August 21, 2008
May 08, 2008
Wasting Money on a Wasted Opportunity
In a somewhat confusing move, Cablevision (the TV arm of General Electrics) just purchased the Sundance Channel for 496 million dollars. The thing that seems odd about this is that the Sundance Channel doesn't really offer much of anything. It's not like Sundance has been a great brand name in the mass market (a lot of their prize winning films tank at the box office) and the channel itself hasn't really done much. At first I thought the channel could be a great way to help indie films get distribution. If a film went to Sundance and didn't get picked up by a studio, the Sundance Channel could offer to give the film a short run so that at least someone outside of Park City would get to see the film. That never materialized and the channel became little more than an artsy HBO.
That being said, how much is an artsy HBO, or even HBO itself, going to be worth in the near future. With sites like Hulu offering films on demand and sites like Netflix allowing people to download films immediately, will movie channels be all that viable in the near future? Isn't HBO's future more dependent on their original programming to draw in subscribers? Is The Sundance Channel suddenly going to tap into that sort of market? Some reports had GE looking to turn the channel into an ad driven entity but most of the new original programming is about saving the Earth so I'm not sure what kind of advertising they'll attract. I just can't see "The Green House Effect" brought to you by Mitsubishi and Burger King. At best, I could see Sundance becoming a For Profit PBS but, again, what's the profit in that?
In the end, the only real reason that this purchase makes any sense is so that GE could own the main competition to their current indie channel IFC. That being said, wouldn't it have made more sense just to let the Sundance channel fold as opposed to spending almost 500 million on it? And what exactly is the downside of having a little competition? It's not like either channel is really amounting to much anyway.
Maybe it's my business naivite showing here but it would seem like spending $500 million to improve IFC would make more sense than buying Sundance. That's just me.
April 25, 2008
R&B has reached its nadir
I don't want to believe this is a real song but it seems like it is. I have no words.
April 17, 2008
The Curse of Undeclared
This weekend marks the opening of "Forgetting Sarah Marshall", the well-reviewed and probably much loved film from the mind of Jason Segal and produced by Judd Apatow. Most of the reviews I've read said it wasn't as good as Knocked Up or Superbad so odds are I won't be a huge fan since I thought those two films were only passable. I thought it was really odd that one reviewer said this movie wasn't nearly as "sensitive" as those two since there weren't really many legit emotions in either film. Either way, I'll probably end up seeing the film and realizing mid-way through that these films just aren't my cup of tea.
That being said, one thing that has struck me is the fact that the cast of Apatow's Undeclared doesn't seem to be getting the same love that the Freaks & Geeks crew has. While F&G holdovers Segal and Seth Rogen have fared well, the rest of the cast has been mostly MIA from the rest of the Apatow ouevre. The one person who has worked in a number of the films is Carla Gallo but she's been blessed with the rather unceremonious roles of "Toe-Sucking Girl" in 40 Year Old Virgin, "Period Blood Girl" in Superbad, and "Gag Me Girl" in "Forgetting Sarah Marshall". Jay Baruchel has worked his way back into the good graces, getting to get pink eye in Knocked Up and I have to imagine Judd gave him a recommendation for Ben Stiller's new Tropic Thunder. but still... I'm not saying that Monica Keena should be playing Sarah Marshall or that Charlie Hunnam deserve a role but you'd think they'd get something.
Then again, in Jake Kasdan's film "The TV Set", they make fun of the fact that studios often force the wrong actors onto producers. Kasdan and Apatow both comment that the studio nixed their first choices for leads in Undeclared (they wanted Segal and then Rogen) so maybe there's something there.
So what does all of this mean? Nothing really. Just that it is 4am and I can't sleep so I'm talking out of my ass. Which reminds me, I really need to get a new keyboard.
April 03, 2008
Hairy
So I was out and about this weekend and I saw a couple of hipster dudes complimenting one another on their beards. It was a very depressing moment because I too have a beard and it was like I was looking into an unflattering mirror. And since I'm also out of shape like the two hipsters, you could just say all mirrors are unflattering so adding the adjective was a weak attempt at making myself feel better. Regardless, I started noticing more and more guys with beards (insert gay joke here) and almost all of them had a kind of haughty quality to them. The hipster "too cool to be too cool but you don't even know what too cool really is because you're not as cool as me" vibe. Basically, it's not that they are too cool, it's that you and I are not cool enough. Of course, their conversations were usually as ridiculous as any as you'd hear in a frat house. It's like fart and dick jokes are only funny if the audience listening to them is limited. If they hear a fart joke, it's funny. If YOU hear a fart joke, it's not. I feel like we're a decade away from bearded guys saying things like, "Wedding Singer was popular but Sandler's best work was Billy Madison." Followed by, "Sandler, pshaw? His work doesn't evoke the same working class struggle of Farley."
Of course, me saying all of this makes me just as guilty. Alas, I'm a denizen of Hollywood with a beard and opinion. I'm basically the most pretentious lowest common denominator.
March 13, 2008
The future is Hulu
Hulu.com has finally arrived to the general public and I have to say that it's pretty impressive. There's a wide variety of films and shows. Unfortunately, you have to sit through commercials (about 10 for a two hour film) but that's probably what the future of internet viewing is going to look like so get used to it.
So to celebrate the arrival of Hulu and the Coen Brothers' Oscar victory, here is one of my favorite films of their's: The Big Lebowski.
Also, I'd be remiss if I didn't post the moment that should win Alec Baldwin an Emmy for Best Supporting Actor. I'm thinking every Thursday could become Hulu clip day here at Soulhonky.com.
So to celebrate the arrival of Hulu and the Coen Brothers' Oscar victory, here is one of my favorite films of their's: The Big Lebowski.
Also, I'd be remiss if I didn't post the moment that should win Alec Baldwin an Emmy for Best Supporting Actor. I'm thinking every Thursday could become Hulu clip day here at Soulhonky.com.
January 17, 2008
New Movement Worse Than The Old Movement
I'm currently writing a web series and have been scouting out places to post it or new areas of distribution. I saw somthing in an article (I believe posted here) about a site called 60frames that was starting up and thought I'd look into it. Nothing was up at the time so I signed up for their e-mail for news when it started.
Well, the site has been launched and... wow, it's bad. To start, the description is: "60Frames is working with really talented artists to create really awesome, original internet programming." Clearly, this is going to be a very professional site.
Now, I can't talk much because my series is a pretty silly cop spoof and it's not like I'm going to be the guy who finally raises the level of internet series to actual art (although, that needs to happen) but most of the shows on that site were pretty terrible. Even worse than that, the site seems to promote itself like it's some new and improved distribution site. On the site it describes itself as, "60Frames is a new financing and syndication company, born of the belief that internet content should be much more ambitious than videos of cats playing piano and people falling down stairs. 60Frames was custom built to make it easy for smart, talented, professional artists to harness the power of the internet to entertain, enhance their relationship with their audience, and make money through their efforts."
Great. Just want I'm looking for, right? Wrong. To start, I'm not really sure what the site does. It just posts your stuff on their site and other sites (which anyone can upload videos on) and I didn't see any sponsor videos or any ads at all. On top of that, the blurb closes with the fact that the site isn't accepting submissions. So how does someone take advantage of this opporunity to "harness the power of the internet"? Beats me and I'm not going to find out. Check out their terms of service.
"If, despite our request that you not send us any creative materials, you send or have sent us creative suggestions, ideas, notes, drawings, concepts or other information (collectively, the "Information"), the Information shall be deemed, and shall remain, our property, and 60Frames shall own all now known and hereafter existing rights of every kind in and to the Information, in perpetuity."
Man, that's worse than the current Hollywood system. With zero advertisers that I could see on the site, I can't imagine it lasts more than a year.
January 12, 2008
A Whole New Boll-game
If you've ever wondered how Uwe Boll keeps being able to make movies, look no further than this blurb from CinemaBlend.
Often you will find that filming in a certain country offers incentives and tax breaks not offered in the US. Usually though, you’ll find that in order to be entitled to them, you have to meet certain conditions, for example filming in that particular country and/or employing a certain percentage of native workers as your film crew. Germany has these incentives but, crucially, no such restrictive requirements put upon them. Germans can fund your movie and you can make it wherever and however you like.
But crucially, the bizarre tax laws in Germany mean that any wealthy Germans who invest in a movie can write-off the production cost, delay paying their taxes and generally reduce their tax burden. When you disseminate all the boring legal business law surrounding it the bottom line is this – the German investors in a movie only pay tax on any RETURNS the movie makes, their investment is 100% deductible, so the minute the movie makes a profit, said investor has to start paying tax. Plus the investors can actually borrow money to put towards investment and write that off too. Assuming you’re a sharp enough businessman you have a potential goldmine in the making; a way to make money from investing in bad movies...
Uwe took advantage of this loophole and has been a director ever since. They've recently closed the loophole but projects already in development were grandfathered in so Uwe still has some properties which can lose money and make his financiers rich.
Uwe's films haven't improved but apparently CinemaBlend's opinion of him has. Boll's latest "In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale" was well on its way to matching "One Missed Call" as the worst reviewed film of the year ("Call" has a 0% at Rotten Tomatoes) but CinemaBlend's three star review (the only positive review) saved it. (Well, kind of saved it; over at Metacritic, Uwe's film is ranked last with a 17% rating to 24% for "One Missed".)
January 07, 2008
And so it begins...
CBS has announced that on Sunday, February 17th they will start running the first season of the Showtime series Dexter. Word is that the show has been ADRing clean lines to use over the swears and also shooting some alternate scenes to place the more violent moments of the show. While I can't say that A&E's cleaned up version of The Sopranos wowed me, this is the logical step for the networks.
I wouldn't be stunned if Fox soon started replaying the early seasons of their stalwart FX shows (The Shield, Nip/Tuck, Rescue Me, and even Damages). NBC has already moved Law & Order:Criminal Intent back to the Peacock (it had been shuttled over to USA this year) and they also have other shows like Monk, Psych, and Burn Notice ready to be moved over as well. Should networks be relaxed knowing that they have these aces in the hole waiting to be aired? Should programming departments be nervous, knowing that these higher quality shows are about to hit the air?
As odd as it sounds, the one group that should probably root for these shows to succeed is writers. These shows are better than 99% of the current television fodder and if higher caliber shows can attract a wide audience, perhaps networks (when the strike is over) will be more willing to take a chance on headier material. While I can't imagine that something like "The Wire" will ever cross over, shows like Monk, Burn Notice, and Dexter seem like they could definitely catch the general public's attention. Yes, the WGA would prefer to see all network ratings to crumble, but they also have to be afraid of the worst case scenario: these shows struggle to find audiences while reality reaches like "Dance War" or "When Women Rule the World" stack up the ratings.
The WGA may be fighting for better treatment behind the scenes but their efforts could also impact the television landscape on the screen as well. As Hollywood would have it, it seems like both the writers and the networks could now be rooting for a serial killer to save the day.
January 04, 2008
Writers as Pawns
When the WGA was wooing reality writers to join their cause (although not letting us actually join the Guild), I always thought that the whole thing seemed sketchy. If the WGA really respected us and wanted us, why not let us join the Guild? In the end, it was obvious that the main concern for the WGA was the WGA and that having reality writers on their side would give them more leverage in the strike talks. I was annoyed by it then (as a reality writer) just as I am growing wary and a bit frustrated that it seems the same thing is happening to the WGA.
Near the beginning of the strike, right after Studios sent out letters to show runners that they could be sued for breaking their contract (which is different than that of writers), a few show runners voiced their concerns and some even hinted at wanting the strike to end ASAP. One even uttered the unmentionable, crossing the picket line. But then something happened, the actors rode in on their white horses and told the writers to hold steady. Your fight is our fight, they sang. Solidarity! And with that, resolve was strengthened and the lines were maintained.
Now maybe it's my personal paranoia but I just don't buy any of this, especially since many actors continued working during the strike. Is SAG really about solidarity? I don't think so. If the WGA is still on strike when their negotiations begin, it only helps SAG's position. Not only can they threaten their own strike, they can also offer help to end WGA's labor dispute. If you don't think that actors won't sell out the writers if it means sweetening their own deal, you haven't live in Hollywood very long. The actors are going to want to go back to work and I can't imagine that once they strike a deal that they won't want the WGA back at work as well. Unless SAG offers 100% support, I can't see this all working out. Cancelling a silly awards show is one thing but staying out of work to show solidarity with the writing staff is another.
The WGA might have struck because they thought it would help their own negotiations but as the weeks turn to months, the strikes only real value is going to be as leverage for others.
January 01, 2008
The Year of Living Actually
My Hollywood tenure has been filled with hits and misses, lowering of expecations, and a whole lot of laziness. This is the year of actually getting out there and doing something (or, in terms of writing, staying in and sitting down and doing something). I have a bunch of ideas just gathering dust and its high time I did something.
Currently, I'm a story producer in reality television. I'm basically the middle step in the process. Footage is shot, I work to pare it down and mold it into a story and then hand it off to the editors so they can add music, transitions, and make it sing. It can be interesting work but it's also mind-numbing. If you think reality television is bad, imagine sifting through the hundreds of hours that don't make the actual programs. On the bright side, because I work in reality TV I'm not on strike right now. While part of me feels like a scab, most of me simply wants nothing to do with the WGA until I have to deal with the WGA (after I, hopefully, sell a script).
The Writers Guild tried to organize reality TV but failed. The one group of writer they actually talked into striking (America's Next Top Model) all got fired. The producers realized that their show was so formatted that they could get away with skipping the middle step and just giving the editors the footage and notes from the directors and producers in the field. The show continued to get ratings (even if there was a reported decline in quality) and suddenly other producers followed suit. More and more reality shows are going off without a story team. Not that I can blame them. Some shows are so set-up that you simply don't need the middle man. A lot of dating shows or faux-reality (The Hills, for example) can survive with the editors just working off of the notes someone takes during shooting. It's not like The Real World, Survivor, or Big Brother in which hundreds of hours of footage are shot and it takes someone to collect all of the moments and put them together as a story.
In the end, I support the Writers but I just don't see how they can win. If the producers can make deals with the directors and actors, I'd have to imagine that the writers will start getting pressure from all sides to come back to work. The actors will want to get back to work and the below-the-line crew members will really be pushing for the writers to get off the picket lines so that they can get back to making a living. The first ones to cross will likely be the film scribes because most of the major issues deal with television. I wouldn't be stunned to see a number of top writers crossing over and simply negotiating their own deals.
Now, this isn't to say the WGA isn't in the right on most, if not all, of the issues. The problem is that they are dealing with studios that aren't studios anymore. In the past, studios and networks would feel the pinch if there was a strike. But now they are all parts of big corporations. NBC is owned by GE. The strike just means that the entertainment arm of GE is in trouble and that they need to up the revenues in their other departments. Unless the strike is going to become a boycott of all GE merchandise, it isn't going to have a crippling impact to anyone but the smaller studios and the writers themselves.
Sad to say, but that's the world we live in. Now I remember why I got so lazy.