Archive for February, 2010

Alice’s Return; Breaking with Industry Standards

{ February 27, 2010 @ 7:56 pm } · { Uncategorized }
{ Tags: , , } · { Comments (3) }

Next Friday, March 5th, Tim Burton’s interpretation of Alice in Wonderland will open in theaters. The story was first written in 1865 by Lewis Carroll  and was adapted numerous times into film, most notably, the 1951 Disney animated picture. The film contains an all-star cast including Johnny Depp, Helena Bonhan Carter, Michael Sheen, Anne Hathaway, and a number of other successful British actors. Similar to the 1951 version of Alice in Wonderland, this 2010 theatrical release will be distributed by Disney, yet, it will feature a combination of live action along with its animation. Another advancement from the 1951 film includes the fact that the film will be released in 3D and shown in IMAX3D in addition to regular theaters.

In an effort to counteract declining DVD sales, Disney announced it would shorten the film’s theatrical release to only 12 weeks (as opposed to the more traditional theatrical release period of 17 weeks) and open up the DVD sales after those 12 weeks. Movies have remained in theaters as long as 5 to 6 months within the past decade, but Disney has decided to shorten the release of two movies a year in hopes it will increase its rapidly declining DVD sales. This upset a number of theaters, including the Odeon/UCI cinema group. In a statement made to The Hollywood Reporter, the group explains:

Odeon/UCI has invested considerable sums of money, especially in the U.K., over the past 12 months to install digital projection systems in its cinemas to enable customers to enjoy 3D… The popularity of 3D titles meant that last year these films played in Odeon/UCI cinemas for an average of 18 weeks from initial release… We have a very full lineup of films to offer audiences over the next few weeks, including two new 3D titles [other than Alice in Wonderland]. These will now take priority in our cinemas.”

In essence, the Odeon/UCI group was fully prepared to stage a boycott of Disney’s 2010 release of Alice in Wonderland, which could have seriously hurt the film, given the company’s ownership of over 100 theaters in the UK alone. Then, on February 24th, Odeon agreed to show the film as desired by Disney. This agreement was met in part from the public’s reaction, as noted in polls in the UK paper The Guardian and Disney’s commitment to not run ads for the DVD within the UK until at least 6 to 8 weeks after Alice‘s theatrical debut.

This strikes a very interesting change in industry standards. As films continue to struggle to bring in money to the studios, it is only expected that studios will take new measure to reign in profits. Disney seems confident that people will be more likely to buy DVDs when they are offered closer to the release of the film. But what if no change in DVD sales occurs from this new approach? What other measures could get taken?

It also seems odd that Disney believes taking a 3D film out of theaters to release it on DVD (2D) will increase revenue for the studio. What makes films more enticing than TV and movies you watch at home is the spectacle. Shortening its theatrical release period would seem to diminish one of the film’s major strengths over other entertainment mediums. We’ll have to wait and see…

What Can’t Google Do?

{ February 20, 2010 @ 6:45 pm } · { Uncategorized }
{ Tags: , , } · { Comments (5) }

Twenty years ago, any conversation about “Google” was likely a reference to the number 1 followed by 100 zeros properly known as “googol.” By 2002, the American Dialect Society voted “google” to be the 2nd most useful word of the year. Today, saying “google” is typically thought of as the equivalent to saying “search.” Twenty years from now, who knows what other connotations google will amount. Before any speculation, let’s take a look at the boom of this miraculous company.

In 1996, Stanford computer science grad students Larry Page and Sergey Brin started a search engine for their university called BackRub. But, by 1997, BackRub occupied too much bandwidth for Stanford to continue to support it, forcing Page and Brin to take their search engine elsewhere. Then, as early as 1998, PC Magazine recognized Google to be the top search engine website. But it was not for long until Google expanded its capabilities past being a search engine. Google now operates as an email provider, a mapping service, a web-based word processing cite (GoogleDocs), a calendar, a news aggregate, a web browser (Chrome), a translating program for 41 languages, and more.

Google’s importance within (American) society only continues to expand. In October of last year, the Los Angeles City Council unanimously decided to make Google their official email provider. Then, on February 10, 2010, Google announced plans for an experimental fiber network. Google will “build and test ultra high-speed broadband networks” in select trial locations including Los Angeles, Seattle, Austin, and Pittsburg. This service claims to work at speeds 100 times faster than what most Americans have access to currently. Google dreams big for what this ultra-high speed internet access can provide:

Imagine sitting in a rural health clinic, streaming three-dimensional medical imaging over the web and discussing a unique condition with a specialist in New York. Or downloading a high-definition, full-length feature film in less than five minutes. Or collaborating with classmates around the world while watching live 3-D video of a university lecture.

Amidst this expansion, however, Google struggles with its operations in China. As soon as Google launched in China, the government imposed censoring restrictions on what the search engine could provide for results.  The government maintains the power to remove websites that it considers “subversive or offensive.” An example of such topics include any postings about the Tiananmen Square protests. Tension between the company and the country spiked January 12, 2010 once Google discovered “a highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China that resulted in the theft of intellectual property from Google.” Google has evidence which indicates “the primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists.”

In their response, Google made the following announcement:

We launched Google.cn in January 2006 in the belief that the benefits of increased access to information for people in China and a more open Internet outweighed our discomfort in agreeing to censor some results. At the time we made clear that “we will carefully monitor conditions in China, including new laws and other restrictions on our services. If we determine that we are unable to achieve the objectives outlined we will not hesitate to reconsider our approach to China.”

These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered–combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web–have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.

Google is still in talks with the Chinese government trying to resolve this issue, but, so far, no agreement has been reached. I respect Google for expanding the issue of hacking onto human right activists’ accounts to the need for better human rights within China as a whole. Far from imposing what should be said on the Internet, Google is working to provide free speech and access to free speech for its users. It’s going as far as to provide a better fiber network. Sadly, I do not foresee China lifting any censorship barriers. However ambitious, establishing freedom of speech on the internet may be one thing Google cannot do.

Why is 10 such a big deal?

{ February 6, 2010 @ 4:31 pm } · { Uncategorized }
{ Tags: , , } · { Comments (5) }

As enticing as Punxsutawney Phil’s Groundhog Day 2010 prediction might have been (6 more weeks of winter), the more shocking revelation of February 2nd was the Academy’s decision to open up the Best Picture Nominee list to include 10 pictures-Avatar, The Blind Side, District 9, An Education, The Hurt Locker, Inglorious Bastards, Precious, A Serious Man, Up, and Up in the Air. In the following video, Academy President Sid Ganis explains the board’s resolution to “return to a past Academy tradition.”

Yes, 1939 saw the nomination of 10 great films-Dark Victory, Gone with the Wind, Goodbye Mr. Chips, Love Affair, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Ninotchka, Of Mice and Men, Stagecoach, The Wizard of Oz, and Wuthering Heights. As Ganis points out, these movies varied greatly in genre: historical epics, a Western, a comedy, etc. So too do the nominees this year. He continues to defend the Academy’s decision to return to 10 films by citing that in most years from 1931 to 1943, the Academy had included 10 nominees, one year including as many as 12 nominees.  Instead of the typical 5 nominees that has become customary, beginning with this 82nd Academy Award season, 10 movies will be up for Best Picture. The Academy “will be casting [its] net wider. In casting that net wider, who knows what will turn up?”

I think the fear in opening the playing field is just that. What’s going to happen? Could this dilute the category? Certainly being 1 of 10 nominees does not hold the exclusivity of being 1 of 5. Nevertheless, as Ganis acknowledges, winning the Best Picture category is “the pinnacle of an honor for a motion picture, and it is a singular honor.”

Over the past few years, I have made a genuine effort to see all Best Picture nominees, but needing to see 10 films is rather daunting. At the same time, opening the category to more films has the potential to entice more viewers to watch the Oscars on March 7th. Casting the net wider for nominees acts as a great opportunity to broaden the audience of people watching the Oscars. Typically, Oscar nods help any movie’s box office. Perhaps opening up the Best Picture category is exactly what the industry needs. With the recent trend of shrinkage (Miramax studios recently closed and many studios, such as Sony, are in the process of shrinking departments), casting a wider net may help the business grow.