Hollywood Studios Slash Wholesale Prices on DVDs.

Update: Shoppers, just in time for Christmas, big big savings on DVDs are coming your way. You can thank RedBox for commoditizing the movie business. In case you live under a rock, RedBox is a company that has about 22,000 red box movie dispensers all over America in supermarkets, retail stores, pharmacies, etc., where you can rent a movie for $1.

So, why does this translate into big savings on DVDs? Well, the studios are desperate to make up for this shortfall in the sales of DVDs so they are cutting whole-sale prices. That includes Blu-ray discs and players. Wal-Mart and Target are offering Blu-ray DVDs for as low as $8.99 and Blu-ray players as low as $79.99.

Gone are the huge profits of years past, and the revenue streams Hollywood has traditionally experienced, as the DVD sales continue to decline by double digits annually, flat box office returns for the last decade, and an international market that's drying up. In addition, steep competition continues to grow with 500 cable channels, countless videogames, free online video content galore. And then there is the exploding array of options to deliver movie content and the inevitable marriage of your TV to your computer screen/Internet, if not already hitched. Yes, it's clear that Hollywood isn't the only kid on the block anymore.

Disney CEO Bob Iger said, this past weekend, at a conference on the USC campus: "[The] business model that formed the motion picture business...is changing profoundly before our eyes."

In other words, if Hollywood doesn't find a new business model that reflects the current push toward digital distribution technologies available today, as well as keeping an eye to what's right around the corner, and embrace, rather than try to displace the generation of consumers who are used to getting their content for free, Hollywood may become a squally hood.

Mark Gill, Founder and CEO, The Film Department, an independent film financing company, and formerly president of Miramax LA, which has recently gone from 500 workers down to 20, says independent film studios have been hit hard and by the end of next year, the number of movies released in theaters will be cut in half.

In addition, Hollywood will have to cut overhead costs, marketing costs, picture production costs, and the biggest one of all, talent costs.

"Meaning, if you're a big movie star, if you're a top filmmaker, you used to get a big, nice back-end of the movie -- you got part of the profits. By in large, the studios are cutting back on all of that. They're saying, 'you share in the risks with us; you don't get first-dollar gross, you don't get a share of the profits right away; you have to wait till we break even with all our expenses; and then, if the movie is still successful you can share in the profits." -- Patrick Goldstein, columnist and blogger for the "Los Angeles Times"

The quality of studio movies will surely suffer, as the emphasis will shift away from creative content to marketing because marketers, who know more about creating brands that can live across multiple platforms, than what goes into making a good movie will increasingly take over the movie studios.

However, chasing the almighty dollar, by focusing on marketing rather than producing a good movie will backfire on them, as the Internet enables all of us to tap into trusted communities who are more than willing to share what they think is good and not so good. In addition, there is more, and a greater diversity of content being produced than ever before. This wealth of creative talent is able to both produce and distribute content without going through a centralized system, therefore, not bound restrictive marketing forces and to traditional marketing campaigns that try to sell consumers on what is good.

"Not every idea has to start at the widest reach platform. It used to be that when writers would develop an idea, the initial target was TV or film. What’s starting to evolve is that writers are approaching smaller platforms where there is not as much available audience - like publishing or digital - but where they’re allowed to express their creation in a more undiluted manner…one that reaches the market quicker where they can show what they want to do, and then try to leverage some degree of early traction and success in smaller platforms to bring to larger platforms like TV or film."

Hollywood used to be driven by technological change whether it was the invention of sound, color, television, or even new audio formats. But then things changed... around the time of home video, that Hollywood started to lose their mojo. They tried to maintain and protect old business models that were starting to deteriorate, and they chose to take a heavy-handed approach, imposing their ideas of what's "good" - more like what would make them the most money - on the consumer, and started making movies that were marketable vs movies that were enjoyable or good. The exponential growth in technology that has occurred and will continue is forcing Hollywood to adjust or go bust.

Links:

Hollywood's Sales Floor How independent film is faring in a tough economy. The annual American Film Market is the less glamorous side of the movie industry.

TVersity is a free program you can download from tversity.com. It works by installing a media server on your PC that allows you to manage your internet and home media on a multitude of devices, beaming the media to your device. Not only that it goes through all the necessary format conversions automatically enabling transmission of your media to every known set-top device supported by *DLNA. It's also supported by Universal Plug and Play (UPP), so you don't have to figure out all the various networks, ports, etc.

*Digital Living Network Alliance (DLNA) - is a global collaboration of 245 of your most trusted brands, all working together to help you create the home entertainment environment you’ve always imagined.

Read more...

Actor: Job Description: Responsible to Humanity?

Actors get a bad rap, as many people tend to confuse actors with movie stars and celebrity. While it is true many great actors, such as Robert De Niro, Sean Penn, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Al Pacino, Marlon Brando, Johnny Depp etc. are celebrities, it is not because they sought out the spotlight, praise, and public approval; instead, celebrity hunted them down because of their great talent and ability.

Entertaining and acting, by nature, are oxymoronic. An entertainer's goal is to please the people, whereas, a good actor must strip himself of his desire to please in order to make the character he is creating, authentic. It requires hard work, the kind most of us, are not willing to do.

We, as non-actors can choose to skim the surface of life, distracting ourselves from what we do not want to confront, and that is ourselves...our real selves, not the selves we've masked in order to avoid the pain and suffering that the process of unmasking would unleash. Good actors, not entertainers, on the other hand, must explore, reflect upon, and expose the most vulnerable parts of himself and that of humanity, continuously, in order to get to the "truth" of the "human being" they try to bring to life.

Recently, Tavis Smiley honored Sean Penn for his embrace of humanity and asked him where his willingness "to stand in [his] truth, to raise these issues, to not bite [his] tongue, to embrace humanity" came from.

Penn gave most of the credit to acting.

"I think that it relates to acting, in a way. And I appreciate you saying it, but to the degree it's true with me. I think that the demand inside, if there's a final demand, it's to feel your own life while you're living it, and that's the demand of what you have to be searching for in a character also, when you're playing a character. And so it's all one thing to me because it all was based on that, and so when you're not involved in the world, you're not involved in the movie. When you're not involved -- I get very bored guarding myself from feeling the world around me, and so I do find myself drawn to participate."

The actor's primary job description can be summed up as "responsible to humanity", according to Herbert Berghoff. Actors must create a "human being" from scratch and communicate the truth of that "human being" or character to the world. A good actor does not sell out to box office, celebrity or what his fans expect of him, rather he must be committed to the character he is creating. Through the process of searching out the truth of this "individual", the actor has agreed to portray, he literally brings him to life.

Great actors provide us with a window into the complex internal life that exists in everyone of us that we are often times loathe to observe in ourselves and the ones we love. Even more importantly, actors can help us to understand and empathize with those who we feel we have nothing in common and who we may have judged harshly because they do not look as we look, or worship as we worship, or are attracted to the wrong gender, etc...

What about the "evil" characters actors take on? What's the actor's responsibility to humanity in this situation? After all, "evil" characters are monsters, barely human, right? Wrong, and a very dangerous assumption. Taking on this kind of role may be the actor's greatest challenge and greatest responsibility to humanity. It's far too easy to separate ourselves from those who society has condemned as evil. An actor who digs deep enough and finds the humanity in a character like this destroys the artificial divide we've created between them and us that enables us to "separate the wheat from the chaff".

Persona + Need + Tragic flaw = Truth of Character, is the formula Oscar coach and acting guru Susan Batson, author of Truth: Personas, Needs and Flaws in the Art of Building Actors and Creating Characters creating for the actors she has trained. An actor’s consideration of a character begins with tension between the persona and the character and the need that lies behind that persona. Everyone has an underlying core need, from childhood and deeply planted by about 5-years old...a need to be fathered, mothered, to please, be respected, be loved etc. HOWEVER, we can’t walk around naked and vulnerable, exposing that "need" to the public, so we build a persona to cover that need, hence, the mask is created.

When the persona, out front, and the core need deep inside, collide and can’t work together, the flow is disrupted, and the tragic flaw emerges. The persona(s) we create are normally in stark contrast to our innermost need...so unless one learns to integrate the two somehow, the tragic flaw is almost unavoidable.

Here are some examples Ms. Batson gave:

The Aviator. The need is to be mothered. The public persona is no limitations, the opposite of a Mama’s boy. The tragic flaw that emerges is he goes crazy.

Monster’s Ball. Halle Berry. The need to be loved. The persona is to push everyone away, be the porcupine. The tragic flaw is to be a victim.

Lost in Translation. Bill Murray. The need to be pure and honorable. The persona is to become a hustler. The tragic flaw that emerges is to hate himself.

When the actor is aware of this split screen, it gives the dimensionality and depth in the performance and provides a universal connection.

"There are lots of personalities out there but few great actors. Great actors are interested in the art form and work very hard at what they do. The powerful component that all great actors have is empathy. An actor must also possess an ease inside his own skin and have the life of his body available to him in a sensory way. The sexuality of the actor that must be present and available to him. He must be in touch with his physicality, in addition to possessing intelligence, emotion, imagination etc. Actors must, at the very least, have the ability to tell truth and refuse to gloss it and be righteously striving to understand themselves and humanity."

Read more...

Ashton Kutcher Paving the Way for Celebrity in the 21st Century

It's not very often I post anything about celebrities as I find the glitter and sparkle of Hollywood the most boring thing in the world. I'd rather stare into space, bored out of my mind, than open up People Magazine. However, every once in a while, a celebrity intrigues me because he's not like all the rest.

The first time I ever saw Ashton Kutcher, he was in his underwear, hosting Saturday Night Live. I then saw a couple episodes of Punk'd and concluded, rather unfairly - I've yet to see one of his movies - that although entertaining, he was just another empty-headed, pretty boy from Hollywood.

Upon hearing of his relationship with his current wife, Demi Moore, as chauvinistic as this will sound, it intrigued me... somewhat. Although, Demi Moore is gorgeous, could pass for 30-years old, and men of all ages find her extremely attractive, I wondered why a man in his twenties, who could have any "girl" he wants, would go for someone so much older. Of course, if Demi were the male and Ashton, the female, I wouldn't have thought twice.

Fast forward to post election, and one day, while I was busy doing something else, I had Real Time with Bill Maher on in the background. I heard Kutcher articulate something I was thinking earlier, and as enamored as I am with my own thoughts (as this blog proves), I immediately tuned in and was impressed with what he had to say.

Some of Ashton Kutcher's quotes from that show:

Regarding whether churches should have to pay taxes:

"I think it should depend on the philanthropic nature of the organization. If they can show that what it is they do is a philanthropic act, then I think they should be exempt, and if they can't, then they shouldn't have to pay the taxes."

Couldn't agree more. For example, the Catholic Church...yes, with all its gold, is also the biggest form of universal health care in the world. Not to mention, all of the other altruistic projects the Church gets involved in that would otherwise be ignored by the rest of world.

Regarding what the U.S. could potentially cut:

"Let's stop sending things to Mars...There are thousands of children sold into the sex slave trade every single day..."

Regarding the "big three" bailout:

"You know who should bail them out, the oil companies...the only reason they're in decline is their allegiance to oil companies, and there are some folks on (I think he said Wall Street) that could pitch in as well"

Best idea ever!

Then, a few months later, I discovered him on Twitter and qik, where he basically lets the world get a glimpse of his reality, on a pretty regular basis. He also uses Twitter to collaborate with his followers, as he does when he asks for ideas, and occasionally, he will post what he's reading as he did in this tweet:

# latest winner i've read is a book called Natural Capitalism by paul hawken, amory lovins, l. hunter lovins. recommend per econ. recovery 8:54 PM Feb 3rd from web

# gonna start a new book tonight. the end of poverty by jeffrey sachs. very excited 8:50 PM Feb 3rd from web

These simple tweets prompted some to accuse him of claiming he's an expert on economics. What? All he did was recommend a book for consideration in order to recover the economy...two very good books, I might add.

It's not that Ashton Kutcher has transformed himself into a Gandhi like figure. He's still the same guy who likes to have fun. Sometimes, as on Punk'd, his fun is at the expense of someone else, but never in a mean-spirited way. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for others. In particular, Perez Hilton, who takes pleasure in delivering his blows way below the belt - no, not those kind of blows - attacking people who have not willingly entered the world of celebrity.

In response to Hilton's invective against his stepdaughter, which I won't repeat, Kutcher could have stooped to his level with an equally cruel attack, but he did not. Rather, he asked Hilton to leave his stepdaughter alone. Despite his more than reasonable approach, Kutcher, not Hilton, as far as I know, was criticized.

I fully realize that Ashton Kutcher does not need me or anyone else to take up his "cause"and that unfair assessment is par for the course of celebrity. Nevertheless, when someone who seems to be trying to take advantage of his position in life to better humanity, rather than remain in a self-absorbed cocoon, preoccupied only with what's best for them - like I would do if I were a celebrity - treated unfairly by the press, I think it's wrong no matter how much money and fame the person has.

The bottom line is there is more to that pretty face than meets the eye. Ashton Kutcher is actually very insightful and a very intelligent guy. Moreover, he seems to care about issues that will affect all of our lives, and he doesn't take himself all that seriously. While it's true there are many celebrities like him in that respect, the thing that differentiates him is his willingness to cross the great divide that places celebrity on a pedestal for others to worship from afar.

So, just as Craig Newmark is one of the few examples of a corporate leadership who is paving the way for 21st Century America, Ashton Kutcher is one of the few celebrities willing to sacrifice some of the allure - which can translate to power - that makes a star, a star, in order to collaborate and share his own humanity with his fans while trying to make the world a better place.

Read more...

The Last Three Decades of Swag Flag.

In The Sopranos episode, "Luxury Lounge" the morally obscene world of mobsters juxtaposes the meaningless existence of Hollywood swag, when Christopher goes to Hollywood to make a movie. While there, actor Ben Kingsley introduces him to the "goody bags" celebrities receive just for showing up, and he is overcome with envy and mugs Lauren Bacall for her $35,000 swag bag.

In a nutshell, the juxtaposition and intertwining of these two worlds, in this episode, is what America has become in the last three decades. The celebrity "swag bag" — the most prestigious of "bags" can total $100,000 — epitomizes our paradoxical system that rewards greed and punishes need. Showering thousands of dollars of products on people who can afford to buy the items 100 times over makes little sense when over 45 million, mostly working Americans, go without or must ration the essentials, yet this is the way our system is designed to operate.

"Picking through $35,000 gift baskets is disgusting and shameful. My suggestion was to have the Academy commit to [charitable] contributions in the name of the winners." - Edward Norton

The "swag bag" is symbolic of what occurs everywhere in our culture. People who truly need basic necessities - food, shelter and health care - must navigate through an incredibly punitive system just to obtain, what amounts to crumbs, while those of us in society who need the least - working mostly in white-collar environments - have access to free food and stuff on an ongoing basis. Most meetings, seminars, receptions, training, etc. that take place fairly consistently in a white collar atmosphere, usually include at the very least, free food, and the higher up the ladder the more of those type of events one attends, and the better the food and freebies.

On the other hand, lower income areas, many times do not even have access to grocery stores, hence little if no access to fresh produce and healthy food. Not only that, if they do need assistance, they must conquer countless bureaucratic stumbling blocks, making their way through a maze of paperwork and red tape.

While it's true that American hunger - food insecure more accurately describes hunger in America as it refers to the inability of people to obtain sufficient food for their household, and recurring food insecurity and involuntary lack of access to food can lead to malnutrition - is not on the scale of third world countries, many Americans often times must choose between food and rent; food and health care, etc. If healthy food is available, and that's a big if in some areas, it's more costly, forcing many to purchase highly fattening food with very little nutrition, if any, hence the obesity problem so prevalent in lower income areas. Of the 36.4 million Americans, including 12.4 million children, only 10% of that total are on welfare.

As actions speak louder than words, we believe Paris Hilton deserves the 30 swag bags of bling she supposedly took from Sundance more than children deserve to eat healthy food. Why? Because she's entitled, as are so many undeserving Americans who are either born into the right family, or are ruthless enough to climb to the top, or just plain lucky. Obviously, there are many talented and deserving Americans who have "made it" to the top, who understand that they did not get there all by themselves, as well.

Overall, our society punishes the truly needy, as if they deserve their plight, and until deep structual change takes place, the rich will keep getting richer and the poor, poorer because our system is designed to make it happen that way.

Read more...