Even in the craziness of running around the city in high heels, I rediscovered my love of the West Village (did it ever really go away) and did want to post some pics (not mine) of the fabulous bistro that Steph (my work partner if you don't know her already) and I ate at the first night of our trip. It's called Cafe Cluny and was the perfect spot for two aspiring Parisians to enjoy the magic of the West Village while soaking up some quaint french ambiance and an hour of calm before three hectic days of meetings and events!

  Off on a theatre tangent I just went!  Anyway, we ended the night taking very touristy pics in Time Square on our walk back to our hotel at 49th and Lex...where we witnessed a bevy of drunken business men.  Really drunk.  One asked me if he looked like the end of the world.  I told him I'd already seen it and no, he looked nothing like it.  And on that note, I'll save the After Judgment team's adventures on The Temp Life and on the red carpet for my next post.  Thanks NYC! My feet may be sore but can't wait to see you again!  T

When it comes to online content though, I have changed the way I watch webseries, or any online videos in fact, to reflect a cost benefit analysis that modelmotion alluded to. "Time is the most valuable commodity and it should be respected and appreciated.  And, it does cost time to watch anything." I concur sir and I had neglected to think on that point. The hours and minutes of our day have not changed but the amount of content that is available to us has tripled...to the nth degree. I have very few hours these days to commit to entertainment, televised or online, so the competition for my attention, especially my undivided attention, is fierce. What gets it? Something that makes me feel something...'Glee' makes me giddy because I love to sing and perform, 'Fringe' satiates my love of conspiracy stories and scifi, 'Gossip Girl' makes me laugh because of the whip smart, pop culture dialogue and heightened Upper East Side world (plus my husband is obsessed with Blake Lively)...and what do they all have in common? A defined 'world' that is just a bit escapist and removed from own. Did you notice that I didn't have an online series listed? Yup, noticed that too. I try to watch as many webseries as I can, both to support the space and for research, but there really isn't one that I eagerly await a new episode to land. I enjoy The Guild but I don't connect with it (though many people do!)...I was much more invested in Dr. Horrible because of the misfit superheroes breaking into song world. I love re-watching our After Judgment season 1 episodes (and I'm not just saying that for promotions sake). The dystopic world that we created really resonates with me and I love the characters, just as I did when I first read the scripts and pushed to get it made, and I know there are those out there that feel the same. Compulsions is also something that, even thought I'm involved with, I have an authentic desire to know what happens. 

So how do my personal tastes and reflection on the currency of time play out in the Hulu argument? Taking into account a new variable, speed of access. You missed 'Lost' and you want to watch it the next day? Well ABC.com and Hulu will charge you for that immediate gratification. You want to download that episode so you can watch it on a plane or on your ipod at the gym, they will charge you even more. If you are okay with waiting 2 weeks (or whatever window is established), then you can watch it for 'free', just as you could have live. The Syfy website has different windows for when people can watch their shows online. Established shows like 'Sanctuary' and 'Ghost Hunters' have a week delay before you can watch but new shows, the shows they are trying to build audiences for, are available the next day. Makes basic sense, no? The pay to view option, however, is not there. On the flip side, Dr. Horrible was available for free the first three days after each episode's release and then moved to a pay to download situation (it ultimately becoming available for streaming on Hulu).  The strategy worked as the die hard Joss Whedon fans came first and then spread the word to the masses (and then the die hard fans came back to buy it on iTunes). Again as modelmotion pointed out, it comes back to simple supply and demand. 

How does this circle back to valuing independent online content? I stand by my conflicted observation that to be valued, we need to be 'good'...and competing on that level, established by million dollar episodic television, is tough. And money begets money. A bunch of us on Twitter were discussing Riese the Series yesterday. My feeling on the series is that it is beautifully shot and styled, the steampunk world is pretty darn cool (and it has the wardrobe and art direction to give it life) and there is an intriguing mythology being laid out, but the story is unravelling too slowly for me, especially considering the fact that the episodes are eight minutes long, where maybe two plot points are revealed, and there are two weeks between each episode. How can I be judgmental? Well because I read that the nine minute pilot cost $50,000 (!) and a scifi wire article pointed out the host of notable tv guest stars that will be showing up in future episodes. This tells me that the production has financiers behind it and the producers have strong connections into Vancouver's production scene, so I automatically raise my level of expectation. We shot the entire season of AJ for a fraction of this budget, guerilla style on the streets of LA. I shudder to think of what we could have achieved with that sort of budget and the man power that comes along with it. That being said, Riese has done an extraordinary job of creating a 'world' that is unique and enticing for an audience to venture into. It can compete for your time because it offers something distinctive, something that doesn't exist in mainstream entertainment. I smell a Sanctuary type move to the Syfy channel brewing. 

For the rest of us who don't have the connections (or aren't VC savvy enough) to raise some serious dough for our online content, the argument for 'being good' is still in full force. Compulsions could not have made their deal for exclusive front page placement on Daily Motion and the 80000 views that have come along so far, if it wasn't good. But what's also become apparent to me is being unique. We talk about interactivity and online community, etc etc. but I'm seeing that occurring for shows which bring a unique world and experience to the space.  With the web, you can really 'enter' the world; you have more than just the video content but the site itself and its ancillary content, it's forums, its fan fiction, to differentiate and sweeten the experience. (Even though it's a multi-channel site, Daily Motion does it well by having it's front page (ie. the header and the wallpaper) dedicated to the headliner, even if there are 20 other videos on the page as well.) But there is that funding issue again...it costs money to create that portal into your show's unique world. 

Finally, with the traditional Hollywood system crumbling, more writers, directors, producers and actors will look to the web as a viable launching pad for their product. They know that they will have to prove themselves first online, where the cost and thus risk is lower before ascending onto the hallowed television or even movie platform. I know this because established producers, people I used to work with back in my William Morris days, are now coming to me for advice. They want to sit down, discuss how they can take all their projects in development and adapt them into a something that is fit for the web. They know this to be the future of entertainment but they have no idea how to do tackle it. This means that we have to either partner up or get better fast, because the regular Hollywood folks will learn how to turn their good idea into something viable for the web and the studios will want to green light that product first before ours. But then again, that means that better original content will start hitting the web and with it, an audience potentially willing to 'subscribe' to it. 

What is your time worth? What shows are worth your time, let alone your money? How do you see this playing out? Share your thoughts as I'd really like to know...

The first one that I want to tackle (in potentially a few posts) is currency for content, or valuing art as a commodity and not a right. People (including myself) were recently a twitter about Hulu announcing that they would soon start charging for content. Hooray went some, but most booed in revolt. The portal that we have come to rely on in our busy lives when we forget to TiVo 'Fringe', or suddenly want to rewatch on an old season 'Sliders' and the red envelopes of Netflix don’t come fast enough (or aren’t available for streaming), suddenly will have a barrier to entry. I don’t know what form of subscription the joint studio powers that run Hulu will set up for their revered portal, but it will definitely require your credit card. But as many argue, we watch the ads right? Why should we also have to pay for the show as well? I think the question is why do we think we shouldn’t? It’s a service and we’re consuming a product. Isn’t it that simple? Why do we expect content on the web to be free? How did we get here?

I believe we have a disconnect with our Art. When I speak of art, I’m not referring to the abstract painting in the gallery; if you wish to take the painting home and enjoy it, you know you have to buy it. The art I speak of is the mainstream entertainment we consume on a daily basis: television and films (and in extension web series videos). Think of the system to which we adhere. You turn on your television, click through a hundred channels (that you pay Direct TV or Time Warner a fixed amount every month for), watch your desired show, while basically ignoring or at least fast forwarding through the commercials, and then turn it off. After a long day at work, it’s our capitalistic right to zone out in front of the TV and be moderately entertained. The average person has no idea the time, money and manpower that goes into producing just one hour of televised, scripted entertainment (or the amount of cameramen and editors it takes to spit out an hour of reality programming). Here’s the kicker though: The next day, in a time when no one’s job is secure and your retirement fund has shrunk, you open Vanity Fair, or click on Us Weekly’s website...what do you see? You see pictures of those actors you watched on TV the night before living an extraordinary life. They are rich and privileged, running around the palm treed playground that is LA, in their Range Rover, sipping their Coffee Bean. That movie star who you paid the equivalent of 2 Vanilla Ice Blendeds to watch in his newest action flick is caught canoodoling with a new piece of arm candy at his Tuscan villa or sharing a meal with his equally rich actor friends (because all famous actors are friends right?) at your favorite celeb chef's newest restaurant. Even the new ‘indie’ star has a spread in the LA Times and just walked the red carpet at the Venice Film Fest. The space between, that space between creating the ‘art’ (or at least the Hollywood version of it) and our consumption of it is diluted, filtered and most importantly vast. 

I can’t tell you the amount of people that have commented to my parents how well I must be doing as I have a commercial running ‘she must be set for life’- yes they actually say ‘set for life’. Outside the shiny (albeit crumbling) walls of Hollywood, the rest of the world assumes that if you are on TV, if you are in a movie, you must be rich. How you got that way is of no concern or interest to them, except that if you made it into their living room or on the big screen it must be so. 

BTW: After reading a lot of online reviews...you movie bloggers are all guys....and a lot of the good tv bloggers are women...hmmm...interesting. 

I saw New Moon opening day (though not at midnight), and was pretty excited to slip back into the rain soaked, angst filled world of Stephenie Meyer's supernatural take on Romeo and Juliet...this time helmed by Chris Weitz. I've read New Moon a few times and was really looking forward to it coming to life on the big screen, especially the chapter when (SPOILER) Edward broke up with Bella and left her in the woods. I honestly had a viseral, physical reaction to that scene when I read it on a plane to NY for Thanksgiving a year ago. I think I actually clutched my chest and my eyes tears up. It makes me laugh thinking about it, but as a writer, I am also in awe that Ms. Meyer's simplistic prose made me feel so much. 

Well, sadly the movie made me feel very little, well except perhaps frustration. The part that New Moon plays in Twilight's success is pretty clear cut to me. Establish Bella and Edward's fantastical soul mate connection (while explaining some key backstory elements integral to the future of the series), then rip it apart, then put it back together under some high stakes situations and lush scenery. Throw in a good ol' fashion 'other man' who happens to be a werewolf and Bam! you have a fun film that could appeal to fans and non fans alike. But no, for the sake of playing time, it seems like Chris Weitz and Summit felt it unimportant to flesh out Bella and Edward's relationship at the beginning of the film for the sake of high octane action scenes of werewolves and vampires fighting and chasing each other in the second act. We had one 'let's hit you over the head with the literary symbolism' relationship scene in a classroom while the two watched Romeo and Juliet, a moody birthday scene, and then we were right in the woods with Edward leaving. Couple this lack of set up with Kristen's unmoving performance in the forest, and anguished (painful) nightmare screams soon after, and I was already sighing (and wishing I had been on set to coach the actors). I can't imagine what an un-indoctrinated viewer would have felt in watching it. 

Jacob, ie. Taylor Lautner, was one, if not the only, highlight of the film for me. Not being a tweener, the appeal of Taylor doesn't exist for me- he's just too young. But except for a few one dimensional scenes from him at the beginning, I really came to enjoy his presence on the screen and the scenes between Taylor and Kristen were by far the most honest and believable. Robert Pattinson's Edward, however, fell completely flat for me. At least in the first film, Edward had a degree of warmth and likability, even if he was constantly keeping his monstrous inclinations in check with pained looks. Edward was down right unlikable in this film (though still a treat to look at, unless he had that twingey, constipated look going on). He was painfully stoic and sullen and lost whatever inner sparkle he had in Catherine Hardwick's version. Other lacking elements of the film for me? The CGI of the werewolves, the 'visions' of Edward, the poor ADR in the Bella/Jake scene in the rain, the overwrought, fantasy epic type score and of course Alice's 'vision' of Edward and Bella running through the forest, looking like Hansel and Gretel. The things I did like? The supporting actors, especially Billy Burke, Anna Kendrick and Michael Sheen, the 'slo-mo' fight scene with the Volturi, Peter Facinelli's performance, the cliff diving scene and how they made the parking lot at the school look the same as in the first Twilight (even though they were shot at two different places so I appreciate that type of continuity). 

But enough of the review- there are countless reviews out there tearing the movie to shreds and countless others, from mostly fangirls, screaming it's praises. So why do I chose to write about it? Because I want to see it again. Don't be a hater, but seriously, I do see myself going to the theater again and plunking down my $12 for another viewing. Why? I honestly have no friggin' clue. Why did my mom call me at 10:45pm to find out how it was as she has now read all the books and seen the first movie twice? I have no idea either. But I really need to figure it out. 

Is it as simple as our genetic code compelling us to reprise the archaic role of a damsel in distress who wishes to be rescued by a handsome yet flawed (ie. a stalker and control freak) creature that worships us for eternity and who actually loves foreplay? Or are we at the mercy of a larger scheme by movie studios and publishing houses using mass vertical integration in their marketing reach and a salacious gossip hook on whether Rob and Kristen's relationship is real? Do women really need fictional characters to fulfill their romantic ideals? And are those that revere the books and the films being unfairly criticized in the media for having those unfulfilled needs? Men aren't chastised for wanting entertainment full of explosions and boobs, so why are so many Twilight 'moms' being harshly attacked for their fandom? Does the power of the female ticket buyer now threaten the Hollywood machine? Rick Ross and Bob Iger apparently are mandating that studios adjust their slate to reflect the power of the woman so change is on the horizon. 

 The best article I have read on these topics was penned by Annie Petersen (an article I found through following @proggrrl). She hit the nail on the head regarding the legitimization of the female audience and how, at the same time, that legitimization is being undermined by gender criticism. 

New Moon having the biggest opening day EVER has far reaching ramifications whether you want it to or not. It is, at best, a mediocre movie but it has wooed millions and millions of women across the world. It's opening comments on the psyche of the female population and their purchasing power. It comments on the themes of love and romance, or lack there of, in a post 80's/90's wonder women era where we have learned that you can't have it all. Or maybe it's just a book penned by a lonely stay at home Mormon mom who was an average looking seventeen year old with fantasies about love and a vampire...that a whole lot of women and girls simply relate to. But it just can't be that simplistic. Regardless, it's worth exploring as the entertainment that will be offered up to you in the coming years will have been affected by The Twilight Saga's success. 

Check out Anne's article and of course feel free to comment if you think you have something crazy or constructive to say. Tomorrow brings a Twilight free post about Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Paid Content! 

Finally back on track with some new media posts. 

Later Skaters... 

T

(picture courtesy of www.robert-pattinson.co.uk)

So in advance of 'New Moon' opening this Friday and my 5pm adventure with 'Oz Girl's' Shanrah Wakefield to see it in all of its sparkling glory, I look back fondly to a post I wrote a year ago...before I had read the book(s), seen the movie, had the CD on repeat in my car...before I went down that 'Twilight hole'.  So enjoy...and I'll see if the movie and all the hoopla around it prompts a new theory on the draw of the vampire and the state of the female psyche...after all it did partly inspire a new project of mine that is still underwraps...

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow- TMI you say! All my budding credibility as a creative voice just vanished, like a vamp in direct sunlight. But alas, it's true, I am addicted to the vampire genre and I have been for a long time. But I had a brilliant idea today (which hopefully will be fleshed out as a new project, sooner rather than later) that made me really look at my fondness for the fare. And I think I might have discovered the root of it all: It's really, actually, a very simple thought. The romantic desire for the perfectly flawed man: the male vampire hero. Think about it...I'll let the thought stew for a minute and reminisce before returning to it. But just so you know, I'd like to figure out (at least so this piece has a function and isn't completely reflective) a) What does he (it) represent and b) what role does he (it) play in our generation's narrative. (I add 'it' because technically 'he' is not alive of course).

When I was a child, I had an extremely over active imagination and would have an impossible time trying to fall asleep. My parents would turn out the light and I would suddenly be plunged into a terrifying, paralyzing darkness where I would tug the sheets above my head, shielding the opening with an army of stuffed animals, and basically mummifying my body (perhaps that explains it all- I was oxygen deprived as a child) so that nothing from the world of the unknown could get at me. My most vivid fear, besides the clown in the closet from 'Poltergeist' and the worm/parasite thing in the ear from the second 'Star Trek' movie, was of vampires. My third eye would rise from under the sheets and watch in horror as an evil, wraith of a non-human would glide towards my bed, looking to feed. I would hold my breath and lie so still so that it would think I was already dead (again the lack of oxygen thing). It was awful. But I honestly can't remember where I derived that fear from (and I've wracked my brain on that one) as I was under strict lock down from the parentals when it came to watching horror movies (though obviously I was able to sneak in a few of them) as they had an early inkling that my imagination wasn't exploring worlds of rainbows and unicorns (though "The Last Unicorn" was the best movie!!).

So how did I go from such paralyzing fear to such unadulterated fanship? I think I made the transition to tweenhood (I hate the word puberty so couldn't use it in a non-parenthesized sentence) and started liking boys. I started watching the Canadian TV series "Forever Knight" and seeing the movie "Lost Boys". Suddenly, vampires were sexy, forbidden, and the cool kids, or they were saving damsels in distress from evil mob bosses. Did you ever watch "Forever Knight"? It was a fantastic show that starred Geraint Wyn Davies (born in the same Welsh town as Catherine Zeta Jones btw) as police detective, Nick Knight, an 800 year old vampire. I didn't quite know at the time why I was so drawn to this show as I was supposed to be watching '90210' and 'Melrose Place', but something about the flashbacks to Nick's adventures in 15th Century Italy, the forbidden budding romance between him and the mortal doctor trying to reverse his 'condition' and his explosions of vampire power during the pinnacle fight scenes where he was saving the day (or night as it had to be) were intoxicating. He was such a flawed yet engaging hero. Now that I think about it, it's so obvious. Two of my favorite TV vampire characters, Mick from 'Moonlight' (passionate fan base) and Angel from, well if you don't know who he is then you probably aren't still reading this post, are just reincarnations of the same character. They are both private investigators, love a mortal, ass kicking girl, can't act on their feelings, but swoop in and save the day- fangs bared- before retreating back into their solitary, loner world (after giving their love a longing glance). Yumm! No need for "Days of Our Lives" here! I just dig a misunderstood loner who is all sensitive to women's needs as he's been around the block for 600 years and has finally learned from all his mistakes. So with that thought, throw in Bill from "True Blood", and Louis from "IWTV". Lots of members of the romantic vampires club. And not only are they reluctant heroes, but these vamps declare their vulnerabilities and must embrace them- no sunlight for them and don't pass the holy water. They want to return to the land of the living and give up immortality for their fair haired maiden, but when things get tough, that sentimentality goes straight out the window and mr. bad ass comes out swinging- inhuman strength, speed and stylish mayham on a plate- saving the day in the process.

OK, now I'm becoming a little self conscious about what I'm writing as it just seems like I've dropped myself into the crazy world usually populated by comic con attendees, airport romance novel fans and those who will indeed stand in line for 5 days in advance of the Twilight release (because I am very different from them, please believe me). But, my basic discovery serves a point. The vampire is our generations Mr. Darcy. Jane Austen had to illuminate Mr. Darcy's dark side by throwing him into fits of...silence. Silence? Well, rudeness too, he would be abrupt and rude to Lizzie as he didn't want to show his true feelings for her. And he was unattainable because he was rich and wasn't supposed to marry beneath his class. Well, OK. Those reactions to puppy love aren't too exciting in the 21st century and class boundaries don't really hold up anymore, but ancient gypsy curses and the need to feed on human blood certainly do! Vampires are just a big old manifestation of our need for romance. Of the unattainable kind.

I'm going to end this post on that note, but also note that there are lots of vampire movies and shows that I'd love to explore from a digital blogger and writer's perspective (let me know if you have any requests). I may even go see 'Twilight' and write about it, even if I haven't read the books. Be back soon.

All Things T

The phrase November 11th has always held great meaning to me.  As I sit here in front of my desk, the LA sky overcast and gloomy, I travel back to my days as a child, growing up in Vancouver.  It was also usually overcast and gloomy, but the air cut with a frigid wind and often a drizzle of rain.  I also remember pea coats and poppies.  The pea coats would be worn by a host of elderly gentlemen who entered the school gymnasium, and the poppy would be worn by everyone else, pinned to the v-neck bright blue sweater that was part of our school uniform, and the cardigan sweaters of our teachers. There would be readings, there would be hymns sung, and the gentlemen at the front of the room would be honored, by a hundred usually chatty adolescents. Something held our attention.