Archive for December, 2009

Social networking websites like Facebook are on Hollywood's radar for niche internet advertising

While the old standbys of television and radio continue to hog most of the money that studios spend on marketing campaigns for new releases, more and more money is being allotted for internet and mobile markets. The recent success of Paramount’s internet marketing for Paranormal Activity, for example, shows what can be done when the right demographic is reached through these digital means.

Facebook in particular allows studios to reach niche markets which correlate to their new releases much more effectively than simply advertising on demographic-related TV channels. Such a strategy is one way of spending smarter, which is exactly what the new focus on digital outlets is all about. Reportedly, the change allows studios to spend just as much money as ever on marketing their films, even though the poor economy has forced them to cut talent costs, reduce the number of films made, and let go a number of staff members.

Television and radio still take up around 60-70% of marketing budgets, but the percentage spent on digital outlets has risen from 1% (2002) to 8-12%, and continues to grow. Avatar’s marketing budget (estimated to exceed $150 million) reportedly allotted 10% toward internet ads alone. That’s over $15 million.

Niche marketing is nothing new, but Hollywood’s growing concentration on using digital outlets to take advantage of this strategy could mark a big overhaul in future film marketing in general.

Source: Variety

Quick Opinion: All of this seems well and good at first glance, however one wonders once the economy recovers if talent costs will rise back up and staff positions get refilled, or if the percentage of money spent on marketing stays the same. The success that’s possible due to the help of digital outlets could be too tempting for studios to not continue spending as much as they are.

Also, more money spent on internet and mobile ads means less ad money spent on newspapers and magazines, which are already hurting. Thinking pessimistically, this could be the final blow for big paper-based publications, forcing those companies to try and survive completely on the internet.

Are we now actively seeking to blur the line between man and machine - as this poster suggests - or do we still fear what could happen if we do (a la Star Trek's Borg)?

By my count there have been three movies released this year that involve the ability to remote control/embody a person or robot (Surrogates, Gamer, and Avatar). All three films deal with this idea differently, but the fact that they were all released within only a few months of each other is intriguing. Somewhere inside these films could lie a connection that says more than any one of them does individually.

In the case of Surrogates, the film makes an argument against the use of humanized robots as a means of living, criticizing in a roundabout way that people (particularly Americans) are on a path to losing their natural desire for human contact. Some might say that living through a robot isn’t actually living (see our review). All in all, the general opinion of the film regarding technology that enables people to avoid actual physical contact is negative to say the least.

Gamer’s usage of the remote embodiment concept is quite different. For starters, there are no robots; people control other people (prisoners) for use in a virtual videogame experience. So in other words, certain people were able to control other people who had been dehumanized to the point where their lives were worth nothing more than a subjective entertainment value. Obviously, this film’s message is not congruent to Surrogates‘. However, that the message involves the idea of dehumanization by way of technological means does give the two films at least one connection.

Avatar also promotes a different theme with its incorporation of the remote embodiment concept. Instead of making a case against the use of avatars (which in this case are aliens instead of humans), the film actually endorses their utilization. This is most likely due to the film’s apparent theme (suggested in our review), which proposes that an avatar is in fact an allegory for modern telecommunication technologies, and that using such resources ought to be used for the purposes of learning about people different from yourself as opposed to just seeking out like-minded, comparable individuals who aren’t liable to disagree with you. One can reasonably suggest from this that Avatar’s use of remote embodiment is not about dehumanization but of rehumanization. Thus, those humans in the film who choose to utilize available technology for this purpose are considered the protagonists, and those who do not are considered the antagonists.

If only one thing can be said to connect all three films, it is that they all seem to criticize/warn us about the dangerous path we are on that could lead us to, by way of newer and newer technology, dehumanizing ourselves as well as others. However, Avatar’s greater message allows us to consider this path less as a straight shot towards doom and more as a double-edged sword. And so, there is no agreement of what will happen, but only an agreement of what can happen. It appears that it is up to us as members of an increasingly technological society to A) retain our basic humanity by not allowing advanced telecommunications to completely substitute direct human contact, and B) use our technological resources to expand the breadth of our humanity by seeking to learn from and understand the different and “unusual.” Personally, it seems that – based on the subject matter of recent sci-fi/action films – there is an increasing trepidation with our society’s increasingly advancing technology, as even this past summer’s Terminator: Salvation sought to ask what will happen if the line between man and machine (i.e. technology) is blurred. The question of whether man as he is defined is inexorably linked to his technology is certainly a relevant one, but alas it is a question for another time.

What do you make of these three films? What conclusions do you draw when considering them connected in some way? Tell us what you think.

Director Guy Ritchie

Back on December 21st ComingSoon.net published an interview they had with director Guy Ritchie about his newest film Sherlock Holmes. Since the movie opened just this past week, and most of those who had wanted to see it have probably done so, I thought it would be interesting for those of you who have seen the film to read the interview and tell us what from it you learned aside from the information given by Ritchie’s answers. Hindsight is 20/20 as they say, so take a look at the interview and remember the movie to see what you come up with.

As the interviewer points out before the actual transcript, Guy Ritchie obviously does not enjoy the interviewing process. With this in mind, don’t expect elaborate answers. However, there should be enough material to build off of and make your own conclusions.

One question that stood out asked how the involvement of Robert Downey Jr. (an actor known for favoring improvisation and suggesting last-minute changes) fit with a story that’s fairly intricate and thus difficult to reconstruct while filming. I’ll let you all read Ritchie’s response for yourselves.

In other news…

Roland Emerich’s 2012 has broken China’s box-office record with $67.3 million (460 million yuan), with the previous record-holder being Transformers: Rise of the Fallen with $63 million.

Source: Variety