'How movies activate your G-spot'
moviePig
Interactive cinema may be well and truly dead, but its devil-child is
waking...
Here's a brief, nightmarish, and entertaining article from WIRED
Magazine:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/01/pl_brown_gspot/
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
calvin
> Interactive cinema may be well and truly dead, but its devil-child is
> waking...
>
> Here's a brief, nightmarish, and entertaining article from WIRED
> Magazine:
>
> http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/01/pl_brown_gspot/
One big assumption, which the article sort of acknowledges,
but really doesn't, is that what works for one viewer will work
for all. Without that assumption, film producers already know
enough to target segments of the public effectively.
Avatar (no spoilers) is the most recent movie that acted on
me the way the article seems to be seeing the future. I was
delightfully immersed for 2 1/2 hours in the 3D and effects,
with only marginal interest in the story itself.
steve
From the article:
**********
�But now movies will be more formulaic than ever!� purists whine. Au
contraire, aesthete scum. �Formula� is for suckers. It implies narrative �
peaks and valleys. What MindSign seems to be offering is a new model � not
formulaic, but fractal. Forget ups and downs, suspense and release. What if
every moment were a spike, every scene �trailer-able�? In fact, movies will
become essentially a series of trailers, which, incidentally, are far
better-loved than the oft-crummy features they encapsulate. Movie houses
will become crack dens with cup holders, and I�ll lie there mainlining pure
viewing pleasure for hours. Why not? I can�t decide what I want to watch
anyway. Luckily, Hollywood is there to make those tough choices for me. And
to show me the zombie shark I never even knew I was dying to see.
******
Which raises an issue. Crafting the overall impact of a film should be the
marketing goal, because that's what puts asses in seats and DVDs in players
(isnt it?). Even if each moment is carefully designed to thrill, the
overall viewing experience may be dull or pointlessly taxing. In fact, the
few times Ive been in a theater in recent years, not only did I find each
trailer annoying individually* (ugghh!), but the cumulative effect was one
of boredom and numbness. By the time the feature was rolling (some 20
abusive minutes later..no kidding), I found it hard to settle in and recieve
the film having just been bombarded (almost literally) with repetitive flash
and hype. I wonder, therefore, how/if this technology will assist in
crafting a profitable feature length film. Perhaps it could be used to
craft the high points, but I seriously doubt it will result in the "fractal"
"never ending trailers" suggested above.
And it's hard to imagine how the technology could be used to measure the
potential reaction to a feature length film. In the end, it will probably
be used to fine tune the editing and special effects of conventional
"narrative" films. Not so different, in practice and result, than the focus
group.
steve
* My wife and I often find trailers annoying even for films that we really
like. They tend to homogenize the range of films they represent...probably
for the reasons mentioned in the article.
--
"It is no excuse for presumptuous ignorance, that it is directed by insolent
passion."
Edmund Burke.
moviePig
As for what works for only some viewers, I think the "emotions"
they're going after are presumed to be little more variable than how
we react to stubbing a toe.
And, yes, AVATAR seems like a fine representative of the principle...
maybe even in Cameron's "development process"...
moviePig
No, it's probably not going to produce, say, another MAN FOR ALL
SEASONS (...well, maybe a duplicate ...with car-chases). But I'd
imagine that if, god forbid, this technology does take hold, it's not
a great leap to incorporate some principles of 'pacing' ...so that,
e.g., there'll be a formula for how many minutes of quiet scenery will
optimally recharge the viewer after 3 minutes of exploding viscera.
(And, yes, there's a reason we call it 'trailer trash'. I never watch
them except for films I've no intention ever to see.)
calvin
Only 20? The last two movies I've seen in a theater
(Star Trek and Avatar) didn't start until after 25 abusive
minutes.
steve
On 8-Feb-2010, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> >�By the time the feature was rolling (some 20
> > abusive minutes later..no kidding), ...
>
> Only 20? The last two movies I've seen in a theater
> (Star Trek and Avatar) didn't start until after 25 abusive
> minutes.
Brutal.
calvin
> On 8-Feb-2010, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > By the time the feature was rolling (some 20
> > > abusive minutes later..no kidding), ...
>
> > Only 20? The last two movies I've seen in a theater
> > (Star Trek and Avatar) didn't start until after 25 abusive
> > minutes.
>
> Brutal.
As I think you mentioned, the obnoxious trailers had
a sameness about them, even the Sherlock Holmes
trailer presented the movie as a loud, frenetic thriller,
and killed any potential interest in seeing it.
trotsky
Indubitably--there is no way it could approach the quietude of a "Pearl
Harbor".
calvin
Pearl Harbor had excellent sound, appropriate for each scene.
Two of its four Oscar nominations were for Sound and Sound
Effects Editing, winning the latter.
trotsky
So "excellent sound" is somehow the antithesis of "loud"?
calvin
No, you characterized Pearl Harbor's sound sarcastically
as 'quietude', meaning 'loud', you implied. But 'loud' does
not characterize that movie's award-winning sound, as I
pointed out.
As for 'Sherlock Holmes', the trailer for which I was a captive
audience member presented it's sound as an obnoxious
assault on one's sense of hearing.
trotsky
> On Feb 10, 10:15 pm, trotsky<gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>> On 2/10/10 10:49 AM, calvin wrote:
>>> On Feb 10, 10:15 am, trotsky<gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2/9/10 9:11 AM, calvin wrote:
>>>>> As I think you mentioned, the obnoxious trailers had
>>>>> a sameness about them, even the Sherlock Holmes
>>>>> trailer presented the movie as a loud, frenetic thriller,
>>>>> and killed any potential interest in seeing it.
>>
>>>> Indubitably--there is no way it could approach the quietude of a "Pearl
>>>> Harbor".
>>
>>> Pearl Harbor had excellent sound, appropriate for each scene.
>>> Two of its four Oscar nominations were for Sound and Sound
>>> Effects Editing, winning the latter.
>>
>> So "excellent sound" is somehow the antithesis of "loud"?
>
> No, you characterized Pearl Harbor's sound sarcastically
> as 'quietude', meaning 'loud', you implied. But 'loud' does
> not characterize that movie's award-winning sound, as I
> pointed out.
Honestly, calvie, I have no idea what you're trying to say. I used to
use PH and "Saving Private Ryan" when I was in the stereo business for
surround sound demos. It was loud, brash and obnoxious--exactly what
people wanted to hear. The sound was excellent, so there is no argument
there.
> As for 'Sherlock Holmes', the trailer for which I was a captive
> audience member presented it's sound as an obnoxious
> assault on one's sense of hearing.
"Obnoxious" is clearly relative, then. Either that, or you have a
double standard.
calvin
Depends on what scenes you used, obviously. Of course
explosions are obnoxious. But if you used the B-25s taking
off from the carrier, with the thrilling Hans Zimmer music, it
was the opposite of obnoxious.
> > As for 'Sherlock Holmes', the trailer for which I was a captive
> > audience member presented it's sound as an obnoxious
> > assault on one's sense of hearing.
>
> "Obnoxious" is clearly relative, then. Either that, or you have a
> double standard.
See the trailer for the new Sherlock Holmes movie, at theater
volume, and decide for yourself.
Sir Blob
> From the article:
> **********
> “But now movies will be more formulaic than ever!” purists whine. Au
> contraire, aesthete scum. “Formula” is for suckers. It implies narrative —
> peaks and valleys. What MindSign seems to be offering is a new model — not
> formulaic, but fractal. Forget ups and downs, suspense and release. What if
> every moment were a spike, every scene “trailer-able”? In fact, movies will
> become essentially a series of trailers, which, incidentally, are far
> better-loved than the oft-crummy features they encapsulate. Movie houses
> will become crack dens with cup holders, and I’ll lie there mainlining pure
> viewing pleasure for hours. Why not? I can’t decide what I want to watch
> anyway. Luckily, Hollywood is there to make those tough choices for me. And
> to show me the zombie shark I never even knew I was dying to see.
> ******
> Which raises an issue. Crafting the overall impact of a film should be the
> marketing goal, because that's what puts asses in seats and DVDs in players
> (isnt it?).
no, eliminating competition, dvdrips and things to see other than the
multiplex, by passing laws does the trick
Even if each moment is carefully designed to thrill, the
> overall viewing experience may be dull or pointlessly taxing. In fact, the
> few times Ive been in a theater in recent years, not only did I find each
> trailer annoying individually* (ugghh!), but the cumulative effect was one
> of boredom and numbness. By the time the feature was rolling (some 20
> abusive minutes later..no kidding),
a good libertarian never complains. this is communist talk.
goodness me, i was late to this thread lol