Category Archives: The Mediascape

How to Make a Better Movie Trailer

Posted on by
Reply

Nerdstalgic asks, “What Killed the Movie Trailer?”

They say:

“Movie Trailers may have started out as a tool to sell films, but over time they have evolved into their own spectacle. Before a film is released there are a multitude of Theatrical Trailers, TV Spots, Web Shorts, and even Trailers before the Trailer starts. How did Hollywood turn from a simple marketing tool, to a an ever expansive industry of movie trailers that mostly give away the entire plot of the film? How did Hollywood crush the Movie Trailer?”

Vanity Fair provides more background on How Movie Trailers are Created:

“Movie marketing expert and creative director Jessica Fox takes us through the steps of creating a successful movie trailer. From the collaborative process that takes place between filmmakers, studios and creative agencies to audience testing, she breaks down how each play a role in deciding how much is shown, what stories are told, and why trailers tease missing scenes from the film’s final cut.”

My take: I think the job of trailers is much harder today than in the past, given the fractured entertainment environment and peoples’ frenzied attention spans. And yet the goal remains the same: get folks to watch the whole movie. But I think the “Exquisite Corpse” might-as-well-be-a-random-sampling-of-the-movie trailer editing method is not working well. (Imagine if they did that with books — a word salad of the paragraphs from five pages of a four hundred page novel.) I much prefer the “In a world where…” trailer structure that is once removed from the film but still sets up the premise and asks the audience a question, one that they can only answer if they watch the movie. Oh, and my pet peeve? I feel cheated if the music in the trailer is not in the movie.

Academy makes it harder for indies to qualify for Best Picture in 2024

Posted on by
Reply

Josh Rottenberg and Glenn Whipp report in The Los Angeles Times that The Oscars are changing the rules for best picture.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced the news on Wednesday, June 21, 2023:

“The Academy’s Board of Governors has approved new requirements to broaden the public theatrical exhibition criteria for Oscars® eligibility in the Best Picture category starting with the 97th Academy Awards®, for films released in 2024.
Upon completion of an initial qualifying run, currently defined as a one-week theatrical release in one of the six U.S. qualifying cities, a film must meet the following additional theatrical standards for Best Picture eligibility:

  • Expanded theatrical run of seven days, consecutive or non-consecutive, in 10 of the top 50 U.S. markets, no later than 45 days after the initial release in 2024.
  • For late-in-the-year films with expansions after January 10, 2025, distributors must submit release plans to the Academy for verification.
  • Release plans for late-in-the-year films must include a planned expanded theatrical run, as described above, to be completed no later than January 24, 2025.
  • Non-U.S. territory releases can count towards two of the 10 markets.
  • Qualifying non-U.S. markets include the top 15 international theatrical markets plus the home territory for the film.”

My take: These new rules begin in 2024, for Best Picture contenders in the 2025 awards. It’s interesting to compare the number of theatres for winners Everything Everywhere All At Once, The Whale and Nomadland.

The Elevation Pictures Playbook

Posted on by
Reply

Etan Vlessing reports in The Hollywood Reporter on Elevation Pictures’ 10-Year Journey to Canadian Indie Powerhouse.

He notes:

“As an indie distributor, Elevation competes in the shadow of Hollywood studios dominating the local multiplex with star-driven tentpoles by embracing indie filmmakers in Canada and international art house titles.”

“Many of Elevation’s potentially zeitgeist-capturing releases come via output deals with American partners, including Black Bear, Neon and A24, with whom Elevation is a preferred partner north of the border.”

“In all, Elevation releases about 35 indie titles a year, with a third of those locally produced or acquired at festivals on completion that hopefully will become box office winners.”

“Key to Elevation’s proven playbook is that focus on financing homegrown directors and their films, with support from local funding agencies like Telefilm Canada to share the risks and rewards on what can be an uphill battle to launch and monetize Canadian indies.”

My take: I notice on Panoscope that Elevation is almost always the leading Canadian distributor each week.

 

Save the Pic-a-Flic Video Collection!

Posted on by
Reply

SIGN THE PETITION NOW!

Roxanne Egan-Elliott reports in the Times Colonist that Victoria’s Pic-A-Flic Video is closing after 40 years:

“Pic-A-Flic Video, one of the last places in Greater Victoria to rent a movie or TV series, plans to close its doors in September after four decades. Opened in 1983, Pic-A-Flic has more than 25,000 titles, from silent movies to new releases, most of which are not available on streaming services or anywhere else, owner Kent Bendall said.”

What to do with all those DVDs?

A change.org petition says: “We cannot allow this collection to be scattered to the winds without having a serious conversation about how it could be permanently housed by UVic and the Greater Victoria Public Library.”

My take: I have a modest proposal! How about the RBCM buy the collection AND hire Kent Bendall to continue operating a video store from Old Town or some other suitable space?

Is Ben Affleck a socialist?

Posted on by
Reply

Amos Barshad, writing for WIRED, reports Ben Affleck Has a Plan for a Fairer Streaming World. (Spoilers in trailer below.)

The article is fascinating because it briefly explores Capitalism, Socialism, and fair pay in an economic environment where streaming has vastly reduced the likelihood of residuals.

Of course, Affleck‘s new streaming project, Air, concludes with Michael Jordan becoming the richest athlete ever, due to profit participation. Spoiler: Jordan gets 5% of every pair of Air Jordans sold anywhere in the world. To date, this has amounted to over $1.3 billion.

He quotes Affleck:

“Air, in many ways, is critiquing that aspect of capitalism which historically has been exploitative or patently unfair because it’s rooted in a notion that says, well, if you invest the capital, you get the reward. That needs to change. That’s what I’m trying to accomplish, and that’s what the WGA is trying to accomplish in a much bigger way. If we are going to practice capitalism, which has led to real iniquities, at the very least we ought to recognize the human beings who actually do the work and create a better world. They should be rewarded at least as well as the investors.”

I know of at least three ways cast and crew can share in potential profits:

  1. Shares: own a slice of the production company that owns the project (and all the related corporate drama that might arise)
  2. Deferrals: accept less (or volunteer your efforts) in exchange for a promise of greater pay later when the project makes a profit (if it ever does)
  3. Points: own a percentage of the projects profit, subject to previous payouts in the “waterfall.”

All risky. (The UK seems to have a tax scheme similar to the one Canada used to have that mitigates film investment risk.)

My take: I’ll leave the last words to Ben Affleck: “It’s been the greatest pleasure to see people capture bonuses based on their own work, that reflects their merit — and to not have people feel like anonymous drones. I’ve worked in this business for a long time. I know that anyone who’s really good has put their work before their self-interest as a matter of course. But they want to be empowered.”

Movies: comparing old and new

Posted on by
Reply

Benjamin Dzialdowski lists on BuzzFeed 24 Things We Miss About Old Movies, And What We Can’t Stand About Modern Films. He writes:

“A lot has changed in cinema over the years. While, in some aspects, there have been significant steps forwards, there’s plenty people miss about old films and a fair amount of gripes they have about modern films too.”

His List of Pet Peeves:

  1. Movies that are product advertisements
  2. Remake after remake
  3. The use of big names over voice actors
  4. Animal deaths and jump scares in horror movies
  5. Movies being excessively crude just for the sake of being edgy
  6. Unequal marketing for movies
  7. Splitting up a movie into multiple parts
  8. The enemies to lovers trope
  9. Shaky cameras
  10. Barely being able to hear the dialogue
  11. The prequel, sequel, remake cycle
  12. Excessive and pointless vomiting…

What He Says We Miss:

  1. Good ole rom-coms
  2. Hand-drawn animation
  3. Non-spoilery trailers
  4. Old, less fidgety fight scenes
  5. Simple storylines
  6. The lighting (where you could actually see the film)
  7. Intermissions – we all need a break
  8. Practical effects
  9. Good erotic movies
  10. Campy action movies
  11. Joke credits at the end
  12. ???

However, I think these are folks’ top three pet peeves with today’s Hollywood movies:

  1. Lack of originality: Many films are either remakes, sequels, or adaptations of popular books or comics, which can leave audiences feeling like they’ve seen it all before. Some people feel that studios are playing it safe by relying on familiar franchises instead of taking creative risks and developing new ideas.
  2. Overreliance on special effects: While impressive visuals can be exciting, some people feel that they can overshadow the story and characters. Additionally, some people feel that films are becoming too reliant on CGI and other effects, which can make them feel artificial and disconnected from reality.
  3. Lack of diversity and representation: From the lack of roles for people of color to the underrepresentation of women and LGBTQ+ characters, some people feel that Hollywood films are not reflective of the diversity of the real world. This can make it difficult for some people to connect with the characters and storylines, and can perpetuate harmful stereotypes and biases.

And these are the top three things I think folks miss most about movies from Hollywood’s Golden Age:

  1. Glamour and Style: The Golden Age of Hollywood was known for its glamorous stars and stylish films. Audiences were captivated by the fashion, elegance, and sophistication of films from this era, which offered a sense of escapism from the realities of everyday life. Some people miss the glamour and style of this period, as it represented a time of classic Hollywood magic and sophistication.
  2. Storytelling and Character Development: Films from the Golden Age of Hollywood often had well-crafted plots, memorable characters, and witty dialogue that were carefully crafted to engage and entertain audiences. Some people miss the sophistication and complexity of the storytelling from this era, which often provided more depth and substance than modern Hollywood films.
  3. Iconic Stars: Finally, many people miss the iconic stars of the Golden Age of Hollywood. Actors like Humphrey Bogart, Cary Grant, and Marilyn Monroe were larger-than-life figures who embodied a sense of glamour and charisma that is often associated with the era. Some people feel that modern actors lack the same level of star power and charisma as their predecessors, and that Hollywood has lost some of its magic as a result.

My take: my biggest pet peeve is barely being able to hear the dialogue. And I do miss rom-coms.

C-11 passes; future unclear

Posted on by
Reply

The CBC reports that Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Act, was passed and received royal assent on Thursday, April 27, 2023: Controversial bill to regulate online streaming becomes law.

“The bill makes changes to Canada’s Broadcasting Act. The legislation requires streaming services, such as Netflix and Spotify, to pay to support Canadian media content like music and TV shows. It also requires the platforms to promote Canadian content. Specifically, the bill says ‘online undertakings shall clearly promote and recommend Canadian programming, in both official languages as well as in Indigenous languages.’ The changes give the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), Canada’s broadcast regulator, broad powers over digital media companies, including the ability to impose financial penalties for violations of the act. The government says the legislation is necessary to impose the same regulations and requirements in place for traditional broadcasters on online media platforms. Right now, broadcasters are required to spend at least 30 per cent of their revenue on supporting Canadian content.”

The bill doesn’t prescribe how the CRTC should direct undertakings to do this: “But the government is expected to clarify many areas of uncertainty through a policy directive to the CRTC. A Senate amendment that the House of Commons accepted requires the CRTC to hold public consultations on how it will use its new regulatory powers.”

Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, is an outspoken skeptic of the legislation. He speculates that:

“The legislation will head to its next phase including a policy direction consultation that will seek to clean up at least some of the uncertainty in the bill (that Bill C-11 was subject to so much scrutiny yet still leaves so much unanswered is hard to explain), followed by years of CRTC hearings and appeals. Sometime in the future – best guess would be 2025 or 2026 – digital creators will have been forced to make multiple trips to Gatineau to urge a hands-off regulatory approach and the industry will find that the bill generates far less than it expected. Further, those modest benefits will be accompanied by revised Canadian content policies that will leave some doubting whether the trade-off was worth it.”

My take: I worry about the concentration of administrative power in an unelected government-appointed board. And the unintended consequences! For instance, will smaller streamers just forgo Canada if this will increase their operating expenses? Will the definition of Canadian content change so much that the domestic television industry is threatened? Will the government be able to censor Canadian UGC? Cannot predict now.

Vancouver offers alternative to film set generators

Posted on by
1

CBC British Columbia reports that Vancouver installs electricity ‘kiosks’ to draw film crews away from diesel generators.

“In an effort to lessen the film industry’s dependence on loud, diesel-burning generators, Vancouver has installed several “clean energy kiosks” to provide electricity to crews working on productions near the waterfront. The city said in a statement Thursday that it had installed three of the kiosks in the False Creek area, where it said crews use more than 200 generators for power every year. The new kiosks will instead allow film sets to plug in and draw energy from the city’s power grid. The statement said council’s goal is to eventually have a citywide network of kiosks so crews can access electricity at the popular citywide filming spots by 2030.”

This City of Vancouver initiative dates back to at least 2021. Make that 2019.

Daily Hive‘s Kenneth Chan has way more coverage.

My take: this is a great idea! By the way, those power cables are heavy! Did that job for one day only.

Streamers shift focus from market share to profit

Posted on by
Reply

Dominik Dorosz posted a new video on FilmStack claiming YOU Lost the Streaming Wars.

He reviews the chronology of online streaming:

  • Mid-2010’s: Netflix‘s golden age
  • 2019: the launch of the streaming wars with Disney+ and Apple TV+
  • 2022: price hikes and content cancellations on all platforms

He posits that:

“The real loser of this war is us, the consumer. The over-saturation of services, the splitting of catalogues, and the constant price hikes are just a few of the problems we’ve experienced and, with Netflix’s latest password restrictions, we are now starting to see the worst of it all, as all streaming platforms are shifting their focus from market share to profit.”

His evidence is compelling and he concludes with a strategy to combat rising streaming costs:

“The best option (and it’s a problem streaming services are trying to tackle) is rotating subscriptions. Most people don’t need to have access to every service for all 12 months of the year. What you can do instead is wait until you have a decent backlog of things to watch on one platform and then subscribe to it to catch up. While catching up on this backlog, your backlogs on other services will grow and you can rotate to another afterwards.”

My take: Brilliant analysis! I love the Rotating Subscriptions strategy to lower your subscription costs.

Can a leaner Netflix still rule the world?

Posted on by
Reply

Mia Galuppo reports in The Hollywood Reporter that the Exit of Netflix’s Lisa Nishimura Marks the End of an Era for the Streamer.

She writes:

“Nishimura’s 15 years at the company have spanned the streaming boom, Oscar wins and multiple restructuring efforts. Noted one industry veteran that has long worked with Nishimura, ‘It’s a signal that the most thoughtful, taste-driven era is being driven out.’“

Meanwhile, Scott Mendelson at The Wrap reports that Rival Executives Weigh In on Netflix’s Movie Strategy: ‘They’re Suffering in the World They Created’.

He begins: “Netflix shocked the industry last week with the news that two respected film executives, Lisa Nishimura and Ian Bricke, were leaving the company in an apparent nod toward austerity.”

For reference, this sort of thing has happened many times at Netflix. For instance, Kim Masters of THR dished on the streamer’s corporate culture one year ago: Netflix’s Big Wake-Up Call: The Power Clash Behind the Crash.

My take: In Lisa’s case, it’s always sad to see a member of underrepresented groups fired from a position of power. I wonder where each of these two well-connected executives will land, and how the mediascape will shift.