We've come a long way from the days when one film a month would be released to the public. Today there could be anywhere from two to 20 films released on a single weekend, but this overflow of film has led to a general dilution of the quality out there (Did the Chipmunk movie really need a "Squeakquel"?). And with the advent of home entertainment in VHS, DVD, and Blu-ray, it's harder to get away from the truly terrible movies that flood the big screen. Even if studios and producers feel that a movie won't make the big bucks in theaters, they may bank on DVD/Blu-ray sales to roll in and throw it out there anyway.
Film producer Lynda Obst wrote an interesting op-ed for the Atlantic last week that was humorous but still, sadly, all too true. Obst opines that the poor quality of scripts selected for production is to blame for why you hate the movies you watch. She even runs down a list of reasons why a script sells (it has Shia LaBeouf, Taylor Lautner, Zac Efron, or a hot boy under 24 attached) and why it doesn't (it is intelligent or otherwise hindered by nuance). Film buffs may be entertained and casual movie-goers may be enlightened, but that still doesn't change the problem of Hollywood's unreliable trigger finger.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
The Downfall of Fair Use on YouTube
The amount of videos on YouTube can sometimes be mind-boggling, and the popularity of certain ones even more so. It can be pretty amazing how quickly a video can go viral and get 1,000,000 views these days. For every Chocolate Rain or All the Single Babies there are often dozens of parodies trying to pickup on the success of the latest "big hit". While the term "parody" should probably be used with caution (knockoffs or fan videos may be more appropriate), it's hard to ignore that YouTube gives the average computer savvy user a chance to view a popular video, record their own version/parody/knockoff, and post it for the masses to see.
The quality of these parodies is often suspect and more often than not just frustrating to wade through in order find the original favorite. For what it's worth, I think my favorite franchise of videos on YouTube has to be the Downfall parodies. Downfall being the German film (Der Untergang) about Hitler's last day's in a bunker, waiting for the end of the Third Reich. The film itself is excellent, and Bruno Ganz's portrayal of Adolf Hitler is scary good. Tim Cavanaugh's April 21 article, "First They Came for Hitler...", in Reason magazine describes the parody videos better than I can:
"If you're unfamiliar with these parodies...Der Untergang...features a scene in which a bunker-trapped Hitler harangues his inner circle (in German) as the Russians close in on Berlin. A few years ago, some inspired genius put on new subtitles in which the Führer ranted about getting banned from Xbox Live rather than about the 11th-hour desertion of his generals. Because Hitler has been bringing the laughs at least since the Beer Hall Putsch, the result was pretty funny, and it spawned a vast genre...There's even one where the dictator is mad about all the people making Downfall parodies..."
As it turns out, not everyone finds these videos hilarious. Constantin Films, the German production company that owns the rights to Downfall (from which the rant clip originates), has filed copyright claims, resulting in many of these parodies being taken down from YouTube. While artists and filmmakers have a right to protect their copyright, these less than 4-minute clips are certainly not infringement. Although these works are clearly transformative, parodies, and under the protection of Fair Use, YouTube continues to remove them.
YouTube is often forced to act in order to protect itself by muting videos that feature copyrighted music or removing videos that are clearly pulled from copyrighted material and posted online for free viewership, and I understand YouTube's fears over being brought into court over copyright infringement, but the Google-owned site often acts too hastily before reviewing some of these copyright claims to see if they are valid. Yes, it's party of the site's policy and posters agree to its terms and conditions before they can post, but maybe it's time YouTube re-examines some of these policy before another, more savvy competitor pushes it by the wayside.
In the meantime, here are two of my favorite Downfall parodies:
Enjoy them while you can.
The quality of these parodies is often suspect and more often than not just frustrating to wade through in order find the original favorite. For what it's worth, I think my favorite franchise of videos on YouTube has to be the Downfall parodies. Downfall being the German film (Der Untergang) about Hitler's last day's in a bunker, waiting for the end of the Third Reich. The film itself is excellent, and Bruno Ganz's portrayal of Adolf Hitler is scary good. Tim Cavanaugh's April 21 article, "First They Came for Hitler...", in Reason magazine describes the parody videos better than I can:
"If you're unfamiliar with these parodies...Der Untergang...features a scene in which a bunker-trapped Hitler harangues his inner circle (in German) as the Russians close in on Berlin. A few years ago, some inspired genius put on new subtitles in which the Führer ranted about getting banned from Xbox Live rather than about the 11th-hour desertion of his generals. Because Hitler has been bringing the laughs at least since the Beer Hall Putsch, the result was pretty funny, and it spawned a vast genre...There's even one where the dictator is mad about all the people making Downfall parodies..."
As it turns out, not everyone finds these videos hilarious. Constantin Films, the German production company that owns the rights to Downfall (from which the rant clip originates), has filed copyright claims, resulting in many of these parodies being taken down from YouTube. While artists and filmmakers have a right to protect their copyright, these less than 4-minute clips are certainly not infringement. Although these works are clearly transformative, parodies, and under the protection of Fair Use, YouTube continues to remove them.
YouTube is often forced to act in order to protect itself by muting videos that feature copyrighted music or removing videos that are clearly pulled from copyrighted material and posted online for free viewership, and I understand YouTube's fears over being brought into court over copyright infringement, but the Google-owned site often acts too hastily before reviewing some of these copyright claims to see if they are valid. Yes, it's party of the site's policy and posters agree to its terms and conditions before they can post, but maybe it's time YouTube re-examines some of these policy before another, more savvy competitor pushes it by the wayside.
In the meantime, here are two of my favorite Downfall parodies:
- Hitler's response to last fall's Virginia Tech/Nebraska football game. (I grew up a Virginia Tech fan and my brother-in-law is a Cornhusker, so its close to home, but football fans in general may be able to enjoy it.)
- Hitler pissed at Kanye West for ruining Taylor Swift's acceptance speech at the VMA's. (self-explanatory)
Enjoy them while you can.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Fronting the Final Frontier
There's been plenty of chatter recently about President Obama's space plan and the effect it will have on NASA, a manned-Moon or even Mars mission, and the immediate future of US space travel in general. I'm lucky enough to have an aerospace engineer for a friend who is much more knowledgeable and has a much better grasp of the pulse of the industry right now. With next week's expected launch of the privately owned SpaceX's new rocket, I thought it might be nice to air out some of his thoughts on the new space plan.
On the retirement of the space shuttle and its effect on related jobs:
The people who complain about losing their jobs because the shuttle program is ending dont really have much to complain about since they've known for 5+ years that this was going to happen in 2010. More than most other people who lose jobs, and there's really no way around it -- the shuttle has to be retired, and their jobs go with it.
Giving "local" space missions to privately owned companies:
I really like the idea of giving up the low earth orbit missions to private companies. People complain a lot about America losing the edge to other countries, but isn't capitalism and entrepreneurship our strong suit? Those companies (Virgin Galactic, SpaceX, and like 10 others) are ready to go solve the problem of efficiently getting to the ISS [International Space Station] cheaper than their competitors. Its just too bad we didn't task them with this 5 years ago, so we don't have the gap in between the shuttle and their solution.
And on NASA's possible role in the future:
[NASA is] still needed, just not for the low-earth orbit stuff. It is immensely more expensive to go to the Moon, much less Mars, and those [private] companies don't have the ability to do something like that. NASA's job should be to lead the way into the frontier, show that it can be done, and come up with crazy awesome inventions like Tang and Velcro along the way.
[Note: he actually said the part about Tang and Velcro]
So what's the future of American space travel? It looks as though it's hard to come up with concrete projections right now, but next week's launch is just the first step, and its success or failure will probably give us no better idea than we already have right now.
On the retirement of the space shuttle and its effect on related jobs:
The people who complain about losing their jobs because the shuttle program is ending dont really have much to complain about since they've known for 5+ years that this was going to happen in 2010. More than most other people who lose jobs, and there's really no way around it -- the shuttle has to be retired, and their jobs go with it.
Giving "local" space missions to privately owned companies:
I really like the idea of giving up the low earth orbit missions to private companies. People complain a lot about America losing the edge to other countries, but isn't capitalism and entrepreneurship our strong suit? Those companies (Virgin Galactic, SpaceX, and like 10 others) are ready to go solve the problem of efficiently getting to the ISS [International Space Station] cheaper than their competitors. Its just too bad we didn't task them with this 5 years ago, so we don't have the gap in between the shuttle and their solution.
And on NASA's possible role in the future:
[NASA is] still needed, just not for the low-earth orbit stuff. It is immensely more expensive to go to the Moon, much less Mars, and those [private] companies don't have the ability to do something like that. NASA's job should be to lead the way into the frontier, show that it can be done, and come up with crazy awesome inventions like Tang and Velcro along the way.
[Note: he actually said the part about Tang and Velcro]
So what's the future of American space travel? It looks as though it's hard to come up with concrete projections right now, but next week's launch is just the first step, and its success or failure will probably give us no better idea than we already have right now.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Even Awesomeness has a Hierarchy
We all know that certain things are inherently awesome (tater tots, open bars, Duck Hunt), but now there's a website to pit awesome things against each other in a battle royale until only one remains standing. It's entertaining to see the competitors, and the fact that you help decide the outcome means you're even less likely to meet that important deadline you've been meaning to get to.
Hello procrastination.
http://www.mostawesomestthingever.com/
Hello procrastination.
http://www.mostawesomestthingever.com/
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Thoughts on Opening Day(s)
Now that each team has had it's first game of the season, here are some thoughts on Opening Day (and night) action:
- First run of the season a home run off of Pesky's Pole? Awesome.
- Albert Pujols is a machine.
- New season, same Nats.
- New season, better Phillies.
- Obama, your first pitch was embarrassing. You knew all year that you'd be doing this, so why not practice a little instead of wasting time doing things like having Clark Kellog let you win at a game of "POTUS". Throwing a decent pitch is obviously your first priority as commander-in-chief.
- I wonder if there is a better feeling than hitting a home run in your first major league at-bat. Jason Heyward looks like the real deal.
- Tim Lincecum is Mitch Kramer from Dazed and Confused. (Apparently this observation is not as witty and original as I first thought.)
- Congrats to the Pirates for having a winning record!
- Zach Greinke goes six innings with one earned run and four strikeouts, and doesn't get the win. New season, same Royals.
- The Orioles continue to frustrate me. I miss George Sherrill and his goofy flat-brimmed hat.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Remakes
I had the opportunity to see a screening of the new Clash of the Titans Tuesday night and was legitimately excited to see the remake of the original 1981 film that I loved as a kid. Some movies are begging to be remade (I'm looking at you Less Than Zero) and I really thought that Clash of the Titans was among them. A classic story, tons of action, and a chance to update Ray Harryhausen's (amazaing for its time) stop-action special effects; how could Louis Letterier and company miss? And have you heard it's in 3D?
Maybe my hopes were too high, but I felt like the "rethinking" of Clash of the Titans was, as they say, not great.
A note for moviegoers pumped to Avatar-like 3D action: you will be disappointed. It became pretty clear early on that the movie was not filmed with 3D in mind, and instead it was added later to capitalize on the success of Avatar and the other recent 3D releases. For most of the movie it was hard to tell that there was a reason for wearing the glass, and a moments the "3D" made the fast-paced action sequences harder to follow. New 3D technology can really add something to the movie (and it's certainly not going to go away anytime soon), but only if done correctly.
And therein lies the problem with Clash; it just wasn't done right.
Remakes require a degree of artistic license and the chance to reintroduce the story in an original way, but I felt the minds behind the current incarnation of this classic story deviated too far from the original.
The story of Perseus (played now by Avatar's Sam Worthington) is a classic hero's tale with a quest, trials to overcome, meddling Gods to deal with, and even a Princess love interest to save. The original film does a nice job of blending the Greek myth with a few Hollywood twists to keep the audience interested for the full 118 minutes, but the core of the story remained the same.
The new Clash re-envisions Perseus as a crusader against the Gods, a man filled with hatred after his family was destroyed by a wrathful Hades, god of the Underworld. The story is no longer about Perseus' quest to save the princess (who in the new version isn't even a love interest), but instead about proving that men can stand up to the Gods and win. Underlying this is a whole convoluted plot line where Gods on Mount Olympus need the prayers of man to remain immortal but Hades doesn't, so by turning men against the Gods he gets to rule Olympus.
What?
Maybe the plot for Clash of the Titans worked for everyone else in the theater, but as a guy who spent a good portion of his college education reading the classics, I just couldn't get why such drastic changes were made. The story of Perseus has worked for thousands of years with the core of the tale intact. The original movie was pretty well received and did well in the box office. So why change what wasn't broken?
But even if I could live with the writers, director, and producers ignoring the heart of the original story, the cheesy dialogue, bad acting, and campy antics for comic effect were frustrating enough to make this movie bad. All that combined with the poor execution of 3D leaves me rating this one with two and a half out of five stars. This is the kind of movie you watch on cable on a rainy Saturday in February because the action is decent and there's no more football on.
But the point of this post is not that I was disappointed overall by the movie (which, if I wasn't clear enough, I really was), but that I'm frustrated with Hollywood's insistence in remaking perfectly good movies; and doing it badly. Yes, I agree that Clash of the Titans was in line for a makeover/upgrade, but somebody messed up. It came out looking like a character from the Real Housewives series that had a botched boob job and too much botox to the face.
It's not impossible for a remake to be better than or as good as the original; The Man Who Knew Too Much (Hitchcock redoing Hitchcock), Ocean's 11 (2001), and The Fly (1986) remakes were all movies that are considered by many to be better made than the originals. But for every one of those films there is a Psycho (1998) that makes people shudder and ask, "Why?"
My problem with the remake is when it does not improve upon the original. Isn't that the point? When filmmakers take a tried-and-true story and "update" it just to bring in ticket sales the filmmaking suffers.
Death at a Funeral is a hilarious 2007 British comedy, but many people will see it for the first time this spring as an American remake with an overacting Martin Lawrence and a Chris Rock that was last relevant years ago. This movie is going to be terrible. I'm saying it right now. Go see the original first before the American version ruins all the good jokes for you. Am I judging too early? Possibly, but until American filmmakers show that they can consistently remake movies the right way (making bad movies good and good movies better), I will continue to spend more time on Netflix than in the movie theater.
Maybe my hopes were too high, but I felt like the "rethinking" of Clash of the Titans was, as they say, not great.
A note for moviegoers pumped to Avatar-like 3D action: you will be disappointed. It became pretty clear early on that the movie was not filmed with 3D in mind, and instead it was added later to capitalize on the success of Avatar and the other recent 3D releases. For most of the movie it was hard to tell that there was a reason for wearing the glass, and a moments the "3D" made the fast-paced action sequences harder to follow. New 3D technology can really add something to the movie (and it's certainly not going to go away anytime soon), but only if done correctly.
And therein lies the problem with Clash; it just wasn't done right.
Remakes require a degree of artistic license and the chance to reintroduce the story in an original way, but I felt the minds behind the current incarnation of this classic story deviated too far from the original.
The story of Perseus (played now by Avatar's Sam Worthington) is a classic hero's tale with a quest, trials to overcome, meddling Gods to deal with, and even a Princess love interest to save. The original film does a nice job of blending the Greek myth with a few Hollywood twists to keep the audience interested for the full 118 minutes, but the core of the story remained the same.
The new Clash re-envisions Perseus as a crusader against the Gods, a man filled with hatred after his family was destroyed by a wrathful Hades, god of the Underworld. The story is no longer about Perseus' quest to save the princess (who in the new version isn't even a love interest), but instead about proving that men can stand up to the Gods and win. Underlying this is a whole convoluted plot line where Gods on Mount Olympus need the prayers of man to remain immortal but Hades doesn't, so by turning men against the Gods he gets to rule Olympus.
What?
Maybe the plot for Clash of the Titans worked for everyone else in the theater, but as a guy who spent a good portion of his college education reading the classics, I just couldn't get why such drastic changes were made. The story of Perseus has worked for thousands of years with the core of the tale intact. The original movie was pretty well received and did well in the box office. So why change what wasn't broken?
But even if I could live with the writers, director, and producers ignoring the heart of the original story, the cheesy dialogue, bad acting, and campy antics for comic effect were frustrating enough to make this movie bad. All that combined with the poor execution of 3D leaves me rating this one with two and a half out of five stars. This is the kind of movie you watch on cable on a rainy Saturday in February because the action is decent and there's no more football on.
But the point of this post is not that I was disappointed overall by the movie (which, if I wasn't clear enough, I really was), but that I'm frustrated with Hollywood's insistence in remaking perfectly good movies; and doing it badly. Yes, I agree that Clash of the Titans was in line for a makeover/upgrade, but somebody messed up. It came out looking like a character from the Real Housewives series that had a botched boob job and too much botox to the face.
It's not impossible for a remake to be better than or as good as the original; The Man Who Knew Too Much (Hitchcock redoing Hitchcock), Ocean's 11 (2001), and The Fly (1986) remakes were all movies that are considered by many to be better made than the originals. But for every one of those films there is a Psycho (1998) that makes people shudder and ask, "Why?"
My problem with the remake is when it does not improve upon the original. Isn't that the point? When filmmakers take a tried-and-true story and "update" it just to bring in ticket sales the filmmaking suffers.
Death at a Funeral is a hilarious 2007 British comedy, but many people will see it for the first time this spring as an American remake with an overacting Martin Lawrence and a Chris Rock that was last relevant years ago. This movie is going to be terrible. I'm saying it right now. Go see the original first before the American version ruins all the good jokes for you. Am I judging too early? Possibly, but until American filmmakers show that they can consistently remake movies the right way (making bad movies good and good movies better), I will continue to spend more time on Netflix than in the movie theater.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
