Time Lapse
Apr 25, 2012 Digital Technology
Gotta love some time lapse! LA photographer, Colin Rich, explains the elaborate processes he uses to get the job done in the LA Times.
L.A. Photographer Takes The Long View
And here’s the result of his work:
LA Light from Colin Rich on Vimeo.
Top Illegally Downloaded Movies 2011
Dec 30, 2011 Digital Technology, Movie Industry, Movies, Piracy
It seems Paul Walker still has what it takes. But no wonder the studios are pissed off about piracy. Let’s do the math.
Box Office Mojo works with an average per ticket price of $7.96 for 2011 (although I usually pay twice that). I’ve included the revenue discrepancy if everyone who downloaded had instead bought a ticket at a theater for that price – although I know some of these pirates might have rented or bought the DVD instead.
1. Fast Five – 9.2m downloads ($73.23M of lost ticket sales)
2. The Hangover II – 8.8m downloads ($70.05M of lost ticket sales)
3. Thor – 8.3m downloads ($66.07M of lost ticket sales)
4. Source Code – 7.9m downloads ($62.88M of lost ticket sales)
5. I Am Number Four – 7.6m downloads ($60.5M of lost ticket sales)
6. Sucker Punch – 7.2m downloads ($57.3M of lost ticket sales)
7. 127 Hours – 6.9m downloads ($55M of lost ticket sales)
8. Rango – 6.4m downloads ($51M of lost ticket sales)
9. The King’s Speech – 6.2m downloads ($49.4M of lost ticket sales)
10. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 – 6m downloads ($47.76M of lost ticket sales)
For a movie like Sucker Punch, which managed a worldwide gross of only $89.8M, these numbers must be particularly galling. If everyone who downloaded the movie had actually bought a ticket instead, then it might have been considered a middling success, rather than a dismal failure. The same goes for Source Code, which barely scraped $55M as a domestic gross, and could certainly have used an extra $62.88M in its final tally.
The money lost on each one of these movies, had it gone to the studios, would have funded a mid-budget movie (and employed hundreds of people). So, next time you go to the multiplex and wonder where all the “missing” movies are, the non-sequels, the non-remakes, the non-adaptations, this is what happened: pirates ate them.
The Guardian has the full breakdown.
History Repeats Itself
May 30, 2011 Digital Technology, Movie Industry
It seems the latest 3-D movie boom is over, and with it the boost to box office receipts that Hollywood was counting on to bolster their income against falling video rentals and DVD sales. The same rejection of 3-D happened the first time the technology was introduced in the 1950s, and again with the brief flowering of 3-D in the 1980s, with audiences getting tired of wearing the glasses (or not being able to wear them if you’re colour blind), and paying extra for tickets for 3-D movies.
In 2011, audiences have started to buy tickets for “flat” (or 2-D) versions of the big movies being released in 3-D. Whether this is because they baulk at the price of tickets (which can be anything up to $20), or because they prefer watching movies with a traditional depth of field is not known. However, the numbers are clear:
Ripples of fear spread across Hollywood last week after “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides,” which cost Walt Disney Studios an estimated $400 million to make and market, did poor 3-D business in North America. While event movies have typically done 60 percent of their business in 3-D, “Stranger Tides” sold just 47 percent in 3-D. “The American consumer is rejecting 3-D,” Richard Greenfield, an analyst at the financial services company BTIG, wrote of the “Stranger Tides” results.
One movie does not make a trend, but the Memorial Day weekend did not give studio chiefs much comfort in the 3-D department. “Kung Fu Panda 2,” a Paramount Pictures release of a DreamWorks Animation film, sold $53.8 million in tickets from Thursday to Sunday, a soft total, and 3-D was 45 percent of the business, according to Paramount.
3-D (or stereo vision) has been around since 1894, so it’s not going to disappear anytime soon. However, as happened in the 1950s and the 1980s, many of the movies currently being shot in 3-D may only ever see a 2-D theatrical release. Will we lose a classic 3-D experience because of this? Hitchcock shot Dial M For Murder in 3-D in 1954, and included some sophisticated and innovative use of the technology, especially in the scenes with Grace Kelly wielding a pair of scissors that bring a whole new level of tension to the narrative. Unfortunately, this came at the end of the 3-D boom, and the move was eventually released as 2-D (although there are occasional screenings held of rare prints of the 3-D version).
Will the studios keep pushing 3-D onto audiences? This time, 3-D TV has a part to play, as those who have invested in 3-D sets will demand content to justify their investment. However, the signs are that 3-D 2010s style is just as much of a short-lived gimmick as its predecessors, until the next Avatar comes round to spark interest in the format once more.
3-D Starts to FIzzle, and Hollywood Frets – New York Times
A history of 3-D cinema – The Guardian
TV Advertising “Not Dead”
Apr 20, 2011 Advertising, Digital Technology, TV
As media forms shift and develop, there is always plenty of hand-wringing about the “death” of one or another, with pundits claiming that viewers, listeners and readers will migrate to whatever is most new and shiny. Well, guess what? Newspaper ads are still with us (although spending is down) in pretty much the same form as when they first appeared in the seventeenth century. Ever get a Penny Saver circular dropped in your mailbox? That type of ad-filled gazette is the direct heir to those early publications, and it still fulfills the same function, spreading information about goods and services on offer.
In its time, television was going to destroy both cinema and radio, but those media forms are still with us. The new kid on the block, the internet, has claimed plenty of our eyeball time, but, as this post in Advertising Age suggests, we still prefer to watch TV, even if that involves watching Snooki:
But most of all, TV is significant. It has such high esteem that our culture has come to conclude that if something is on TV, it must be pretty noteworthy. In fact, even though we have hundreds of channels to choose from now, TV isn’t nearly as democratic as the internet, where anyone with a modem and a computer can create their own website, post a video, blog or tweet.
On the other hand, very few people get to be on TV. To Americans, being on TV means that either: a) you’re someone important, or b) someone important thinks you should be on TV. Being on TV is something to strive for. It’s the reason that people dress up, make signs and act ridiculous just to be on TV for a few seconds with Al Roker.
While surfing the internet is an active experience (you have to choose where to click) TV allows you to lie back and relax, confident that someone, somewhere, has done the selection (the gatekeeping) for you. With Americans still watching an average of 5 hours TV per day, it seems we still have some way to go before we kick the TV habit. For now, it makes sense for advertisers to keep shelling out big money for those 30-second spots.
Snooki Proves TV is More Relevant Than Ever – Advertising Age
Do You Love Me Like You Used To?
Apr 7, 2011 Digital Technology, Movies
In today’s New York Times, Manohla Dargis asks whether digital technology has changed our essential relationship with movies – which used to provide the ultimate in a mass communication experience. Fascinating.
Out There In The Dark, All Alone – New York Times
Watching War Online
Apr 4, 2011 Digital Technology, Media Effects
The Violence in the Media debate has focused primarily on mass media, conceived and created by institutions and targeted at a mass audience. The ubiquity of cell phone cameras, and the ease with which a video shot on one can be uploaded to the internet, has changed all that. The technology means that we can now see raw, unregulated violence online, whether it’s the exploits of a happy slapping gang in South London, or troops opening fire on protestors in Libya.
What effect does this have on our collective and individual psyche? Xeni Jardin writes in her thoughtful post in today’s Guardian:
…human beings do not have an endless capacity for empathy, and our capacity is less so in the [un]mediated, disembodied, un-real realm of online video. At what point does access to war gore become harmful to the viewer, and at what point do each of us who observe this material for the purpose of reporting the story around it, become numb or begin to experience secondary trauma?
There’s also a concern that, even with a cell phone, footage can be faked, re-cut or re-mediated in order to manipulate both events and the viewer. What purports to be the raw, bloody truth, an eye-witness account from a non-partisan bystander, may actually be deliberate, heavily political propaganda. For decades we have viewed news-gatherers as relatively “trusted sources”, believed that they report what is happening from a third person perspective – although those reports might be subject to political bias. However, citizen journalism shifts our news into a first person framework, showing the Who, Where and some of the What, but never addressing the How and the Why. Without that vital explanation and mediation, news footage can indeed leave the viewer feeling traumatized, numb and confused.
As mainstream news outlets cut overseas budgets and turn ever-inwards towards freely and cheaply available celebrity gossip and entertainment stories, concerned citizens need to seek their news independently, often turning to ‘primary’ sources such as cellphone videos and Twitter commentary. However, we need to educate ourselves to regulate and analyse this information, putting ourselves in the position of editor, double checking facts, assessing the choices made in framing and representation. We need to become our own gatekeepers, ensuring that we’re not numb, or traumatized, and that we can give the death of a stranger the importance and respect it deserves no matter how many times it plays out in a tiny online window.
Atrocity Exhibition – The Guardian
“I Do All My Own Stunts”
Mar 28, 2011 Digital Technology, Movie Industry, Movies, Representation of Women
Everyone loves a chance to put an Oscar-winning actress down, now it’s Natalie Portman’s turn as her dance double for Black Swan claims credit for the performance.
Sarah Lane, soloist with American Ballet Theatre, was hired to depict all the complex dance sequences that Portman, with only a year of training under her leotard (as opposed to the two decades that go into making a professional dancer), could never have pulled off. So far, so usual: stunt doubles are routinely hired for fight, chase, dance, ski-ing, driving or riding sequences that demand an elaborate set of physical skills. It’s almost part of the illusion expected when we go to the movies, that at some point, the actor will disappear back to their trailer and let a bewigged stunt person of approximately the same height and build get down to the death-defying gymnastics. There are two main reasons for this 1) stunt people are professionals who are really, really good at the physical stuff, and b) if it all goes pear-shaped, stunt people can be replaced halfway through principal photography, while a lead actor cannot.
Lane’s beef is not so much about the illusions created within the film-making process, which involved having Portman’s head digitally superimposed onto her body for the long shots, as she knew that was going to happen. She is more concerned about the way Portman’s people claimed credit for her dancing as part of her Oscar campaign. She accuses them of
“trying to create this facade that [Portman] had become a ballerina in a year and a half… How unfortunate it is that, as professional dancers, we work so hard, but people can actually believe that it’s easy enough to do it in a year. That’s the thing that bothered me the most”.
A big part of Portman’s pre-award press did include coverage of how she suffered for her art during the making of the film, both with the year of training beforehand, and the pressures put upon her during the actual movie to come up with convincing dance performances. And Academy voters love to see actors suffer, as well as push their physical limits. A movie is only one part of a media phenomenon, like Black Swan, which consists not just of the film narrative, but of all the narratives swirling round it – like the love story between Portman and her principal choreographer.
Darren Aronofsky jumped to his star’s defence for Entertainment Weekly:
Here is the reality. I had my editor count shots. There are 139 dance shots in the film. 111 are Natalie Portman untouched. 28 are her dance double Sarah Lane. If you do the math that’s 80% Natalie Portman. What about duration? The shots that feature the double are wide shots and rarely play for longer than one second. There are two complicated longer dance sequences that we used face replacement. Even so, if we were judging by time over 90% would be Natalie Portman.
And to be clear Natalie did dance on pointe in pointe shoes. If you look at the final shot of the opening prologue, which lasts 85 seconds, and was danced completely by Natalie, she exits the scene on pointe. That is completely her without any digital magic. I am responding to this to put this to rest and to defend my actor. Natalie sweated long and hard to deliver a great physical and emotional performance. And I don’t want anyone to think that’s not her they are watching. It is.”
Sarah Lane is a performer in her own right, an artiste who is used to getting credit and acclaim for her work. And she has a day job. No wonder she’s pissed – but she is in a uniquely privileged position to bitch about it. Portman is also a relatively soft target – it seems easier to accuse an actress of not being able to cut the physical stuff than a male star. No one would dream of making similar allegations about Jason Statham or Dwayne Johnson. There are legions of stunt artists out there who will forever remain silent about their contribution to the work of actors (usually macho action heroes) who claim that they, also, do all their own fighting, chase, dancing, ski-ing, driving or riding on screen. If these stunt doubles speak up, they never work again.
Much of Hollywood’s allure – and marketing – revolves around the larger-than-life abilities of “the talent”. The audience want to believe that what they see on screen is the singular performance of one very special person, when, in fact, it’s the result of hundreds of hours of work by whole teams of people, both on set and in post production. But bottom line is that the star always gets the credit – that’s showbusiness.
Natalie Portman Accused In Black Swan Row – Digital Spy
Darron Aronofsky Defends Portman – Entertainment Weekly
Actors Who Do Their Own Stunts – Moviefone
Hollywood Stuntman reveals tricks of trade – NPR interview with Hal Needham
Want to be the next Rebecca Black? It’ll cost ya $20K
Mar 20, 2011 Digital Technology, Music
As the dust subsides from Rebecca Black’s meme-making You Tube debut, attention is being focused on the maestros behind the music. Just who are the Ark Music Factory?
On their website, founders Patrice Wilson and Clarence Jey describe themselves as “a Community, Music/Entertainment Channel and Independent Record Label based in Los Angeles, California”. Their current roster of artists is all young and female, all purveying identikit vocoded, throwaway pop music and boilerplate videos. However, in addition to the limited number of artistes featured on the website, various bloggers have dug around this week and uncovered many more Ark Music Factory prodigies online.
Wilson and Jey’s business model seems to be fairly simple – and entrepreneurial. Fond parents of fame-obsessed tween and teen girls can buy a song and video package for their beloved daughter to perform. If they’ve already spent years forking out for ballet, tap and singing lessons, this kind of video showcase seems like a natural step, putting their little princess front and center, with as many of her BFFs as she wants performing as backing singers and dancers. In itself, this is nothing new: young girls have been working on dance routines in bedroom mirrors, fantasizing about being the next Marvelettes, the next Bananarama, or the next Spice Girls, for decades. Ark Music Factory are simply adding in digital technology, making the fantasy seem more real by auto-tuning vocals, adding a random rap break, and indulging uninspired pop video scenarios about driving in cars and dancing round fountains with some fancy edits thrown in for good measure. As Rebecca Black has mentioned in interviews, she knew someone else who’d “had it done” so she thought she would – anyone who’s ever seen an episode of My Super Sweet Sixteen knows that girls with rich parents always get what they want, and they want at least as much as their rival queen bees are getting. Ark Music Factory are simply supplying a service, and a quick scan of the internet suggests they aren’t the only production company feeding this demand.
Is there anything wrong with propagating these kind of tween dreams? It seems to be a fun experience for the girls involved, and if they keep the videos private, only to be shared between friends, surely it’s only a glossy, stylized version of the DVD of the school play that parents can use to embarrass future husbands in years to come? However, if these videos go viral online, it’s a completely different story. Audience theory suggests that the original intent behind a media text becomes irrelevant once it’s exposed to mass consumption. Different audiences will read the text in their own way. And, thanks to the internet, music videos like Friday are instantly subjected to a range of negative, even vicious readings. Once a video is out there, it can be re-interpreted and reused in any way a consumer of the text sees fit. Something made in all seriousness can rapidly become a joke, something meant for niche (friends and family) consumption can suddenly become a global conversation. The teenager trying to impress her friends can, overnight, become the target of international cyberbullying. An innocent performance can become the focus of a whole culture’s neuroses and hatred towards young women who are perceived to be less than physically perfect. Even Red Riding Hood didn’t encounter such horrors when she took a journey into the woods.
Wilson and Jey could never have conceived of the millions of hits on YouTube, the iTunes downloads, the radio and TV interviews, the near-instant global fame when they were selling Rebecca Black’s parents the package. It’s not clear exactly who is making what money from the unexpected hit recording. Inevitably, however, the Ark Music Factory phone will have been ringing off the hook with queries from eager wannabes demanding their turn in the limelight. They won’t care that they’re not talented, that the end product will be awful, that once it gets on the internet people will see it and laugh at them for years to come. They just want what Rebecca’s having. And the Ark Music Factory (plus all the copycats who are bound to spring up) will be laughing all the way to the bank.
Rebecca Black has wiped away her tears from earlier in the week (when critics drubbed her recording as “Worst Song Ever”) and is now demanding to do a duet with Justin Bieber. After all, he also became a massive star after his YouTube video went viral. This is one girl who won’t let anything stand between her and her dreams – just like Verucca Salt and that squirrel in Charlie And The Chocolate Factory.
Ark Music Factory – The Official Site
Who The Hell Made Rebecca Black’s ‘Friday’ Video? – City Sound Inertia
Rebecca Black, teen singer, admits she cried when her hit song was deemed worst song ever – LA Times
Want to make a Monster movie? It’ll cost ya $15K
Mar 16, 2011 Digital Technology, Movie Industry, Movies
Gareth Edwards’ Monsters was a huge hit on the film festival circuit last year. Here’s his account of how he managed to create sci fi realism on such a tight budget:
