Sneak Peak

On a quiet night...

...it begins.

3.15.07

Viacom, YouTube, and One Big Mess

As you may or may not have heard, Viacom (parent company of Paramount, Nickelodeon, and Comedy Central amongst others), is suing Google for over one billion dollars due to copyright infringements incurred on the Google-owned site, YouTube. The details are worth perusing, and with a flair of journalistic integrity, you can read about it here.

While I think Viacom has a case, given how much it costs to produce anything - and if they're not seeing any of the profits that Google's reaping from their material they should be upset - this isn't a problem that's going to go away with a silly lawsuit. Technology is so advanced (and thus so accessible) that just about anybody with any decent computing hardware can either create or obtain a digital copy of something. The NY Times article (aforementioned) mentions that NBC, after striking a deal with Google, is still frustrated over YouTube and is considering creating a rival website for its own content, but is that actually going to solve anything?

The great thing about YouTube is the sheer scope of its content. You can literally find anything - from Bro Rape to Thundercats clips to UCLA police using excessive violence to remove someone from a LIBRARY - and it should be noted that people are actually taking the time to upload these files and make them accessible to others. People actually want to share! Let me try that again:

People actually want to share!...

...and probably because they can. To use a cliche, because I can, the world is getting smaller (end cliche), becoming more digital, and computers are turning into TV's. So Viacom succeeds. Big freaking deal. So what? Twenty minutes after the Daily Show airs that very night, someone's gonna post something they found hilarious, at least 100 people are gonna find it, and then it will be taken down. Wash, spin, rinse, repeat. It's not like people are making the decision to NOT watch these shows because they know they can watch little five minute clips of them online. We're also becoming busy, and the collegiate and post-collegiate demographic that is making up the majority of YouTube users and viewers are looking for a quick fix. We're already getting by without your shows, Viacom. We can continue to if you like.

It's another case of corporations not willing to adapt to technology and, thus, society. It's stubbornness, it's bullheaded, and it's futile. YouTube, if nothing else, is the best commercial money can (or cannot, or should) buy. By suing Google instead of working with them, by removing their content from YouTube, Viacom and friends are shooting themselves in the foot. People, young people especially, don't like being told what to do. Especially if they don't have to do it.

And that, ultimately, will cost you.

"Tropic Thunder," Production Weekly

Production Weekly is reporting that Jack Black has signed on to star in, Tropic Thunder, to be directed by Ben Stiller. While the idea of these two men teaming up seems intriguing (Stiller will also be acting), it's happened before, lest we forget.

To everyone's credit, the concept of Tropic Thunder seems pretty solid, if not chuckle-worthy: while filming an action movie, things go horribly wrong and the actors are forced to become the commandos they are playing (although can they possibly defend themselves when firing blanks?). Throwing Robert Downy Junior into the mix playing a 4-time Oscar winner can't hurt either.

And while I'd still like to get excited, given the actors alone, if we take Ben Stiller as an example, it's obvious that some material works really well for his comedic abilities, whereas other material...well, doesn't.

The problem for me at this point is that I'm having trouble getting a feel for this movie. Stiller has directed, for example, Zoolander and The Cable Guy. Two funny movies. Two totally different styles. In looking at the credited writers, Etan Cohen wrote and directed a movie called My Wife is Retarded (I had to make that bold because it's not like I could italicize it more for emphasis), and according to IMDB, the second writer, actor Justin Theroux, has Tropic Thunder listed as his only writing credit.

Not that any of this really matters at this point, given that the film isn't set to be released until July of 2008, but suffice it to say, we'll be tracking it here at League HQ.


FYI, Production Weekly is a great site loaded with breaking news in the industry (of the good variety. This, not so much.) You can also subscribe to a weekly production breakdown service, but at a price . Regardless, it's worth bookmarking.


Write on...

Another Take on "300"

While it may come off as redundant to post a second review for 300, the movie did make $70 million dollars this weekend. This is courtesy of Norphen, and if you would rather, you may also read this review on his blog.

Enjoy!

----

Let's Send Spartans to Iraq - Problem Solved!


Comparisons to Sin City are inevitable. 300 is another Frank Miller comic adapted into a feature film sporting real actors in totally digital environments. It's the second film from director Zack Snyder, who had one hell of a debut three years ago with the stellar remake of Dawn of the Dead. The man certainly ups the ante on his own skills, and the movie itself provides a fair amount of satisfaction.

The film is a stylized take on the legendary Battle of Thermopylae (Greek for "hot gates"). A rampaging Persian army is overtaking all of Eastern Europe under the command of Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro), a gigantic man who believes himself to be a god, and the city of Sparta is in the empire's line of fire. Unable to secure the approval of the city's council, the fierce King Leonidas (Forceful work from Gerard Butler) defies tradition and gathers 300 of the finest Spartan warriors to take on Xerxes's army of over 250,000. To try and turn the overwhelming odds in their favor, Leonidas lures the army into a narrow pass at Thermopylae and aims to use the close quarters to his advantage in the coming war.

And what beautiful war it is. After having spent the first half-hour making sure everyone in the audience knows just how hardcore Spartan soldiers are (especially by kicking a Persian messenger into a seemingly bottomless pit while shouting "This is...SPARTA!" The line has become ubiquitous in the movie's trailers, but in reality the scene is fairly drawn out, making for an unintentionally humorous build-up to that line), they go to work on the Persians with exquisitely choreographed battles, with blood splatterings worthy of Jackson Pollock. The Spartans are trained from childhood to be warriors, while the Persians are mostly unwilling slaves. This gives the Spartans an early advantage, but can they really hold out against this huge army? Especially in nothing but capes and loincloths? (In Miller's comic, they all fought naked, which would have secured an NC-17 for the film adaptation faster than any of the numerous decapitations and impalements shown).

A problem with 300 is that though everything is very exciting and fun to watch, there's almost no emotional attachment to what's going on. This was the same with Sin City, though nothing in that over the top noir was meant to be taken seriously. This film, while more concerned with how cool everything looks than historical detail, is still based on real life heroism on an epic scale. Such phenomenal bravery really ought to provoke more emotion than 300 ultimately does.

The movie got a hostile reception when it screened in Europe; many film scribes thought that an army refusing to give up against a hostile Arab army was a metaphor endorsing the current War in Iraq. I find this fairly ludicrous...anything that talks about the virtues of freedom and democracy is suddenly pro-Bush? It would be just as easy to frame the film as representing Iraqi insurgents fighting against a much bigger nation led by a man with delusions of grandeur. The war depicted in 300 is a simple sort that we don't see in today's times. No faulty intelligence, no corporate profits. Just an army trying to take over your home.

Even though it's all fairly superficial, 300 is still a good time at the movies and should be especially popular with men. (Women will have to settle for the sub-plot featuring Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey) dealing with corruption among Sparta's elite) The visual effects are great, but I can't help but feel like they are a mixed blessing. They are ideal in a situation like this where a filmmaker is trying to capture the distinct visual style of a source material, but if we ever get to the point where the majority of filmmakers rely on all digital backgrounds, it will get old quick. Anyone who has seen some of the great sights Earth has to offer knows that no digital trickery can top Mother Nature. That, however, is an issue for another day. B+

Rorshach

Just as LoKor brought you Venom, I bring you Rorshach. This is a leaked image of the violent yet quiet character from director Zack Snyder's upcoming adaptation of "Watchmen." The image was pulled from AintItCoolNews.com, which I accessed through SuperHeroHype.com.

By the way, for anyone interested in comic book and graphic novel adaptations to film, I highly recommend SuperHeroHype.com.

"300" - Battle Hardened

Sorry this review is coming in a little bit late. I had to battle my way through Xerxes' army on the way over here, with just one other person at my side.

As LoKor pointed out, "300" was the top film at the box office this weekend. Not a big surprise. Nor, really, is the general reaction to it. "300' is a long, bloody, albeit sometimes very pretty picture to watch. The basic premise is 300 Spartans stand up to the entire Persian army, because they have been ordered by Greek wise men not to engage in a full war.

I think that the best way to review this film is by using the old saying, "you get what you've asked for." Knowing full well that this movie is about 300 men trying to stay alive against insurmountable odds for as long as possible, no viewer should go in expecting anything less than at least 3/4 of the films 117 minute running time to be spent on the battle field. However, that aside, there's no reason why 1/2 of that time had to be spent in slow motion. Sometimes, yes, for effect, seeing a beheading or an impaling in slow-mo can be cool. Yet not every beheading or impaling should be in slow-mo. Slow motion was used so much throughout this film, that I was actually wondering what some of the violence would have looked like in real time. I worked on a film last summer where the director wanted nearly every shot to be a dolly shot. Well, yes, dolly work looks good on the monitor. It will look good every time. However, that does not mean that when all is said and done, he could neglect the fact that he had dollyed the previous scene, and could therefore do it again. The same goes for the use of slow-mo in "300;" it looks cool here and there, but I feel like the filmmakers forgot they had used it 12 times already, so they used it another 48 times. Enough was enough.

In the end, this film, like the Spartans, is strong enough to stand alone... but know what you're in for. It is a very macho, blood and boob filled flick, where when the men aren't engaging in a "mine is bigger than yours" on the battlefield, they're doing so by seeing who can shout the loudest, most manly things. Is it a pretty picture? Absolutely. Is it a pretty good action movie? Yes. Does it sometimes get repetitive? Yep. Did I always understand why the Spartans gave up their shelter and tactical advantages to just jump into the oncoming army and fight? No, there were only 300 of them. That was dumb. Bottom line: see it if you want a good bit of escape for 2 hours, but certainly do not let any hype you might hear influence your expectations. You will most likely be let down.

--------

P.S. Don't you just love it when critics try too hard to come up with a clever title, and it doesn't wind up giving even the slightest hint of what they thought of the film?

Box Office: "300," FTW

Not that it took a whole lot of skill to predict, but let's just say I called it.

Not one to disappoint, by grossing $70 million this weekend, 300 made a cool $42 million more than it's closest competitor, the rambunctious Wild Hogs. As I also speculated, Zodiac missed it's one chance to shine in its opening weekend. It came in this week at number 5, raking in only $6.7 million, trailing other such cinematic juggernauts as Bridge to Terabithia, and, you guessed it, Ghost Rider.

According to Yahoo News, 300 should break the box office record for best March opening, besting last year's Ice Age 2 ($68 million), and doing so on roughly 850 fewer theaters. Fan boys unite!

Moreover, Yahoo News is also quick to point out that 300 stands to have the third best opening weekend ever for an R-rated film, trailing only The Matrix: Reloaded, and The Passion of the Christ. You can check out the entire Yahoo News article here.

Looking ahead, it should be interesting to see what next week's drop-off will be. While the numbers are strong, almost everything I've heard about 300 has been mediocre at best, summed up by a prediction made last week by Norphen:

Me: at least we know it'll be manly and intense...for whatever that's worth.

Norphen: Yeah, though in some ways I could see that being a flaw. If every line is as obscenely overdramatic as the "THIS IS....SPARTA?!?!?!111one!" I could get bored with it

Cake Man should have a review of 300 posted soon. Be sure to check back here for updates.


Write on...