Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Hollywood: A Feast of Famine
Check out the NYTimes graphical recontextualization of the last 20 years of box office revenue. It's interesting to see what obscure dinosaur bones are buried beneath the strata (Howard the Duck is less of a big deal than I remember). Perhaps more interesting is the increasing trend of feast or famine that marks the blockbuster summers of late.
Observe below Summer of 1987 side-by-side with Summer of 2007 (ignore the obvious issues of box office inflation). While the hits of '87 - Beverly Hills Cop II, The Witches of Eastwick, and The Untouchables - earned their gross generally over runs of several months, the hits of '07 - there were too many to count - peaked opening weekend and troughed immediately after. '07 sees films staking an obvious claim on their opening weekend and squeezing all other films into obliteration, while '87's blockbusters appear more charitable to fellow, perhaps more obscure films.
1987
2007
To blame for the trend - blockbuster films now open to a wider release with higher ad budgets and more hype. Studios have more to compete with now - bootleg DVDs and other forms of mass or personal entertainment (the web and satellite TV, not to mention laser tag), and a larger number of other expected Blockbusters. In the 80's studios made fewer prints of films and spread them to multiplexes progressively. The result was less risk and more stability.
But quality may not be a factor. While blockbusters of questionable quality are vulnerable to volatility most story-centered independent films still pace themselves the way all films did in the 80's - look at "There Will Be Blood" and "No Country for Old Men." This year's big critical hits and Oscar winners hit screens several months ago and are just now making their way to a large number of theaters.
We can't forget to praise the statistical presentation skills of the NYTimes. This interactive contextualization is true Web 2.0. Here are some ideas to make future iterations of this graph even more useful:
Observe below Summer of 1987 side-by-side with Summer of 2007 (ignore the obvious issues of box office inflation). While the hits of '87 - Beverly Hills Cop II, The Witches of Eastwick, and The Untouchables - earned their gross generally over runs of several months, the hits of '07 - there were too many to count - peaked opening weekend and troughed immediately after. '07 sees films staking an obvious claim on their opening weekend and squeezing all other films into obliteration, while '87's blockbusters appear more charitable to fellow, perhaps more obscure films.
1987
2007
To blame for the trend - blockbuster films now open to a wider release with higher ad budgets and more hype. Studios have more to compete with now - bootleg DVDs and other forms of mass or personal entertainment (the web and satellite TV, not to mention laser tag), and a larger number of other expected Blockbusters. In the 80's studios made fewer prints of films and spread them to multiplexes progressively. The result was less risk and more stability.
But quality may not be a factor. While blockbusters of questionable quality are vulnerable to volatility most story-centered independent films still pace themselves the way all films did in the 80's - look at "There Will Be Blood" and "No Country for Old Men." This year's big critical hits and Oscar winners hit screens several months ago and are just now making their way to a large number of theaters.
We can't forget to praise the statistical presentation skills of the NYTimes. This interactive contextualization is true Web 2.0. Here are some ideas to make future iterations of this graph even more useful:
• Incorporate visual adjustments for economic inflation, box office inflation, and comparison to film's budget
• Include comparison to home video release and sales
• Include comparisons to film's critical response using aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes
• Include data on concession stand sales relative to film openings
• Include stats on cocaine sales in Burbank prior to and during production of Michael Bay films.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Shielding Yourself From Your Corporate Overlords
I had a little extra time the other day and I decided to check out some of the crazy add-ons for the Mozilla Firefox application. (If you don't already know it, Mozilla's Firefox is an internet browser like Safari or Internet Explorer that is open source, meaning new capabilities can be created and shared by a community of users).There were some cool extensions. One made it so I could quit and save my previous browsing session. Another made it so my entire browser could have a Biblical-theme.
But the best and most dangerous extension by far is the Adblock Plus extension. This add-on not only blocks pop-ups, it prevents advertisements from loading on any website you view. Myspace, blogs, and news sites, all with faster loading times and no annoying ads giving you cognitive dissonance.
But non-product web-based enterprises make all their money through ads. Sites that charge for some content, such as the New York Times, are increasingly allowing free access because of ad revenue. So if we can Tivo out ads on our internet browsers, the potential for robust web content, which comes with good funding, could be severely compromised. Which may not be such a bad thing, considering the poor quality of that robust web content. Case in point, this blog. (Note: Please click one of the ads at the right! I make 10 cents a month off of those!)
Labels: advertising, firefox, interface, web
Monday, March 12, 2007
The Convergence: Two Webs and a Shower Cap
I don't normally like to dwell on the overly techno cerebral, but I came upon three things today that caught my interest:
1. This video on the thinking behind web 2.0, the development of a web that is user-friendly.
2. This graphic of the progression to Web 3.0, a web that allows web applications to think and behave more interactively and our machines to become hyper-technologically interactive (depending on hardware that can communicate fluidly).
3. This technology that is now adapting to the consumer level:
The first consumer application of Brain/Computer Communications, which can now interpret your thoughts literally into words on the screen (and you can play Pong, too).
Currently, the device only reads one way - from brain to computer; users have to use their eyes to interface the other direction. But how soon until the device interfaces both directions?
The self hating Luddite in me relishes the thought of the potential for convergence. Imagine a wireless miniature technology that could be plugged into your ear, or, better, planted into your brain to direct your thoughts into computer action. Where can I get a pizza?, you'll think, and up on your computer will pop a list of pizza places ranked by general popularity, and the computer's customized learning of your personal preferences! Can I get my Moto-Robot to walk the dog and get the mail?, you'll ponder, and off will trot your personal wirelessly connected bot. "Assassinate the president while you're out there", you'll shout after him (with your brain of course).
Sometimes I wonder whether scientists are inventing this because they really think it's good for humanity, or they just want to see how close they can get to replicating the world as it must have existed a few years before "Mad Max" happened.
[UPDATE: Add this thought to the mix:
Sony's simply titled "Home" game for Playstation takes the concept of Second Life, which blew the Sims out of the water, and adds a few improvements. (These games are pretty serious. One woman claimed to have earned her first million by selling fake real estate in the virtual Second Life). How soon until faux-reality "games" give way to hyper virtual reality? And when brain interface technologies read both ways, what's stopping us from giving up on real real life altogether?
This post written using fingers, eyes, and computer. And a brain. A real brain.
1. This video on the thinking behind web 2.0, the development of a web that is user-friendly.
2. This graphic of the progression to Web 3.0, a web that allows web applications to think and behave more interactively and our machines to become hyper-technologically interactive (depending on hardware that can communicate fluidly).
3. This technology that is now adapting to the consumer level:
The first consumer application of Brain/Computer Communications, which can now interpret your thoughts literally into words on the screen (and you can play Pong, too).Currently, the device only reads one way - from brain to computer; users have to use their eyes to interface the other direction. But how soon until the device interfaces both directions?
The self hating Luddite in me relishes the thought of the potential for convergence. Imagine a wireless miniature technology that could be plugged into your ear, or, better, planted into your brain to direct your thoughts into computer action. Where can I get a pizza?, you'll think, and up on your computer will pop a list of pizza places ranked by general popularity, and the computer's customized learning of your personal preferences! Can I get my Moto-Robot to walk the dog and get the mail?, you'll ponder, and off will trot your personal wirelessly connected bot. "Assassinate the president while you're out there", you'll shout after him (with your brain of course).
Sometimes I wonder whether scientists are inventing this because they really think it's good for humanity, or they just want to see how close they can get to replicating the world as it must have existed a few years before "Mad Max" happened.
[UPDATE: Add this thought to the mix:
Sony's simply titled "Home" game for Playstation takes the concept of Second Life, which blew the Sims out of the water, and adds a few improvements. (These games are pretty serious. One woman claimed to have earned her first million by selling fake real estate in the virtual Second Life). How soon until faux-reality "games" give way to hyper virtual reality? And when brain interface technologies read both ways, what's stopping us from giving up on real real life altogether?
This post written using fingers, eyes, and computer. And a brain. A real brain.
Labels: 2.0, 3.0, brain, interface, technology, web
