$$$

There have been several relatively large Hollywood productions shooting in my area recently, including Jackie Chan's Shanghai Noon and Texas Marshalls. These are big productions, in the $20 million to $50 million range, and these are just two of the films shooting in this area.

I remember a time when a movie with a huge budget ($30-60Million at the time) meant a huge risk for the studio. Remember when 20th Century Fox was releasing the Abyss? They cut James Cameron's cut down by twenty minutes so they could get an extra showing in each night. Otherwise, they feared they wouldn't recoup their costs. They probably would've done the same thing to Titanic had Cameron not had final cut.

Film budgets have, of course, been escalating over the past few years. Most industry observers seem to believe that the unlikely profitability of Titanic is the reason, though I think the reason goes back further. Big budget films are a huge risk, but also can rake in huge cash if they do well. Even last year's mega-bomb Godzilla made enough money that a sequel is in the works.

Looking at this summer's line up, we see a myriad of expensive films:


Star Wars: Episode I - $115 Million
The Mummy - $80 Million
The General's Daughter - $60 Million
The Thirteenth Floor - $50 Million
The Matrix - $60 Million
Tarzan - $150 Million
Wild, Wild West - $175 Million
Eyes Wide Shut - $60 Million
The Haunting - $80 Million
Inspector Gadget - $80 Million

Of all these expensive films, very few look like they'll turn a profit domestically. Star Wars, The Matrix and The Mummy will for sure, The Haunting and Inspector Gadget stand a chance. Eyes Wide Shut is iffy (it all depends how audiences receive Kubrick's last work). Tarzan looks like it'll break even domestically, and the others are definite losers.

The reason this budgets have been allowed to escalate has been multi-fold.

First, A-list talent has become more expensive than ever. Whenever Tom Cruise or Jim Carrey receive a $20 million paycheck, someone else is getting a raise from $5 million to $10 million, and it starts to add up. The aforementioned Texas Rangers stars James Van Der Beek, and you can bet that the producers of Varsity Blues didn't pay nearly as much as the Texas Rangers producers had to pony up.

Another reason for escalating budgets has been a reduction of the risk on these types of productions. Wild Wild West reportedly cost $175 million to make. By most standard estimates, that would mean it has to gross $350 million globally to turn a profit. In the "old days", the studios would look to the domestic market for reclaiming their production costs and turning a profit, but now they look to the international market. International grosses used to be gravy, but now they're the bread and butter. The gravy comes in the form of home video.

Still, though, it only takes one major flop to send a studio belly-up. For example, if MGM's new Bond film, The World is Not Enough, does not perform this winter, expect the lion to become a smaller part of a different studio.

In the above mentioned films, several movies would lose money if they only had a domestic theatrical release. After international release, though, it would be very difficult to lose money. This is something which has been slowly happening for some time.

Godzilla didn't do that well domestically. The big lizard crapped out at less than $200 million, and considering how much it cost to make, that's far from blockbuster. When you add in the international grosses, though, Godzilla comes in at a much more respectable $400 million. This is why the sequel will more than likely happen (and if the studio is smart, they'll spend LESS money on the sequel). After video and DVD sales, Godzilla comes up a bona-fide hit. At least financially.

Also, the advent of DVD has been helping the studios immensely. The studios can now re-release their entire back-catalog of films, and get consumers to buy them all again. It's like the birth of the video market all over again. To put this in perspective, Titanic was originally released theatrically in December of 1997. It was release to video in 1998, then to laserdisc, and now, in 1999 it will be released to DVD. Sometime in 2001 I would expect the Titanic "Special Edition" DVD to make an appearance. As you can see, the revenue streams never stop.

What's the point? Well, the point is that Hollywood is gluttonous. Before Titanic came out, everyone was worried about escalating film budgets, and how the studios were really putting a lot of money on the line. I would argue that it's very difficult for a studio to lose money these days. Because of this, we can expect to see budgets escalate even more even as the studios try to get costs under control. The initial production costs may look cheaper, but back-end percentages and the like will drive the true production costs through the roof. For example, Mel Gibson made $20 million for Lethal Weapon 4, but that was just his salary. Never mind his percentage of the first dollar gross (estimated at another $20-30 million). No wonder he signed on without a script.

The last four movies James Cameron has released have all been the most expensive films of their time when they were produced. It's worth noting that all four films have turned a huge profit for Twentieth Century Fox (and Paramount, in the case of Titanic), and continue to do so. Titanic cost somewhere between $200 million and $240 million to produce. This was before James Cameron's back end deal. He originally forfeited his salary and percentage points, but when the film became a huge hit, those points were restored. Cameron's estimated take of the gross? A cool $100 million. Is the $400 million blockbuster that far off?

To turn to the issue of our own weekly business here at dvdfuture.com, I was surprised and delighted that Andrew Meyer got last week's quote right. Poor Andrew has now gotten four quotes of the week right in a row, but this is the first time he managed to get his name in first (he's the guy who always seem to miss it by minutes). He correctly identified the line as being from the classic Roger Corman produced B-movie, Death Race 2000. If you haven't seen the film, it's well worth seeing. Very entertaining, and very funny stuff. Be warned, though, the DVD box art promotes it as a Sylvester Stallone film, but Stallone's role is merely a supporting one. I suspect his face sells better than David Carradine's.

This week's quote is another tough one, this time from a film which is relatively new to DVD.

"He survived all those storms to be washed away by a few plastic lottery balls"

I'm also still looking for titles for this column (I may have to officially title it "untitled" soon). If you have any suggestions, send them in.

Send guesses for the quote, and suggestions for a title for this column to

ken@dvdfuture.com.

Vive La Revolution!

This past Saturday night, my wife, my brother-in-law, a friend and myself all went to see a midnight showing of a true pop film classic, Raiders of the Lost Ark. Sadly, the experience was mired by problems with the incredibly old print the cinema was using. The picture was faded, and had a distinct sepia tone to it, the picture was jumpy, there was an inordinate amount of scratches, and the film even managed to jump off its sprockets at one point, causing an interruption in the film. Still, I would do it again, because I never had the opportunity to originally see the film on the big screen.

For the past two weekends in Los Angeles and New York (and I guess New Jersey as well), theaters have been showing a digitally projected version of Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace. All the reports coming in indicate that the experience is at least as good as, and in some respects better than, the film as projected through a conventional projector. Thus begins the digital revolution.

The advent of digital projection in theaters means a number of things for moviegoers. First, and foremost, it means when a film is shown some fifteen or twenty years after its original release date, the film won’t show any of the marks of time (aside from young actors and dated costumes and scenery, of course). The picture will be as bright and clear as it was when the film was originally released. Also, the odds of something going fatally wrong will decrease dramatically. Film is an analog format, and as such is subject to the wonders of physics. A true digital film would suffer from no such limitations, and the only possibilities for error would be human error, power failure or equipment failure. Of course fire alarms in the middle of the third act will always be a problem.

Digital film also means a number of other things for moviegoers and filmmakers alike.

For filmmakers, the cost of making a film will reduce dramatically, on all levels. A low budget filmmaker will be able to shoot a ratio of ten or twenty to one (i.e. ten “bad” takes for every “good” one) rather than the current two or three to one. The limitation would not be the cost of the film, but instead the cost of the time. And the independents are realizing this, as they are the first to embrace the digital technology.

Also, distribution is cheaper. The cost of a film print of a typical theatrical release is $1,500. The cost of a digital print is significantly less (right now, the cost of a RAID array of hard drives with the movie on it in MPEG-2 format – and the array can be reused, in future, the cost of a satellite uplink). The estimated total cost to the studios for theatrical prints in North America (Region 1) alone is $600 million per year. With satellite uplinks and digital theaters, that cost could probably be reduced to under $50 million per year. Unfortunately, this will probably only mean increased profits for the studios, not reduced admission prices for the moviegoer.

Lastly, the cost of telecine transfers for later video and DVD release is eliminated. Since the film is already stored digitally, it can simply be transferred to the appropriate medium and duplicated. The transfer is better (because there are no lossy stages in between), and it doesn’t cost the studios anything. Once again, expect increased profits for the studios, not reduced prices for the consumer.

The advantages to the consumer are multi-fold.

The biggest advantage, of course, is a more consistent experience at the multiplex. Rather than being at the whim of a piece of celluloid (which will scratch, and burn, and tear), the picture will always be crisp, and always be clean. For a great example of how bad film can get after a while, take a look at some of the Dolby Digital or DTS trailers. These trailers are recycled often, and eventually the print is absolute garbage. With digital cinema, Dolby would never have to strike another print. By streaming the film off a RAID (Redundant Array of Inexpensive Devices) array of hard drives, a hard drive can even explode and the film will keep on playing as though nothing happened.

Other advantages are still plentiful. When we all sit down to watch the High Definition HBO broadcast of Star Wars: Episode II – Jar Jar Gets Melted, we’ll be able to watch the film at full resolution, exactly as it appeared in the movie theater. This is because digital cinema is actually MPEG-2 video played back at 1080I resolution (1,080 lines, interlaced). Never before has the home theater. experience been as close to that of the multiplex. The screen may not be as big, and the sound system may not be as expensive, but the picture and sound will be identical, just on a smaller scale.

Also, DVD transfers will be better. Since digital film is, by definition, MPEG-2 video and anamorphic, we can expect that all digital films will be presented in the best possible format for DVD. Unless, of course, Disney and Fox still insist on downconverting to 4:3 letterboxed (which wouldn’t surprise me). Even HDVD will be no problem, since the early specifications call for it to be MPEG-2 1080I – that’s right, the same resolution, compression method, and aspect ratio as digital theaters

There are a few minor drawbacks to digital cinema. One is that the classic grain of film will slowly disappear with time. Many times film grain can be an annoyance, but there are instances where it is used to great effect to create a mood. I suppose nothing stops a filmmaker from actually using film then transferring it to digital, but I suspect over time it will become cost-prohibitive to do so (like shooting on black and white stock now – most black and white films are actually shot in color, then the color is removed because the film stock is cheaper). Digital filters and the like can help, but they really can only approximate film grain, it’s never quite as good as the real thing.

The other thing I suspect we may see over time is the occasional malfunction of an MPEG-2 decoder. Just like when you’re watching the umpteenth rerun of the Simpsons on television and those bizarre pixelly elements crawl down the screen. This, to me, is a minor issue. As times goes on, MPEG-2 decoders will get better, and these types of problems will slowly but surely disappear.

All in all, digital cinema is nothing but good for the industry and consumers as a whole. The only thing holding it back is the cost of converting theaters I suspect the studios (or maybe the MPAA, on behalf of the studios, so they all contribute a fair amount) may step in and assist with the necessary upgrades. I certainly hope so, because the sooner digital gets here, the better.

Last week’s quote of the week was from Ivan Reitman’s classic comedy, Ghostbusters, new this week on DVD. Several people got the quote right, but unfortunately my system screwed up and I lost everyone’s email…including the guy who’s gotten the last three quotes of the week right, but always seem to miss being first by about three minutes. Given that I’m using Microsoft Outlook for email, I’m not surprised that it won’t import its own backups. I guess it’s a good time to upgrade to Outlook 2000 (hey, who says beating a dead horse isn’t fun!).

I’ve had a cursory look at the Ghostbusters DVD, and I must say, I’m impressed. One area of concern, though, the Mystery Science Theatre-style commentary track does not work when watching the film in anamorphic mode. I realize that the silhouettes would be stretched, but since the picture is 16x9 enhanced, you’d think the commentary “angle” would be as well. Oh well, can’t have it all. Look for a full review either later this week or early next week.

Keep in mind that we’re giving away the Ghostbusters DVDs here at dvdfuture.com, so enter the contest if you haven’t done so already (and enter lots of times, Jay needs something to do!).

This week’s quote is probably harder than anything else I’ve done, and admittedly it’s skewed toward Canadian readers since the film played on Space last week. To give you a few subtle hints, Sylvester Stallone played a supporting role (the quote is spoken by him), and the film is set in the year 2000. The film is available on DVD, but may be difficult to find. I suspect the film transfer sucks, but in the case of this film that would be appropriate. It was released in the 70’s and probably cost around six dollars to make.

"You know Myra, some people might think you're cute. But me, I think you're one very large baked potato."

One last note. I’m still looking for title suggestions for this weekly column. Send quote guesses and column title suggestions to ken@dvdfuture.com. Until next time!



Divx, Titanic and THX

Well, as you can guess, I have a little more to say on the Divx front.

Divx died a quick death as of last Wednesday, June 16th. Good riddance. The death of the format came much sooner than expected, most industry watchers expected Circuit City to hang in there for at least another year before pulling the plug.

I personally never saw much use for the format. It would've been a good idea if it had come along ten years ago, before Pay-Per-View became such a popular item and before Blockbuster had a rental shop every ten feet. As it is, the format was too little, too late, and way too confusing for the average consumer.

I personally didn't think the format was the Anti-Christ, as so many others did, but then again I live in Canada, and Divx never did make it up here. I remember my wife seeing an ad for Divx in Entertainment Weekly, and she asked me what it was (obviously concerned that the $800 I had just spent on a DVD player may go down the tube). I explained the format to her, and her response was one of complete bewilderment. Like so many other people in the world, she just couldn't see the purpose of such a format. She didn't see the "evil empire" so many other people did, but instead saw a product which didn't really have a market. Obviously, her initial reaction was correct.

I know that Jay and several other people merely saw Divx as another way to rent movies, but it was more dangerous than this. Divx represented a fragmentation of a product which was already a fragment of the market. The best comparison I can think of is the Sega Genesis (Mega Drive in the UK and Japan) video game console. At the time the console was released, Sega was king of the hill. They had beaten Nintendo's 16 bit console by several years, and of course Sony was nowhere near the video game market yet. As the years progressed, the Super Nintendo arrived and the Sega Genesis was beginning to show its age. In an effort to prop up their flagging machine, Sega came up with a few "expansions", first the Sega CD, and the Sega 32X. The Sega CD, as the name implies, added a CD ROM mechanism to the Genesis. Sadly, all the CD-ROM drive managed to do was show how severely limited the console's abilities really were. The 32X was an effort to correct this, but effectively bumping up the processor and graphics power of the unit. The problem is that these two devices represented a fragment of a market segment which represented half the market. It also represented increased developer costs. As a result, very few developers actually developed games for the Sega CD or 32X, and the Genesis died a slow and painful death while the Super Nintendo (which suffered from no such market fragmentation) went on to be a huge success. A year or so after the 32X, Sega introduced their Saturn video game unit, and though the machine was incredibly powerful (even more powerful than Sony's Playstation), the developers and consumers had been burned by Sega before, so the format was never adopted. The Saturn died a very quick and very painful death. This fall Sega takes another stab at the video game crown with the Dreamcast. If this one fails, look for Sega to get out of the hardware game and simply become a software company (after all, the games are what they're best at).

I see Divx very much in the same light. It represented a small portion of an already small market, and as such there was very little support for it. The support that Divx did have was bought and paid for by the company (in the way of direct cash payments to the studios), and we all know that Hollywood execs don't turn down free money. Sadly, only Warner Brothers and Columbia/Tri-Star were smart enough to see that short term cash from Divx meant a slowdown in mid-term profits from DVD because of consumer confusion. Divx definitely put a damper on DVD for a while there, and DVD sales did not ramp up as quickly as they should've because of the format. Now that it's gone, look for DVD to simply skyrocket.

Now, the other thing I've always seen Divx compared to is the Beta vs. VHS wars of the late seventies and early eighties. This is a completely different ball of wax. Betamax actually had distinct advantages over VHS at the time of its release (including a better picture), but the mistake Sony made was in not licensing the product in an open enough manner. For the first number of years, the only company making Beta machines was Sony, while everybody and their dog had licensed VHS. Also, of course, Beta and VHS were completely incompatible with one another. The one thing that was the same was a corporate parent's ego. Like the over-confident Circuit City people, Sony figured that everyone would just naturally go with a Beta machine because all the broadcast studios were using commercial Beta equipment. Obviously, Sony was wrong. When given a choice between two formats, the consumer invariably goes for the more "open" of the formats.

The last bit on Divx that I'm going to cover (I promise!) is this ridiculous notion that the death of Divx will drive up DVD software prices. Mass acceptance of a product never does anything except drive prices DOWN. Look at VCRs for a prime example. When they first appeared, they were hideously expensive, and you only rented movies. Now, there are millions upon millions of VCRs out there, and new ones are dirt cheap (less than a hundred bucks for a lot of them these days). The mass acceptance of the VCR has also created a market for sell-through video cassettes, and so you see relatively new movies available on VHS for less than twenty dollars. This is the same thing that will happen with DVD, especially when you consider that DVD was designed as a sell-through format. As more DVD players are sold, expect the prices of DVD movies AND players to drop with the increased competition. My only concern with DVD going "en-masse", is that the general buying public is not interested in widescreen transfers or bonus features on the disc. My hope is that the DVD acceptance cycle and the HDTV acceptance cycle will work hand-in-hand to create a market of widescreen televisions at the same time as the DVD market is being built. This should help ensure not only widescreen DVDs a future, but also anamorphic enhancement (more on that later).

In other news, last week I reported a rumor that future THX certification would mean that THX certified discs would not be anamorphic. This is incorrect. What IS true, however, is that the THX certification process does not REQUIRE discs to be anamorphic. Now according to the THX people themselves, their DVD mastering program is designed to produce the best possible picture and sound from a theatrical feature. In other words, to bring the experience of the movie into the home with as much accuracy as possible. To quote their website: "The final image is checked against the original to insure faithful reproduction through every step of the DVD authoring and mastering process."

Why in the world, then, doesn't the THX stamp require that a disc be anamorphic? This means that a non-16x9 THX certified disc (like, for example, Die Hard), will look great on a 4x3 TV for now, but will look like crap on a high-definition set in ten years. Not to mention how it looks on a computer with a DVD-ROM drive at this point (computers don't have to "downconvert" like stand-alone DVD players, due to the higher resolution of the display). I would suggest that everyone do as I've done, and drop the THX people a line about this issue. You can reach them at http://www.thx.com/contacts/suggestion_box.html. The more people who contact them, the greater the likelihood that anamorphic enhancement will be added as a requirement for THX certification. As always, remember to keep it short and sweet (polite letters are less likely to end up on the trash bin).

As a last DVD-related note (I'm on a roll this week, I haven't managed to go waaay off topic!), and in direct relation to the above mentioned THX stuff, Paramount and Twentieth Century Fox have confirmed that the upcoming release of Titanic will NOT be anamorphic.

This is, in my not so humble opinion, absolutely ridiculous when you consider a few things. First, an anamorphic transfer of this movie would look amazing on a 16x9 television or a computer display (and if nothing else, the movie deserves to look great). Second, a high-definition anamorphic transfer of the film ALREADY EXISTS, and has been displayed on high-definition HBO! This means that the decision to release a 4x3 non-anamorphic transfer is actually DELIBERATE, and is caused by no other factor except greed. If Paramount and Fox manage to get us suckers to buy a 4x3 transfer now, then we all will have to buy the 16x9 transfer a few years down the road when we upgrade our televisions. I guess the $1.8 Billion the movie did at the box office isn't enough, they want to milk us poor consumers for a few billion more. I'm surprised they aren't releasing a pan-and-scan DVD first, followed by a widescreen 4x3 transfer a few months later, and then an anamorphic transfer in a year's time. Hell, it works for Disney, right?

I still haven't received any suggestions for what to entitle this column, so if you have any suggestions, feel free to email me at ken@dvdfuture.com.

Last week's quote was guessed correctly by a number of people, but the first one was George Walden. The quote was from, of course, James Cameron's classic sci-fi/action flick, Aliens. On a quick side note, I'm happy to see that each time someone has guessed the quote of the week, it's been a different person. I'll take that to mean that there are a fair number of people reading these days. I hope to hear more from you all (and if you have any comments for me, by all means, feel free to contact me at the above email address...I won't bite...hard...).

This week's quote is from a movie which will be appearing on DVD next week (and if that's not a big hint, I don't know what is!).

"Why worry? Each one of us is carrying an unlicensed nuclear accelerator on his back."

As usual, if you know where the quote is from, email me at ken@dvdfuture.com

Until next time, don't let the Divx bite!



Walking The Green Mile with Di$ney, Paramount and Blockbuster

Some of you may recall my review of Star Wars: Episode I where I mentioned Stephen King's The Green Mile as a great example of a serial story. Of course, I didn't feel that Star Wars quite lived up to the hype (but who did?), but I finally had the time today to sit down and finish reading The Green Mile.

For those of you who aren't familiar with the book(s), The Green Mile tells the story of Paul Edgecombe, one of the "head screws" at a penitentiary during the Great Depression. It was originally written and released by King as a series of novellas, and has now been re-issued as a single, complete novel. The complete novel is what I read (I don't have the patience necessary to wait weeks or months for the next set of chapters in a book).

This book was of particular interest to me for a few reasons, one of which was the opinion of my wife (she's reads all of King's work, and lately hates most of it), and another of which is the choice of director for the inevitable film version of the book. In this case, it's Frank Darabont, the same man who converted King's previous work The Shawshank Redemption. Shawshank, it should be noted, is one of the best films ever made (and if you haven't seen it, the only thing I can suggest is running out and seeing it RIGHT NOW! Seriously. You will NOT regret it).

Shawshank didn't exactly do bang-up numbers at the box office, but seems to have (deservedly) gathered a large following on video. It was nominated for Best Picture the year it was released, but was overshadowed by two other films alongside it (neither of which is the masterpiece that Shawshank is), Pulp Fiction and Forrest Gump. Personally, I thought Gump completely lacked emotion and was manipulative, and I love Pulp Fiction, but compared to Shawshank it's amateurish. I suspect one of Shawshank's biggest problems was its title and marketing campaign. The title tells you pretty much nothing about the story, and the marketing campaign didn't really convey anything about the movie either. This is one of those cases where a "based on the best-selling Stephen King novel" marketing campaigns would've helped immensely, because it would've gotten butts into the seats and eventually word of mouth would've taken over. To give you an idea of how good this movie is, nobody I've introduced it to has WANTED to see the movie, but after seeing it, they couldn't believe how good it was. It was marketed as an art film, and it performed like one.

The Green Mile, thankfully, will have the power of Stephen King's name behind it. It will also have one of the biggest box-office draws of the century, Tom Hanks, behind it (he plays Edgecombe). For these two reasons alone, I suspect, the film will do huge business. The presence of Darabont as director merely means that I can set my expectations very high, and there's a good chance those expectations won't be dashed. The man is a genius behind the camera, and everything I've read so far proclaims that he's got "a great middle", and now just needs a beginning and an ending (and if you've read the novel, you'll know this is very good news, indeed).

Also, hold no illusions about the film's release date. It's a thinking mans film, and has been placed carefully out of the way of summer blockbusters, but right in the face of Academy consideration. The film comes out in late fall, and as such has plenty of time to make a lot of money (and hopefully gain a lot of critical kudos) before being put to the Academy. If all goes well, expect a sweep of many of the major categories. Also, expect Hanks to bow out gracefully in the Best Actor category, as he did this past year for Saving Private Ryan (he actively campaigned against himself, claiming it was someone else's turn - talk about your class act!).

As you can tell, my expectations for this film are very high, and it's on my "must-see" list at this point. I may be especially stoked at the moment, having just finished (literally) reading the novel, but I can't help but be excited by a film version of this novel. It has all the necessary elements to make a great film, and it's episodic nature could be transferred very effectively to the screen.

On to the business of DVDs...

I see that DVD Resource has decided to stop reviewing (in his words) "DI$ney" DVDs until such time as the disparity between DVD and Divx releases from the studio is corrected. I certainly can't blame Steve Tannehill for his stance, but have to say that I disagree with a ban on reviewing Disney DVDs. The problem is, that by ignoring Disney, no bad light is shed upon them. Nobody is happy about their lackluster support of DVD, but letting up the pressure on them (especially at this critical juncture in DVD's life span) is not the way to go about it. I would actually suggest that a counter to the effect of "XX days since Disney screwed DVD" might be a better way to go (get on it, Jay!). The solution is to turn UP the pressure, and show Disney as the greedy sons-of-bitches they really are. My wife and I watched a special on the history of American film the other day, and one of the people they interviewed was Michael Eisner. Our collective opinion is that Walt Disney himself would not approve of Disney's maneuverings as of late. There's far too much time spent trying to gobble up companies and increase profit for the shareholders, and far too little time spent making quality family entertainment.

On another studio front, I see that there's a rumor circulating that the Titanic DVD may not be 16:9 enhanced when it's released because of the THX people. It seems that the THX folks may have a problem with the downconversion performed by some DVD players, and as such will not be certifying any future 16:9 releases. I hope this is not the case, because 16:9 enhancement is one of the best features of DVD, and provides some modicum of protection for people when they upgrade their televisions over the next few years. I realize that a "downconverted" picture doesn't look as good as a letterboxed transfer, but at the same time, a letterbox transfer looks like shit on a 16:9 TV. Having seen both results, I would say the downside of downconversion is the much lesser of two evils, and as such should be the road taken. I can only hope these rumors are wrong, and if they're not then I'd have to say to Paramount and Fox, screw the THX certification. 16:9 is far more important.

On one last DVD related note, I wrote a few weeks ago about the lackluster support for DVD from Blockbuster Video. I received an email from a gentleman in Texas who happens to live in the backyard of a Blockbuster which rents DVDs. My current understanding is that DVD rental is offered in a limited number of Blockbuster locations, but I won't forgive Blockbuster until DVD is available in ALL their locations. According to Studio heads in an interview a few weeks ago, DVD accounts for "about 5%" of the video market. This is HUGE for a format which is so young. By not renting DVDs in all their locations, Blockbuster is sending their customers to alternate locations for the product they want. If you asked a Blockbuster exec straight out if he would give up 5% of his market, I would bet the answer would be "no". So why are they doing it?

As for the last two "quotes of the week", nobody got the first one, which was from Mike Myer's comedy So I Married An Axe Murderer. The second one was answered correctly by several people, but the first person to get it was Louis-Phillipe Brochu, who correctly identified it not only as from Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery, but as an "easy one!". :)

This week's quote is a little more difficult, but not much..

"Seventeen Days! Seventeen DAYS?! We ain't gonna last seventeen HOURS, man!"

As usual, if you recognize the reference, email me at

ken@dvdfuture.com

Some Summer

The summer movie season is officially here. It was kicked off a little early this year, by that box office wonder known as Star Wars: Episode I, and this weekend it continues with the eagerly anticipated Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me.

Now, it's worth noting that these two films are among the most publicly anticipated films of the year, and both are of course part of a series of films...i.e. sequels. (And yes, I realize that technically Star Wars I is a prequel, but that's a moot point).

Summer time is the land of sequels, and usually that means movies which are highly anticipated, but rarely live up to the magic of the original film. I suspect that Austin Powers will be very good (or maybe I just hope it'll be good), but I do have to say that Star Wars was disappointing (especially considering the "Plot Does Matter" retort to Godzilla's marketing campaign last year).

The history of sequels doesn't bode well for most films with a 2 or 3 or "Returns" in the title. Very rarely does a sequel live up to the original. For proof, one only has to look at Nightmare on Elm Streets II through XVIII - or whatever they're up to now - or the latest Lethal Weapon film (and why does everyone love Chris Rock so much...rarely have I seen someone so UN-funny in a movie).

Of course, not all sequels are bad...just most. There are examples of films where the sequel was actually better than the first film. They capture the magic of the first film and expand upon it, offering something new, yet familiar. I'm thinking specifically of The Empire Strikes Back and The Godfather Part II. There are other sequels which are good, as well, but whether they're better than the first is a matter of personal opinion (i.e. I liked Batman Returns better than Batman - Batman Forever & Batman & Robin were disappointments to say the least - that's Schumacher's fault though).

This year, we're surprisingly light on sequels. Besides Star Wars and Powers, it seems that nothing else is a part deux or higher. This probably is good news, but not necessarily.

Taking a look at this summer's lineup, we see several films which show some promise, but which could just as easily suck as bad as Godzilla. There are high concept action/comedy films (Wild Wild West), the pre-requisite Disney animated feature (Tarzan), comedies (Austin Powers, South Park, Notting Hill, Big Daddy, etc.) and of course, a big budget "art" film which is hoping to cash in on some big summer dollars (Eyes Wide Shut). This is all balanced nicely by the independent studios, who offer a few films for those people who are sick of big budgets (The Blair Witch Project, The Red Violin).

Of all the films coming this summer, the one which gets the "Most Likely to Suck" award is Wild Wild West with Will Smith. I have nothing against Mr. Smith, but I have a funny feeling that everything worth seeing in this film is in the trailer. Last minute reshoots, and a ballooning budget ($170 million according to the studio, over $200 million according to various other sources - either way, it's out of control) don't bode well either. Another tell-tale sign is the date shift. They pushed the release date up a few days, which is usually a way of grabbing as much cash in the first few days as possible. Of course, I could be wrong. This could be Will Smith's biggest movie since Independence Day. All I know for sure is that South Park opens the same day, and that's where I'll be. Given the choice between funny construction paper and two hours of CG effects, I pick construction paper every time. I'd love to see what would happen at Warner Brothers if South Park upstaged Wild Wild West (which won't happen - WWW will be blasting its way onto a huuuge number of screens).

Of the other films coming, I suspect the most successful will be Disney's Tarzan. Everything I've heard has been incredibly positive, and Disney is so confident in the picture that they screened it in its entirety at Sho-West in Vegas (where theatre-owners decide which movies they'll run through the summer). The last time I heard buzz this good on a Disney film, it was The Lion King and we all remember what happened there.

Eyes Wide Shut is a must-see for me as well, not only because it looks intriguing, but because it's also the final statement from the late, great Stanley Kubrick. Kubrick's films have never done that well financially, but then again, Kubrick's films have never starred Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman before. If it's a typical Kubrick film (i.e. made for people who don't everything spelled out for them), then expect a big opening weekend (because it's a Tom Cruise film) and a sharp drop off as baffled audiences tell their friends they "don't get it". I suspect the film won't break Cruise's $100 million streak though (his last five films in a row have all surpassed $100 million at the box office). Maybe we'll even see Tom Cruise win an Oscar next year (say what you will, the boy can act!).

The biggest curiosity for me will be Big Daddy starring Adam Sandler. I've always found Sandler incredibly funny (and yes, I'm aware there are a lot of people who beg to differ), but I've never thought of him as "mainstream" funny. I didn't expect anywhere near the numbers The Waterboy did, and now I'm curious to see how Sandler does against some real competition (i.e. summer movies as opposed to the late fall dumping ground). It'll probably do well, but the studio may have been smarter to hold off until September or October when competition isn't so stiff...then again, this is probably one of the cheapest movies getting a wide release this summer. Advance buzz has been positive as well, with this film expected to build on Sandler's Wedding Singer audience (this is deliberate, Adam Sandler is a very shrewd businessman...don't let his childish antics fool you, he knows what he's doing).

As for other films this summer? I'll see pretty much all the majors, skip the "middle of the road" films (i.e. The General's Daughter with John Travolta - snooore), and probably catch a few independents as well (Blair Witch is on my must see list). Of course, as I see the films, I'll be sure to post my opinions here...whether they matter to you depends on your taste in films, I guess (if it's the same as mine, I could save you some money, if it's not, well...at least it's an opinion).

Anyhow, I should probably quit my rambling and cut to a little bit of business now.

First and foremost, I'd like to ask my faithful readers out there for suggestions in regard to a title for this weekly editorial. I can't seem to come up with anything I like, so maybe an outside opinion would help. If you have a suggestion for a title that's better than "Ken Pierce", email me at ken@dvdfuture.com.

With any luck, I'll be interviewing David C. Fein from Sharpline Arts later this week. He's the producer of the supplementary material Sharpline provided on the Alien DVDs, as well as the documentary on The Last Starfighter DVD. I'm just waiting for a copy of the two documentaries (they're "in the mail") so I can watch them before interviewing him. I have a ton of questions for him, and I'm hoping that the interview will make for good reading. Keep checking back throughout the week, I'm hoping to have it done before Friday (but we'll see, I guess...).

I spent the weekend plowing through the Alien Legacy box set, and it certainly is a great set. It's well worth the purchase price if you're a fan of the films. Future Shop and A&B Sound both had it on for $79 Canadian (roughly $55US). If you purchased the set, make sure to send in the card for the fifth disc documentary early. Apparently there are limited quantities, and you wouldn't want to miss out. For those people who are in Canada and didn't get the card for the fifth disc, the address to send a copy of your original receipt and $4.75 (Cdn) to is:

The Alien Legacy: The Making of Alien
P.O. Box 97, Dept. DVD
Pickering, Ontario
L1V 2R2

Make sure to include a copy of your original sales receipt for the Alien Legacy four pack of DVDs, as well as a brief note explaining that you didn't receive the mail-in card.

Last weeks' column went up late, so I'm not going to reveal the answer to the quote of the week quite yet. Nobody has answered it correctly yet, so if you know what it is, email me. I'll answer last week's and this week's quote in next week's column (that's too many weeks in one sentence).

This week's quote is from a film I'll be watching on DVD again tomorrow night (so if you live near my house, just peek in the window and you'll see the answer!). It's pretty easy, so I'm hoping someone will actually get it.

Woman: In Japan, men come first and women come second.
Man: Or sometimes not at all.

As usual, email the name of the film and the characters to ken@dvdfuture.com

It's late, I'm tired, and this article is probably full of errors so...until next time...