http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/jennifer-garner-sells-parenthood-comedy-736523
This article is about actress, Jennifer Garner, selling her parenthood comedy to Fox. The network promised Jennifer to turn her idea into a half-hour show by the name of Half Full. Her story is about a couple who is newly married and has had the dream of moving to New York City, but eventually the plan fails for no other reason than an unexpected pregnancy. The couple is now forced into staying in Agawam, Mass. where the husband's angry older siblings live nearby. It is said that Matthew Nicklaw will pen the script and be co-executive producer along with Garner being the executive producer with Vandalia's (Garner's studio based Films) Juliana Janes to produce. The real reason this article caught my eye was because it surprises me how a famous and well known actress like Jennifer Garner is selling stories to huge networks and potentially turning them into future comedies for everyone to watch. As a consumer I enjoy hearing that one of my favorite actresses is getting involved in writing stories and ideas for television shows. This benefits her fan base who will only help support her even more with all the public viewings of Half Full when and if Fox airs it. As a student and filmmaker it shows me how even being in a specific job in the film industry that doesn't involve writing stories won't and can't actually stop you from doing so. Take Jennifer Garner for example, she is a big actress in the movie industry as well as a producer. People don't necessarily have one job in the film industry, but can be involved in as many as you can and are able to. It all depends on yourself putting in the hard work and determination that prepares you for any sort of challenge. If you succeed, then theres selling stories like Jennifer did with Half Full to Fox or anything you wish to accomplish. This definitely raises some questions like the obvious one: Will any other huge actor or actress follow Jennifer's path and start on stories of their own for future television shows? Will retired actors/actresses follow a new career in screenwriting, directing, or anything that involves coming up with the idea of the Film?
Monday, September 29, 2014
Thursday, September 25, 2014
FAA Approves Drone Use
http://deadline.com/2014/09/drones-hollywood-faa-approves-841265/
This article is about the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) allowing unmanned aerial cameras called drones to be used in the film industry. Filmmakers now have the opportunity to shoot never before seen scenes in film and push their creativity level even higher than before. New technology calls for new methods/types of shooting for movies, which is a major impact. It also supports job creation, but at the same time discourages Hollywood's helicopter/fixed-wing pilots with camera crews careers. I believe that in the future it will take its place and jobs like that will not existence. However, by taking that away, drones will also have a decrease in helicopter crashes that have occurred in the past and resulted in death at times. This is just one advantage that aerial cameras have, but others include being more environmental friendly and cheaper. Although the FAA is allowing drone usage there are some safety guidelines that must be followed. This is includes licensed pilot control so that they aren't flown out of sight, as well as no nighttime flying. Lastly, a fire safety officer and medical technician must be present during the flight of the drone. This article caught my eye because i was interested in finding out how drones could have contributed in the film industry. As a consumer this affects me because it's going to change the look on certain films and now that filmmakers have their hands on this technology they can be more creative with their works. As a student, it teaches me about how important it is to keep subjects like aerial cameras under intensive safety guidelines. I never really knew that drones were illegal in the United States up until I read this article. As a filmmaker, it shows me that, they now have an opportunity to shoot their movies in a way that has never been shot. Before this, you had to have a really big budget to rent out helicopters with film crews or use stock footage, which isn't so creative. Aerial cameras does bring up some questions in my head such as: What kind of problems will filmmakers face when using new technology like the drones? Will aerial drone cameras actually become a huge hit in the film industry or just be a bust?
This article is about the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) allowing unmanned aerial cameras called drones to be used in the film industry. Filmmakers now have the opportunity to shoot never before seen scenes in film and push their creativity level even higher than before. New technology calls for new methods/types of shooting for movies, which is a major impact. It also supports job creation, but at the same time discourages Hollywood's helicopter/fixed-wing pilots with camera crews careers. I believe that in the future it will take its place and jobs like that will not existence. However, by taking that away, drones will also have a decrease in helicopter crashes that have occurred in the past and resulted in death at times. This is just one advantage that aerial cameras have, but others include being more environmental friendly and cheaper. Although the FAA is allowing drone usage there are some safety guidelines that must be followed. This is includes licensed pilot control so that they aren't flown out of sight, as well as no nighttime flying. Lastly, a fire safety officer and medical technician must be present during the flight of the drone. This article caught my eye because i was interested in finding out how drones could have contributed in the film industry. As a consumer this affects me because it's going to change the look on certain films and now that filmmakers have their hands on this technology they can be more creative with their works. As a student, it teaches me about how important it is to keep subjects like aerial cameras under intensive safety guidelines. I never really knew that drones were illegal in the United States up until I read this article. As a filmmaker, it shows me that, they now have an opportunity to shoot their movies in a way that has never been shot. Before this, you had to have a really big budget to rent out helicopters with film crews or use stock footage, which isn't so creative. Aerial cameras does bring up some questions in my head such as: What kind of problems will filmmakers face when using new technology like the drones? Will aerial drone cameras actually become a huge hit in the film industry or just be a bust?
Friday, September 19, 2014
Broadcast Networks Mediocre Because of Latinos?
http://deadline.com/2014/09/latino-inclusion-broadcast-networks-report-national-latino-media-council-836439/
This article is about The National Latino Media Council conducting their grading scale on several broadcasting networks, which contain Latino inclusion. The grading was based off employment of Latino actors, writers, producers, directors, and entertainment executives; program development; procurement; and commitment to diversity. The broadcasting networks that were graded included: ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC. There were three categories that they could have fell into, which was Good, Mediocre, and Bad. All were said to have been mediocre, except for NBC who received a good grade, along with a mediocre one as well. The only reason NBC received a good grade was because of the improvement in Latin actors in scripted roles. Another main reason was because Jennifer Salke, NBC entertainment president, keynoted the National Hispanic Media Coalition's MediaCon. Unlike NBC, the other broadcasting networks showed little to no improvement in the hiring of Latin writers, producers, and directors. Sometimes it was because they were simply displeased with the talent that the Latino race displayed in their roles. For example, the casting of Juan Pablo Galavis for ABC was a terrible mistake because he ended up perpetuating stereotypes with sexist and homosexual remarks. This article caught my eye because I have never heard of the National Latino Media Council as people who grade broadcasting networks. Especially if Latin inclusion is what is actually being graded. I was very interested in finding out that broadcasting networks like these have a tendency to not hire Latin writers, actors, etc. As a student and filmmaker this kinda of scares me in a way that can lead me to thinking that I won't get a job in the film business because I'm Latino. For whatever reason these broadcasting networks have for not hiring them, it's an interesting point made by the NLMC. As a consumer, it has me wondering if its something to do with a racial issue or is it just that Latino people aren't proven to have onscreen talent. Because NBS received a good grade, I believe that a lot of Latin writers and producers would probably shoot to work at a broadcasting network like this. It would cause an even bigger increase in Latin employment. This article really made me think about things like these and a bunch of questions popped up in my mind such as, Is it hard to get a job in the movie business if you're a Latino? Why is it that there are Councils such as the NLMC conducting grading scales on huge broadcasting networks? Do grading broadcasting networks based on Latino inclusion actually affect their reputation?
This article is about The National Latino Media Council conducting their grading scale on several broadcasting networks, which contain Latino inclusion. The grading was based off employment of Latino actors, writers, producers, directors, and entertainment executives; program development; procurement; and commitment to diversity. The broadcasting networks that were graded included: ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC. There were three categories that they could have fell into, which was Good, Mediocre, and Bad. All were said to have been mediocre, except for NBC who received a good grade, along with a mediocre one as well. The only reason NBC received a good grade was because of the improvement in Latin actors in scripted roles. Another main reason was because Jennifer Salke, NBC entertainment president, keynoted the National Hispanic Media Coalition's MediaCon. Unlike NBC, the other broadcasting networks showed little to no improvement in the hiring of Latin writers, producers, and directors. Sometimes it was because they were simply displeased with the talent that the Latino race displayed in their roles. For example, the casting of Juan Pablo Galavis for ABC was a terrible mistake because he ended up perpetuating stereotypes with sexist and homosexual remarks. This article caught my eye because I have never heard of the National Latino Media Council as people who grade broadcasting networks. Especially if Latin inclusion is what is actually being graded. I was very interested in finding out that broadcasting networks like these have a tendency to not hire Latin writers, actors, etc. As a student and filmmaker this kinda of scares me in a way that can lead me to thinking that I won't get a job in the film business because I'm Latino. For whatever reason these broadcasting networks have for not hiring them, it's an interesting point made by the NLMC. As a consumer, it has me wondering if its something to do with a racial issue or is it just that Latino people aren't proven to have onscreen talent. Because NBS received a good grade, I believe that a lot of Latin writers and producers would probably shoot to work at a broadcasting network like this. It would cause an even bigger increase in Latin employment. This article really made me think about things like these and a bunch of questions popped up in my mind such as, Is it hard to get a job in the movie business if you're a Latino? Why is it that there are Councils such as the NLMC conducting grading scales on huge broadcasting networks? Do grading broadcasting networks based on Latino inclusion actually affect their reputation?
Friday, September 12, 2014
Sony Pictures Classics Picks Up On a Film
http://deadline.com/2014/09/toronto-sony-pictures-classics-buys-still-alice-to-launch-this-oscar-season-833397/
This article is about an independent film called, Still Alice, being
picked up by Sony Picture Classics. The film, staring Julian Moore, Alec
Baldwin , Kristen Stewart, and Kate Botsworth is about a cognitive psychologist
who faces early stages of Alzheimer's. The film is being picked up and set to
be released just in time for Oscar season, a move by sony who hopes the
independent film will gain Oscar success much like other indy films like Little
Miss Sunshine. Deadline reports the deal for Still Alice to be somewhere in the
low seven figures. What caught my eye about this particular article is that it
was a film being picked up by Sony Picture Classics, who is known for picking
up indy films. When I saw that it was set to launch during Oscar season, I knew
that the studio must've seen something worth while in the Toronto Film Festival
to pick up this particular film. It seems like there are less and less
independent films being picked up so seeing this piece of news really caught my
attention. The impact this has on me as a student is something I didn't expect.
I see less and less independent films being picked up and that has always made
me think how people choose career paths. There was once a time where filmmakers
would fund their own films and studios would constantly pick up excellent
films, but now in a world where we get the fourth Transformers movie, that's
simply not the case. Economics are changing and the sure bet is the only bet
Hollywood, and other industries are willing to make. Fewer students are willing
to risk getting a degree in the arts and not finding work so they opt for a
more secure field, suchlike Hollywood who has keeps it safe. A film like this
being picked up is like a ray of hope telling us that there is still hope out
there for people, like the filmmakers Richard Glatzer and Wash
Westmoreland, who followed their dreams. As a consumer, it gives me something
other than the next Marvel movie or the third Spiderman. Theaters are
inundated with remake after remake so a film that is outside the mold will
certainly get my money. As a filmmaker it lets me know that there is still a
great deal of importance to the original screenplay. Yes, some remakes are
great but nothing in film can replace an original story. It's
what Hollywood was built on and it is great to see a film still being
picked up for it's merits as a story. The question it raises to the industry is
that if films like these win awards and gain more and more success, will they
finally catch the audience's attention over the fifth remake of a Ninja Turtles
movie or will people continue to crowd the theaters to watch these
regurgitated stories instead of giving an original film a chance? And
if filmgoers finally get fed up with so many remakes and comic book
adaptations, will Hollywood finally give independent films the chance
they deserve?
Thursday, September 4, 2014
Ticket Sales Drop?
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-fi-summer-box-office-20140902-story.html
This article is about how U.S. ticket sales have dropped 15% in the movie industry since last summer. It shocked the industry because films such as X-Men: Days of Future Past, Transformers: Age of Extinction, The Amazing Spiderman 2, etc weren't enough to affect these percentiles in a positive way. Furthermore, for the first time since 2001 no film crossed the 300-million mark. What could have possibly gone wrong with these films? If you pay attention, all these films have one thing in common. They're all sequels to films that had already come out in the past. In fact, Studios bet on big-budget sequels instead of actually taking the risk on making new films and coming up with new ideas. Apparently, the amount of Animated films had also dropped and that might have played an important role in ticket sale drop. Two animated films were real eased this summer, compared to six that were out last summer. These types of films typically draw a big audience during summers. Another blame for the cause was believed to be people who wait for films to come out on the television or streaming sites such as Netflix. I can understand why something like that can be the cause of less people driving to a movie theatre. This Article immediately caught my eye because I too was questioning the situation about how ticket sales dropped with so many films that came out this summer. I immediately thought of all these sequels, which belonged to franchises full of fanatics. After reading the entire article it all made clear sense to me, especially the point they make on studios betting on big-budget sequels instead of new films. As a consumer I am extremely worried because it makes me feel that movies from this point on will be sequels or continue from former franchises. For example, theres a new Fast and the Furious 7 and Jurassic World coming out soon. Also ticket sale drop means a possible effect on ticket prices for movies. Whether it's an increase or decrease, it will affect me as a consumer. As a filmmaker, it shows me that sequels aren't always the best way to approach a career in the movie industry. It's about trying out new ideas and having a creative mind to create original screenplays. As a student I learn from these mistakes that professionals make, so that i better myself in creating stories and understanding originality. This article made me question what the future has in store for us with films. Will ticket sale drops continue to happen in the future? Are the sequels really the problem here, or can it possibly have an increase in the future?
This article is about how U.S. ticket sales have dropped 15% in the movie industry since last summer. It shocked the industry because films such as X-Men: Days of Future Past, Transformers: Age of Extinction, The Amazing Spiderman 2, etc weren't enough to affect these percentiles in a positive way. Furthermore, for the first time since 2001 no film crossed the 300-million mark. What could have possibly gone wrong with these films? If you pay attention, all these films have one thing in common. They're all sequels to films that had already come out in the past. In fact, Studios bet on big-budget sequels instead of actually taking the risk on making new films and coming up with new ideas. Apparently, the amount of Animated films had also dropped and that might have played an important role in ticket sale drop. Two animated films were real eased this summer, compared to six that were out last summer. These types of films typically draw a big audience during summers. Another blame for the cause was believed to be people who wait for films to come out on the television or streaming sites such as Netflix. I can understand why something like that can be the cause of less people driving to a movie theatre. This Article immediately caught my eye because I too was questioning the situation about how ticket sales dropped with so many films that came out this summer. I immediately thought of all these sequels, which belonged to franchises full of fanatics. After reading the entire article it all made clear sense to me, especially the point they make on studios betting on big-budget sequels instead of new films. As a consumer I am extremely worried because it makes me feel that movies from this point on will be sequels or continue from former franchises. For example, theres a new Fast and the Furious 7 and Jurassic World coming out soon. Also ticket sale drop means a possible effect on ticket prices for movies. Whether it's an increase or decrease, it will affect me as a consumer. As a filmmaker, it shows me that sequels aren't always the best way to approach a career in the movie industry. It's about trying out new ideas and having a creative mind to create original screenplays. As a student I learn from these mistakes that professionals make, so that i better myself in creating stories and understanding originality. This article made me question what the future has in store for us with films. Will ticket sale drops continue to happen in the future? Are the sequels really the problem here, or can it possibly have an increase in the future?
Friday, August 29, 2014
Scorsese to be a part of Ramones Film
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/martin-scorsese-attached-ramones-film-728815
This article is about The Ramones, an American punk rock band, whose 40th anniversary is coming up in the year 2016. For those of you who are new to the name, The Ramones were a band from New York City that influenced punk rock both in the United States and the United Kingdom. Some song titles that you might find familiar are "I Wanna Be Sedated" or "Blitzkrieg Bop". In honor of their anniversary, which is only two years away; it is said that there will be a documentary and theatrical play coming out. To top it all off, there will also be a book and film following those two planned projects for the future. Martin Scorsese, an influential filmmaker, has shown interest in the band and plans to be apart of the film project. Scorsese is a well known, oscar winning director who has already become a big part of Cinema history. Many people love his style of filmmaking, which include a sometimes strong depiction of violence, and can relate to concepts of guilt and redemption. Let's not forget, his Academy Award Winning Oscar for Best Director in The Departed. Personally, his name caught my attention while browsing through articles. Martin Scorsese has always been one of my favorite directors, mainly because of his landmark films such as Goodfellas and The Departed, which happen to be two of my all time favorite films. I believe that there is no other director or better choice on who should have be working on a film like this one in honor of a huge band like The Ramones. I'm very excited for what the future holds for his film and how it has to do with one of my personal favorite bands. As a consumer I'm very pleased to hear that someone like Scorsese would step up into a role like that. The audience will be packed with both fans belonging to The Ramones and Martin Scorsese. It will definitely be a must watch for the year 2016. As a filmmaker I will get the chance to see one of my all time favorite directors make a film about a band I'm very familiar with. This could surprisingly help me better my understanding on how great story telling can make the difference in a film. As a student, I realize that a biographical picture helps us understand the past and how our society was shaped. History isn't just the Civil War or the Vietnam War, but it is also about the music, films, and television shows that were a part of it. How Queen influenced society, What Citizen Kane meant to a film, What a show like Mash did for television, is all a part of our history. That is why The Ramones biographical picture will give us a glimpse into punk rock and its origins, which will in turn help us understand our history. This all raises questions to me like: Do regular films that are not biographical give us an understanding of history as well? Will directors like Martin Scorsese continue to work with films that have a hard influence on society?
Monday, August 25, 2014
David Yates Making Another Comeback?
http://www.totalfilm.com/news/david-yates-in-talks-to-direct-harry-potter-spin-off
This article is about a new Harry Potter spin-off in the process of being planned. The film is said to be based off J.K. Rowling's novel, Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them. More Specifically; Newt Scamander, a Magizoologist who was the original "writer" of the book, in the world of witchcraft and wizarddry terms. The only problem is, the director is still to be determined. Director Alfonso Cuaron, was in fact considered in the beginning because of already experienced history with Prisoner of Azkaban, the third Harry Potter film. Unfortunately, he turned down the opportunity, which put all hopes on the shoulder's of David Yates. He is currently in talks with Warner about the film, meaning things are not 100% set yet. In my opinion; David Yates should have been thought of for the job first, considering that he is the franchise veteran who directed the last four films. This would be something David is already familiar with and to make things more comfortable with him, the screenplay has been penned by J.K. Rowling like all the other times. I chose this article for several reasons. One being that I am a fan of the movies and books, but also because Harry Potter has been one of the most successful franchises in movie history. All eight movies have managed to accumilate 2.223 billion, compared to another famous franchise like Star Wars, which only made 2.218 billion with all their movies. Although Star Wars is still superior in estimated attendance, Harry Potter still was named Top-Grossing Franchise. Overall, I chose the article because it immediately caught my attention after hearing about another Harry Potter related film in the process of being planned. As a student and consumer, it shows me that movie franchises like this one can use their reputation and fame to be even more successful, but as a filmmaker it kind of scares me. This power that movie franchises have can be a dangerous weapon. Sometimes, filmmakers usually set out to make sequals or a third film because of the success (money wise) they make out of it. This benefits all the people who work on the films, but the complete opposite for their fans. For example, I enjoyed the first Transformers film and would have been completely fine with just one movie. This is just my opinion, but I thought the other three continuous films were terrible. I went from loving the Transformers to hating the entire movie series. So do you see where I'm getting at with this type of power filmmakers have? It's a scary thing because it can ruin a movie you loved from the beginning. This surely raises questions like: Will there be anymore one-movie success films planning to make more sequels or more? Are filmmakers just doing it for the money now? Don't get me wrong, not all sequels are bad or just the idea of it. Sometimes it's a great thing, and I'm just hoping that this new Harry Potter film will be one of those successful films both benefiting the fans and filmmakers.
This article is about a new Harry Potter spin-off in the process of being planned. The film is said to be based off J.K. Rowling's novel, Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them. More Specifically; Newt Scamander, a Magizoologist who was the original "writer" of the book, in the world of witchcraft and wizarddry terms. The only problem is, the director is still to be determined. Director Alfonso Cuaron, was in fact considered in the beginning because of already experienced history with Prisoner of Azkaban, the third Harry Potter film. Unfortunately, he turned down the opportunity, which put all hopes on the shoulder's of David Yates. He is currently in talks with Warner about the film, meaning things are not 100% set yet. In my opinion; David Yates should have been thought of for the job first, considering that he is the franchise veteran who directed the last four films. This would be something David is already familiar with and to make things more comfortable with him, the screenplay has been penned by J.K. Rowling like all the other times. I chose this article for several reasons. One being that I am a fan of the movies and books, but also because Harry Potter has been one of the most successful franchises in movie history. All eight movies have managed to accumilate 2.223 billion, compared to another famous franchise like Star Wars, which only made 2.218 billion with all their movies. Although Star Wars is still superior in estimated attendance, Harry Potter still was named Top-Grossing Franchise. Overall, I chose the article because it immediately caught my attention after hearing about another Harry Potter related film in the process of being planned. As a student and consumer, it shows me that movie franchises like this one can use their reputation and fame to be even more successful, but as a filmmaker it kind of scares me. This power that movie franchises have can be a dangerous weapon. Sometimes, filmmakers usually set out to make sequals or a third film because of the success (money wise) they make out of it. This benefits all the people who work on the films, but the complete opposite for their fans. For example, I enjoyed the first Transformers film and would have been completely fine with just one movie. This is just my opinion, but I thought the other three continuous films were terrible. I went from loving the Transformers to hating the entire movie series. So do you see where I'm getting at with this type of power filmmakers have? It's a scary thing because it can ruin a movie you loved from the beginning. This surely raises questions like: Will there be anymore one-movie success films planning to make more sequels or more? Are filmmakers just doing it for the money now? Don't get me wrong, not all sequels are bad or just the idea of it. Sometimes it's a great thing, and I'm just hoping that this new Harry Potter film will be one of those successful films both benefiting the fans and filmmakers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)