Sponsor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DVD Diggers #29 - April 7th, 2005
Imagine this scenario: Work runs late Wednesday night and I don’t get home until 9:30. Due to a hectic day it never occurs to me to run to an internet connection and make sure my TiVo records this week’s episode of “Lost”. Tonight’s episode was a pivotal one too - the castaways finally find out that the father of Claire’s baby is... Gilligan, and I missed it. Guess I’ll just have to wait for a rerun or DVD, right? Wrong.
You and I both know that’s not how it works in this day and age. The technology savvy immediately head over to their computer and start looking for a torrent. On a good day a torrent shows up for a hit show like “Lost” within hours and by the next evening I could have that episode on my computer, burned to DVD, and (because I’m a friendly torrent user) I’m seeding the file out there for other unfortunate souls like myself. Of course, this is all theoretical. I would never do something like that personally - that breaks copyright laws. Napster broke copyright laws when it first hit the scene with its peer-to-peer technology years ago (consider it the grandaddy of today’s torrents). What happened? Companies got upset and started slinging lawsuits. Did it stop peer-to-peer technology? No. So then companies got wise. Studios worked with iTunes and the new Napster to allow users to download songs for a modest fee. Studios got money, fans got songs. Everybody was happy, and even though it didn’t completely stop filesharing on the music scene, it did curb it, and gave a legitimate option to users who felt the need to be honest. Unfortunately, the television and movie scene still haven’t learned from this lesson, and thus are the biggest targets for pirates these days. The Way of the Future 
Recently it was announced that Sony Pictures would like to embark on an “iTunes for movies” project, making movies legitimately available via the web for download - for a price of course. The idea of downloading movies kind of hurts the idea of DVDs though, doesn’t it? In an industry that already suffers bare-bone editions and multiple releases of movies, do we really need movies that aren’t even released to DVD because they are “exclusively online”? But I can totally see it happening.
I think studios are looking at the wrong part of the market. Movies sell on DVD. What about television series sets though? Putting television out on DVD is expensive, takes time, and doesn’t necessarily have the following putting a movie out might have, especially because they are set at such a higher price point. Sites like ours are less likely to cover television sets on DVD because they take too much time but don’t generate more traffic than movies. However, offer episodes online for download - well, now you’re talking. Television episodes are half to a quarter the size of a movie, so downloads are quicker. Studios could have episodes available online shortly after they air on tv, giving a legal alternative to people who use torrents only because there is no other way. To help alleviate the costs advertising could be left in online versions of the shows, unlike the fileshared versions that exist right now, where users have typically cut the commercials out of a program (hey, I’m not a fan of commercials any more than any of our readers are, but it’s how the shows are paid for). Fans would be able to download favorite episodes rather than having to buy entire seasons of a show if they wanted a more fee-friendly option. It’s a win-win situation. Until the time that studios clue into television’s potential on the internet, they really shouldn’t be looking at movies, leaving those for DVD where they can make a higher profit and give fans more for their money - no doubt online versions of movies wouldn’t have any special features. Money is being left on the table as fans turn to torrents for their favorite shows, and DVD sets are left on the shelves, costing studios money and increasing the prices of future sets. Trust me - the studio executive who makes this plan happen will have success. Just look at how much money Napster and iTunes managed to pull in last year. to get other ideas to achieve success as a network executive. Eye on Independents 
As fans of movies, for every one of us there was a time when we were young with a video camera and made a home movie. It could have been something as simple as a tale of a boy and his dog, or a homemade monster movie, but I bet a lot of us have videos on par with what M. Night Shyamalan reveals from his childhood on each DVD release. Todd and Tim Wynn have taken that childhood dream a step further, using nothing more complicated than “the cheapest digital camera” they could buy and not much more than anyone would find around their house to make their independent film Very_little_time.
The story of the film is its strongest point. Ryan Telnifer finds a box buried on his property. He brings it home, but can’t get past the padlock on the box so he goes back to his daily routine. While on his computer eating his lunch he gets a mysterious message from someone named “very_little_time” who knows about the box, and knows other things about Ryan that nobody else should know. So what’s in the box, and how does “very_little_time” know so much about Ryan? That’s where the film gets interesting, but to reveal much more than that would spoil the plot. Surprisingly given the equipment they were using, Very_little_time actually looks quite professional. It’s as if someone made a professionally shot film with a home video camera. Most of the camera shots look good - they are framed and composed well, with a very professional technique. Sure there are your errant shots in there that could be better, but frankly sometimes there are some of those in professional movies as well. The editing is clean, although it could be tighter (more on that in a minute). If these guys wanted a career in Hollywood, they could easily find some work as Foley artists - the sound for the film, which was recorded completely independent from the video. Sound effects (which are at times pretty hefty) were added in later, but sound absolutely natural. There are some weak technical sides to this DVD though. The equipment they were using was consumer grade equipment, and while they lit scenes pretty evenly, at times the picture is very washed out - especially when the movie moves outdoors. The colors aren’t very rich, although that actually helps the movie out at times, but those whites go off the scale at times, which is a tad bit painful. The text screens they use for the titles are pretty basic and, had it been me, I would have limited the amount of credits I used because of that - showed passage of time with a dissolve of clock hands moving instead of putting on screen “fifteen minutes later” or such. The opening credits of the film are a bit of a ego stroke too, as the two men who worked on the film receive their names (in varying form) after writer, director, producer, etc. On the audio side, the voice work becomes problematic when the character stops using an internal voice and actually speaks. Synching up the voice work with the film must have been hard, and while they do an adequate job of it, it’s the one noticeable thing about the audio - especially since the voices never have any sort of environmental touch to them. Clearly they were recorded in a home studio and added in later. Finally on the technical side, the picture is quite grainy and artifacted. Originally I attributed this to the camerawork, but I’m pretty sure it’s in the encoding process of the DVD instead. Still, despite these weaknesses, this is a case where you have to take into account what was used and marvel at the professional quality of the movie. The story is really good and compelling and is, as I said, the movie’s greatest strength. Interest is immediately piqued during the opening credits as the camera passes over normal household items, each possessing a tag that indicates what it is and how often it should be used. Is this the story of a man with no memory? No, actually it turns out he’s a product tester - which in its own is a very interesting idea. To take someone in that line of work and place this plot around them is really quite unique and sort of proves you don’t have to work in hollywood to come up with a good story - in fact it sort of proves that some of the best ideas come from outside, and I can imagine how quickly this movie would be mucked up if taken in by a big picture producer. All of that said, the movie could stand to be told in about 2/3rds of the time it actually takes. Some of this could be done in editing, cutting shots tighter and taking out some time, but some of it is from the script as well. The film attempts to paint a picture of the typical life of a product tester which is boring, but the truth is it spends too long painting that picture, boring the audience in the meantime. It’s ten minutes into the film before things even get remotely close to getting started, and by that time I was dreading the next hour and ten minutes to come. Luckily it does pick up eventually, but trying to explain the events that unfold bogs the movie down again later on. Luckily by that time you’re drawn in enough to want to know what’s being said, it just would help if there was a quicker way to say it. For the most part all of those things I point out are trivial things, especially when you take into account what the Wynn brothers used to make this movie. The only really painful thing this independent film going for it is the absolutely horrendous Australian accent they chose to use for their main character. I’m not sure why the Wynn brothers felt the need to give the character an accent (they are both clearly american with a touch of regional accent to their voices on the DVD’s commentary track) but it’s the one touch that hurts the picture the most. Later on in the movie when it gets awfully chatty I almost gave up on understanding what was going on and fast forwarded, just to get away from the Australian accent. I guarantee Mel Gibson and Nicole Kidman would lose most of their fanbase if Australian accents really sounded like this film. Very_little_time is a fun film, one that I enjoyed watching. Sure it could never compete with the world of professionally made movies, but it is the closest one could come to one using a home video camera, and the story surpasses a lot of the crap that Hollywood churns out. Anyone who wants to see the true potential of consumer video equipment should check this one out. Check out Very_little_time at www.verylittletime.com Letters From Close Enough to the Edge to See the View But Not So Close That There is Danger of Falling Off  Guided by the spirit of the small Asian woman to your left (who Josh really need to replace with something more snazzy), I fill in for Josh (who filled his entire column with one issue this week) answering reader mail. your comments to have them read on the… er answered Clifford: I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean about the story (Cinderella Man’s trailer) coming about in record time, because this movie (teaser) has been hawked in front of several other films I saw last month, including Boogyman, A Very Long Engagement, and others. I'm actually surprised nobody on CinemaBlend mentioned it sooner. Rafe: Wow, I finally get mail from Clifford - CinemaBlend’s Number One fan. Cliff - you aren’t like Kathy Bates or anything are you? Actually Clifford was right - the trailer had been out and we hadn’t noticed it. Just a reminder though - if you notice news and we haven’t covered it, always feel free to Rick: someone already has broken down and made a debbie does dallas musical. it played off broadway about 2 years ago and was quite a hit!! you can even find the original cast album on shk-boom records. all the best, rick siegel Rafe: I think that fact scares me even more than Seussical does. I wonder if I can claim coming up with the idea and get money... corey: this site really sucks Rafe: Thanks for taking the time out of your busy schedule to let us know that Corey. Glad to know you could even take the time to make a full sentence out of that. You know they say opinions are like assholes... No doubt Josh will do a better job belittling people’s opinions when he gets back to the mailbag. Until then, thanks for writing in! |
     |
