Digital Has Come Along Way: Death to a Career, Re-Birth of 3D Cinema

This week, I have found two significant articles focused upon the careers of two distinct filmmakers within Hollywood: James Cameron and Uwe Boll. If the latter name does not ring a bell, consider yourself lucky. Both men seem to inhabit highly contrasted positions in Hollywood as writer/producer/directors. James Cameron has won three Oscars over his illustrious career, having notably created the (arguably) most successful film to date: 1997's Titanic, for which he also received Best Picture and Best Director. Uwe Boll, on the other hand, has received two dissimilar, yet significant nominations in his career. Both were Razzies and both were for Worst Director in 2006 and 2007. He failed to win those awards for, what else, failure and has since cultivated a cult of hatred in the online film fan community. What becomes significant in my exploration of these two men is their relation to the contemporary digital film industry: Cameron, at the forefront of a potential 3D cinema revolution, and Boll who may quit filmmaking if an online petition receives one-million signatures. Ultimately, these two segments come to reflect current trends within the digital film community, and aspire to provide my personal insight on the status of both 3D cinema and the director/audience relationship.

(Please note: most links will take you a film's official website. However, some movies do not have official sites, and therefore you will be redirected to the film's IMDB page instead).

Uwe Boll Claims He is “The Only Genius in the Whole F’N Business”
Comment:
It has become, without a doubt, a new age in digitally modernized cinema when a filmmaker can put his career on the line based upon a web petition calling for his retirement. As a result, the filmmaker, Uwe Boll, has become a character as ridiculous as his own (mostly video-game adaptation) films. The German director of such cinematic atrocities as Alone in the Dark and BloodRayne has, for some time, become the laughing stock of the movie news blogosphere to those who must admit that Michael Bay, while far from becoming the next Elia Kazan, still shows talent in blowing up cars. Having never received above a 11% freshness on the premiere movie review site RottenTomatoes.com, Boll has been branded by film fans as one of the greatest hacks in the industry since Ed Wood. It must be noted here, that while none of Boll's films have received over an 11% freshness rating on RottenTomatoes, two have received a 4% (House of the Dead, BloodRayne), and his most negatively received film to date, Alone in the Dark has garnered Boll an astounding 1%.

Needless to say, the public remains astounded that Boll continues making numerous films. His IMDB page alone lists seven films which he has yet to release or will soon direct which range from the inspirationally entitled Zombie Massacre to the less than necessary BloodRayne 3. As a result to the harsh criticism Boll likely faces on a day to day basis, the German filmmaker took a stand and by way of the internet announced he would quit making movies if a recent internet petition received one million signatures. As of this morning, the petition has received 194,662 signatures. After threatening the future of his career to the excitement of film fans around the world, Boll followed up with a video response stating: “Look, I’m not a F**king retard like Michael Bay or other people running around in the business… or Eli Roth making the same shitty movies over and over again. If you really look in my movies you will see my real genius. You have to really wake up and see me what I am, the only genius in the whole f**king business.” That fact has yet to be proven.

What becomes most notable from this entire situation is that the internet has come so far and become such a significant resource to so many movie fans that one man's poor excuse of a directing career may ultimately end as a result of this online petition. Obviously, the film industry has changed with the digital revolution, and in time will continue to evolve, but there is something to be said when a man's career falls within the cross-hairs. Perhaps this is living proof that some miracles can come from a magical place called the world wide web.

James Cameron supercharges 3-D: Avatar Helmer Reveals the Art & Science of Stereo
Comment:
Thank you for this insightful post, which only confirms that the future of theatrical cinema will be (at least partially) in 3-D. I had previously written a post on my blog titled, "Immersive Entertainment: Tapping the Third Dimension," in which I approach this new 3-D renaissance from the business side. The juxtaposition of both articles reveal a significant investment both financial and creative factions of the film industry are willing to take with a new chapter of film production and exhibition. Not since the introduction of sound and color to motion pictures nearly eighty years ago have audiences and filmmakers alike stood affront the threshold of something as new and exciting as motion pictures in flawless 3-D. An experience of which filmmaker James Cameron has stated: “When you see a scene in 3-D, that sense of reality is supercharged. The visual cortex is being cued, at a subliminal but pervasive level, that what is being seen is real. All the films I've done previously could absolutely have benefited from 3-D. So creatively, I see 3-D as a natural extension of my cinematic craft.” As one of the most respected and technically savvy storytellers in Hollywood, Cameron has been on the cutting edge of 3-D since 2000, developing and filming “stereoscopic cinema” – a movement so fresh within the industry, that audience members have yet to experience it at the high frame rate level and picture resolution that Cameron views as a necessary standard of the future.

As long as the film medium has existed, its greatest artists have been able to straddle two worlds at once: that of the artistic and the technical. An art form driven by technology (unlike painting, a film needs machines to record and exhibit sound and image), digital modernization of motion pictures redefine the role of storytellers to one of not only great power, but great responsibility. James Cameron is of the latter – a man behind (arguably) the most successful film of all time, “Titanic,” who has made his career in pushing the technical envelope and now attempts to breakout of his twelve year fiction filmmaking hiatus with Avatar. If Cameron can recreate the wheel with his investment in the future of 3-D cinema, then Avatar (a sci-fi action epic right up Cameron’s alley) could be stereo cinema’s model T Ford.

Obviously, in an age where the average film production cost has risen to nearly sixty million per feature, it would be impossible for 3-D cinema to gain significant ground and become a theatrical exhibition standard without support from both groups. While my article focuses on Real D CEO Michael Lewis and his corporate penetration of the film industry from the point of exhibition, James Cameron’s interview becomes both technically complex (when he discusses the role a filmmaker may have on reconfiguring an image’s depth based upon convergence) as well as conscious of the limits to which 3D should be used (as a storytelling tool that envelops the audiences) rather than pure spectacle.

The eloquence of James Cameron throughout this interview, in both technological and filmic terminology, provides a reader with insight into both the physical science behind capturing performances in 3-D, and his own philosophy behind the filmmaker's relationship with this new technology. Cameron states: "The point here is that just because you're making a stereo movie doesn't mean that stereo is the most important thing in every shot or sequence.” Rather, Cameron knows, great storytelling of the future should never be an afterthought of 3-D cinema, but rather a partner of technical achievement, that, when left in the right hands will enhance the movie experience.

Immersive Entertainment: Tapping the Third Dimension

This year's box-office performance has been nothing exciting in what Variety's Dave McNary has deemed a "solid rather that spectacular" first quarter for Hollywood. While his March 27th article points to a modern theater-going slump, and states: "if were it not for the standout $64 million perf of tween concert fave Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds, 2008 would trail last year's total." That film was one of only two 3D pictures this quarter (the second was U2 3D) and has already shown the widespread popularity cutting-edge 3D image polarization technology has on audiences around the country. Ultimately, the imminent switch to 3D movies, which Hollywood insiders suggest, could be sooner than anyone would have expected. 3D cinema has become the potential next step for cinema as movie exhibitors, in competition with home theater technology, face the necessity to once again redefine the movie-going experience.

Thus far, the only company to spearhead an affordable modification of the 3D experience has been Real D. With the acquisition of a company called Sterographics in 2005, Real D took the reigns of technologies that had been in "the high-end 3D visualization market for about thirty years." Before Real D came on the scene, Sterographics had provided their technology for NASA, the US military, and various Fortune 5000 companies with the intent to recreate the three dimensional illusion which the human eye sees every day. Presenting a new age of 3D experience to Hollywood in an affordable way, Real D hopes to redefine the standard of a theater-going experience, which should double-handedly drive audiences back to the theaters and do away with piracy (one will only see a blurry image without the glasses). In an interview with ComingSoon.net's Edward Douglas, Real D CEO Michael Lewis illustrates the current status of 3D cinema as it emerges into the mainstream: "People have been using the word 'game change' or 'biggest thing since color and sound.'" Lewis and Real D have thus far appealed to both the executives and artists within Hollywood, who view 3D technology as audience attraction and more importantly, storytelling tool. Lewis states, "We spend a lot of time with filmmakers. [...] It's about them wanting to tell their story in a new way." Providing filmmakers with the tools necessary to not only shoot, but conceptualize storytelling in a third dimension, Real D and Lewis have come to bridge the gap that once held filmmakers and 3D at odds: "We provide a lot of visualization technology so they can actually see what they're producing. Eyewear, different things, while you're shooting, so you can see what's going on." To appeal to studio executives, who would ultimately make the final decision and greenlight new 3D projects in the works, Lewis focused to get their foot in the door by reinforcing the idea that if 3D is a wave of the future, then the future is now: "We spent a lot of time doing outreach with directors, producers, production personnel, and we do a lot of 3D 101 classes." While the prospect of this new technology sounds promising, the struggle for 3D to find its place in Hollywood has been a long and arduous journey.

Although the origins of 3D or steroscopic motion pictures date back to British film pioneer William Friese-Greene in the 1890s, cumbersome techniques and expensive technology failed to impact the theater-going experience. Hollywood found other technological modifications profitable, such as sync sound and color and 3D failed to permeate mass appeal because the images were often times blurry, rough around the edges, or layered out of sync; obstructing the storytelling rather than strengthening it. Most audiences were introduced to 3D movies was in the form of anaglyph images during Hollywood's Golden Era, which ranged from the end of silent pictures in the late 1920s to the introduction of television in the 1950s. The low-end anaglyphic process, in which an audience member would view two independently tinted imagines (often one blue and one red) through two color glasses (with each lens a different color, corresponding to the two projected images), was considered the most feasible of its time, but nevertheless fell into obscurity when the dual coloration became too much of a distraction for audience members. This process also required the use of two projectors to layer both colored images on screen and in sync, which cost exhibitors nearly double the price of using the common single projector per film reel. Rather than 3D, film studios and exhibitors looked to cheaper, more profitable modifications that would also strive towards a more immersive experience for audiences such as CinemaScope and THX surround sound. Unfortunately, like Smell-O-Vision in the 1960s, it seemed that 3D would merely remain an artifact of ancient cinema practices. That is, until someone could work the kinks out of the flawed anaglyphic technique.

Today, it is hard to imagine future movie theaters without a three dimensional component. Projections highlight the dwindling incentive audiences face as home theaters become bigger, better, and cheaper as the main driving force. However, such 3D developments may do more for the film industry than make it money - it could change filmmaking forever. Currently slated as the next major development with every studio on board, Michael Lewis states of Real D, "We have all the big blockbusters over the next couple of years. 30 3D films I think have been announced over the next three years or in production, and some of the big movies, but I think you will see an expansion to a much broader audience." Lewis also suggests that once young filmmakers get their hands on this new technology, an entirely new generation of depth oriented storytelling will emerge. The modifications Real D had to take in order to capitalize on 3D where others had failed came with a polarization process that separated each stereo image, while maintaining the image's true colors and sharp edges. Utilizing groundbreaking digital technology, Real D uses the same principals of anaglyphic projection but rather than tinting each image in either red or blue, one image is projected with normal light and the other is tinted in a polarizing filter that is also shaded on one of the lenses of the glasses. As a result, each eye picks up a different image and the brain combines them into a single 3D illusion. Real D and Lewis are far from complete in converting all theaters and filmmakers to the process, but believe a new trend has already begun.

While computer animation, such as Pixar's Finding Nemo, is created in a 3D digital atmosphere already, the transformation to 3D takes some time, money and conversion of techniques, but it is nevertheless profitable. Disney has already released the 2007 hit Meet the Robinsons in 3D along with a reissue of Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas, while DreamWorks Animation has announced a devotion to producing all animated films in 3D beginning in 2009. The hardest, and newest of all Real D 3D filmmaking remains in live action, which will debut its third movie (Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds and U2 3D being the first and second) Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D in the Summer - Real D's first live action narrative feature. That film, along with last year's Robert Zemeckis directed Beowulf has already received rave reviews purely based in the storytelling capabilities that Real D has been able to provide filmmakers. Thus far, such early films have been more revered in the spectacle they present than the stories, but this nevertheless excites one to think what could be expected from Academy Award winning writer/director James Cameron's Avatar in 2009. While great feats have been accomplished in the reemergence of 3D cinema in only a few years, Lewis suggests this is only the beginning for 3D and a new immersive experience: "Eventually, it will go to no glasses. We're working on that." I can't wait!

Digital Film Resources: Limitless Possibilities

This week I have scoured the internet for ten more notable film-related websites. Doing so, I hope to reveal particular points of interest with relation to the overall theme of observing the modern digital film industry. As a result it is my intent to provide a list of ten linkroll points of interest (located to the right) that one may find both resourceful and informative. While visiting the following links one must note the diversity in intent, voice, and design that film sites achieve across the internet. These informative gems touch upon anything from the marketing of motion pictures to the promotion of notable film screenings in the Los Angeles area. Once again, I have utilized guidelines found as judging criteria for The Webby Awards to consider the most important aspects of a film site's strengths and weaknesses. It is my hope that by bringing these sites to the reader's attention, one may recognize the limitless variations of subjects that movies offers web authors and surfers.

A strong site for film trailers, TheMovieBox.Net is particularly special in that it organizes and archives thousands of movie trailers. Furthermore, it is the most consistently updated over all the movie trailer sites I have ever come across, becoming a recommended first stop for anyone interested in viewing the freshest trailers. For another view of the film marketing world, one should visit the IMP Awards website, where countless movie posters have been collected and categorized. Though the site's layout and interactivity are slightly difficult to navigate, the volume of images archived is invaluable for both old and contemporary movies. To find cheap and often free screenings in Los Angeles of both classic and brand new movies, one should visit both CampusCircle.com and the New Beverly Cinema. CampusCircle.com is an entity of the Los Angeles based college magazine Campus Circle and provides free screenings of recent movies before they come out. The New Beverly Cinema will book film-buff centric double features that for a small fee anyone may attend daily and throughout the year. For critical takes on motion pictures themselves, I would recommend visiting the Ebert and Roper Video Archives as well as Cinematheque Top 5 Project. The Ebert and Roper site has archived every movie review broadcasted on the popular ABC TV show At the Movies which was originally hosted by Siskel and Ebert (pictured above) and then changed to Ebert and Roper after Gene Siskel's untimely death in 1999. The site is really fun to visit and explore due to the over five thousand video reviews that have been collected. The Cinematheque Top 5 Project is a very interesting site that intends to compile the top five films of significant critics and scholars, ultimately determining the top movies of select categories and genres. To explore the musical aspect of film from a critical and artistic point of view, FilmSound.org is an incredible resource for learning the intricacies of a filmmaking aspect that is often times the most invisible to audiences. Though the layout and design lacks dynamic graphics and experience, the information provided with text, audio clips, and video content make up for such weaknesses. To turn one's film knowledge and box office prediction skills into competitive entertainment, I would recommend heading over to the Fantasy Moguls website. Similar to fantasy baseball, Fantasy Moguls puts one at the head of an imaginary studio in which he may select a slate of real upcoming movies and battle against his friends to see who selects the most popular, critically, and profitable films in a given season. The graphic layout and navigation of this site is top notch and makes it even more fun to play with numerous statistics and box office projections. Before playing Fantasy Moguls it may benefit a web surfer to check out two great movie news sites. Both Premiere.com and Variety.com provide limitless insight into the film industry. These two web pages are the digital archives and extensions of popular film magazines Premiere and Variety. What is significant in exploring both of these digital magazine sites is a wealth of information, as well as the high quality of experience and design. These two links are not only of the highest visual achievement for any movie news site I have visited; they are also the most reliable due to their connection to credible published material. While I could list interesting sites all day one should ultimately forge fourth amongst the aforementioned websites with the intent to explore new sides of movie content in a digital setting. If anything, the diversity of these sites, when compiled, illustrates the limitless capabilities of navigating information on the internet and the limitless possibilities of digital film resources.

Fresh and Rotten Tomatoes: Do Reviews Really Matter Anymore?

This weekend, Director Roland Emmerich's (Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow) prehistoric action-epic 10,000 BC opened to an impressive $35,730,000 domestically. In only three days since it's release on Friday, March 7th the film has already hit a financial benchmark crowning it with the second highest opening weekend so far this year. Having opened worldwide since Wednesday the 5th, the film has in only five days tallied up box office receipts nearing $61 million. While these numbers already surpass half the film's production budget, a reported $105 million, industry insiders face minimal shock. These numbers are simply business.

A Hollywood blockbuster in every sense, 10,000 BC foregrounds scope, style, and special effects over character and story, ultimately gaining recognition across the internet as the highest-grossing, lowest-quality motion picture in years. Compiling nearly every critical review of the film, Rotten Tomatoes is a premier film review archive that weighs positive critiques against the negative, ultimately calculating a percentage deemed the film's "freshness." Thus far, 10,000 BC has received a 07% rating. That is, in regard to "freshness" or quality, only seven-percent of all film critics covered by Rotten Tomatoes think the film is worth watching. In an article on the site's main page summarizing the weekend box office results, writer Gitesh Pandya notes a possible key to the film's success--a trend that has become commonplace in Hollywood: "A strong marketing push led by a brilliantly exciting trailer helped to draw in a sizable audience which disregarded the dismal reviews." What one must wonder then is: how did audiences disregard the fact that critics panned this film, and furthermore: do reviews really matter anymore?

At one time, in fact, reviews did mean something. Before the birth of the blockbuster (with 1975's Jaws and '77's Star Wars) the movies were a medium of entertainment and art form and not nearly as profit driven as today. In 1972, writer/director Francis Ford Coppola's The Godfather grossed a world-wide total of $245,066,411. As was often the case in the early seventies, it opened small at $302,393--only 0.2% of the film's overall gross. Produced for a mere $6 million, The Godfather could only be a hit by gaining word of mouth, and exciting audiences through shining reviews in newspapers and on television. The film ultimately played in theaters across the world for over a year. In those days, poor reviews could kill a film and positive ones nearly guaranteed success. According to Rotten Tomatoes, The Godfather's "freshness" rates at 100%, having won three Academy Awards and named AFI's #2 greatest motion picture of all time (Citizen Kane took the top spot).

Perhaps it is presumptuous to assume that the correlation between good films and good reviews should, as in the seventies, still garner high box office success. Unfortunately, in an era where giant multiplexes open films at thousands of theaters (10,000 BC opened on 3,410 screens in its first weekend as opposed to The Godfather's 6) and marketing campaign budgets sometimes equal film production budgets, audiences seem more willing to watch movies that impress with visual sizzle and an easily accessible high-concept. Compare the log lines of the two aforementioned films as provided on the Rotten Tomatoes site. The Godfather is summarized as "an epic tale of Mafia life in America during the 1940s and 1950s." Not bad, but it sounds a little complicated, and long. I'm not sure my MTV generation mind can comprehend a story spanning two decades. As for 10,000 BC's log line: "a sweeping odyssey into a mythical age of prophesies and gods, when spirits rule the land and mighty mammoths shake the earth." Now at least that sounds exciting. The posters look exciting, the TV commercials look exciting, hell even the actors are attractive twenty-somethings. That gets me excited! So why do audiences disregard the fact that despite the excitement Emmerich's film promises, the USA Today review labeled it a "bombastic bore?" Is it that people do not read reviews, or that people simply don't care for the opinions of strangers?

In Hollywood, the greatest singular factor to ensure popularity lays in strong word of mouth. Audiences would easily trust a friend's recommendation over a critic's because it is more personal, and often times more exciting for one to seek a movie out on his own rather than become force fed. One film that has proved successful both critically and financially also happens to be a film that in the last year gained increased word of mouth (amongst critics and audiences alike) before a national release: director Jason Reitman's Juno. Receiving a 93% "freshness" rating, Juno has been praised for its great characters and story. In fact, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences seem to agree, awarding its script and first-time screenwriter Diablo Cody the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay. Juno is a film about people and relationships more than a single high-concept log line. Its trailer plays up the comedy and actors' performances rather than stunning imagery and an epic scope. Overall, Juno, while not only a critical success, has received $186,337,533 at the box-office world wide, becoming a rarity amongst Hollywood blockbusters.

Over the weekend I visited a screenwriter's conference where scripter Jeff Nathanson spoke of two Hollywoods: the smaller independent films that focus on character and story and the Hollywood "tentpoles" that are created most specifically for profit. While most people recognize that every review discouraged audiences to see 10,000 BC, people desired something visual (and ultimately forgettable) that one cannot see anywhere but the movies. While these circus acts may delight, they are, as Nathanson explained "alot of sizzle with no steak." While paying for a ticket to 10,000 BC may bring you back to Roland Emmerich's vision of prehistoric days, smaller films like Juno can take an audience somewhere emotionally. The blockbuster game is often hit or miss, but when quality films come calling, audiences must listen. Even if that call is from a stranger.

Navigating Cinema Resources: Ten Essential Film Sites

This week I focused on what I have determined as essential film sites on the web. In selecting these personal top ten film sites, I will analyze each by following web judging criteria set out by the Webby Awards (or, in the case of a blog, the IMSA Criteria). The Webby Awards judging criteria: content, structure and navigation, visual design, functionality, interactivity, and overall experience, must be considered as an essential element of each site and in weighing these criteria, will determine the significance of that site. Ultimately, considering that each of these sites relate to the modern film industry in a specific way, while also effectively embodying the desired subject of this blog (observing the modern digital film industry), it is my duty to consider the supreme effectiveness of each site with regard to it's usefulness in the modern digital film industry. Please note that the ten sites are located to the right of this post under the heading "linkroll."

One of the web's premier film blog sites, /Film (or "Slashfilm"), brings current film, celebrity, and business news to its readers while creating a stylized platform for discussion on these topics in an easy and accessible fashion. This is a great site for anyone interested in learning current film news and discussing it with others, but could be improved with a better focus on a visual and aural experience. Another one of the web's most popular film sites, Ain't it Cool News founder and reporter Harry Knowles has even become somewhat of a national celebrity, being pictured along side this post in an image from Entertainment Weekly. The news post and film review based site lacks music and sound, but creates a somewhat cartoon-like visual style that always adds and never diminishes the site's experience. Whether it is gross profit statistics or original articles on box office estimates, anyone interested in the numbers side of film profits should visit Box Office Mojo. While neatly structured, this site orders its statistics cleverly (every wondered what films made the top 100 domestic grosses adjusted for ticket price inflation?), and never fails to impress in terms of navigation and experience. Box Office Mojo, as with most film sites, lacks sound and high-end graphic design, but is so fun to visit you would easily agree it simply does not need it. Out of any movie news website, ComingSoon.net is the greatest resource for film business news, such as articles from Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, providing it for free and with more style than any of the other great film sites. Visually captivating and easy to navigate, ComingSoon.net is by far one of the most enjoyable sites to visit for anyone who loves movies, trailers, pictures, reviews, box office reports, and message boards. For a website with elegant graphic design and thorough high definition disc reviews, High-Def Digest is a must. Cataloging every move in the emerging next-gen home entertainment front, High-Def Digest does a masterful job integrating both HD DVD and Blu-ray formats in a simple and accessible way, while providing a diverse forum that includes information on disc bargains and general sales data. While most individuals familiar with IGN.com know the site is generally geared towards video games, I would recommend taking a look at their the beautifully crafted IGN Movies page. The site's complexity, while possibly daunting to those who prefer less imagery on a single page, provides a wide range of unique features such as sections dedicated to movie news podcasts, DVDs, soundtracks, home video price comparisons, and even Direct2Drive movie and media downloads. The video game based origins of this site do however shine though, unfortunately targeting film audiences more than those interested in the behind the scenes side of the film industry. One of the web's greatest resources with regard to the film industry past and present is the Internet Movie Database or the commonly known as IMDB. IMDB works as a search engine where one may navigate through movies and TV show pages and the people who worked on them. In a way this site is the digital resume of everyone that has been credited with working on a film or television show. Ever! The experience is incredibly user friendly with little room for improvement and continues to add features such as daily industry and celebrity news, TV listings, box office reports, and message boards. One website that adds its own personal flair to movie news is JoBlo.com. Both elegantly designed and easy to navigate, JoBlo.com contains an extensive script library (for free), as well as humorous articles driven by person takes on the film industry such as the continuing series "Come on Hollywood!" The only problem with this site is that it does not report news as frequently as most of the other sites like it, but when it does, JoBlo.com always adds its own signature point of view and "extra tid-bit" facts to each news item, making up for any slack. Netflix is a revolutionary web based home video rental site that provides constant recommendations (based upon your personal ratings of movies) and trailers for most movies on the site. Overall, it is very consumer friendly in affordability and deeply illustrious in size and title diversity. You can find just about anything you could imagine on Netflix. The greatest resource for film criticism on the web, Rotten Tomatoes compiles numerous film reviews and then rates its "freshness" percentage (or degree of quality). Aside from Rotten Tomatoes' highly successful visual component (another subsidiary of IGN), its greatest strength lies in the fact that it caters to those who want to simply get a vague sense of the critical response surrounding a film (its "freshness"), while also linking to over hundreds of movie reviews per film (if you would prefer to read a few). Once again, as with all the sites I have covered, there is no sound and little video, but the graphic design and resourcefulness of this site makes it great and nearly perfect for those interested in reading movie reviews.

Interestingly enough, none of the aforementioned sites are fueled by scholarly associations or contain a visual experience of the highest quality. This is true, however, of the web's strongest, most visited, and most renowned of film websites to date. These sites, rather, foreground content over flare and do so in a practical and highly intelligent way, combining authoritative insights with a great wealth of facts and information.

Summer Sequels: Blockbusters and Clunkers

As an avid web user and film student my primary interest in the internet focuses upon the exploration of movie news sites. At these sites, which I will visit up to thirty times on a given day, I tend to immerse myself in up-to-the-second developments within the film industry. I find this both entertaining and educational in that these sites are multifaceted, dense, and often times more explicit in their news coverage than commercial newspapers or television networks. Film blogs, as the movie news sites I frequent daily (listed in a linkroll to the right of this post), enlighten readers to movie news stories provide an interactive platform where current events and ideas can be discussed and explored beyond the conventions of previous news media. With film weblogs such as /Film and Cinematical I have been able to immerse myself in ongoing discussions between web authors and users on current events in the film industry. Here I have addressed the pros and cons of Hollywood movie sequels, which sometimes results in a good and successful follow-up, but more often falls like a dead weight (often referred to in Hollywood as a "bomb" or a "clunker"). Ultimatly, it was my goal to reflect personal taste as most if not all film blog posts do and explain why I am looking forward to 2008's Summer release of "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," and am less than excited about 2009's "Transformers 2."

Shia LaBeouf Talks Transformers 2
Comment:
In describing the script for "Transformers 2," written mainly by director Michael Bay over the course of the recently resolved writer's strike, the returning "Transformers" actor Shia LeBeouf uses words "massive" and "insane." I, for one, am not surprised.

What is one to expect of a screenplay written by Bay himself, who in fact, does not posses any screenwriting credits on any film? Rather, Bay is known through Hollywood by another signature: fast cars, explosions, ridiculous action, obvious humor, and slick music video flair. All of which can be found in any of Bay's high-octane summer blockbusters including the aforementioned "Transformers."

When I walked into the multiplex to see the first "Transformers" this last summer, I was prepared for one of the crowning achievements of my young adult life. With a premise such as: evil alien robot cars vs. good alien robot cars, I couldn't imagine the lame and unsatisfactory story I was about to view. Especially from producer Steven Spielberg, who often times creates works unapologetically commercial but nevertheless supremely enjoyable.

Sitting in the theater, I was somewhat surprised at the lack of imagination that went into the film. This was not a "film," it was only merely a "movie." Still stunned by the great wealth of imagination that must have gone into the visual aspects, I was forced to modify the very personal relationship I had with Bay's picture. In other words, I grew to accept what it was: massive, and insane.

Overall, "Transformers" and Michael Bay came to turn a downtown roller derby into the next hot thing: a downtown roller derby with cool special effects and cars transforming into monster robots. This is fine, not great. Sometimes, audiences have to unfortunately ask themselves why a robot war spectacle is not enough. Why do we need a great story with great characters? Why can't we just blow shit up? Or, shall I say, blow it up artfully? Though this bit of news may be merely a flick of the great marketing strategy audiences will get slapped with come the summer of 2009, it only confirms Hollywood will once again take the same stale ideas from the fridge and re-microwave them to something nearly satisfying and eatable. But at least, this time, it is not pretending to be anything but the highly intelligent "bad-ass."

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull Movie Trailer
Comment:
Of all the joys in my childhood, nothing comes closer to the exhilaration of experiencing one of Steven Spielberg’s Indiana Jones movies. Harrison Ford comes to define adventure masculinity and wit in his portrayal of Dr. Indiana Jones, a ragged, yet suave intellectual cowboy-bandit set against allowing the greatest artifacts of history to fall in to the hands of evil, often Nazi, souls. While the films, conceived in the dreams of filmmaker George Lucas (who later produced and receives a ’story by’ credit), were designed as a rehash of matinée cliffhangers from his childhood, they have become richly more in the masterful hands of director Spielberg.

Although often times more playful for the sake of pure adventure rather than realism, actor Ford’s ability to ground even the greatest most absurdly fantastic of events into a believable portrayal of strength, attitude and humor makes his realization on screen something worthy of not only one film but many. In fact, watching the new teaser for the long in development fourth installment, “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,” ignites in me the very fire and spark of exuberance that I had felt as a child. Despite that, there is a concern present in modern-day Hollywood, as well as in the hearts and minds of Indy fans around the world, young and old, that we are not getting another installment of the franchise purely out of a desire to profit.

Obviously Hollywood would love to make another one of these films in that it’s high popularity over the last thirty years and the names involved with the series ensures a high profit margin. In Hollywood sometimes the most obviously profit driven bets are the ones that should be avoided in that the final product, while predicable, thus, and at a loss of originality seem to compromise the artistic integrity of a medium that must constantly produce profit to stay alive.

Franchise re-installments of the greatest and most memorable action heroes in the last few years, such as with the “Die Hard,” “Rocky,” and “Terminator” films, have been churned out with delicate kindness and above all else love from the filmmakers of the characters they are modifying and re-introducing into a world somewhat harsher against their independent idealism and more complex in the strongholds our characters must overcome to reclaim an equal success to ones created ages ago. John McClane (Bruce Willis) of “Die Hard” returns just as crusty and crazy to get in over his head because no one else will to get the job done. Rocky Balboa of “Rocky” aspires to become the champion he used to be despite the doubts of everyone, including himself. The Terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger) is “baack” in “Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines” as a robot that now, rather than preventing the inevitable tragedy, must guide the future’s savior towards his destined salvation.

All these films comeback hitting hard and reopening the books that we had all assumed would be closed to our own imaginations for some time. While profitable and able to reintroduce these characters back into the mainstream from the retro back-burner, Hollywood must remember to stray from the trappings of star-studded sequel blockbusters because unfortunately they can not all be good. I, for one, trusting in Spielberg, Lucas and Ford, for the love of these storytellers who had been able to knock three out of the ballpark for us previously, am looking forward to May 22nd, when the man in the hat will don his pistol and whip and ride again.

Blu-ray VS. HD-DVD: The Return of the Format War

Behind the gates of Hollywood a deeply contentious and surprisingly familiar war has been waged in the last five years. A far cry from the high profile disputes waged over the course of previous months between the Writers Guild of America and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, few people care to follow this war's progress or even know of its existence. Rather, the high-definition home video format war between Sony's Blu-ray Disc and Toshiba's HD-DVD has polarized Hollywood, redefining the modern landscape of corporate media and the steps that must be taken to ultimately conquer competition in an elusive and challenging digital age.

The turn of the century established a new age in the digital revolution as millions feared the impending Y2K apocalypse and home video surpassed theatrical receipts for film investors hungry to make excessive monetary gain. Digital Versatile Discs, also commonly known as DVDs, shocked Hollywood by the sheer volume of profit, reestablishing the industry's focus on what had been, since the first home video format war of the 1980s, another way to exploit one's holdings and creative properties. As with television syndication of motion pictures, each film studio and parent media giant found profitable returns on movies within their vaults that had only previously collected dust. Hollywood had discovered that with DVD, a highly profitable product with low overhead, reselling ancillary properties solidified the key to producing a high back end profit of roughly six-billion dollars per fiscal year without the expenses of actually producing a new product. The establishment of DVD as the gold standard for home video eventually put VHS, the more expensive low quality video standard, to rest. As time passed and profits continued, it was inevitable that the film industry would eventually establish a new, higher quality version for the home video make, and needless to say, with it, reissues of movies from the vault once again. The time for a new high-definition home video format was on the horizon and two companies would begin a fight to the death in hopes to own the patents and hardware of the next generation of DVD.

The year 2002 saw the introduction of Sony and Toshiba Corporation's "next-gen" formats which planned to capitalize on high resolution TVs, promising six times the picture resolution of a DVD with up to 8.1 channel surround sound in replacement of 5.1, the previous standard for DVDs. Dubbed HDTVs, these televisions led a cutting edge in establishing home movie theaters as a affordable and consumer friendly means of reliving the movie theater experience from the comfort of one's own living room. Wielding blue lasers to read information at a greater wavelength, thus capable of condensing more information on a single CD sized disc, Sony's Blu-ray Disc and Toshiba's HD-DVD sparked excitement for the film industry and "techno-buffs" around the world, while suggesting that the competition between two media giants could only result in catastrophe for one side unless the two formats could find some way to work together. Others believed that for either format to win, one must prevail and win the support of each of the five major Hollywood studios, for, with each studios support comes a contract to market and sell that studio's library. Ultimately lines were drawn in the sand with Sony Pictures Entertainment, MGM, Columbia, Fox and Disney taking sides with Blu-ray and Universal, Paramount and The Weinstien Company joining HD-DVD. The largest studio of them all, Warner Bros. decided they would hold out and went neutral between the two formats until one showed indisputible promise.

In attempts to work together, HD-DVD and Blu-ray executives met in 2005, attempting to combine aspects of both formats. These negotiations failed to go as smoothly as planned and eventually led to a stalemate with both sides deciding their own format was superior. It was a declaration of war. Some companies attempted to counter this conflict by developing hybrid players that could playback both kinds of discs, but ultimately the cost to develop this and make it affordable to the consumer took more time than expected and fell on the back burner in hopes that one format would prevail early.

In terms of the actual nuts and bolts technology and specifications, the two formats boasted their own strengths and their opponent's weaknesses. Though both formats presented perfect specifications for playing back video at equal 1080p quality and recreate soundtracks perceivably identical to the original film master, Sony's larger 50 gig dual layer discs showed promising storage capacity that suggested limitless possibilities for holding movies or TV shows. Sony invoked this strength as their superiority suggesting people would someday buy entire television series on a single disc or even own multiple cuts of a film, such as the theatrical cut, director's cut and special editions, on a single high-definition disc. In a related statement, Sony CEO Howard Stringer boasted the format's superiority, stating, "I think Blu-ray is just a better format," Stringer said. "Our partners are with Blu-ray Disc because, first of all, we have greater security, which Fox is particularly good at. Disney thinks it's a better picture. And the sheer amount of bandwidth on the disc gives directors and beyond all kinds of future opportunity, including director's cuts and who knows what 3-D capabilities will be down the road."

HD-DVD, on the other hand, while smaller in capacity with a 30 gigabyte dual layer disc was cheaper to produce with a dual decoder, for picture in picture playback, and internet capability as a standard in all players. The release of the Sony Playstation 3 in 2006 helped Sony make it's greatest and most effective move. The Playstation 3, unlike most video game systems has a Blu-ray laser inside and with it the capabilities of serving as a Blu-ray player as well. While costs seemed too high for the common consumer at the time of its release with a price tag of over six-hundred dollars per console, the role of a Playstation in the entertainment hardware market is and has been a substantial one since its introduction in 1994. By Christmas of 2007, while sales were up for the Blu-ray format having cultivated a following in PS3 owners, projections showed that the Blu-ray format had reached the hight of garnering nearly one-billion dollars by 2008. This, along with the high end of sales for Blu-ray, unmatched by HD-DVD, and the lowering price of Blu-ray players led to nearly unbeatable competition for Toshiba's wavering high-def disc.

In the following months the final blow to HD-DVD from Blu-ray was made by way of a exclusivity contract with Warner Bros. and their parent media giant Time Warner. Ultimately, this move with the subsequent modification of future Blu-ray players to match and heighten previously touted HD-DVD capabilities has led most experts to claim Blu-ray the winner.

Needless to say for for anyone interested and well acquainted in modern entertainment business and new media, this technical, corporate, and artistically influencing melee remains both cautionary tale and case study once two important truths are acknowledged. First, this war could have been easily avoided and second, Blu-ray and HD-DVD were never all that different to begin with.

What can ultimately be learned from a study of the Blu-ray/HD-DVD format war is a valuable expose on what it takes to succeed in Hollywood as the established standard of home video media, and more importantly how modern media conglomerate Sony, architect and proprietor of the Blu-ray format, seems to but has not conclusively won the format war with money, a higher ratio of studio, global and peripheral support and the Trojan horse of home entertainment, the Sony Playstation 3.