Media

 

boobage.jpg

South Park driving onto freeway

by David Holtzman

It's interesting to watch as media and production companies continue to experiment with business models to figure out how to best maximize usage of the Internet.

The latest is South Park. Parker and Stone, the creators, have opened up a beta site with every episode of South Park available for streaming viewing (and I think, eventually download). They even have last night's episode, for instance (a tribute to the movie Heavy Metal).

The streaming videos have ads that can't be skipped, which is annoying to me, but probably okay for many people. I sort of think that this is the future--some kind of YouTube-like service, where the producer can embed ads.

I'm a big fan of the show and of course, it's roots were digital...an Internet viral video featuring Santa Claus and Jesus fighting.

and hey, it's free.

PS. They have a make-your-own avatar function. Here's mine:
South_Park_Portrait.jpg

Posted on March 27, 2008

bughug.jpg

Bugged by celebrities

by David Holtzman

Isabella Rossellini is starring and directing in a series of 8 2-5 minute shorts called Green Porno. Each of these bit videos is designed for small screens such as cell phones. The films themselves are based on insect sex; each one shows Isabella as a male insect mounting a female bug of the same species.

Ms. Rossellini is a veteran film star and the daughter of Ingrid Bergman, the femme fatale from Casablanca.

Not having seen the films, I can't comment on the contents, although I guess that I can imagine it well enough.

But this kind of property along with other highly entertaining, short videos like Will Ferrell's "Landlord" videos are perfect for the exploding world of video-capable mobile gadgetry such as cell phones, iphones, ipods and ultralight laptops.

Expect these celebrity-driven videos to flourish in the next few years. They put money (if any) directly into the pockets of the talent, they're probably satisfying to create and most importantly they begin the ultimate process of disintermediating the terminally ill media distribution companies that have been frantically clutching at legal IVs and technological wonder remedies to self-heal their dying business model.

Posted on February 12, 2008

ciscocleavage.jpg

Being entertained by Cisco

by David Holtzman

Cisco is adding social networking colors to its palette. Their newly-announced EOS (Entertainment Operating System) is a service play aimed at media companies. Although details are sketchy, the technology appears to be have the capability of building communities with social-networking tools as well as presumably, some kind of load-balancing capabilty, since that's a core area of the company's expertise.

It will be interesting to see if they build specialized hardware boxes that are optimized for this kind of social traffic.

Posted on December 14, 2007

beverlyfamilyguy.jpg

Retro television replication

by David Holtzman

The writer's strike is still on--yawn. Television has gotten progressively worse over the last few decades. Why were the TV series from the '60s so memorable even when they were horrible than today's shows? Comedies like Green Acres, The Beverly Hillbillies and the Munsters were silly, not really very funny and had some memorable characters that were complete and utter stereotypes. Yet, Gen X and Gen Y are just as familiar with the shows as were their parents. By contrast, today's network television content is completely unmemorable. Even the most popular shows like Everyone Likes Raymond has become a joke where the punchline is that no intelligent person admits to having ever watched it.

Were the 60's shows "better" because the actors were accomplished stage and screen personalities like Buddy Ebsen, Yvonne DeCarlo and Eddie Albert as opposed to underwear ad children who get the job first, then take acting classes? Is it because the '60s was the era of nostalgia where every shirt, song and show is constantly mined by Gen Y for fashion trendiness?

The content was different, for one thing. The comedies were played straight up, absent the self-referential sniggering that's common to today's shows. Today's dramas are perhaps too serious and seek to emulate big ticket movies instead of the simple escapist fare that was the Fugitive, Mission Impossible or God forbid, Hawaii 5-0.

IMHO, there are only two decent hunks of programming on television. Witty animated series like the Simpsons, Family Guy, Robot Chicken and the Venture Brothers and anything from HBO. HBO has consistently provided the best programming for a decade. The Sopranos and Deadwood rank with the best drama that has ever appeared on TV.

So, what does the future hold for television? Collaborative content and reality programming seem faddish, but I could be wrong. Will the Internet become more than a distribution mechanism and become an alternative entertainment media for full-length, big budget entertainment? Enquiring minds want to know. I expect to see high-quality programming move into pay channels sans advertising, following the HBO example, but surprisingly, it hasn't happened yet.


Posted on December 12, 2007

Mushroom clouds to minges--digital fakery

by David Holtzman

Boingboing has a link to a highly amusing video (link above) that a couple of Czech funny guys slipped into an automated landscape panoramic shot featured on state-run television. As the camera slowly slides across the bucolic countryside, we see something scary in the distance. Priceless video.

So this is why you can't believe video or pictures anymore. If this a joke by amateurs, imagine what a professional working for an intelligence agency could do. If that bit of simulation doesn't convince you, check out this article in TMZ discussing the problems with fake vaginas for the new movie "Knocked Up"

Posted on June 19, 2007

Once_upon_america2.jpgtony.jpg

Once upon a time in new jersey

by David Holtzman

The last episode of the terminal show of the final season of the Seasons played on Sunday and upset a lot of people.

SHOW SPOILER COMING UP

The viciously crazy Phil Leotardo finally gets whacked at a gas station, ending the short-lived gang war. Tony visits the completely senile Junior at the asylum then sits down at his favorite restaurant as his family comes in one at a time, sits and munches on onion rings. As the last one, Meadow, comes in, Tony looks up, the camera cuts to a number of suspicious people milling around the restaurant and then the screen goes completely black. Was Tony and family killed? Were they about to be picked up by undercover FBI agents? Was it a dream? Was it just another normal dinner presented in a surreal manner? I have a theory, which I'll toss out in a minute.

The media-interesting part of all this is how upset Americans are at a lack of closure in this 7 year series. I've been reading numerous blogs and news articles and there is a river of anger flowing at David Chase, the series creator, because of the ambiguity.

Who cares? Life isn't neat, plays don't end neatly nor do many great movies, so why must television show wrap up in a ridiculously tidy way?

I thought the last episode was brilliant and intellectually responsible. It would have undermined the integrity of the whole show to have the last episode devolve into a treacly, good-natured, end-of-MASH finale type show ("Ah Paulie, I'll miss you too...write me once a while, capisce?")

My theory(s). The likeliest one is that Tony was just killed. Someone walked behind him and put a bullet into his head and the black is what he would perceive, as Bobby speculated in the boat to Tony several shows before.

My more complicated theory is one that I haven't read anywhere else, but here it goes. The wonderful Sergio Leone movie, Once Upon a Time in America, ends in a very similar manner. Robert DeNiro, as Noodles, the Jewish gangster leans back at the end of the movie on an opium bed and laughs. Was he about to be killed as there were armed men nearby trying to do exactly that? Or was it a signal that he was dreaming the last half hour of the movie in an opium dream (he smoked some earlier in the movie in the same den). So, what if the Sopranos ending was the same kind of thing? Three episodes before, Tony went to Vegas and ate peyote with one of Christopher's ex-girlfriends. Perhaps everything after that was a hallucination. A supporting thought is that in the last few episodes, Tony acts likes a surprisingly nice guy (by his standards). He doesn't get mad, is supportive of his family while those around him act like fantasy satires in Tony's mind. Dr. Melfi drops him because she sees him as a criminal sociopath, Carmella becomes a shrewd self-serving harpy, AJ gets his life together over night, Meadow decides to go back to law school. After Bobbie dies, Tony is a supportive brother to Janice, which is a series first. Paulie returns to being a lovable kook as Tony sees him instead of the volatile psychopath that we all see. So maybe it was a peyote dream, full of wish-fulfillment and triggered by lingering guilt over his killing of his nephew.

Posted on June 13, 2007

YouTube on boob tube

by David Holtzman

boobtube.jpg
Apple TV is going to be featuring YouTube videos starting next month. This is very cool because it is the first commercially viable fistula in the blood-brain barrier between television and the Internet. Depending on how they implement this (ie; filter the content), something topical posted on the 'Net could pop up on televisions all across the world.. Sure, the tv is lit up by broadbrand connections, not satellite signals, onair broadcasts or cable, but who cares?

I wonder what they will do with slanderous material? Say funny Hillary Clinton videos? Damned if they do, damned if they don't. Censorship is a never-ending process. So is litigation.

Posted on May 31, 2007

The Sopranos

by David Holtzman

sopranos.jpgThe Sopranos is finishing up its sixth and final season and it's riveting television. It grabs you because the plot is completely subordinate to character. The web is full of speculation about who gets whacked, but everyone is arguing within the framework of the Soprano's World. It takes some pretty fine writing and directing to get millions of viewers to buy into this setup...like a Godfather or Apocalypse Now movie that keeps going on beyond the first three hours.

Can the Internet ever do this? Well, yes. In theory, the Internet is way better suited for this kind of deep character submersive entertainment than TV ever was. There are three reasons that the Internet is fundamentally superior to television for an immersive experience:

Linking
On the Internet, you can link information, which allows the viewer to choose the "focal depth" of the information, chasing the nitty and gritty as deep or shallow as they wish.

Time-Shifting.
The Internet can also be a time machine, because it does not have to play sequentially from the beginning to the end. For instance, a web-based show (non-streaming), could be restored to a particular "state" of time by the viewer, similar to hitting the pause key on a Tivo.

Collaboration.
One last thing that the Internet could do quite well would be to apply social networking or collaboration to entertainment. I believe that American Idol is a primitive beginning of collaborative entertainment.

I look forward to the first Sopranos on the Web.

Posted on April 25, 2007

Keeping your head online

by David Holtzman

pez.jpg
The Washington Post has an article this morning about how Mexican drug cartels are using the Internet in a highly sophisticated way. Among other things, they have been posting videos of killed or tortured enemies on Youtube and other video sites as both a deterrence and as bragging rights. Decapitation and autopsy videos are shown with voice overs warning traitors not to trait and presumably kids to not try this at home.

The anonymity of the Internet coupled with the powerful reach of even a simple website, (let alone a leviathan like Youtube) creates this capability--the option to disseminate multimedia of highly charged video that would almost certainly be censored by most governments or their regulated media lapdogs. And this isn't the only case like this--remember the mideast decapitations popping up after the very public killing of reporter Danny Pearl? BTW, I just looked with Google and found that the Pearl video is still out there--I won't publish the link.

What's it mean? It means that the Internet is the greatest source for mass propaganda ever created. Whether said salesjobs are terrorist recruiting or commercial advertising from Disney is simply a matter of degrees and orientation. The only saving grace is that it will always be possible for dissenting messages to also be aired, implying that the future will be some sort of game where we are like ping pong balls, perpetually caroming off opposing messages, flying from one side to the other based on the strength and the spin. I can't wait.

Posted on April 09, 2007

Ayatollahs of the Internet

by David Holtzman

ayatollah.jpg
Several media sites are reporting that Microsoft has been requesting that third parties "edit" several Microsoft-related Wikipedia entries to make it more favorable for them. This process, which is a variation of "astroturf", (fake grass roots), seems to be unethical, given the new morality of the Internet. The theory behind these collaborative sites, like Wikipedia, is that each entry is the result of a spontaneous gesture by an uncompromised third party, spurred on by a genuine desire to enighten and share with others.

I think that's crap. Everyone has an axe to grind. Although many people genuinely write reviews of books and movies, products or technology, from a love of sharing, many do not. And all of those who are biased are not necessarily astroturfers working for evil PR firms. Many netizens have hate-hate relationships with people, companies and even operating systems, and will go out of their way to trash their targets every chance they get, regardless of the subject. I've been the target of attacks like these several times over the years as have several other writers that I know. How are these little Ayatollahs of the Internet any different than slick willy PR Geeks? Read Slashdot sometime with a sensitivity towards a priori hate and nastiness and you'll see what I mean.

There was a popular bumper sticker in the '60s labelled "QUESTION AUTHORITY". I encourage people to apply that sentiment to what anyone writes on the Internet, especially on Wikipedia, human naturehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft being what it is. The problem of validating quality on the Internet is poised to become a big one, IMHO.

BTW, if anyone looks up the Microsoft Wikipedia entry as of this morning, they will see this on the right hand sidebar describing the company:


Microsoft Copulation
Type Public (NASDAQ: MSFT)
Founded Albuquerque (April 4, 1975)[1]
Headquarters Redmond, Washington, USA
Key people Salman Mohamed, Co-founder

Posted on January 23, 2007

Porn again

by David Holtzman

22porn.600.jpg
There's a scene in the MGM musical, Singing in the Rain, where a silent screen diva tries to make the transition to talkies and with cameras and sound equipment rolling, opens her mouth and out comes a squeaky, Betty-Boopsish voice. Technology often is the harbinger of artistic change as this particular example illustrates.

Now on to Hi-Def TV. The New York Times has an article this morning pointing out how many porn stars are not making the cut to HD, because they have physical imperfections that are illustrated all too clearly in the higher resolution format.

The actresses interviewed for the article discuss the strategies that they are employing to get around this "in-your-face" problem. Many are getting cosmetic surgery to remove or bleach out tiny imperfections. Some are being told to diet and exercise more. Others are using sexual positions that don't show the problems.

Regardless, this issue will eventually make it's way to mainstream Hollywood, triggering another culling of the ranks of the already beautiful people who must soon be blemishless.

As a side note, Sony's just-announced decision to not mass-produce Blu-Ray porn is another terrible decision on their part. Ignoring a $3 and-a-half billion a year industry is bad business when you're fighting a standards war.

Posted on January 22, 2007

Dick in a box

by David Holtzman

21sket.190.jpg
Venerable old late-night creaker, Saturday Night Live (SNL) has shown a little life in the last year or so. In the past, they've revitalized the show by changing the cast and even then, by specific one-man wrecking crews like Eddie Murphy, Will Ferrell or Mike Myers. This time, it's due to the machinations of funny man Andy Samberg who has added digital sketches to the show which are often distributed on YouTube, where they have garnered huge amounts of online accolades in the only appropriate manner--downloads.

Last year's "Lazy Sunday" video showing Samberg and Chris Parnell rapping about the Chronicles of Narnia while eating cupcakes started the trend, quickly followed by heavily-bleeped rap video starring Natalie Portman.

The NY Times
has a story today rightly pointing out the trend-setting nature of another SNL short that was aired on Saturday starring Samberg and Justin Timberlake. This video called "Dick in a box", talks about what the two gentlemen have gotten their women for Christmas (hint: it's in a box). On the show, they bleeped the word "dick." But NBC, for the first time in broadcast history, side-stepped the censors by placing the unexpurgated version of the sketch on Youtube where it has been extremely popular.

This is fascinating stuff. Since the FCC as no jurisdiction over the Internet, broadcast TV can sidestep regulation on the Internet, the way Howard Stern did by going to satellite. I predict wide-spread usage of the tactit during the next broadcast year, making YouTube even bigger than it ever was before.

Posted on December 21, 2006

15 Minutes of editing fame

by David Holtzman

banana.jpg
By way of Boing Boing and Cory Doctorow, a truly fascinating YouTube video: a recut of Mary Poppins as a horror movie. Seriously. You really have to see this.

The advent of cheap 'n easy digital media equipment has made it all too easy to record videos, sound and pictures as has been mentioned here and elsewhere, but let's not forget the increased ability to edit. As long as IP lawyers don't make it too difficult, editing can create new art from old content and 15 years of hiphop sampling shows.

I believe that new art forms based on digital sampling and editing are our future (or at least for the next several decades). Andy Warhol anticipated this in 2D, using conventional techniques, but now the technology exists for us to get the whole banana.

Posted on December 06, 2006

Future reporters--big taters and little tots

by David Holtzman

tater tots.jpg
The Post has an article today about how the Gannett newspaper chain is trying to reinvent themselves as a wideflung, distributed local paper. They are doing this by using technology to push their reporters out in the field with digital appliances to report in real-time, both for the print and the web editions. Newspapers increasingly feel that they need to have rapidly updating websites, and who knows? They're probably right.

Some papers are pushing the edge even further by enlisting amateurs to snap pix and take videos.

This has dangerous ramifications for as Michael Richards found out last week, someone always has a camera these days.

It was bad enough from a privacy perspective when the big potato newspapermen made decisions to let the newsworthiness of their story trump any thoughts of individual privacy rights. The Geraldos of the world get away it because they have big lawyers.

But what about the little taters, the local reporters that have been newly empowered with their digital cameras, laptops and mileage allowance? And what about the amateurs, the tater tots? I suspect that these wannabe journalists will not even consider the privacy rights of their targets because success for the observer trumps privacy for the observed every time.

Posted on December 04, 2006

The killer speaks

by David Holtzman

oj.jpg
OJ Simpson is going on Fox News later this month to do a two-part interview where he will speculate on how he hypothetically might have killed his wife and Ron Goldman, although he says he didn't. The interview is timed with the release of his new book, "If I did it...". I would guess that the book is about the obvious.

It's been 12 years since the sensational killing, the Bronco chase, Kato Kaelin and the trial of the century. OJ was acquitted, although he was convicted later in a civil suit for the killings and ordered to pay $33.5 million --which he has not yet done. In the interim, OJ has played golf around the world and hosted the incredibly tasteless show "Juiced", similar to Ashton Kutcher's "Punk'd", where OJ confronts people around the country in odd circumstances, scaring the bejeezus out of them because, well, he's OJ. In one particularly notorious episode, he tries to sell a White Bronco on a car lot, touting its escapability.

Fox has finally crossed the line with this OJ interview. It's disgraceful that this man is all but a self-confessed killer of two and continues to make money from it. Reality programming aside, this is an all-time low, even for Fox, who would probably air expose specials on the day of Armageddon, even as their skin started to burn.

The legal system has spoken. OJ is not guilty of criminal charges. But we all know better, don't we? Culturally we should not allow him to make another penny from the notoriety that he gained as a killer. Watching the Fox special would be like watching Jeffrey Dahmer competing on the Iron Chef.

Posted on November 16, 2006

Trial by tabloid

by David Holtzman

jonbenet.jpeg
JonBenet Ramsey's killer may have been caught this week in Thailand. John Mark Karr, a 41-year old father of three children, confessed to Thai police. He had been a subject of interest in the ten year old police inquiry in recent months because of letters that he had written to a documentary producer who had specialized in the case.

What's most interesting about this case is that Ramsey's parents were virtually tried in the media. The South Park crew came close to outright accusing them and the implications were front and center in tabloids for the better part of the decade. Like OJ, many people believed that the Ramseys killed their own child, regardless of any evidence indicating that this was so.

The Ramseys seemed to be less-than-sterling parents. The beauty pageant shots of their daughter were creepy to the extreme--almost boudoir shots. We wanted to believe that people that pimped their daughter up like that were guilty of darker sins, like murder.

But apparently they weren't. If Karr is convicted, they will be exonerated (Mrs. Ramsey died of cancer earlier this year).

As the Internet and the blogosphere take their rightful place as the village drums in our society, we, as individuals, need to do what the media collectively has proven to be incapable of--exercising restraint in rushing into judgement on the guilt or innocence of tabloid celebrities. It will be so much easier now for this kind of rumor brushfire to start, because now we all have matches. I no more believe newspaper speculation than I trust the President's opinions on WMDs in Iraq.

(Although I still think OJ did it)

Posted on August 17, 2006