The only problem with that is, I don't get to spend much time doing the blog.

My apologies.

And now, you'll have to excuse me again as I head off to speak to a first time filmmaker, a veteran documentarian, and Ms. Michelle Monaghan. And there's more tomorrow, including a living legend. Yay.

I will be around more over the weekend.

And to be honest, during the awards season, the media monkeys have an irritating habit of taking my opinions about films and beating them into the ground as a reference point for my work in analyzing the season. They are wrong about how I process my thoughts, but if you repeat an inanity often enough, some will come to believe it is true. And I find it galling… even more so to feel compelled to explain myself over and over and over again to people who have already made up their mind about things they can’t really know.

But then I read Scott Fondas’ LA Weekly review of Precious and I was inspired to discuss it… so this is not a real review, but a reflective think piece… but some will see it as a review..

Anyway…

Foundas hits exactly what is wrong about so much of the response to Precious. Or to be clearer, he is shockingly clear on why his review is an intellectual pretzel.

The basic premise is that Precious, although he finds very little good to say about it, is worthy because it is not a Spielberg movie… which is to say that it is raw and angry and not sentimental at all. For him, Speilberg’s sentimentality, as defined in this review by The Color Purple, is a manipulative lie.

But he is dead wrong.

Spielberg’s sentimentalism is completely honest. It is not real, as though a documentary. But the emotional manipulation is not coy or tricky. It is a freight train. (And yes, I feel that way about Schindler’s List as well… a movie of which I have never been a huge fan, other than as an admirer of the craft involved.)

Lee Daniels’ Precious is about as manipulative a movie as you will ever see. And for me, this kind of movie and this movie specifically, is exactly what guys like Foundas are always trying to pin on Spielberg. This is a movie about a deeply broken person who can be patched up a bit, but is on a straight line to a living and dying horror. Daniels, who shows real skill, does not leave the audience with that feeling.

Simply, I feel that the film is a less entertaining, less skillful version of Silence of The Lambs, with Mo’Nique as Hannibal Lechter, Clarice “Precious” Jones as Clarice and the girl in the pit with a touch of both characters from Leaving Las Vegas added in. But the key to the reaction… you get to walk away from the film clean as a jaybird.

No question, there are people who will walk away with real and lasting emotional connections to this material. But for the white, middle class film critic… Precious Jones and her life is so far away from any reality that 99.9% of film critics have ever experienced in real life, she naturally morphs into an object. And because the movie does not insist that we honestly face the full ugliness and hopelessness of her story, that is leaves us feeling bad for her, feeling good for her, and going “ooooh” when she gets hit in the head not once, but twice, by heavy objects being thrown by the parent that didn’t rape her innumerable times and impregnate her twice, we are able to leave the theater feeling like we experienced something that makes us better people without carrying the painful emotion of being members of society who did not have to suffer this way or having to do anything about those who suffer this way every single day while living within 10 miles of us.

In the end, Foundas’ review, which is hardly a rave, reads like he faced the choice – is this edgy or is it a hot mess or something in between? – and decided to forgive the movie all of its trespasses because of its alleged realness. He swings from, "In her broad outlines, the character of Claireece Precious Jones risks sounding like the epitome of ghetto cliché," to "we understand how Precious’ story is, for all its commonalities with other abused black women, uniquely her own," all in the same paragraph. It's soooo unflinching!

He has that right. And so do you.

Precious is going to be discussed a lot over the next few months. So if you care about that discussion, you must see the film and you must decide for yourself. And even with my words in your head, if they are sticky, I am confident that you will decide for yourself based on pure emotion, which Daniels does know how to deliver. Perhaps you will be smitten. Perhaps you will be repulsed. But you are quite likely to feel strongly.

And there is something to be said for that, whichever way you feel. That is the inherent joy of cinema roulette, no?

The first film to successfully break the "open it the week before Thanksgiving" rule to great success was Disney's The Santa Clause, which opened on November 11 to $19.3 million and did 7.5 times that number ($144.8m) by the time it died shortly after New Years, as all these movies do. That result had a lot to do with how well-liked that particular movie was... but there was also an understanding that Christmas titles could start early than previously traditional.

Santa Clause 2 opened on November 1, push this even further, and did 4.8x opening. Santa Clause 3 opened Nov 3 and did 4.33x opening. Elf opened on Nov 7 and did 5.57x opening. The Polar Express opened Nov 10 and did 7.75x opening.

There are still some success stories opening later. Bad Santa, Christmas With The Cranks, and last year's Four Christmases all opened right on top of Thanksgiving and did well. But all three films also skewed a bit older than most other X-mas films.

Interestingly, the worst multiple for a Christmas film that would gross over $50 million domestic was Four Christmases' 3.87x... maybe they would have liked to have opened earlier, in retrospect.

So whatever does happen with A Christmas Carol this weekend, it's not too early to open it. And you can bet on the final domestic gross being somewhere between 4x opening and 6x opening.

Be a part of the phenomenon by getting YOUR NAME featured in the credits on the DVD!
Register your name HERE before Monday 11/9 at 12 Noon Pacific and your name will be featured on the DVD!

The release date of the DVD has not currently been set.

DAVID KAMINOW NAMED SONY PICTURES’
PRESIDENT, WORLDWIDE STRATEGIC MARKETING

CULVER CITY, Calif., November 5, 2009 – David Kaminow has been named president, Worldwide Strategic Marketing, it was announced today by Marc Weinstock, president, Sony Pictures Worldwide Marketing.

Kaminow will report to Weinstock and continue to oversee all worldwide theatrical market research efforts for the studio. In this newly created position, Kaminow will be integral in helping to create and implement a film's worldwide marketing platform and message for all divisions of the department. Additionally, Kaminow will work on film brand management and franchise evaluation for the worldwide marketing group.

Yesterday, the MPAA put out a release about a FCC filing they made about "SOC," which is Selectable Output Control. What's that? Basically, it would allow the studios to electronically disable outputs on TVs, DVRs, etc when they stream High Def images into your home. The purpose for this is to make home piracy a lot more difficult. It would also allow the studios - as you already see in many PPV offerings on both cable and satellite - to control the life of any filmed product in this category after it flows into your home.

So... if they decided to try to day-n-date the next Harry Potter, this would allow WB to sell one showing of the film, disallow DVR recording of any kind, as well as to disable the outputs of anything other than a HDMI cable from your cable/satellite box to the TV. Theoretically, it would also allow them to sell you a DVR-able delivery for a different price point... say, $10 to watch the movie once and $30 to DVR it right then and have it to watch whenever you like.

That said, unlike Hysteria Girl's misunderstanding (surely given to her by some other hysteric), this does not appear to be a major step towards day-n-date, but rather, a bit of MPAA bait-n-switch, giving the FCC an excuse to allow SOC, which is clearly not about expanding consumer options, but limiting them.

The thing is, for me, this is not objectionable. I believe that copyright must be protected in any way possible, regardless of the cost to the consumer. The relationship between the studios and the consumer should be determined in the marketplace, not by making studio self-protection illegal on the basis - as Public Knowledge seems to love to argue - of illegal piracy existing on the web, therefore somehow invalidating legitimate copyright standards... as in "Well... it's already out of control... illegal downloads can be found on the web on the day of release... so anarchy seems like the best choice moving forward."

I am no tech prude, but I continue to be stunned by how many smart people don't seem to understand that they are advocating burning down the village because there are homeless people and only by burning down the village can we all be equal.

Public Knowledge also doesn't seem to understand that the future of VOD for independent distributors - who are still just surviving with their VOD efforts and not thriving - is quite a different animal than it is ever likely to be with studios. Revenues from the theatrical release and DVD sell-thru of studio films are, with anything other than the weakest commercial product, many multiples of all but the very strongest independently distributed product. (In other words, there are exceptions on the high and low end, but 90%+ of the time, Indie revenues are a tiny slice of Studio revenues on each film.) So when PK writes, "The MPAA’s members should therefore follow in the footsteps of other studios that make their content available to MVPDs and DVD distributors simultaneously," they are either being disingenuous or ignorant.

Studios are scrambling, as DVD has turned softer, to figure out how to maximize all revenue streams and to understand just how much money is possible in each. The "answer" is whatever combination of delivery systems with whatever kinds of windows will portend the greatest amount of revenue for the majority of studio-level films.

Is it possible that we will see a scenario like the Harry Potter example I suggested above? Absolutely. A studio seeking a cash infusion - think Paramount 2009 or MGM - could find itself compelled to experiment in day-n-date on a wide release, critic unfriendly film - think GI Joe or Fame - on opening weekend, looking to generate potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in one weekend with reduced distribution costs for 3/4 or more of the revenue.

And getting back to Finkebaugh, yes, exhibitors would pass stones if this kind of experiment was coming, most likely considering a boycott of that film's theatrical? Yeah. And they would be making a big mistake, especially if the studio in question went forward anyway and generated multiples of theatrical opening weekend revenues without the 45% cut to exhibitors.

Exhibitors would be much better served to be embracing the idea of experimentation and therefore, positioning themselves to be effective in cooperation with the studios for the long digital future. It used to be that a movie of a stage show marked the end of the stage show's life cycle on stage... but the stage show of Chicago has made revenues that dwarf the grosses of the movie Chicago since the movie came out. Things change and no one really knows how the alchemy will work.

Personally, I think highly selective day-n-date could be workable, for studios and exhibitors. (More than 6 times a year and I think it will cannibalize revenues instead of enhancing them.) But I also think that studios have woken up, in the last couple of years, to the absolute value of theatrical as a major revenue stream and are not looking to "betray" exhibitors or, more importantly, to screw themselves by forgetting just how important theatrical exhibition is to their bottom line. The instinct to throw the baby out with the bathwater was seriously diminished when DVD sales - not rentals - started dropping off.

But again, I don’t think SOC and the excuses MPAA is making for wanting it to be allowed by the FCC have much at all to do with narrowing the theatrical release window. Nor is it about NetFlix. It is about getting firm control on the electronic post-theatrical universe that is filled with potholes, which include piracy, but are not exclusive to piracy by any means.

I have always argued that consumers are getting more used to freedom of use every year, from the VHS to the DVD to the DVR to the iPod and other electronics-to-go tools and that consumers would keep the studios from trying to re-set the pricing on all and any home delivery options to something higher. That effort, not the current state of piracy, is what hangs over the film industry like a music business cloud. This would be suicide, opening the door to a majority of people believing they had a right to steal content rather than to pay reasonable amounts.

But like I said above, this is something for the industry to work out through good old capitalistic instincts. And we see that all the time. I will be writing soon about the new push in Blu-ray for this holiday season as the studios try, aggressively, to push this incrementally more profitable disc delivery system forward. The 3D push is not about seeing movies in a new way – except for many of the artists involved – but about the premium ticket pricing that is the only way studios see to raise ticket prices significantly without getting slapped by the public.

See… they want DVD… they want theatrical… and, indeed, they want home delivery in every way they can make it work. And they may someday experiment on a studio level with day-n-date again.

But if you are falling for the “this is about day-n-date eating theatrical” spin that the MPAA is using as “consumer benefit,” thinking this is the primary issue here, you are falling for a classic MPAA-ism. Look here… while we make real changes over here.

Of course, in 2009, why would we expect people who call themselves journalists to actually understand what they are writing about before they post hysterical headlines?

Here is a pdf of the MPAA press release that went out yesterday, which you have likely seen elsewhere.

Here is the pdf of the actual letter from MPAA, that speaks to Public Knowledge quite a bit and which I have not seen anywhere else.

Here are the details for these Exciting Retail Exclusives

**Hollywood Video - Rent/Buy any Star Trek DVD and be entered to win an autographed poster of Uhura (Zoe Saldana).

**Transworld (FYE/Coconuts/Suncoast) - Collectible Steelbook packaging.

**Best Buy - Collectible Gift Set with four pack of badge pins.

**CVS - Consumer Offer. Buy $15 (or more) in itunes gift cards and get the DVD (single disc) for only $9.99 (First week only).

**Target - Limited Edition Collectible Starship Enterprise Packaging on both 2-Disc DVD and 3-Disc Blu-ray.

**Amazon.com - Star Trek Limited Edition Replica Gift Set (Three-Disc + Digital Copy) [Blu-ray]

CANADA
**Best Buy Canada - 3-Disc Special Edition Blu-Ray Collectible packaging – Easily assembles to become a Star Trek U.S.S. Enterprise DVD Package! (same as Target in the US).

**Future Shop - Exclusive 2 Disc Steelbook Edition and 3-Disc Blu-Ray Steelbook Edition.

**HMV - Limited Edition Blu-Ray Gift Set – includes Star Trek 3-Disc Blu-Ray set with Digital copy and Four Replica Starfleet Division Badges.

**Wal-Mart Canada - Exclusive Lenticular o-sleeve package on the Star Trek 2 disc DVD.

MCN linked to two Business Insider re-prints (apparently agreed to by the authors) that continue to misunderstand the most significant part of the future of delivery for studios... there is no reason for a middleman. Simple, huh?

Netflix? It's been a great run that has offered a paradigm shift that was needed by consumers... just like Blockbuster. But this rather bizarre notion that NetFlix has a big future as a distributor of content (as suggested here).

The first studio owned business to launch into the space is EPIX, which is "Viacom, Paramount, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios and Lionsgate." Right now, they are teamed with Verizon FiOS, but that's just the starter program. And while I do think there will be some teaming of companies in the long run, my guess is that it will be less and less... because the nature of the delivery systems will not require a complex infrastructure.

For the next decade - The Experimental Era - there will be partnerships and exclusives and a lot of dancing around how to maximize the base of potential subscribers. But that is a short-term issue, really. You will get content on all hardware, from cells to iPhones (and iPhone knock-offs) to computers to your very own TV that is internet enabled. It will happen.

And when it does, NetFlix will struggle for its existence in very much the same way Blockbuster does now. In fact, NetFlix's extinction is even more pressing because its concept does, indeed, lead to the next step. And when that next step comes, why would anyone pay NetFlix to manage the funnel... at least after The Experimental Era, during which I would expect at least one studio - perhaps all studios - to use the NetFlix platform for their experimentation.

This brings me to the other wrongheaded piece in Business Insider... The Movie Industry Needs To Stop Whining About Piracy And Embrace Digital.

Now, admittedly, the idiot claim that the studio film business is not more rangy in its tastes is because of piracy is as laughable as Dan Rayburn suggests. But, so is the idea that the film industry would be well served by simply giving consumers what they want when they want it at the price the prefer.

The collapse of release windows IS the collapse of the studio movie business. Period. Exclamation point.

I just can't repeat this often enough or loudly enough.

Studios are not afraid of the digital future primarily because of piracy. Piracy is the public whipping boy. And make no mistake... it is real. It is a big brick wall in the way of the expansion of the business into massively populated countries that have been used to cultural piracy as the norm since the dawn of VHS.

But that is going to be almost impossible to turn around.

What the studios can keep in check - and yes, even turn around a bit - is the system of release windows.

And why should they?

Because the post-theatrical window is heading towards and, as noted elsewhere, cannot be stopped from being defined by the demands of consumers. The Long Tail, in film and tv, means a severe and fiscally painful blurring of all the delivery systems and with it, all of the pricing on those delivery systems.

Technology has destroyed the idea of time itself in how people get filmed entertainment at home. Television seasons start and end whenever. Films are available forever on DVD, whether purchased or rented, streamed or watched on cable/satellite networks.

There are only two moments in which price point can be maintained... and if the industry isn't careful, they will collapse too... theatrical release and first post-theatrical release. $10 per ticket and $15 per disc (approximately).

After that, we ARE heading to a Redbox future. If you want to see something, pay the $1 and see it. Done and done. Even more so, I expect that we will see studios package - as with Epix - unlimited post-theatrical content for a monthly flat rate... $10 - $15.

But getting people to buy tickets to go sit in the dark at $10 a pop or to buy the hard copy of the DVD for $15 a pop... that is still and forever will be the holy grail... as it will forever be the highest per unit sale in the game. Even if it isn't where the largest percentage of income is created, it is a unique kind of income creation, the significance of which is overlooked only at the peril of businesses.

After that, it is an easy business. Any moron can give away content for a price so low that there is no price resistance and people can "have what they want when they want it."

Let's do the math. 30 million families paying $12 a month for all of Studio X's content delivered in every way imaginable is $360 million a month, $4.32 billion a year. And from there, the big issue is how much original content has to be created each year in order to keep the subscription base satisfied.

But there is more...

There is still revenue to be derived from free, ad-driven television delivery. There is still theatrical release. There is still DVD sell-through if that window is maintained. And there is pay-per-view for television and theatrical product on a pay-per-view basis.

It will be a tricky soup, balancing out consumer value versus cost of production. If your post-theatrical company isn't delivering The Dark Knight or Up or Slumdog Millionaire, will your subscribers churn?

Flip side, if you own The Dark Knight and it is available only on WPPTC (Warner Bros Post Theatrical Channel), it leaves a very large audience that, in theory, will be motivated to either buy WBPTC on a monthly basis or to purchase the DVD (which will be Blu-ray, regular DVD, and a download), since they can't see the film in post-theatrical otherwise.

Of course, there are problems. $12 per studio is $72 a month in premium channels (expect HBO to be Warners' channel, Showtime Paramount's, Encore's Disney or Universal, etc). Perhaps that's too pricey.

The upside, however, could be that the next-era American Idol keeps people on FoxNet in spite of a bad year for theatrical movies... and that a great year for movies keeps people on when the TV shows are lagging.

Anyway...

The most dangerous thing that the industry could do is to listen to guys like Rayburn and to crawl along with small and constant responses to technological advances and "what people want." It's not about what people want. That's the kind of thinking that content creators have... but we are all punks, financially. Neither Microsoft or Apple have given people "what they want." They tell us what we want, how we want it, and when we can pay (again) for the next generation.

Yes... the on-demand future is coming. But if you give people "what they want," there will be little new content of value to demand, as the cost of new production will become increasingly illogical. New content competition will drop away. And then, slowly build again.

There is something we can all recognize in our busy adult lives. If we don't find a reason to focus on content, we forget to focus on content. There are only so many hours in a day. Some shows can survive this... like Law & Order. Others cannot... like Heroes. And we know from YouTube what people tend to watch most widely when given a world of choices... bad soft-core porn and cats falling in toilets.

The "generous offer" note above was made by Fishbowl in response to the Facebook post.

Added Note, 4:47p - Carina Chocano, who joined the group just weeks before being fired by LAT, has apparently given up her slot. Her replacement, Betsey Sharkey, is not on the group's web site list of members and I don't know whether she applied for membership this summer or not. But Carina adds another number to the roster of those in the group who have lost their jobs in the last 18 months.