The Mayans were wrong it would appear as humanity is still standing and the Earth is still spinning round just fine. Sorry, gloom and doomers there will be no apocalypse this time. That means we will still be able to see movies in 2013! Now I had thought about a list of the top ten films I am most anticipating for this next year, but found that was something almost everyone else was doing right now. Instead, I decided to write about the 10 burning questions I had related to films being released next year and the movie industry as a whole. Here is that list in no particular order:
10: Will Star Trek Into Darkness actually be a good film?
As a long time Star Trek fan, I am not afraid to admit that I actually quite liked Abrams' first film back in 2009. It had some issues when it came to the overall plot and particularly the convenient ways in which it brought the characters together. But it still was an enjoyable film. One of the main reasons it worked so well was its cast. Abrams did a great job casting the Big Seven (Kirk, McCoy, Spock, etc) and they all seemed to have such a natural and easy chemistry with one another. It was fun to see them come together and form the crew that we all remember.
Unfortunately this time the creative team cannot lean on that chemistry to cover up plot issues like they did in the first film. Nor can they claim they did not have enough time to prepare the script or have the ability to alter it during filming as they did in 2008, when the Hollywood Screenwriters Strike was in full effect.. In fact, I would argue the writing team has had more than enough time to fine tune the script to the film. It has been 4 years since the release of the first film. Granted, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman were not working on the screenplay for this sequel those entire four years. They had other projects during some of that time, as did JJ Abrams. In truth they probably had more like a year and a half or two years to work the screenplay out. That is still quite a long time to craft a story and screenplay.
With that amount of time to develop the story, I really would expect this film to be something pretty special. I would expect any wonky logic gaps would be filled, that the dialogue would be crisp and entertaining, and that Cumberbatch's "John Harrison" would be a complete, complex, and ultimately highly satisfying villain. Now I am not saying these gentleman are writing Shakespeare. But what I am saying is that there should not be the problems that plagued the first film here with this one. It should be a great story well told.
They have certainly cast the film well with the aforementioned Cumberbatch (BBC Sherlock), Alice Eve, and Peter Weller. The main cast has returned, including Bruce Greenwood's Admiral Pike, and they have the full confidence of Paramount behind them. So there would seem to be alot going for the film, right?
But the question still remains if the film will be good? I am going to go out on a limb here and say that I feel it will deliver. I have faith that the story they are going to tell will be a great one and that we may be discussing this film in May in the same breath as the high watermark for Star Trek on film: The Wrath of Khan.
9: Will 48fps become more mainstream and accepted by theater owners, the movie going public, and Hollywood?
In April, Peter Jackson and James Cameron came to Cinemacon, the annual gathering of US theater owners, and made their pitch for 48fps. In fact, I wrote about that pitch and the issue of 48fps in general at the time, that can be found here.
The reaction to that presentation was mixed, with many complaining that the high frame rate made things almost too real and showed the flaws of the sets and makeup. Then Peter Jackson released The Hobbit- An Unexpected Journey last month at 48fps and the reaction from moviegoers was equally mixed. Some viewers even experienced motion sickness during some of the action sequences. I have yet to see this film at the high frame rate, so I can't really comment personally on it. But the mixed reaction does cause some pause as to the viability of the format going forward.
Now the truth is that Hollywood and the theater owners are desperate to find ways to draw people back to the theaters and away from their own fancy home theater setups. One of the ways they have tried to do this is with digital projection, digital sound, and with the introduction of cinema bistros. But none of those things has really caused a considerable uptick in theater attendance. While overall attendance has been up from last year, it is not as large of an increase as I am sure would be desired. With that said, I could see there could certainly be a desire from theater owners to try this higher frame rate as a way to draw people in.
But the question is whether there is enough of a desire from theater owners? And just as important, can the problems with this higher frame rate; motion sickness, showing the flaws in sets and makeup, and general disorienting quality, be corrected?
My answer to both is yes. I do think that theater owners will somewhat embrace this higher frame rate in the short term, but will do so cautiously. The reaction to this all, from critics and moviegoers alike, has been mixed at best, so it would seem logical that theater owners may be a tad timid in the coming year when it comes to this higher frame rate. As they probably should.
As far as the problems with the frame rate, let me address them briefly one by one. First, I think we may see a major leap forward in the true craftsmanship of film making . By that I mean we will see an advance in set building and makeup on a level we have not seen in many years. I could see in the next few years sets being built that are photo real and makeup so seamless that it appears to be natural. Quite frankly, I welcome these advances. Any advances to the true craftsmanship of film making is a good thing. As far as the motion sickness and disorientation, well that will pass in time as well. Our eyes are used to seeing images presented at 24 frames per second. We have seen them presented this way for over 100 years. It is acceptable for there to be an adjustment period to this higher frame rate. The more we see it, the more we will become used to it.
However, there is but one film slated for release in 2013 that will project at this higher frame rate and that is part two of Jackson's Hobbit trilogy. So there may not be many opportunities for people to adjust to the higher frame rate in the short term due to the lack of films available.
In the end I do feel that 48fps is here to stay. Theater owners will come around and audiences will adjust as well in time. As a cinema lover, I am not one who likes gimmicks or advances in the craft and technology of film making that are not warranted. I am on the fence whether 48fps is warranted and until I am able to see this new format, I will withhold my full opinion on it. Sometimes advances in technology are simply not necessary and sometimes can lead to the destruction of the very thing they are seeking to advance. My hope is that is not the case here.
8: Will Marvel still use a shared universe approach in Phase Two as buildup to Avengers 2?
I don't think anyone can argue that Marvel's plan in Phase One didn't work? The Avengers made over a billion dollars worldwide in box office receipts this past summer. While that film is quite good, it alone was not the reason for its own success. Rather it was the years of universe building that proceeded The Avengers that made it such a monstrous success. That universe building started with the first Iron Man film when Nick Fury shows up, in a post credit sequence, and asks Tony if he has heard of the Avengers Initiative. Then it continued on when Stark showed up at the end of The Incredible Hulk, Howard Stark showing up in Captain America, and it went on from there. It took meticulous planning on the part of the filmmakers, writers, and ultimately Marvel Entertainment themselves to connect the films to a shared universe, one which could then be used to full effect in The Avengers.
Now in Phase One, Marvel had S.H.I.E.L.D to use as a means to tie the characters and their own individual worlds together. Which of course they did to great effect. But in Phase Two, things get alittle more tricky. It is obvious based on the fact that Thanos will be the villain in Avengers 2 that Marvel is looking to make things much more cosmic in Phase Two. They are going to blow up the balloon, so to speak, and make the Marvel Film Universe exponentially larger, on a scale never before attempted in the realm of comic book films.
It is a risky and brave move on Marvel's part to attempt this and I, for one, admire them for it. But again it makes me wonder if they are still going to use the same universe building approach in Phase Two that they did in Phase One?
Kevin Feige, head of Marvel Entertainment, has been quoted as saying that next slate of films due for release, starting with Iron Man 3, will focus more on each character's world and not involve any team ups or crossovers. This makes it seem like Marvel may shy away from clever post end credit cameos and simply tell stories set in the universe as it is already established. Which could also mean no setting up of Thanos or the Infinity Gauntlet until Guardians of the Galaxy in 2015.
In truth that just doesn't sound right to me. I would argue that Feige is having alittle fun with the press and in particular online movie bloggers. Marvel will not abandon the method that lead them to their current success. No, there will be efforts made over the next 3 years (Avengers 2 is set for release in 2015) to introduce and establish the more cosmic side of the Marvel Universe. I could see Thor: The Dark World to begin to lay some of the groundwork for Thanos and then maybe have Captain America: The Winter Soldier introduce members of The Guardians of the Galaxy, which of course would be a lead in to their solo film slated for release right before Avengers 2.
I don't think we will see much of this type of thing in Iron Man 3 as it would seem Shane Black really desires to tell a Tony Stark story first and foremost, and that is ok with me. But I do fully expect Marvel to expertly use all the tools available to them in order to expand the Marvel Film Universe firmly into the cosmic realm starting with Thor: The Dark World in November.
7: Can Man of Steel successfully relaunch Superman and, just as important, Justice League?
Man of Steel has an awful lot on its super powered shoulders. First, it has to do something that has proven very difficult, which is successfully relaunch Superman in cinemas for the modern era. Bryan Singer tried back in 2006 with Superman Returns, a film met with mixed reactions from critics and modest returns at the box office. Singer's film tried, quite earnestly and to a fault, to remain loyal to Richard Donner's original 1978 film. This was obviously a misstep and one this production seems to not desire to make.
Second, this film has to launch the new shared DC cinematic universe, which will make its grand debut with Justice League in the summer of 2015. Unlike Marvel, DC and Warner Brothers have decided to not use multiple stand alone films to build their shared DC cinematic universe. Instead, they intend to use Man of Steel as the launching pad for Justice League and the shared universe it inhabits. How they intend to do this is unknown at this point. One popular theory has a certain Gotham City crimefighter showing up in a post credits sequence, similar to Marvel's approach, and ask Kal-El if he wants to be a part of a supergroup. Will that sort of thing work? Hard to say. But the point here is that Man of Steel is more or less responsible for the entire future of DC on film. That is a rather big responsibility, but one that I feel could be met.
The first thing this film did right was involving Christopher Nolan, producer and director of the highly successful Dark Knight Trilogy, as a producer. Nolan had a keen understanding of what made Batman tick and how to translate that into films that could be entertaining and wildly popular. I think he has that same level of understanding when it comes to Superman as well. Some have voiced their concerns quite loudly that Superman is a different animal when compared with Batman and Nolan's real world approach will simply not work on a character like Superman. I say that is all nonsense. If there was ever a character who could use some grounding in the real world it is Superman. From what I have seen thus far it would appear that the approach is to make Kal-El truly a stranger in a strange land. I like that idea very much.
Now of course Nolan alone did not shape this film, but he was wise enough to bring in a truly inventive filmmaker in Zack Snyder to direct. Snyder proved he can handle the superhero genre with Watchman, a film that I happen to love quite a bit. He also has proved in all of his films that he has a unique visual eye and can shoot some pretty tremendous and memorable images and sequences. But what makes Snyder an interesting filmmaker also makes him a divisive one. There are many who do not like his visual style and felt it was all wrong for Superman. I do understand that viewpoint. But I would argue that nothing we have seen to this point suggests that Snyder is approaching Superman the same way he did 300 or Sucker Punch before it. In fact, I would argue that Snyder is toning down those impulses and is crafting a film different from the ones he has done before, both visually and from a story telling perspective. I feel confident that Snyder will deliver a rousing, entertaining film and have little worry he is the wrong man for this particular job.
The cast in this film is quite great to be honest. It would seem Snyder and company took a page out of the Richard Donner playbook and cast well known actors in the key roles of Jonathan Kent and Jor-El. This is not a bad approach at all. I look forward to seeing what Kevin Costner and Russell Crowe can do in the roles respectively. I am also interested in seeing how Henry Cavill does in the lead role. Cavill is a British actor (Superman played by a Brit?) who may be best known stateside for his role in the Showtime series The Tudors. He certainly looks the part and I applaud the production team for going with a relative unknown for the role of Kal-El. But the film does live or die based on his performance, so there is some risk here.
As far as the story that Man of Steel will tell? Well that is anyone's guess at this point. It would seem, based on the trailers alone, that we will spend alot of time with Kal-El before he becomes Superman. It could be assumed that the approach taken here will mirror that of Batman Begins, where we spent a great deal of time getting to know Bruce Wayne before he returns to Gotham and becomes The Batman. In truth, I think that approach can work here. If I were to make a Superman film, I would want my audience to come to care about Kal-El long before he ever puts on the tights and cape. If the idea here is present Kal-El as someone who truly feels his powers are a burden and not a blessing, than I think this production is on the right track for sure.
Or course bringing back General Zod and adding Kryptonian spacecraft are both things that make this film much more appealing to both the fans and the general public. But ultimately it will come down to if this is a good story. If it is then it will be a huge success and will finally make Superman relevant in theaters again. It will also successfully plant the seed for Justice League and the new shared DC universe.
My feeling is that Man of Steel will truly be a great Superman story. It will redefine the character in new and interesting ways and make him a viable foundation from which DC and Warner Brothers can build off of. Now with that said, I am unsure about the whole post credits sequence idea with Batman. I would have preferred DC and Warner Brothers took the Marvel approach and built their shared cinematic universe slowly and carefully with each character getting their own standalone film. But alas, that is not the way they went.
Ultimately as I said, I think this film will be quite good. They will stick the landing there. However, the bridging method they use, be it a post credit sequence or clever cameos, will fall flat. So they may succeed in relaunching Superman while also failing to create a satisfying method to transition to the shared universe they so desperately need for Justice League.
It is just my overall feeling on that all. No worries on the film itself. It will deliver in spades.
6: Can Theater owners and Hollywood make theater going exciting and unique again?
This is perhaps the most important question to me personally on this list. I am an unabashedly devout cinema lover. Any chance I get to see a film with a crowd in a theater I will take it. Admittedly those opportunities are less and less now that I have children. But the desire is still there. I think movie theaters are still some of the most magical places you can go in America. They allow you to be transported to a different time and space and to do so with other people, strangers really. You go on the journey together in the dark for several hours and come out the other side. You have experienced something together and are joined in that experience. Seeing a film in a theater is unique and can never be duplicated in a home theater, no matter how advanced.
Yet, theater owners don't seem to understand that. Nor does Hollywood. Both feel that it is the technical aspects like digital projection, digital sound, 3-D, 48 fps, and CGI wizardry, that draw people to see a film at a movie theater. They have went all in on technical upgrades and have missed the point really. It is, and has always been, about the experience of seeing a film on a big screen with an audience. Sure the film should look good and wow visually when it needs to. But the film itself is not the only thing that matters when it comes to a unique and memorable theater experience.
Tim League and his Alamo Drafthouse theater chain seem to understand what is important to a unique and enjoyable theater experience. One of the things the Alamo is known for is its strict no talking, texting, phone use policy. You are given one warning if caught doing any of these things while the film is playing. If you do it again you are kindly escorted out of the theater. No re-entry. No refunds.
Now that may seem to be a harsh policy, but it truly is a necessary one. Many of my friends and the people I have had the opportunity to ask have told me one of the reasons they do not see films as often in the theaters is the constant distractions due to people talking or using their phones while the film is playing. In fact, there was recently a survey conducted within the last two years that showed this very same thing. The point here is that people want to go to a theater and be able to enjoy the film without distractions. When seeing a film with a girlfriend or wife sets you back $40 with concessions, you kind of want to see the film and not have to deal with rude people.
I don't understand why the same level of conduct and appropriate behavior in a live theater performance is not expected during the showing of a film in a movie theater. Granted, you can throw off an actor or orchestra in a live theater performance with ill timed talking or other disturbances. You cannot do such a thing in a movie theater. However, you can still ruin the experience of the film for those seated around you. To me the Alamo's policy and the way it is enforced should become the model for all theaters in America.
But will it? I am not sure right now. National movie theater chains are very timid when it comes to upsetting any of their paying customers, even those who have little problem talking, texting and using their phones during films. Many of those who engage in these activities are young people. The fact is that those same young people make up a large percentage of those who regularly attend movies and in turn line the pockets of theater chains and Hollywood alike. It is a difficult situation for the national chains to find themselves in but not an impossible one.
Alamo Drafthouse has not suffered any loss of attendance or overall profitability due to their strict policy. In fact, they are rapidly expanding, opening at least 4-5 new locations in the next calendar year in cities like Los Angeles, New York, and Cleveland. Surely if Alamo can still be profitable then so can the large chains. But the problem for me still remains if the theater chains have the stomachs to enforce policies like those of the Alamo. Sure they could put them in writing, they could even post them for all to see. But will they actually put ushers in every showing and will they walk people out who do not comply?
Another area I feel theaters need to explore and embrace is revival screenings, marathons, film festivals, and other unique theater experiences. Alamo, once again, does this well. This past summer at their theater location in Austin, Texas they screened a series of films from the summer of 1982. A summer that many consider one of the greatest in history. This series included films like Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan, Leviathan, The Thing, and others. In addition, Alamo had prizes, giveaways, and other audience activities prior to and after the films were screened. It was a unique experience for those lucky enough to attend any of the films over the couple weekends in which they were screened. Many who did attend one or several of the films wrote that it was a great time.
Theater chains seem to have their gaze firmly fixed on the future of movies, at the expense of the past. Old films still have massive followings and not just the usual suspects like Star Wars, Star Trek, Blade Runner, Alien, and any of the films of Spielberg. No, there is much love for lesser known films that are unique and special. Films like Fargo, Unforgiven, Memento. Films that are known but are not those that we automatically might assume have a devoted following. The point is that people love older films and would absolutely be elated to see some of those films projected in a theater again. They would kill for the chance to see the films they love with others who love them as much as they do. Again, seeing a movie in a theater is about community and a shared experience.
It would, in all honesty, be pretty easy for theater chains to have screenings like these. It would of course require the participation of the studios, but given the success of screenings of films like Star Wars and E.T. this past year I can't imagine the studios would have a problem pitching in. I mean screenings like these would be profitable for the studios and would renew interest in a given film. These screenings could also be used to raise money for charitable organizations or local community efforts. They would also make many fans of these films happy, to not only enjoy these films again themselves but to be able to take their children and grandchildren to experience them, perhaps for the first time, as well.
I plan to write a more comprehensive post about what I feel theater chains and Hollywood should do long term to make theater going fun and unique again. But I will end here by saying that technology is not the gateway to making theaters unique. No, it is about the experience that theater chains give to the audience. It is about making seeing a film in a theater an event, one that should be treated with the utmost respect. My hope is that starting this year we will see theater chains start to look back for inspiration on how to be innovative. It truly seems to be as simple as: Follow the Alamo.
5: Can Pacific Rim be the next Star Wars?
That really does seem to be an unfair question to ask, doesn't it? I mean can any film ever again produce the cultural and industry wide reaction that Star Wars did in 1977? Highly unlikely. It truly was pitch perfect timing when it came to the release of Star Wars. There was very little merchandising tied to films in theaters, sci-fi films were on the decline, and there was little innovation in the industry as a whole. Lucas was a very savvy filmmaker and even more shrewd businessman. He saw the future of cinema, took the risk and ultimately was rewarded for it. Star Wars caught everyone by surprise. No film can really surprise anyone now with the Internet and the myriad of film and entertainment websites out there.
So I think we can all agree that Gullemo Del Toro's film will not produce the same cultural and industry wide change that George Lucas did. The world has changed too much for that to ever happen again. However, my question and the remainder of this section is going to be devoted to if Pacific Rim can redefine what is possible in the modern film world and in addition ignite the imaginations of an entire generation of movie lovers, much like Star Wars did.
I feel it certainly can. First you have probably one of the most imaginative and creative filmmakers out there both writing and directing this film in Gullemo Del Toro. Mr. Del Toro has made some of the most imaginative films I have seen in the last 10 years. Films like The Devil's Backbone, Hellboy 2, and Pan's Labyrinth. Del Toro understands how to craft a compelling and ultimately very well put together film. I would be hard pressed to say he will not bring his unique visual style and expert storytelling ability to bear on this film. In fact I think given the subject matter of this film, he will not only thrive but rather soar.
What is the subject matter of this film? Well I am glad you asked. Basically it is a giant monsters versus giant robots film with the fate of humanity throw in for good measure. It is a film geek's ultimate wet dream and one that I feel could also have massive crossover appeal to the non film geeks as well. I would say if you are unsure about the film at this point that you should seek out the trailers to the film on YouTube and see how you feel after. They may just change your mind on this film.
Personally, this is just not the film for me this coming summer. The further adventures of Jim Kirk and friends is far and wide the one I am most excited for. But what I will say is that based on what I have seen to this point it is clear that Del Toro is swinging for the fences here. The industry and audiences in general are due for a jolt of originality and inventiveness. I do hope Pacific Rim can be the film to do it and perhaps in doing so capture some of the magic Star Wars had way back in 1977.
4: Will A Good Day To Die Hard finally kill the Die Hard franchise?
I think the above (wholly unoriginal) tagline pretty much sums up where we are at with the Die Hard franchise. This film is the fifth one in the series. This time we find John and his grown son in Russia for reasons not yet known fighting some sort of Russian mafia types, terrorists, or ex-military. There will be explosions, gun fights, broken glass, clever lines for John, and perhaps a few violent deaths thrown in for good measure. It may even, dare I say, feel like a Die Hard film in the very slightest of ways.
But with that said, is this film really necessary? Is there anyone out there that was clamoring for the further adventures of John McClane?
Even the fans of this series and of the character have to be coming to the point where even they realize that it may be time for this series to slip off into the sunset. That it is time for New York Police Officer John McClane to receive his gold watch and go into retirement. Is he even still a New York cop? Perhaps someone can help me out with that in the comments section below as I stopped watching these films after Die Hard with a Vengeance.
My argument here is that there comes a point in every film series where there really is nothing new to say, no brave creative ground to venture into, and most importantly there is a profound risk of ruining the legacy of the first film or the first few films. Die Hard has come to this point now. Bruce Willis is I believe 60 years old right now. You had to suspend your disbelief in the first three films, but now given Bruce's age you would have to not just suspend it, but ruthlessly smother it with a pillow. Even in as good of shape as Bruce is in, I find it hard to believe he could do many of the things his character is tasked with doing in this series at this point. It borderlines on comical if I am being honest.
I mean I do love the first two Die Hard movies, particularly the first one. In fact my wife and I watched the first Die Hard again around Christmas this year and I have to say it has held up pretty well for a film that is over 20 years old. It is a very fun and well made action movie, one that I think will continue to hold up another 20 years from now.
Sometimes it is best to leave a film property alone and allow it to fade into its place in cinematic history. Die Hard will remain, in my mind, a series that had three great films and two completely unnecessary ones. My hope is that this will be the last film in the series and we will not be gearing up for the Adventures of John McClane Jr.or any other nonsense. Time will tell, as will the box office performance of this fifth film.
3: Can Spike Lee deliver a truly great Oldboy?
I am going to make a rather bold assumption right at the top here and say that many of you reading this right now have no idea what Oldboy is. Am I right? If not, I certainly apologize. Oldboy was a Korean film made by director Chan-Wook Park and released in 2003. It is the story of Oh Dae Su who was kidnapped and imprisoned for 15 years, then released only to find that he has 5 days to find his captor. The film starts with Oh Dae Su being freed and follows him over the 5 days as he goes in search of said captor. There is of course more to this story, but to divulge any of it would be criminal. I would strongly advise you, for your own good, to avoid reading anything related to the original film. I would also advise you to see the 2003 film. Seek it out! It is on Netflix and Amazon right now. Go check it out, but do so only knowing just what I told you here.
Now we can move on to the matter at hand. Spike Lee has decided to remake Oldboy for American audiences. A bold move in my opinion as the original is so well made and such a great film. But this is the way things work in Hollywood at the present time. I certainly think we could have gotten a worse director for this material than Spike Lee. In fact, I really think this might be a pretty perfect mix of material and director. Spike Lee is in need of a film that challenges him and causes him to raise his game a bit. This could be just the one for him.
He certainly has cast it well with the likes of Josh Brolin, Samuel L. Jackson, Elizabeth Olson, Sharlto Copley, Lance Reddick, and Michael Imperioli. I am particularly interested in how Josh Brolin plays the lead role of the Oh Dae Su character. Of course his name will not be the same here, but I do hope his overall story is. I think Brolin is a good choice for a man who has been broken but is now seeking revenge on those responsible. I think he can play the brutality and hidden fragility and pain of this character perfectly. Then there is that supporting cast, I mean just look at it. Looks pretty good from top to bottom.
So we have a good director and a pretty good cast, but do those two things a good film make? No, not really. Like every film released, the quality of this film will come down to the quality of the screenplay and the story being told. It helps that the original film is a truly great story. I mean all they would have to do is copy it for the most part and they would be golden. Of course there will be some changes to that story, there always is when it comes to a remake. My hope is that those changes make the film and story better and not worse. I have faith in Spike Lee, but sometimes even with the best intentions things can just go wrong.
I do love the 2003 original very much, so it is obvious that this remake is one I am watching carefully and anticipating with much reservation. My gut tells me that all involved will make a great remake of the original, one that bridges that tricky divide between honoring the original while also setting itself apart. I know that I will be one of the first in line when the film is released this summer. As should you!
2: Can Hollywood finally figure out how to successfully battle piracy?
The piracy of films is not a new problem for Hollywood. In fact it has been a problem for the entertainment industry for a long time. However, it is a problem that has grown perpetually over time and now is far too big of a issue to be ignored. With programs like BitTorrent and others like it, people are able to download new release films and episodes to popular television shows directly to their computers for free. They can also share them with others as well and those people can share, so on and so forth.
Unfortunately people who engage in these acts don't realize that those movies and TV shows do not come free. They do not see how their actions affect more than just the massive studios, but many involved in the production of said TV show or film. I will avoid the moral argument here in regards to this issue and just say that I feel it is stealing no two ways about it, and it is causing some major headaches for the major studios, networks, and content producers.
But how does the entertainment industry limit the amount of piracy that takes place?
Limit is the key word there as the entertainment industry can never hope to eliminate piracy completely. There will always be some person who will pirate a film just because they can or because they want to stick it to the greedy studios, or any of a myriad of other reasons. In the end, this sort of theft will still occur. The key for the studios is to try and create an atmosphere where the person on the fence as far as pirating a film or TV show will not do so. These people from this point forward will be the fence sitters. They are the ones who don't really want to pirate a film or TV show, but do so because they are impatient and want to see that film or episode of a show now. These people would prefer to pay but do not have the option to as the thing they want is unavailable any other way.
We are, and have been for many years, a culture of instant gratification. You want that latest hot music single? Download it on Itunes and have it playing on your phone or IPod within seconds. Want to see that older film that you love? Watch it on Netflix streaming. The point is that we find ourselves in an era where media and entertainment is available to us pretty much instantaneously and through more devices than ever.
In order to lessen the impact of piracy, Hollywood needs to embrace the instant gratification model. The first way they can do this is to make hit films available sooner on Video On Demand. As it stands now, films are available on VOD providers like Vudu and Amazon on the same day and date that they are available in store on DVD and Blu-Ray. It is usually 5 months after the film's theatrical release. Some recent films, like Prometheus, have went against that timetable and have been made available on VOD prior to their release on DVD and Blu-Ray. But those films are the exceptions and not the rule.
I think the window needs to be tightened for releasing films on VOD to two months after their initial release in theaters. That way you make the film available early enough that the fence sitters have little problem paying to see the film rather than pirate it. But you also are giving enough time and distance from the theatrical release date as to not anger the theater owners. It seems to me to be a good window for the entertainment industry to use.
About a year ago there was some talk about the studios releasing films on VOD the same date they release them to theaters. This idea was met with much resistance and criticism from the theater owners, many of whom felt that this option would cause a large downturn in attendance in their theater locations. It is valid concern and one I feel the theater owners had every right to express to the major studios. With that said, I think this idea is still a good one.
You see I think that attendance at theaters does not necessarily need to suffer if a film is also released at the same time on VOD. The VOD angle will really appeal more to people who can't get to the theaters easily. Those consist of parents of young children and older people. The former due to issues related to finding and affording someone to watch their children and also generally limited income due to the costs of daycare and other expenses that come with having young kids. For the latter, it is their health that is the biggest obstacle for them to get out to the theater. I know as a member of the former group I would love the ability to see a new release film at home the weekend it is released in theaters.
The platform for such a plan, either be it same day release or two month window, is already in place for Hollywood. Platforms such as Vudu, Amazon, and Netfix would be more than happy to provide the ability for the major studios to release their new films digitally. I am also certain a price point for such a plan could be reached that would be acceptable to both studios and providers. A number was floating around some time ago that was around the $20 range for new release films.
Now that may seem steep, but when you think about how much films cost in theaters it is actually pretty reasonable. Even if the charge was $40 per film, it would still fall within the realm of reasonable. You see most people would probably invite friends over and split the cost, so $40 doesn't seem so bad when divided by 3 or 4 people. You could see movie parties become a more regular thing if a system like this would become a reality.
The overall point here is that the entertainment industry needs to make their new release films and television show episodes available digitally much sooner than they are now, particularly new release films. That may be one of the most effective ways they can combat piracy going forward in 2013. Will they do it? I think so actually. I would bet that we will be talking about a new VOD release window before this year is finished.
1: Can Pixar once again become the innovative and brilliant animation house they once were?
I love most of Pixar's films. My kids love their films. Most kids and many parents, like me, love their films. However, over the last few years or so Pixar has not been producing films of as high of a quality as before. They have been stuck in this rut of sequels and prequels to their other films. We had Cars 2 in the summer of 2011 and we now have Monsters University set for release this summer. A sequel and prequel to previously successful films.
Between the sequel and prequel we had Brave this past summer. Brave was going to be Pixar's first film directed by a woman. Until things went wrong and said female director, Brenda Chapman, left the project, therefore making it the first film at Pixar partially directed by a woman. The reasons for Chapman's departure are unclear, but many have said that it was due to disagreements with John Lasseter regarding the direction Brave was taking.
Brave ended up being a film that kind of divided Pixar's loyal followers. It wasn't necessarily a bad film (and having seen it I can say that I have grown to like it quite a bit) but it also wasn't nearly as magical or brilliantly creative as the previous Pixar films. It was very much in the mold of the classic Disney princess stories, with a few creative twists thrown in for good measure. There was nothing terribly new or unique about it, nothing that seemed to set it apart from the other animated feature releases that had come before it. It was basically a well made Disney princess movie.
To be honest, Pixar should not be making riffs on Disney Princess stories or sequels/prequels to their previous films. No, they should be coming up with new and original stories, ones that ignite the imagination, touch the heart, and feel wholly original. Stories like those found in Wall-E, UP, and The Incredibles. The artists and writers at Pixar are far too talented to waste those talents on a sequel or prequel. I read once that it takes 4 years, from start to finish, for an animated film at Pixar to go from original conception to theatrical release. That seems like an awfully long amount of time to waste on a subpar story or retread or continuation of a story they have done before.
Now after this summer there is some hope on the horizon as Pixar's next two films are new stories and not sequels or prequels to their previous films. The first of these new projects is a story of a boy and his dinosaur, the other is a story that sends people into the human brain. Both sound interesting and could be great with the level of talent at Pixar that is involved.
But right now there is some doubt in my mind that Pixar can really come back to their roots and craft the types of films that put them on the map. The same creative team is there, but is the desire, the passion gone? Has Pixar become a bland corporate controlled animation house, one which is beholden to making profits for their masters instead of making the highest quality original films that they can?
Monsters University is going to be unleashed on us all one way or another. So it goes without saying that I am far more interested to see any of the production stills or other information for the two original films that will follow it. This year could be an interesting one, from a transition standpoint, for Pixar. But it is ultimately one that will show what direction this company is going? Do they want to get back to making the types of films they originally set out to or are they content to do what Disney asks. My hope is that they will embrace the former and going forward into the summer of 2014 Pixar will recapture all of the magic many of their previous films have been able to generate.
No comments:
Post a Comment