

RUMBLE SEATS: DisneyWorld's attraction Alien Encounter (based off of Cameron's Alien films) has an alien creature actually breathe down your neck and shake your seat.

WATER EFFECTS: Shrek 4D at Universal Studios, Hollywood has effects that go beyond merely 3D effects, but rather include water effects (Donkey sneezes on the entire audience).

SIDE NOTE: There are even companies out there that will be selling designer 3D glasses. No longer will you have to use those cheap plastic glasses they provide, but you can go to the theaters in style... I wonder what else can be marketed with this new craze for 3D.

Second Life's Cousin Gets Movie Deal

2008-04-06T18:29:00.000-07:00

There.com is what Second Life wants to be, however instead of letting users create all the content, the Mateo, California based company assists in ensuring there is an actual purpose to logging on with your avatar. At There.com, users can play online poker, race friends in various racing games or simply interact with friends through text/voice chat. With all these features engaging users, Paramount Studios (a unit of Viacom) has decided to grant There.com use of various clips in a proprietary program called VooZoo. VooZoo allows avatars to use clips from, for example, Grease or Footloose to convey emotions or simply add some fun to conversations. The cost of these interactive 'emotes' costs $1.00 a piece, similar to the cost of a ringtone. Ringtones are use to make someone's self phone personalized and this VooZoo service is no different.

Another interesting feature of signing users up for VooZoo is Paramounts ability to virally reach audiences for upcoming releases. Paramount's tentpole blockbuster of the summer is Indiana Jones: Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and with VooZoo, Paramount could release free sound effects and 'emotes' for There.com users to download and use. And since There.com is fairly new and the company wants as much content as possible to attract users to join their site, one could easily assume there to be no fee for Paramount in regards to dispersing their content if they want to offer it for free.

Lastly, although I feel that this content licensing is an interesting next step for the studios, There.com is staying tight lipped as to whether this venture has been even a remote success. The main point to take away from this story is that Paramount has given the green light for their content to be use in social networking sites - showcasing that perhaps studios are getting closer and closer to realizing that profit potential does not completely rely on theatrical release, dvd release and then tv rights. Studios are now realizing that the interest can disperse their content cheaply and effectively. The real question remains - when will a tentpole feature length film be available for purchase online? There are several factors that must be focused on - The Walmart Factor, the distribution channel, piracy, etc etc etc. All I know is that over the next decade, all of these issues will be resolved in some way or another.

BELOW IS A SCREENSHOT OF A VIDEO 'EMOTE' PLAYING ABOVE AN AVATAR

(There.com is a free service.)

If you are interested in more on the subject, please follow various links below.

VIDEO DEMO of THERE.COM:
http://www.there.com/there_movies/aralsdayout_mpg.html

CNN ARTICLE:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/04/03/paramount.there.ap/index.html

ORIGINAL VARIETY.COM ARTICLE:
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117983418.html?categoryid=1009&cs=1

Monetizing Films on the Internet

2008-03-29T17:57:00.000-07:00

Rumor has it that the Wachowski Brothers (The Matrix Trilogy, V for Vendetta), are planning on spending over 100 million on marketing their new film “Speed Racer”. The average spent on big Hollywood productions is around 30-40 million. They are more than doubling the average marketing budget! With a production budget already surpassing 150 million dollars, this pair is banking on Speed Racer to easily recoup all investment. This wishful thinking is prevalent in an industry where it seems everyone believes that throwing money at your content will garner you limitless profit potential. These studio suits could stand to learn a thing or two about distribution and marketing from independent production houses.

With the cost of producing and distributing any sort of digital content decreasing exponentially every day (cheap HD Camera, internet as distribution keystone), the studios need to learn from several successful independent films. Case in point, the hockey documentary “In The Crease”, a film with little to no budget and absolutely no support from the major studios, recouped all of its marketing and production budgets within 40 days of its release. How did they do it?

Films do not need 100,000,000 dollar marketing budgets to bring attention to the content. In The Crease was successful because they focused on their audience and did so in the cheapest ways possible.

Key points to "In The Crease" Success

“Their entire marketing program cost less than a single half-page in the New York Times”

They focused entirely on their niche market of hockey fans through specific marketing plans (ex. Advertised only in Hockey magazines) and did not care about getting movie reviews. Their target market does not care about reviews. Likewise, Speed Racer, although it can relate to a wide audience, has an anime fan base. The Wachowski Brothers should focus on this base through comic book, anime and convention advertising. Flooding televisions with 100 million worth of ads will bring the masses to the theater, but will they be able to turn a profit after spending so much on advertisements?

Lastly, the producers of In The Crease did not worry about the normal procedure of film distribution. The producers used createspace.com where anyone can upload a film and let the website handle all aspects of distribution. CreateSpace simply sends the content’s owner a check for however many copies were sold. There is no mass theatrical release, which is very costly. It is simply a direct to DVD operation where only the exact amount demanded is created. Now the studios still are not releasing their new content digitally, but this form of distribution is widely available. All it takes is for one studio to make the first move.

I highlight the example of In The Crease to act as a blueprint for major studios and their future distribution and marketing practices. If film studios continue writing blank checks for marketing and if they do not capitalize on the cheaper digital distribution, their complaints of piracy and loss of profit carries little clout in my book. If they have the ability to save money and do not realize this potential, they cannot complain about loss of profit that is out of their control.

In The Crease made all its investment back ($500,000) in 40 days. Studios should follow this example, but who has the guts to step up and be the first mover?

Will it be APPLE distributing Disney's library? (Steve Jobs is the largest single shareholder of Disney). Will is be Jeff Bezos at Amazon and his 'box'? How about createspace.com. Perhaps they will open their arms to the big studios (they have already shown their effectiveness). Only time will tell. Stay tuned for future updates on this story....

Indiana Jones Rocks My Tech Blog's World....

2008-03-10T20:01:00.001-07:00

Drool if needed (The final poster was just released). Cinephiles enjoy responsibly.

What does it have to do with TECH? Absolutely nothing - Enjoy.

Globalization and “The Golden Compass”

2008-03-09T15:06:00.000-07:00

WHERE OH WHERE DID ALL MY PROFITS GO?

OH WHERE OR WHERE CAN THEY BE?

A movie you probably all did not see this past year is “The Golden Compass”. It resembled the Narnia franchise, but possessed agnostic messages instead of an allegorical theme similar to the Narnia films. Many blamed its lack of success in the US because of its message, but then the movie was released internationally and all theories were thrown out because it emerged as a box office sensation overseas. What went wrong in the US? Was it the message or something else entirely? (Many claim that the issue was in the marketing, but there is no way to be certain).

In the past, international markets were not seen as the breadwinner, but simply a way to make a little more money on top of the US totals. With globalization and the expansion of quality movie theaters around the world, the international market now can yield over 2/3 of a film’s entire profits. Some studios however have yet to realize this and lose out on huge profit potential.

New Line should be celebrating the success of “The Golden Compass” but cannot do so because they only kept the US rights to the film and sold off the international rights in hopes of making up the substantial loss they took on the film. The budget was $180 million and it barely made $70 million in the United States, while internationally the film grossed over $300 million. With venerable markets outside the US, no longer can companies point blame outside their own firm. Simply put, other companies took “The Golden Compass”, marketed it well and made a lot of money in the process. Sadly, New Line did not and just last week was forced to merge with Warner Bros due to lack of sales.

"The Golden Compass" is nothing but a microcosm of the new age of cinema. It clearly shows the secret of profitably when releasing a big-budget film in today's market -- international box office receipts. With digital distribution on everyone's mind in the business (I hear it constantly mentioned at the Gersh Agency), companies can synchronize their release dates with a 'click of a button.' With this ease of distribution, companies like New Line can stop outsourcing their international movie rights and focus their energy on effectively marketing their film. Now, of course the main reason film rights are sold is due to a company's inability to market effectively in many culturally different territories. It spreads a company's resources very thin when you have over 50 territories in which you are releasing your film. But this excuse will not exist for much longer.

The world as we know it is shrinking. Technologies are available that allow just about any information or content to be shared instantaneously from any points on Earth. With these technologies gaining usage around the world, companies will be fully able to realize the potential of their film and garner all the profits for themselves. "T.G.C." US flop could of been the result of a terrible marketing campaign, lack of interest from the American public or simply was bad timing (our market was slightly over saturated with fantasy epics ex. "Stardust", "Narnia", "Harry Potter", "The Last Mimzy"). One this is certain, "The Golden Compass" should be used as a case study for film distributors everywhere. This domestic flop/international dynamo showcases that if you do not make your money in the US, it is not the end of the world.

Stay Tuned for updates on the writer's strike, the future of product placement and how the world of independent films is paving the way for truly talented individuals to display their work to the world.

Hollywood Stock Exchange

2008-03-02T22:15:00.000-08:00

E-Hollywood Commerce with a fun twist

Everyone and their mom want to play the stock market. Some, however, do not simply want to play, they want to succeed in the market. I needed to succeed in the market so I could pay for my student loans. I attend the ninth most expensive private university in the United States and the only idea I came up with to pay for these loans was to sell all I had, open a Scottrade account and risk it all on Apple Inc stock. Luckily that turned me a healthy 300% profit in one year. I read books on day-trading, but my foundation of stock trading came from a website I used since I was a kid – hsx.com.

HSX stands for Hollywood Stock Exchange and it is where anyone can open an account and trade fictitious stocks for movies either in theaters or in production. The best part is that with this website, people can learn about the concept of options, mutual funds and regular stock purchases.

Notice the image above. The stock price of Indiana Jones IV is similar to how the stock price of Apple Inc is priced. Apple's stock will be priced based upon future profitability and the same is for my Indiana Jones IV stock. The price of stock at hsx.com is determined by the total domestic box office a film garnishes in its first four weeks of release in the United States (International box office receipts are not factored into a film’s stock price). For example, if Indiana Jones IV makes 250 million dollars in its first four weeks, the price will be 250 hsx dollars. Currently, Indiana Jones is selling for 270, meaning that you think the movie will make 270 million in the first 4 weekends of its release. To the left is an image of how you trade. Similar to investment sites, you have options ranging from selling, buying, shorting or covering a stock.

This site is perfect for anyone interested in getting a free tutorial in stock trading and doing it in an environment based on the entertainment industry. I hope to be a literary agent in Hollywood one day, so I keep up to date with all future movie releases through this site (amongst others). A side note - through this site I have learned some interesting statistics about the finances behind the film industry as well. One of my favorite personal discoveries from this site is that on average, you can estimate a movie’s overall gross based upon its first weekend sales – the average total cue is 2.9 times the 3-day opening weekend gross – *this is a generalization that does not apply to all films. This equations comes into play after the opening weekend of a film. If Star Wars makes 50 million from Friday-to-Sunday, then the stock price will be adjusted from whatever it closed at Thursday night to the new total of $145.

This site showcases how the technology used in online stock-trading can be used for educational purposes. Through HSX.com I have learned the basics of financial markets all while keeping up-to-date on movie releases in a fun and effective way. With social sites and fantasy sports sites becoming more and more popular with audiences online, I think HSX is presented with an opportunity to evolve into a destination for people looking for a fun way to keep up with the industry while learning some of the vocabulary used in investing.

BELOW IS A SCREENSHOT OF MY ACCOUNT AT HSX.COM

I started my first account in 6th grade with the upcoming release of Pearl Harbor. My account name is even PEARLHARBOR1 and out of the over 1,000,000 accounts, I am just under the 2500 player in regards to my overall rank (my rank is 2339). I strongly recommend this site to anyone who wants to experience Hollywood from an investor’s prospective.

AVATAR & the future of filmmaking

2008-02-26T18:51:00.000-08:00

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

2008-02-25T11:08:00.001-08:00

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

2008-02-24T12:33:00.001-08:00

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

2008-02-21T19:07:00.000-08:00

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

2008-02-20T10:50:00.001-08:00

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....

2008-02-18T17:59:00.000-08:00

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.

2008-02-17T15:24:00.000-08:00

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

2008-02-12T12:43:00.000-08:00

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

2008-02-09T10:25:00.000-08:00

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.