Category Media

Coming To A Resenferseher Near You!

While Hollywood still seems intent on turning every movie made into a 3D extravamaganza whether it needs to be or not, apparently TV makers are now running away from 3D like residents of Tokyo in a Godzilla movie. Two years ago, they couldn’t get on board with the upcoming All-3D-All-The-Time Revolution fast enough, but the 3D backlash is so in full-swing that even Time Magazine has reported on it. CrunchGear says that with four months to go before CES 2011, electronics makers have already stopped promoting 3DTV and have moved on to another fad: apps. And by “apps”, they mean the combination of built-in wireless networking (a feature that has been coming along without too much fanfare for a while) and software widgets that let viewers access Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and so on. Verizon added that functionality into its FiOS service last year, but this would be independent of your service provider because it would be controlled by the television itself.

The reason they’re all talking about this now instead of waiting for CES? The Apple fanboi propaganda machine started spinning in overdrive this week for what might be the Next Big Announcement at Apple’s September press event: the much-anticipated overhaul of Apple TV into a cloud-based set top box redubbed (what else?) iTV. All the gadget websites are talking about the leaked details this morning, but here’s Fast Company’s run-down. The box will drop Mac OS for iOS, and the video output will only be 720p, but in addition to streaming video and music, the iTV will be able to download and run iTunes App Store apps natively because it will essentially be that ginormous iPad we all joked about. Unlike some of the more fanciful pre-launch rumors about the iPad, the stories in the tech press are all pretty consistent and reasonable, and Apple needs to do something to make up for the gaffes with the iPhone 4, so I think the confidence level about this should be a lock.

One Big Mouse

Here’s a blog from a family who are trying to spend one year of their lives without any influence from Disney. They’ve decided to take anything produced by a Disney-owned company out of their home, avoid watching any media produced by Disney-owned companies, and spend no money on anything made by a Disney-owned company.

You might not think that’s too difficult, but here’s the list of the television networks, cable networks, radio and television stations, movie studios, online services, periodicals, and other related businesses directly owned by Disney. It’s not completely impossible to stay away from all these entities, but it’s going to be a challenge.

This PDF shows how virtually every media outlet in the United States is controlled by one of five corporations: Disney, Viacom, Bertelsmann, TimeWarner, News Corporation, and Vivendi. Because the landscape changes so frequently, the information is now a little out of date (for example, Vivendi sold off Universal to GE, which packaged it along with NBC and sold NBC Universal to Comcast), but it still paints a disturbing picture.

The Long, Slow, Sudden Death Of Captain Phil

Phil Harris, the captain of the Alaska crab fishing vessel “Cornelia Marie” and one of the featured stars of the Discovery Channel series “Deadliest Catch” died on February 9, 2010. Last night, after months of anticipation and a season laced with foreshadowing, the episode featuring the last hours of Harris and the phone call from the doctor to his son, Josh, to inform him of his father’s death at long last aired. Reviewers were appreciative of the series’ effort to tell the story in a way that was both honest to the situation and respectful of the grief of his family. And, even after living with the knowledge of Harris’s death for months and the understated buildup to an already-determined outcome, I still sat in front of my television and wept for the man, his sons, and the people who knew and loved him.

Despite a series of events in the days before his death that tried very hard to mimic the invented melodramas of fictional shows, the episodes related to Harris’s stroke told the story of a man’s death about as realistically as any film or television show can ever hope to achieve. Rarely does life hand us ready-made tableaux of life-changing events; we stumble into them, often completely unaware of the enormity of what has been delivered to us, and we continue to stumble all the way through them. Josh Harris kisses his father goodbye fully expecting to see him later that same day, preparing to find a rehabilitation hospital because Phil’s recovery has gone so well that the doctor is ready to let him go, and then his phone rings. Everything changes, even as everything was changing after everything changed. Life is never linear. It is always a series of random collisions from every conceivable vector, ranging in intensity from the unfelt to the shattering. Only in the review of time do we discern and improve the threads of continuity, like the editors of a billion hours of documentary. And while the people who produce “Deadliest Catch” have to consciously walk that path with their work, they found the essence of the randomness of life and brought it to their viewers.

No one’s life is exempted from this: as long as I live I will never forget the moment when my phone rang and my brother spoke almost the exact same words Josh Harris said to his brother to tell me that our father was dead, and there is not a microsecond of my life now that was not changed when they pumped my heart full of dye and told me that my heart was nearly completely blocked off in its arteries and veins. And I knew on both of those days, as I did watching Phil Harris die, that nothing is ever true for very long, no matter how everlasting it may seem. We change, we age, we die with no more matter than the beat of a heart, the look in someone’s eye, or a farewell kiss. But the possession of that knowledge offers no exception from the truth. At best it can only help us recover from the shock or teach us to have compassion when that shock is dealt to others.

The irony is thus that we had so long to know about, think about, prepare for an event that happened so quickly to other people. In the hour that followed the episode, the other fishermen and Harris’s sons reminisced and shared the denouement of the story, even though the show still has parts of the tale left to tell. Out of sequence, the return to normal seemed off-key, somehow, even though those people had already lived through the process. I thought it was a little jarring to see the fishermen tromping through the swamps “in Phil’s memory” though we had only “just” learned of his death, but I also wished a little bit that life afforded us the same ability to fast forward past the aftermaths. Again, the inexorable movement of time and the randomness of all that passes through it demand their own order and no other.

For we, the viewers, there is the relief that comes from the eventual reunion of natural and narrative, just as the gradual relief of time eases the grief of the Harrises and their friends. While we were spared the closeness of the real events, the balm of distance clearly has begun its work on them, and all is returned to status quo until the next time our lives are put into upheval.

L’Affaire Thomas

Over at The Huffington Post today, contributor Mike Green opines that Jon Stewart ought to be given a Pulitzer Prize for his segment about the Helen Thomas brouhaha last week:

Green’s article amplifies the basic point Stewart makes: that the Washington press corps has completely given itself over to the political establishment to the extent that they no longer function in even the slightest way as independent journalists. Honestly, I think it’s a bit telling that the Stewart clip is so effective that Greene’s supporting written arguments end up having that “tl;dr” vibe about them, but maybe that’s part of the actual problem.

Frankly, I think it’s incredibly sad that this is how Helen Thomas’s career closed out, and hopefully the transitory nature of these sorts of news items means that this will be seen for the dross that it really is. I hope they do give Jon Stewart a Pulitzer Prize, and, if they do, that he dedicates it to her.

But You Still Have To Sit Through A Crap Movie

Revisiting old BKO posts has been a source of all sorts of good material this week…here’s a post from March 2008 about an Australian entertainment company called Village Roadshow that was making plans to build a bunch of super-premium movie theaters in various locations around the United States. A $35-dollar ticket would include luxury seats, valet parking, and table service.

Well, here’s a first-hand account of what that experience is like from True/Slant blogger Piet Levy posted back in November 2009. On the plus side, the ticket price has dropped to $25, and the plush reclining seats do look awfully comfy. Levy says the food is somewhat inconsistent and pricey, although $18 for a lobster roll is about what you’d pay in any restaurant that isn’t in Maine (and even some that are) and the price of ordinary movie snacks at the multiplex these days isn’t that far behind. He gave it a B+ overall, but it sounds like he enjoyed it quite a bit.

The initial plan, as I posted in ’08, was to build 50 of these around the country, but so far there are only six: one in Pasadena, California, two in the Chicago area, two in Texas (Austin and a Dallas suburb), and one in Redmond, Washington (no doubt where all those millionaire Microsofties go to the movies).

Remembering A Genius

At the end, he was a joke. A mockery of himself, drunkenly slurring through commercial pitches for stupid things like cheap wine and frozen peas. And yet he had been so talented, so brilliant that at the beginning people were ready to pronounce that the very stage and screen themselves would never see anything as magnificent as his work ever again.

I have a pair of links that tell stories about Orson Welles that might help to mitigate the pathetic persona that defines him now, both of which brim with the promise that he might have brought his formidable talents to the medium of television the same way he did to film, radio, and stage.

This one appeared at Gizmodo back in December ’09. In it, the author, Frank Beacham (himself a movie producer, playwright, and writer) recalls a series of encounters with Welles in the mid-1980s, not long before his death in 1985, as Welles became obsessed with producing a film using the then-new half-inch videotape technology developed by Sony — the BetaCam. Beacham talks about Welles pushing the very limits of the technology, presaging many of the advances that would come to video in just a few years. His sudden death ended the project, but gave Beacham the inspiration to complete another unfinished Welles project, a film about Welles’s Broadway musical “The Cradle Will Rock”, on which he was the executive producer.

Also from last December, a much longer and more scholarly piece from media writer Ben Walters posted on Columbia University’s Teacher’s College website that rewinds the clock all the way back to the early days of television itself and looks at his 1953 production of “The Fountain Of Youth”, his involvement with Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz and their production company, Desilu, and how the business of network television, even in the 1950s, had no place for someone as disruptively creative as Welles.

If you have the time to read Ben Walters’s piece (it’s much longer than most web writing normally is), it is a brilliant bit of biography, history, and media criticism rolled into one. It would be wonderful if the Internet would be more open to revisiting Welles as a genuine artist and let the cheap jokes slide, but that might be asking a bit much of the gnat’s-life attention span of the online world.

They Call It A Medium Because It Isn’t Rare And Is Seldom Well-Done

So I’m still thinking about the possibility of dumping cable television and going all-Internet for our video watching. The poll I posted last week is open until the 15th if you care to add your vote, and the results so far are identical to that 1-in-8 statistic I cited, so it’s clear that the early-adopter penalty is still in effect if I go down that road, but the path seems clearer all the time.

I came across this article in The Economist that considers the difference between the way people say they watch television and the way they actually watch television, and concludes that sixty years of plopping your butt down and watching whatever is on continues to be everyone’s preferred method, regardless of how much you might honestly think you do it differently. The reason, say the various experts in the story, is not our unwillingness to learn how to program the VCR/TiVo/BitTorrent software but rather because we’ve adopted television viewing as the canvas for our interpersonal interaction with family members. The programming isn’t even the point, it’s the opportunity to spend time with the wife and kids. While the implication here is that people won’t change the way the interact with video content, I’m not so sure that’s true. If the delivery mechanism is not the most important element in that system, it shouldn’t take much to make a change to the delivery mechanism, as long as it is not too disruptive of the real desired outcome (the human interaction). Drawing again on the example of our experience with Netflix streaming, on many Saturday mornings, I sit with Charlotte in the living room and spend time with her while she watches cartoons. Last Saturday, we sat together as usual, but instead of watching whatever was on Disney Channel at the moment, Charlotte watched a couple of movies via Netflix, and when she got bored with that we moved on to some things I had recorded on the DVR. We were still watching the television and using the time to be together, but the delivery mechanism had been completely supplanted by the on-demand model.

This BoingBoing post by guest author Craig Engler (who is an executive at the SyFy Channel), argues that prognosticators who say television is being killed by the Internet have several key points wrong, the biggest one being that most (but not all) online video content is still the sole purview of the traditional television model: without the broadcast and cable networks, there is no content, and to this point nobody has developed a business model that can sustain the cost of producing content without the well-established business of ad-supported traditional television. Unlike the Economist article, Engler’s article says that the mechanism is very important, but it’s at a level of remove from the viewer. However, both articles basically make the same point that the overall system is nowhere near as transformed as the people at the top end of the J-curve would like us to think.

But maybe ten years from now, the generational shift alone might swing the balance of that equation. This short article by analyst Henry Blodget links to a much more detailed analysis of the media consumption of children aged 8-18, which paints a picture of a near future with a new generation of young adults so thoroughly media-saturated that they could very well transcend all of the media behaviors that have come before.

All Original Content Copyright © BrianKaneOnline
All Other Content Copyright © Its Original Authors

Built on Notes Blog Core
Powered by WordPress