The Collective Shelf: Media Formats

Showing newest posts with label Media Formats. Show older posts

If Hollywood wants to stop piracy, they need to make the alternatives less damn annoying!

Posted on 8/02/2008 comments (1)
Labels: Film Industry, Hollywood, Media Formats, Trends

To me, the film industry seems stuck in an old world model despite the fact that we entered into a new age some time ago. They still feel confident exploiting their audience any way they can, purely with the goal of increasing their profits. This was all well and good in years gone by, due to the effectively inelastic demand for what they were selling. However, because of the P2P explosion this is no longer the case, and because distributers haven’t realised this more and more people have taken to illegally downloading their material.

Hollywood needs to understand, most people don’t really want to steal their entertainment, no matter what a bunch of swedish outlaws might have you believe. It’s a convenience issue predominantly. It’s ironic that the free illegal version is a better product than what we’re paying for; what does that tell you about what consumers want (see my article on why i believe Blu-Ray isn’t the way forward) and how they want to get it?

The people who really want to steal their content (yes i know it’s corny but piracy is stealing) are going to do so anyway. Now that the jellyfish is out of the fish tank it’s never going back in, no matter how you squeeze its flabby appendages with cease and desist letters. These people are lost to Hollywood, they will never make money from them again so forget it and focus on the rest of us.

It seems to me that Hollywood has fought back against the piracy problem by protecting its bottom line, not its audience. This is not only unsustainable but misguided. Cinemas have become more expensive, adverts have got longer, DRM is more annoying than ever on the next gen formats. Your audience is deserting you so you make your product a worse deal, how is that one working out for you? Normally if a competitor encroaches on your product you make you item better value, not worse.

It appears to me that the entertainment industry knows it can’t get at the real criminals so is going after their customers instead, just to make a point. We are treated like criminals because we buy their product. Every DVD i buy nowadays seems to come with the unskippable ‘’piracy is a crime, you wouldn’t steal a car’’ rubbish. Err no shit Sherlock but talk about preaching to the converted? you should probably concentrate more on making the thieves, rather than your costumers, feel guilty.

If you buy a DVD today you have to sit through around 2-10 minutes of warning, copyright notices and trailers, not to mention the bloody menu introductions, before you can do what you wanted to do in the first place; press play. You open up a download and it begins, no waiting around reading how we can’t steal the soundtrack in ten different languages. The icing on the cake of course is region coding. I bought a film, but now i can’t play it if i move house? I thought Europe and America where anti-protectionism, i guess they’re just anti-consumer.

The cinema experience is going the same way. The other day i got my bag checked before going in, not for bombs but for drinks. What the hell is going on here? The ticket price costs twice as much as buying the dvd at home does, and infinitesimally more than bittorenting the movie. Considering that the home experience is encroaching more and more on the cinema going market, what with personal projectors, sound systems, HiDef quality, and the dvd window getting shorter and shorter you’d think you might reward me for venturing out to your multiplex by letter me bring in a can of Fanta. I won’t even start on the fifteen minutes of adverts that we have to sit through before the film even begins.

A lot of people don’t see the alternatives yet, downloading movies is still quite a geeky thing to do, and certainly won’t become a habit for the over 30s anytime soon. But the new generations, the consumers of tomorrow, are starting to pick up on the ideas, especially considering that these are the people with the least disposable income. If the film industry doesn’t act now to bring their product up to the level of what the illegal sources are giving us (I just find that concept incredible) then they are going to regret it forever. At the moment you can pay for something or get what many consider to be a superior product for free. You do the math on how long it will take for the second option to catch on in the main stream. In the end we’re all going to suffer for this mistake because budgets, not executive’s salaries are going to be the first thing to fall as profits wain. Considering that The Mummy 3 had a budget of 145$ Million though, that might not be so a bad thing.

Home Media Part 3: Why Are Digital Movie Downloads So Important?

Posted on 7/25/2008 No Comments
Labels: Film Industry, Film Theory, Media Formats, Trends

*** Parts 1 and 2 can be found here and here***

When it comes down to it, what are we hoping for in terms of movies?. That’s simple, we all want better content, films that we enjoy more. The problem is that unless you’re an adventurous type, the typical anglosaxon is pretty much limited to whatever the big studios give us. These are the cinematic behemoths, they deliver giant, worldwide releases on huge budgets.

The problem is that these kind of things cost a lot of money, so to get something meaningful out of their investment producers have to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Everything is dictated by markets; kids films have to appeal to adults, action movies have to have a love interest for the girls etc, etc. There is little room for the niche markets that make the music industry for example so great and diverse. Not everyone likes the same thing, but if you’re only into free improvisation electronic art music there is a corner of the market ready to satisfy your needs. The same cannot be said for film in most cases.

The technology is there, the investment required to get the necessary equipment is comparitively small. More and more movies are being edited on Final Cut Pro, which i have right here on my laptop, and professional film cameras aren’t that much of a step up from the Canon HV20 i have on my desk. The problem is distribution, hello internet.

If you’re a new band, you make a few songs and put them on myspace. If they’re good a fanbase starts forming, you pick up steam and eventually a big company might take notice and give you a contact, if they don’t you’ve still got a whole load of listeners. But what do you do if you’ve made a movie? Our whole way of thinking needs to change in terms of cinema; from one where filmmaking is very much an industrial exercise, justifying the loss of the ‘art’ index, to where anyone with talent can do it. This is what Francis Ford Coppola was talking about long ago:

"To me the great hope is that now these little 8mm video recorders and stuff have come out, some... just people who normally wouldn't make movies are going to be making them, and - you know - suddenly, one day, some little fat girl in Ohio is going to be the new Mozart - you know - and? make a beautiful film with her little father's camcorder - and for once the so-called professionalism about movies will be destroyed. Forever. And it will really become an art form."

Now we have the cameras and technology, we just have to take the leap into a fair distribution method. Of course what a few people can produce on their own isn’t going to match up to Hollywood. No, my hope is that this will inspire the creation of many more smaller studios, that don’t have to compete with the biggies to get their movies shown. We’re judging on content, not on claught. Just think what this changes. Suddenly you’re multiplying the amount of films produced ten fold. Then we’ve got real choice.

Inevitably it won’t be easy to get your name attached to the rising stars of digital distribution. I’m sure Apple would be reluctant to put your little movie in their store. What i’m talking about is a change in the way we think about getting films where alternate, independant sites start offering downloads and for better value. When people get used to getting their movies from the internet, it won’t be long before they venture further afield than iTunes or Netflix streaming. However far you decide to go is a victory for choice, content and quality, and will finally turn cinema into something more than the stagnant beast it is today. Viva La Revolution.

Home Media Part 2: Collectionism and the Digital Revolution

Posted on 7/23/2008 No Comments
Labels: Film Theory, Media Formats, Movies, Trends

Given that my last article has received a fair amount of attention, I think i should first clarify my position regarding Blu-Ray. There is no doubt Blu-Ray is the ‘best’ format out there in terms of picture quality, that is obvious. However my point is that picture quality beyond DVD does’t really matter. Yes, we can all see the difference and say ‘’that looks better’’, but the added viewing value of Blu-Ray is small, while the cost is extremely high, at least for the foreseeable future. Why is the Wii outselling the PS3 two to one? Because in the gaming market as with movies, picture quality is way down on the list of priorities.

That’s why digital downloads/streaming are the future. They are cheaper, you don’t have to leave your house to get them, they don’t take up any room (except for a backup drive or two) and they’ll never get scratched. Just like MP3s.

This isn’t going to happen overnight; we’ve been trained to have consumerist, collectionist tendancies which won’t fade away until a whole new generation grows up without knowing DVDs (ask a kid today when was the last time he used a cd). A few people commented under my last piece about how they don’t want to switch away from DVD because they are too attached to their collection. For a long time I felt the same way, my 300 DVDs took pride of place on my shelves. But what use are they, really? The shiny boxes and colourful sleeves give us a sense of pride and contentedness, but they’re just pieces of paper. All we’re really looking at are discs, discs that play movies. All the rest doesn’t make sense, but I agree it’s hard to let go, i’m not immune to these irrational feelings. However I recently handbraked my entire collection and started selling off my dvds. It is so much more convienant, and if you make the files big enough (I go for about 2.5GBs per film) the quality loss is virtually unnoticeable. Suddenly, just like with my old CDs, my DVDs are just sitting on the shelf gathering dust, soon enough I won’t miss them at all.

Clearly DVD ripping isn’t for everyone though, it’s time consuming and complicated. Digital movies will only gather pace when it truly enters the average household. This is what companies should be focusing on if they want to be what iTunes is for music, but ten fold. Don’t bring the computer into the living room as the iTunes store has done, this will only get you so far. The Xbox team understands this, so do the Playstation people. Both are trying to bring movies straight to your TV just as with the Apple TV and Netflix’s Roku. Whoever wins this battle will become the next media heavyweight. At the moment these services are under marketed and too expensive.

The company who is prepared to gamble on the temporary monetary hit caused by heavily subsidizing their player will reap the rewards down the line. Forget download speeds and DRM, the future is a single box under your TV that streams or downloads your content. No more looking around for websites and URLs. The Apple TV does this but it remains a niche product. It's much too expensive and no-one out of the tech world knows what it does. It's seen as a relay from your computer to your TV, not as a standalone machine that lets you download and play content out of the box. Companies need to get behind these products in a big way, and DVD will soon become a thing of the past.

Regarding illegal downloads, forget about them. The cat is out of the bag and unless something changes radically in the way the entire internet is organised, this is not going to change. The people who want to download illegally will and you can't stop them. But most people don't want to use bittorent right now. The music industry didn't react quick enough to a changing market and lost an entire generation of consumers. The film business must embrace companies like Apple and Netflix Streaming, not shy away from them. Unfortunately Hollywood is probably the most conservative market place of them all, and will keep pushing for their out of date business model long into the future, while the rest of the world moves on.

Home Media Part 1: Why we don’t care about Blu Ray

Posted on 7/22/2008 comments (44)
Labels: Media Formats, Movies, Trends

The home media market is in a strange place right now. For awhile it seemed like the HD DVD vs Blu Ray battle would decide the future of personal entertainment but Blu Ray’s continuing slow sales figures now give a clearer indication of what consumers want and where the market is heading.

People aren’t switching from DVD to Blu Ray because they think dvd is good enough, the only added value HD DVD really offers is higher picture quality, and not many people seem to care. The precedent was set by the music industry; people are perfectly happy with 128kbps songs from itunes (a CD is 1,411kbps (*fixed*)). Beyond a certain point higher image/sound quality are given diminishing ratios of importance by consumers. Sure we’d be happy to buy into better looking dvds for about £200, but the biggest problem with Blu Ray is that it doesn’t fit its only market.

If we want to ‘’go high-def’’ you’re going to need a Blu-Ray player (about £300) an ‘’HD Ready’’ (what a confusing, un-consumer friendly term) TV costing around £600, a high definition cable subscription plan, because you want your tv to be HD too (Sky HD costs £210 for set up and the box then +£10/month) and that's without considering the added cost of the more expensive discs. In total then over two years going HD will cost you around £1400 or $2800 more than sticking with SD, all that just to have better picture quality.

Unless you’re an audio/visual- ophile nut, or you’re mad rich, you’d actually have to be pretty crazy to spend that kind of money for a few more pixels. As with the CGI backlash, we’re seeing that really how something looks (in terms of pixels not visuals) isn’t that important. Cinema is a means to tell stories; it is primarily a narrative (like literature) and not a visual form of art (like paintings). As mentioned in Style of Gimmicks Part 2, the vast array of visual cues and camera techniques only work when used as the most effective way to convey the intended emotion/message otherwise they’re just showing off.

Blu Ray, at its current price point, is just another expensive gimmick. People want their media delivered easier and cheaper (why is bittorent so popular?) and don’t mind about the slight qualitative hit this entails. This is why digital downloads are the future, and this will form the topic of discussion in part 2 (available here)

TV beats cinema, at least for the moment

Posted on 7/11/2008 No Comments
Labels: Analysis, Cinema, Film Theory, Media Formats, Movies, Trends, TV

It’s a rare and wonderful moment when a new idea simultaneously solves two problems at once. In recent years TV, more specifically TV on DVD, has begun to do just this.

In terms of narrative art, works that tell stories, literature has long since been considered the most dynamic and powerful creative tool. Even if cinephiles are loathe to admit it, the general consensus is that books offer a more complete experience than film, while the theatre - and poetry - have been thoroughly sidelined (in numerical measurements at least). More and more often though a large portion of society, particularly in younger age groups, are rejecting the novel, stating as explanation a general preference for movies coupled with frustrations at the literary form; particularly the length of the time it takes to ‘consume’ a single piece (yes we’re back to the whole impatience problem again).

It is the longer form factor however, that so many people praise and lord over cinema. The additional length means that plots can be more interesting, characters better developped and more engaging, works more diverse and structurally original (films seem restricted to a particularly repetitive set of narrative beats. There needs to be an introduction to both the characters and the plot; then a series of character moments to help the viewer emphasise. Of course we’ll also need a climax and probably a denouement; so really there’s not much space left in between to be ‘different’).

So we have one portion of people saying books are too long, another saying films are too short. That’s where the TV show comes in. With the huge success of TV on DVD, over the last decade creators have gradually started creating shows with just this form factor in mind.

The problem with TV has always been its limitations; stories needed to be even simpler than Movies did, with writor’s working on the basis that the viewer probably hadn’t seen at least most of the preceding episodes, forcing them to make stand alone, monster/villain of the week types of shows. This limitation, added to the fact that shows were intercut with adbreaks every 8minutes, and were probably preceded in the scheduling by a cooking programme and proceded by Big Brother, rightly gave TV the label of ‘’lowest form of art’’ made simply to midly distract and amuse us after a long day at work, as we sit down to eat dinner in front of the Boob-tube. Honestly, when I sit down to watch TV im looking to ‘’switch off’, to watch something distracting and entertaining, certainly not the visual equivalent of Heart of Darkness or Paradise Lost.

This is why the rise of smart, artistic and unique television shows, (The Sopranos, Lost, Alias, Six Feet Under, Prison Break, The West Wing, Rescue Me etc etc) seems to have been more of an accident than a planned strategy. Unlike with movies, where viewers seem happy to have pissy throw away experiences (Kung-Fu Panda has grossed 350M$, and i can tell you from personal experience at least half the audience were not the 0-14 year old crowd) the same cannot be said for TV. If you are going to invest 12 hours into a season (not to mention the high cost of the DVD) people seem to insist on quality, and for once it looks like the shows that are good are the ones not being cancelled (in most cases at least, RIP Firefly, we hardly knew yee).

The popularity of DVD has allowed these shows not to pander to the johnny-come-lately audience, and continually build upon one storyline, making for brilliantly thrilling and engageing ‘’60 hour movies’’. At this point anything goes, the audience truly has no idea what's going to happen, as we can’t see the climax and final resolution approaching in the distance. The only thing that these programs must be is constant high quality, it's word of mouth more than anything that is creating highly engaged, passionate audiences.

In the future we might look at this as the turning point of entertainment, as this becomes the dominant rather than the minority form. With the motion picture industry as stagnant and stuck for ideas as it is, this could well be just what we need because, at the moment at least, ‘’TV’’ (+ TV on DVD) has never been better, while cinema has turned into our parents - they used to be our favourites and we still love them dearly, but there's no doubt they’ve lost their edge.

The market for these shows can surely only get bigger as costs gradually fall and stop pricing so many out off the market. Lets just hope the increased exposure doesn't lead to a decrease in quality as is so strangely often the case. These shows are certainly where it's at for the moment, it's just a shame poor folk like me are forced to resort to illegal methods in order to satisfy our TV addiction.

The Problem With Youtube.

Posted on 7/09/2008 No Comments
Labels: Analysis, Film Industry, Film Theory, Media Formats, Trends

With the advent of Youtube, mass media was finally getting the shock to the system that it has long since deserved. Our content is no longer limited to television companies and movie studios. People are making content for the people, its what web 2.0 is all about.

But what does Youtube, the people's channel, really say about our media and decisions over our free time? It doesn't matter that 90% of it is crap. That’s inevitable, 90% of the world aren’t as creative and intelligent as they think they are, but lets focus on the top percent the videos that make it through and become youtube’s version of ‘’canonical’’.

The most viewed page is full of trashy music videos (don’t people know that music videos are just glorified commercials?), a stupid kid crying, a shameless man dancing; where most of the comments seem to be ''dude, why is this on the front page wtf?'' (lets not talk about the youtube comments system) and admitedly, some pretty awesome guitar skillz [sic].

The point is people see Youtube wrong, especially traditional media companies. Youtube isn’t there to replace content. The quality is rubbish, they're under ten minutes long and production values are well, you get what you deserve.

People won’t come to the site to find their evening's entertainment. You're not going to eat your dinner infront of Tay Zonday or The Numa-Numa Guy. People aren’t going to stop watching tv because they can see two minute clips of The Simpsons on Youtube.

Youtube follows the trend of the internets. It is a place for novelty; constant short sharp hits that make you smile but you won’t remember them tomorrow morning.

This isnt the vehicle through which we'll finally take entertainment back into our own hands. Short film directors aren't plucked from the Youtube sesspool and given real jobs, most people dont even get to the end of an 8 minute video.

So is it worth it? This impatience to have everything now to consume faster faster faster, it’s like a competition. You can’t help checking out how much music you have on your laptop. ‘’What only 15gigs?’’. All music is free and accessible to everyone; so you have 50 gigs of music on your computer. That’s 11770 songs, or a new song every day for the next 32 years. But how many of those do you listen to?

What connection do you have with these 2 minute videos that you see once and never look at again? Continuing the music analogy; it’s the music you hear over and over again that you love; that brings something to you life.

Entertainment is going through the same revolution that the food industry has done. We used to be happy with whatever we could get, now we have to make the choice not to take the junk food everytime, because actually its doing us no good. Sure YTs of fat guys falling over might be funny, but is that how you want to spend your life? Is that all you want from your free time? Mild forgetable amusement?

I think theres a freshhold beyond which unmonetasable content cannot go. Videos will never be super high quality if you're not getting money from them; you're not making a living from them.

All i want, is that we can take a few steps beyond the virals and the pretend porn and my chemical romance. Or maybe we just need a better way of shifting through the mass of junk.

Maybe that is just a catalogue of feelings and emotions, a capture the finer points of the human condition.. [crying, happiness etc) but it certainly isnt this or this.

The Wire: how tv can trump film

Posted on 6/16/2008 No Comments
Labels: Analysis, Film Industry, Media Formats, Movies, Reviews, Trends, TV

I've been watching The Wire recently, and am now fully convinced that at the moment TV is where the real innovation and quality is coming from, rather than from its more illustrious big brother.

The problem with film at the moment is that creators have forgotten the purpose of the medium. Film is like literature, theatre, poetry and anything else you can think of, just another way to tell stories. Because of its advantages, it's incredible visual qualities, giant screen and immense sound, at its best i think it can be the most effective of these art forms at fulfilling such a purpose; nothing truly grabs your full undivided attention like a cinema screen circling around you.

It's the stories though that are truly engrossing, as they have been since the dawn of time. People are interested in narrative; we've been telling each stories for as long as we've been human. It's what engages us in these works and to forget that is to lose sight of what's important in what you're doing.

CGI, computer generated ships and swords fights or what have you are all fine, but who really cares? Most people aren't going to art galleries any more so why would they go to a cinema just because ''the effects looked good''. People didn't love POTC because of the pretend boat! We love it because Captain Jack Sparrow is a great character going on a captivating mission; so don't make a sequel where you triple the amount of fake sea, exaggerate the character and forget the plot, because if you do you invariably get what you're making.

That's the great thing about television, for the moment at least. They don't have the money to carry out these kinds of effects and so they focus, as they must over the course of a thirteen hour long season, on what really matters: character and story.

The extended running time serves as an advantage too. I can't watch shows on TV, I don't time shift and i hate ads, so watching one episode of Friends is about my limit. However it seems studios have realised a far more effective way to keep audiences hooked and coming back is not to tag on a big question mark at the end of each episode neighbours-stylie but to get us really interested, to make us care about what's happening on more than just a superficial curiosity level. This leads to both better ratings and better content, a wonderful positively reenforcing circle.

This is exactly what great TV shows (and there are loads of them going round at the moment) like The Wire, Prison Break, The Sopranos, The Shield, Lost etc etc etc are doing. When i watch The Wire season one i find myself caring just as much about side characters, such as the junkie snitch Bubbles or the naive drug runner Wallace, as i do about the main characters.The episodes are intensely engrossing because the viewer is interested in every character's story arch, and each one is given time to develop.

This means that each episode edges the story forward; when i finish one i often end up asking what actually changed in that episode, why i found it so enjoyable... then i stop asking and press play on the next one. This pattern inevitably continues into 5 am; the hallmark of any great show in my book.

Amazon.com: The Wire - The Complete First Season

Amazon.co.uk: The Wire : The Complete First Season

iPhone Movies

Posted on 6/08/2008 comments (1)
Labels: Cinema, Media Formats, Movies, Trends

In the build up to the long awaited Iphone 2 coming out at WWDC on tuesday, i thought i'd bring out one of my old favorites, which shows for me the problem of our continued strive for portable media.

The problem is that we're striving to consume more and more media, to have this constant flow of information. Cinema at least, is more than that, and as such i believe proper movies (go ahead and watch Epic Movie whereever you like, and while you're at it get the hell off my site) becomes a sort of high class art.

It's not about you getting through something to have then seen it, this is at the heart of the ''art as competition'' problem i think we're falling into. These things are meant to be experienced, you won't feel any of the power of something like The Godfather while waiting for a bus, beyond the superficial plot points which if you have any understanding of art, are simply there to guide you to what's really being said.

Luckily though, the Itunes store mainly only sells crap, so you're getting what you pay for.