3. Technology

For Your Consideration… Best Picture Nominees Expand

If you’ve ever felt that your favorite movie got robbed of a Best Picture Oscar nomination, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences (AMPAS) is here to help. Starting in 2010, they will be expanding the number of Best Picture nominees from five to 10. Woo Hoo!

Truth is, this change isn’t about you. It’s about the pursuit of the almighty dollar. For the last decade, the Academy has been under pressure to get better ratings and keep ABC and those advertisers happy. The theory goes something like this according to Sid Ganis, President of AMPAS, “Having 10 Best Picture nominees is going to allow Academy voters to recognize and include some of the fantastic movies that often show up in the other Oscar categories, but have been squeezed out of the race for the top prize.”

The Academy argues that they’re simply honoring an earlier tradition. Back in the 1930’s and 40’s, the Best Picture category welcomed 10 nominees. In 1931/32 there were actually 12 nominees. The 16th Academy Awards (1943) was the last year to include a field of that size with Casablanca being named Best Picture for the year. Too bad we don’t have the quality of films of say, 1939, when the nominees were Dark Victory, Gone With the Wind, Goodbye Mr. Chips, Love Affair, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Ninotchka, Of Mice and Men, Stagecoach, Wizard of Oz and Wuthering Heights. Now that’s a Top Ten list!

Such a move might have made sense back in the 1960’s and 70’s but today the American film industry makes very few great films. Just look at the theatre marquee this weekend when Transformers, Year One and Land of the Lost are all in lights. With such gems to choose from I wonder where the Academy will even find 10 worthy films this year.

I’m tempted to call this the “Dark Knight Rule” because it feels like it’s in response to the blockbuster’s awards snub which came back to bite the Academy on Oscar night with low ratings of the show. The thought might be to increase the buzz (and television ratings) by adding nominations. Ratings for the telecast have slipped steadily since the 1990’s when more than 55 million viewers tuned in to see Titanic win Best Picture. With other entertainment options like the Internet taking people away from what used to be must see television, 10 spots would allow popular films like Dark Knight or Star Trek to be nominated. That could cause more viewers to tune in.

However, the Academy has never been about recognizing action-adventure films and box-office smashes (the Lord of the Rings trilogy being the recent exception). They simply don’t resonate with voters. With so many more dramas released every year compared to popcorn films, this rule simply makes it easier for the Academy to include niche dramas (think The Wrestler) that wouldn’t have had a chance otherwise.

Personally, I think this move undermines the integrity of the Academy Awards. Whether you agreed or disagreed with the five nominated films each year, there was a cachet around being nominated. There’s a little less luster on Oscar now… and five extra montages during the telecast next year.

I remember being at a friend’s house and his 8-year old son walked in with a huge trophy. When I inquired what he won for he replied, “It’s no big deal. Everyone gets one.” I don’t know about you but I don’t want the Academy Awards to turn into a 10-and-under suburban soccer league.

Come on AMPAS, is this what you’re really about? Are you so obsessed with television ratings that you are willing to sacrifice the original mission of the Academy? The real winners in this are ABC, the Oscar consultants who lobby voters for nominations and the trades. I can envision the full-page “For Your Consideration” ads for Transformers even now.

The Digital Divide Just Got a Little Wider

D-day — June 12, 2009. Last Friday was the day when the remainder of the nation’s 1,700 analog television stations shut down in the long-promised changeover to digital broadcasting.

Cable and satellite viewers — or those whose TV has a digital tuner — were still able to watch American Idol, CSI and Heroes, unaware that anything has changed. But when the 21 million households using a conventional set with rabbit ears or an old rooftop antenna turned on their TVs, they saw … nothing.

The reaction from many tends to be, “So what? Its just television.” Ironically, this reaction usually comes from people already subscribing to cable/satellite and wired with broadband. They’re not the ones affected by the changeover. Or you hear people say, “Just go to the library.” But with libraries miles away in rural America and urban ones having long lines and limits on usage that’s not a viable alternative. When you are one of the “Haves” it’s hard to identify with the “Have Nots.”

Make no mistake, television is a need. We’re many technological advances away from the days when food, water and shelter were are only needs; a thirst for information and entertainment, while not a basic need still is important in person’s well being. With limited options, television becomes an even more important part of life for the poor, elderly and people living in rural America. We’d like to think that all Americans take part in the Tivo-Broadband-YouTube world we know now. That’s simply not the case. This digital conversion we’re undergoing threatens to turn a good portion of the population into Tom Joads, no longer participating in modern cultural life.

Although some have fallen in love with video over the Internet and believe broadcast television is dead, it still has the communications importance most media dream of. Aside from serving as an affordable form of entertainment, it disseminates important information concerning current affairs, public safety and security. And when you compare the ratings of Lost on ABC to an episode of Mad Men on AMC or an airing of 30 Rock on Hulu, both cable and Internet platforms fall far behind on influence.

Access and affordability are two huge issues. It’s hard to watch Hulu or YouTube if you’re not wired up in Western Kansas. Many poor urban neighborhoods might be wired, but the price of digital cable ($80/month) and/or broadband ($30/month) can be cost prohibitive for a family on the south side of Chicago. These consumers will have to rethink how they receive entertainment.

For argument’s sake, lets say everyone in America had a digital television set. Although that would solve one problem, it reveals another. Most analog stations switching to a digital signal are affiliates of the Big Four networks (ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox) or local public television stations.

Thirty years ago content provided from these networks was the gold standard of programming. Today, they represent a small sliver of what’s available. If you want sports, you better have ESPN. If you want the latest news you’ll need to tune into CNN. As networks scale back their news operations and provide cheaper reality programming instead of scripted series, higher quality shows and diverse programming has moved to smaller networks available only on satellite or cable.

The value of the Big Four isn’t what it once was.

Given the importance that television as a whole plays in the day-to-day life of most people, the government must take responsibility to ensure there’s equal digital access to all Americans. Over the years, they’ve done just that.

In 1935, Congress signed the Rural Electrification Act, which first brought electricity and then phone service to farms. When TV systems moved from black-and-white to color, the government made sure the new technology was compatible with the old system. And in February, Congress approved $7.2 billion to bring high-speed Internet to underserved areas of the U.S. That’s a good start.

It’s unlikely everyone is going to start watching American Idol on their computer anytime soon. Until that time, a larger spectrum of channels needs to be available for free or subsidized by the government. Cable and satellite prices need to be regulated or subsidized so that all can afford a basic tier of channels.

I’m sure a little brainstorming by the powers that be would reveal other possibilities as well. But a shortsighted policy of providing full digital content only to urban and a smattering of rural areas creates two Americas of information “Haves” and “Have-nots.”

We cannot make this mistake today.

DVD Revenue Plunges

DVD revenue, a cash cow for studios since the mid-1990s, is showing signs of slowing down. In 2008, only two studios (Universal and Lionsgate) managed gross video revenue growth. Early returns this year show DVD revenue was down 14% in the first quarter of 2009, according to the Digital Entertainment Group (a home entertainment trade organization).

Even with increases in Blu-ray revenue (up to $230 million), the dollars are still not big enough to make up for the declines in overall DVD revenue. The higher cost and perceived lack of difference over standard DVDs has slowed the speed of adoption. Consumers often choose low-priced DVD versions over Blu-ray discs when they simply want a copy of a film. It’s only in the “must-own” new releases arena (Dark Knight and Iron Man) that the higher quality Blu-ray wins out.

While customers aren’t clamoring for Blu-ray, they’re not buying standard DVDs as much anymore. Standard DVDs revenue fell $470 million to $2.89 billion. That’s a $291 million gap between growth in new formats and the decline of the old. With DVD sales now accounting for 43% of total feature film revenue (according to Adams Media Group), studios will have to find other revenue sources to make up for the decline or cut costs.

3-D, the Ultimate Blast from the Past

Although we’re not even to summer, 2009 might be remembered as the year 3-D saved Hollywood. Studio executives bullish on the future of 3-D are pointing to the recent success of “Monsters vs. Aliens.” The 3-D release by Dreamworks has already eclipsed $100 million and is likely on its way to $200 million in North American box office. Much of that success can be attributed to 3-D. About 2,000 of the initial 7,000 screens were equipped for 3-D broadcast, which costs viewers $2 to $4 more to see. That represents about 56 percent of total ticket sales thus far, a nice haul for less than one third of the total screens.

The movie could set a benchmark for a host of other big-budget 3-D films. Robert Zemeckis’s “A Christmas Carol,” an animated remake of the Charles Dickens tale about Scrooge starring Jim Carrey, is planned for release in November. James Cameron is at work on “Avatar,” a $200 million 3-D film set for December in which a war veteran named Jake travels to another planet. And Steven Spielberg’s “The Adventures of Tintin: Secret of the Unicorn,” based on the popular Belgian comic strip about a reporter and his dog, is due out in 2011.

According to a report released in January by Piper Jaffray entitled “3D from Our Perspective: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Emerging 3D Ecosystem,” new 3-D technology will drive content production, displays and related technology to a sizeable market over the next few years, reaching an estimated $25 billion by 2012.

It’s not all sunny for 3-D though. Even with the wonders of an old-is-new technology, content is still king. Titles like “Beowulf” and “Bolt” left critics lukewarm and underperformed at the box office. The draw of 3-D couldn’t overcome poor storytelling. Theater owners have also been slow to embrace the technology, which carries a price tag of up to $75,000.

Without more screens, the 3-D films coming out over the next few years could find themselves with limited venues at which to play, resulting in lost revenue. In fact, after DreamWorks completed the 3-D version of “Monsters,” its filmmakers created 2-D prints because the company knew not every theater would have the capabilities to show the film in the new format.

While 3-D is off to a good start, a poor economy and slow adoption by the theatre chains will slow it down. Only several years of hits like “Monsters vs. Aliens” will convince studios and theatre owners alike to pony-up on a reinvented technology.