Last week, I was thinking about going to see The Aristocrats. I've always been somewhat interested in comedic theory, and the subject matter of that film, plus the people appearing in it, have made it one of those films that I have made a point to go see.
But I haven't gone to see it yet. Two things have stood in my way. The first is the fact that, at the time of its initial Austin release, the film was showing only in one inconveniently located theater at an inconvenient time. The second, and most important, is the frustration I experienced with the thought that I even have to go to a theater to see this movie.
With all of the problems the film industry has been experiencing lately, there's been a lot of talk about the problems that have been created by DVDs and home theaters, as if movie studios are locked into the current business model forever. Like record companies, film companies find themselves at a crossroads, and like record companies, they will continue their downward spiral unless they try to adjust to consumers rather than dictating to them.
It seems to me that the lure of the theater has always been twofold: it is an experience and it’s a deliverer of content. For many movies, primarily action, horror, science fiction, and the like, the theater provides the ideal setting in which to experience a film. It also provides a destination for couples and for groups that has been a part of American culture for generations. But in many other circumstances, the movie theater has always been the only way to see a film that you really don't care where you see it.
Given that theaters have played such a large role in the development of the movie industry, it's understandable that any noteworthy film must pass through them. But looking at it with a fresh set of eyes, it's peculiar that if, heaven forbid, you want to see Must Love Dogs, you must choose between spending a ton of money to see it on the big screen and waiting several months for it to come out on DVD. What value does the theater add for a film like that, or for countless other films that are making pointless pit stops at movie theaters? If we could rebuild film distribution from scratch it would probably look completely different than the system we have arrived at. The good news is that we can still get there in a few steps:
1) Destigmatize direct-to-video releases
2) Release DVDs more quickly, in many cases bypassing theaters altogether
3) Align film promotion with distribution
4) Make theaters fun again
In 2004, the big six movie studios made profits of almost $14 billion on the video releases of their films and almost $16 billion on television licensing, while losing over $2 billion at the theaters (admittedly, much of the profit/loss mix probably has to do with wacky Hollywood cost accounting, but at any rate theaters have certainly declined recently). It's clear that theaters aren't working the way they should, and I think the most obvious solution is for films that aren't well served by theaters simply to go straight to DVD. In the new system, films that do not require massive sound systems and are not likely to enjoy a two-month theater run get to premiere at Blockbuster.
The obvious problem that exists with this proposal is that "direct-to-video" has always been synonymous with "clunker." This really shouldn't be--there are some films that are made for theaters and some that aren't. But if you think eschewing a theatrical run is a death knell, take a look at Disney. After releasing successful animated films, its sequels have primarily gone direct to video. After Pocahontas became a hit in theaters, Disney made rental/home video hits out of Pocahontas: Journey to a New World, Pocahontas Down Under, Pocahontas and the Ghastly Ghost Town, Pocahontas Meets the Jetsons, Pocahontas vs. The Harlem Globetrotters, and Pocahontas2K.
The key is to expand the public's perception of what qualifies as a direct-to-DVD release. In order to help transition consumers to a new way of viewing movie rentals, studios should start things off with a near-blockbuster, a comedy or drama starring a Cameron Diaz or a George Clooney, with essentially the same promotion a big-time theater release would receive.
A distribution system that has shifted in favor of rentals means some big changes for film promotion. For theater releases, it’s all about opening weekend, which almost always establishes a high point for revenues and precedes a geometric decline over the following weeks. Presumably, a film that’s starting out in rental outlets can be a little smarter about promotion. Rather than an all-out media blitz, studios could use a phased approach to advertising and television appearances, staying longer in consumers’ minds and retaining the ability to adapt promotions to changing perceptions and other new developments.
Whatever the future movie distribution arrangement may be, it is obvious that movie theaters will need to make some changes. Considering the cost, the distance, and the cell phones and talking, movie theaters are beginning to lose the battle with home theaters. In a word, they’re boring. To become the meeting places they used to be, they should take a page from drive-ins, Rocky Horror, and other innovative theater concepts of years past. Theaters that serve meals, invite participation, and show old movies in new ways are doing quite well, and they could well be more sustainable than a stale viewing experience that is entirely dependent on Hollywood’s ability to produce movies that are not themselves stale.
Every year, Hollywood gets together, hands out some statues, and pats itself on the back, proclaiming the love that everyone else has for what they do. That love, though, is not a given, at least not any longer. If box office receipts are any indication, the way consumers want to experience movies is changing, and movie studios can position themselves well for the future if they stop pointing fingers and start listening to movie watchers.
Saturday, September 10, 2005
Sunday, September 4, 2005
Three Days in September
This weekend I was lucky enough to see all three games the Cardinals played against the Astros in Houston.
Remember when Mr. Burns wanted to charge the town of Springfield for power so he built a big sun blocker to keep the town in perpetual darkness? I can’t help but think that C. M. Burns was brought in as a consultant on the construction of Enron Field. Like the sun blocker, the roof at Minute Maid Park is capable of moving but only serves the purpose of keeping the sun out. The last seven games I have attended in Houston have all featured a closed roof. It seems like attaching to your stadium a cool thing like a “retractable roof” comes with a responsibility, namely, to open it every now and again. Otherwise what you’ve got is a plain old roof. The sun is nice to have during a ballgame. That’s all I’m saying.
Friday, September 2, 2005
The first game looked to be the most lopsided matchup. Mark Mulder went for the Cardinals against Ezequiel Astacio, and he was about as perfect as you can be while giving up two runs. In the second inning, two bloop hits and an error led to the two runs. In the third, Mulder issued only a walk. In the fourth through eighth, Mulder retired all eighteen batters consecutively, and the ball never left the infield. For the Cards, hits were steady, but the Astros were able to work around much of the damage. Astacio allowed eight hits in 5 1/3 innings, but he walked none, and the three runs he allowed came from opposite field home runs to Molina (solo) and Edmonds (two runs). When the eighth inning ended, the Cardinals had three runs on ten hits, and the Astros had two runs on two hits.
Enter Jason Isringhausen. The first batter he faced was Morgan Ensberg, who homered to give Houston three runs on three hits. The crazy thing about it is that I had a bad feeling before Izzy came in. Not that he’s an unreliable closer, but you wonder about removing Mulder from his masterful appearance and bringing in someone who hasn’t had a lot of work lately. But he did end the inning with two strikeouts and a ground out to send the game into extras.
In the top of the tenth, Pujols led off with a double, was bunted to third by Edmonds, and was brought home by John Rodriguez on one of the gutsiest squeeze play calls I’ve ever seen. John Rodriguez? Sometimes I think La Russa does these things just to entertain himself.
In the bottom of the inning, Ausmus went yard on Isringhausen. Blown save number two, essentially.
The Cards were retired in order in the eleventh and twelfth. And they handed the ball to Cal Eldred for the bottom halves of those innings, which made me rest easy. I’ve always liked Eldred. I think part of it is his story, as profiled in Three Nights in August. Part of it is seeing him at spring training last year. I was standing about five feet from him, on the other side of a chain link fence, watching him endure a few autograph hounds. One guy was carting around a big box, in which he had multiple 8 x 10 photographs of each player. He set down his box right by Eldred, fished around for a while, and dug out a picture of Eldred wearing a Chicago White Sox uniform. He rolled it up and passed it through the fence, and when he got it back it begrudgingly bore the signature of one of the newest Cardinals. Spring training taught me what an absolute beating autograph signing is, and I’ve always respected guys who do a lot of it. (Kudos to David Eckstein for going above and beyond the call of duty during this series--joking with fans during throwing drills and signing after doing some stretching.) Also, I think Eldred’s a very consistent reliever. And he got the job done, working around a leadoff double in the 11th and, after giving up a single in the 12th, benefiting from Pujols’s read-the-bunt-play-perfectly-and-sprint-and-slide-toward-the-ball-and-field-and-make-a-perfect-throw-to-get-the-lead-runner greatness.
Edmonds led off the 13th with a home run. In the bottom, Ensberg led off with a single off Tavarez but was forced out at second on a very bad call on a sacrifice bunt play. Lane singled, and Tavarez intentionally walked Vizcaino to load the bases for Orlando Palmeiro. La Russa brought in King, who plunked in the tying run and was immediately taken out. Reyes then got Ausmus to pop out but allowed the winning run to score on a Bruntlett single to left. It was a very strange half inning that capped off probably the greatest game I’ve ever seen.
Saturday, September 3, 2005
Today was one of those days that made me think back a ways. In 1985, a guy named John Tudor joined the St. Louis Cardinals. After a 1-7 start, he finished the year 21-8, finishing the year almost unhittable. In most seasons, almost unhittable will get you a Cy Young award, but unfortunately for Tudor a kid named Dwight Gooden was genuinely unhittable that year. Tudor’s ERA was a sublime 1.93; Gooden’s was an unreal 1.53.
What John Tudor was unable to do in 1985, Carpenter might be able to do in 2005. No Cards pitcher has won a Cy Young since Bob Gibson, but Carp’s the real deal. I was there for his brilliant 2-0 victory over Andy Petitte back in June. Before today's game I did a little research and discovered that the Astros had scored one run off him in 24 innings this year. I had a chance to see Chris Carpenter win his 20th game and take a big lead in the Cy Young race, but he would have to get past his old mentor Roger Clemens.
The Cardinals used to have incredible trouble with Roger Clemens, until game 7 of the 2004 NLCS. Since then they have wins in 3 of 4 games against him, and in the one they lost they scored four runs on him.
Carpenter worked around trouble in the first and second, getting two guys out between third and home and allowing just one run to score despite allowing four straight hits (and three straight doubles) across the two innings. The Cardinals took a 2-1 lead in an inning in which only Pujols’s lead off single left the infield. A walk, an error, and a swinging bunt single created the rest of the damage.
Clemens left after five because of a hamstring injury. Berkman’s sixth inning homer took him off the hook for the loss, but Cardinal runs in the 7th and 8th gave Carpenter all he would need. He went the distance, retiring the final 11. Hugs all around as Carpenter set himself further apart from the rest of the field. He is now 3-0 against Clemens and Dontrelle Willis.
Sunday, September 04, 2005
The usually hittable Wandy Rodriguez faced the minimum number of batters through five innings, thanks to a couple nifty snags of hard hit balls by Willy Tavares. Meanwhile, the resurgent Jason Marquis gave up a homer to Lance Berkman in the fourth.
In the top of the sixth, Rodriguez walked the Nunez, leading off the inning from the 7 spot, and hit Luna with a pitch. The baserunners were advanced by a Marquis bunt and brought in by an Edmonds single.
After the Berkman homer, Marquis was nearly perfect. He gave up one hit over the last 5 1/3 and retired the last seven. In the perfect fifth and sixth, he retired two by strikeout and had four balls tapped back to him. He threw six pitches in the eighth and, oh yeah, went the distance in a 4-1 win.
Here’s my stat of the series: 26 to 16 1/3. Over the three games, Cardinals starters averaged three more innings than Astros starters. Rodriguez was the workhorse of the Astros staff with six innings pitched; Mulder, who threw eight but easily could have gone nine, was the laggard of the Cards staff.
Remember when Mr. Burns wanted to charge the town of Springfield for power so he built a big sun blocker to keep the town in perpetual darkness? I can’t help but think that C. M. Burns was brought in as a consultant on the construction of Enron Field. Like the sun blocker, the roof at Minute Maid Park is capable of moving but only serves the purpose of keeping the sun out. The last seven games I have attended in Houston have all featured a closed roof. It seems like attaching to your stadium a cool thing like a “retractable roof” comes with a responsibility, namely, to open it every now and again. Otherwise what you’ve got is a plain old roof. The sun is nice to have during a ballgame. That’s all I’m saying.
Friday, September 2, 2005
The first game looked to be the most lopsided matchup. Mark Mulder went for the Cardinals against Ezequiel Astacio, and he was about as perfect as you can be while giving up two runs. In the second inning, two bloop hits and an error led to the two runs. In the third, Mulder issued only a walk. In the fourth through eighth, Mulder retired all eighteen batters consecutively, and the ball never left the infield. For the Cards, hits were steady, but the Astros were able to work around much of the damage. Astacio allowed eight hits in 5 1/3 innings, but he walked none, and the three runs he allowed came from opposite field home runs to Molina (solo) and Edmonds (two runs). When the eighth inning ended, the Cardinals had three runs on ten hits, and the Astros had two runs on two hits.
Enter Jason Isringhausen. The first batter he faced was Morgan Ensberg, who homered to give Houston three runs on three hits. The crazy thing about it is that I had a bad feeling before Izzy came in. Not that he’s an unreliable closer, but you wonder about removing Mulder from his masterful appearance and bringing in someone who hasn’t had a lot of work lately. But he did end the inning with two strikeouts and a ground out to send the game into extras.
In the top of the tenth, Pujols led off with a double, was bunted to third by Edmonds, and was brought home by John Rodriguez on one of the gutsiest squeeze play calls I’ve ever seen. John Rodriguez? Sometimes I think La Russa does these things just to entertain himself.
In the bottom of the inning, Ausmus went yard on Isringhausen. Blown save number two, essentially.
The Cards were retired in order in the eleventh and twelfth. And they handed the ball to Cal Eldred for the bottom halves of those innings, which made me rest easy. I’ve always liked Eldred. I think part of it is his story, as profiled in Three Nights in August. Part of it is seeing him at spring training last year. I was standing about five feet from him, on the other side of a chain link fence, watching him endure a few autograph hounds. One guy was carting around a big box, in which he had multiple 8 x 10 photographs of each player. He set down his box right by Eldred, fished around for a while, and dug out a picture of Eldred wearing a Chicago White Sox uniform. He rolled it up and passed it through the fence, and when he got it back it begrudgingly bore the signature of one of the newest Cardinals. Spring training taught me what an absolute beating autograph signing is, and I’ve always respected guys who do a lot of it. (Kudos to David Eckstein for going above and beyond the call of duty during this series--joking with fans during throwing drills and signing after doing some stretching.) Also, I think Eldred’s a very consistent reliever. And he got the job done, working around a leadoff double in the 11th and, after giving up a single in the 12th, benefiting from Pujols’s read-the-bunt-play-perfectly-and-sprint-and-slide-toward-the-ball-and-field-and-make-a-perfect-throw-to-get-the-lead-runner greatness.
Edmonds led off the 13th with a home run. In the bottom, Ensberg led off with a single off Tavarez but was forced out at second on a very bad call on a sacrifice bunt play. Lane singled, and Tavarez intentionally walked Vizcaino to load the bases for Orlando Palmeiro. La Russa brought in King, who plunked in the tying run and was immediately taken out. Reyes then got Ausmus to pop out but allowed the winning run to score on a Bruntlett single to left. It was a very strange half inning that capped off probably the greatest game I’ve ever seen.
Saturday, September 3, 2005
Today was one of those days that made me think back a ways. In 1985, a guy named John Tudor joined the St. Louis Cardinals. After a 1-7 start, he finished the year 21-8, finishing the year almost unhittable. In most seasons, almost unhittable will get you a Cy Young award, but unfortunately for Tudor a kid named Dwight Gooden was genuinely unhittable that year. Tudor’s ERA was a sublime 1.93; Gooden’s was an unreal 1.53.
What John Tudor was unable to do in 1985, Carpenter might be able to do in 2005. No Cards pitcher has won a Cy Young since Bob Gibson, but Carp’s the real deal. I was there for his brilliant 2-0 victory over Andy Petitte back in June. Before today's game I did a little research and discovered that the Astros had scored one run off him in 24 innings this year. I had a chance to see Chris Carpenter win his 20th game and take a big lead in the Cy Young race, but he would have to get past his old mentor Roger Clemens.
The Cardinals used to have incredible trouble with Roger Clemens, until game 7 of the 2004 NLCS. Since then they have wins in 3 of 4 games against him, and in the one they lost they scored four runs on him.
Carpenter worked around trouble in the first and second, getting two guys out between third and home and allowing just one run to score despite allowing four straight hits (and three straight doubles) across the two innings. The Cardinals took a 2-1 lead in an inning in which only Pujols’s lead off single left the infield. A walk, an error, and a swinging bunt single created the rest of the damage.
Clemens left after five because of a hamstring injury. Berkman’s sixth inning homer took him off the hook for the loss, but Cardinal runs in the 7th and 8th gave Carpenter all he would need. He went the distance, retiring the final 11. Hugs all around as Carpenter set himself further apart from the rest of the field. He is now 3-0 against Clemens and Dontrelle Willis.
Sunday, September 04, 2005
The usually hittable Wandy Rodriguez faced the minimum number of batters through five innings, thanks to a couple nifty snags of hard hit balls by Willy Tavares. Meanwhile, the resurgent Jason Marquis gave up a homer to Lance Berkman in the fourth.
In the top of the sixth, Rodriguez walked the Nunez, leading off the inning from the 7 spot, and hit Luna with a pitch. The baserunners were advanced by a Marquis bunt and brought in by an Edmonds single.
After the Berkman homer, Marquis was nearly perfect. He gave up one hit over the last 5 1/3 and retired the last seven. In the perfect fifth and sixth, he retired two by strikeout and had four balls tapped back to him. He threw six pitches in the eighth and, oh yeah, went the distance in a 4-1 win.
Here’s my stat of the series: 26 to 16 1/3. Over the three games, Cardinals starters averaged three more innings than Astros starters. Rodriguez was the workhorse of the Astros staff with six innings pitched; Mulder, who threw eight but easily could have gone nine, was the laggard of the Cards staff.
Saturday, September 3, 2005
What’s in your wallet? Too much money, apparently.
I just saw a noteworthy commercial. It involved Capital One and its Viking characters. As the spot opens, some sort of counselor is talking about how he’s had to get the plunderers new jobs since they can’t attack people with inferior credit cards, because everyone is now using Capital One credit cards. The scenes that follow show how inept these men are at the jobs of today: one serves ice cream to a child using his hand as a scooper, another wrecks a car as a valet, and so on. Well, I’ve got a job for them: end the disturbing proliferation of serial commercials. Use force if necessary.
In past years, we would occasionally see a commercial character that was so memorable that we were actually interested in seeing it again. Characters like the Budweiser frogs, the Energizer bunny, and the Chick-Fil-A cows made us laugh and also bled into everyday conversations in a way that justified their appearing in multiple commercials.
Lately, though, it had taken a lot less for brands to christen themselves as being worthy of serial commercials. A great example from last year was Guinness Draught. The Guinness ads all operated under the same framework: two animated, turn of the century (19th-20th) men with handlebar mustaches discuss their new invention of Guinness Draught in a bottle, and they also stumble upon other useful inventions. These discoveries are generally of something that will allow the men to enjoy their Guinness more, like a six-pack or a can opener. After announcing their discovery, the men say, “Brilliant!” and then they toast another bottle of Guinness. The ads reminded consumers of the old-timey nature of Guinness Draught, and they impressed that Guinness has been a trailblazer in the world of beer. After a while, though, they stranded off message. In one commercial, the two men are discussing the inconvenience of their telegraph machines, when one man mentions that he has invented something new: the telephone. “Brilliant!” they both say, and they drink another bottle of Guinness. The commercials started off being about the product, and they ended up being about two characters I’m not sure anybody cared about.
Same thing with Capital One. These Viking characters may have been part of delivering a product message, but I question whether their popular appeal or their connection to the brand is strong enough to make these stand-alone sequels work.
I wonder whether this is happening because of a disconnect between the creators of these commercials and their audience. I would imagine that the marketing folks and ad agency for Capital One genuinely believe that they have created something original and are proud enough that they want to show us their creation again, and again, and again. But how many conversations have you been in where somebody said, “Did you see what the Vikings did this time?”
I know a lot of ad junkies see these commercials perpetuated to see where the story goes. But to me, and I suspect to many people who watch commercials somewhat passively, if your commercial has no buzz appeal, then you’re wasting your money by drawing out a story and taking your characters further and further away from the brand.
In past years, we would occasionally see a commercial character that was so memorable that we were actually interested in seeing it again. Characters like the Budweiser frogs, the Energizer bunny, and the Chick-Fil-A cows made us laugh and also bled into everyday conversations in a way that justified their appearing in multiple commercials.
Lately, though, it had taken a lot less for brands to christen themselves as being worthy of serial commercials. A great example from last year was Guinness Draught. The Guinness ads all operated under the same framework: two animated, turn of the century (19th-20th) men with handlebar mustaches discuss their new invention of Guinness Draught in a bottle, and they also stumble upon other useful inventions. These discoveries are generally of something that will allow the men to enjoy their Guinness more, like a six-pack or a can opener. After announcing their discovery, the men say, “Brilliant!” and then they toast another bottle of Guinness. The ads reminded consumers of the old-timey nature of Guinness Draught, and they impressed that Guinness has been a trailblazer in the world of beer. After a while, though, they stranded off message. In one commercial, the two men are discussing the inconvenience of their telegraph machines, when one man mentions that he has invented something new: the telephone. “Brilliant!” they both say, and they drink another bottle of Guinness. The commercials started off being about the product, and they ended up being about two characters I’m not sure anybody cared about.
Same thing with Capital One. These Viking characters may have been part of delivering a product message, but I question whether their popular appeal or their connection to the brand is strong enough to make these stand-alone sequels work.
I wonder whether this is happening because of a disconnect between the creators of these commercials and their audience. I would imagine that the marketing folks and ad agency for Capital One genuinely believe that they have created something original and are proud enough that they want to show us their creation again, and again, and again. But how many conversations have you been in where somebody said, “Did you see what the Vikings did this time?”
I know a lot of ad junkies see these commercials perpetuated to see where the story goes. But to me, and I suspect to many people who watch commercials somewhat passively, if your commercial has no buzz appeal, then you’re wasting your money by drawing out a story and taking your characters further and further away from the brand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)