Showing posts with label facebook. Show all posts
Showing posts with label facebook. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

'Black Swan' writer pens 'XOXO,' a social media thriller

I love movies that take advantage of new technology. Remember Sandra Bullock in 1995's The Net? The Internet-induced identity theft in that movie felt very cutting-edge. More recently, The Social Network actually pulled off a scene that made an all-night coding session feel just as thrilling as it must have for Mark Zuckerburg. Most cell phones in horror movies go bust, but in the summer release Paranorman, a character uses his cell phone while being chased by zombies, enlisting a friend to help find out how to beat the undead. That's exactly the kind of innovation that should be more present in movies, but when scripts sit around for years on end, perhaps screenwriters either
Facebook-relationship-statusdon't want to date their script by inserting a soon-to-be-outdated technology, or their technology inclusions seem old by the time the movie comes out. When it comes to using new technology in movies, two things are important. The technology should be used correctly, and it should be current. Both of those things are incredibly obvious, but it's so easy for screenwriters to fall back on answering machines and outdated equipment when they don't want to think their way out of a plot hole in an original way.


The screenwriter of Black Swan, Mark Heyman, has decided he's up to the task of a technology-focused movie. He's written a screenplay titled XOXO. It centers on an engaged, successful man who also likes to flirt online. He hooks the wrong girl and the online relationship turns into a threatening offline one. The script apparently has similarities to the famous 1987 Glenn Close-Michael Douglas pic Fatal Attraction. Now Lionsgate has hired George Nolfi (The Adjustment Bureau) to rewrite and direct the picture, a sign that it's revving up to enter production--provided the script tweaks go well.


Even if the project is a bit campy (I heard an earlier version of Black Swan was purposely more over-the-top), and maybe even because it sounds so juicy, I'll be adding this to my look-out-for list. Lionsgate should take a note from Sony, which had a lightning-quick turnaround with The Social Network, and greenlight the project fast. In three years, the time it takes many fast-moving projects to go from development to release, technology changes so much. Facebook's interface could be completely different. New Internet security measures could be in place that need to be addressed in the plot. All the more reason to get moving and give us a fictional, more deadly version of Catfish.


 



Thursday, April 12, 2012

Bob Marley doc 'Marley' will release day-and-date on Facebook

Don't expect a film from a major studio to release day-and-date theatrically and on-demand anytime soon. The theatrical window has strong forces protecting it, and too many people are worried that change will drive people away from theatres forever. However, small distributors, who often screen their films in independent theatres, have been pursuing day-and-date VOD releases for a few years now. IFC, particularly, has aggressively pursued the on-demand strategy. Considering the distributor also owns theatres, it can't be all bad for the exhibition side of its business.


So it makes sense that the Magnolia release Marley, a documentary about the reggae musician  Bob Bob marleyMarley, will be the first to be available for day-and-date rental on Facebook. Posters of the famous reggae musician are standard-issue in college dorms, and Facebook has a hold on the youth audience. College students are also less likely to have televisions, and be more open to streaming the film on their computer. Additionally, I bet there a few people who'd like to watch the documentary at home while imbibing in the substance for which the musician is famous--and brag about it on Facebook later. The Facebook rentals will be $6.99, compared to about $12 each for a movie ticket. For those that want to watch the movie on their television, on-demand will be an option too.


Ironically, even though such simultaneous releases shatter the theatrical window, they also profit from it. People won't pay $6.99 to rent a movie once it's on DVD, but they will pay that much to see a movie that's "only in theatres." Couldn't this system just fall apart if too many movies become available concurrently with their release? Simultaneous release can and will be destructive to the traditional theatrical model. Theatres provide something tangible--a big screen, comfy seats, a communal experience--in addition to the intangible. By seeing a movie "first," you get to be the one to talk about it to your friends first, and you won't be left out of the conversation. You also don't have to delay gratification--you can enjoy a "must-see" film right away. On-demand releases charge more because of the intangibles, not the tangibles. You can even add another intangible, "convenience," to the list as well, since parents of young children or people who live far away from movie theatres would get more value out of the experience. Simultaneous releases will only get more popular and continue to evolve. Will they be symbiotic with the theatrical model, or will they devour it?



Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Miramax starts streaming movies on Facebook in U.S., U.K., and Turkey


By Sarah Sluis

Facebook is the latest distribution outlet for movie studios. Earlier this year, Warner Bros. added Inception and Harry Potter to Facebook, and The Big Lebowski recently joined the Facebook fray, timed to the movie's Blu-ray release. Unlike when you rent a movie, Facebook allows for a social component. Inception-The-Movie-on-Facebook People can share comments while they watch a film, and users can post movie clips to their wall. It sounds like Facebook is trying to turn movie-watching into "Pop-Up Video."



Now Miramax is entering the game, announcing that Good Will Hunting, Spy Kids, Chicago, Cold Mountain, and No Country for Old Men will be available to rent on Facebook. Viewers now have the choice between iTunes, Amazon, Netflix, Redbox, and Hulu for a number of titles. I used to think that one provider would dominate the others, but now I think that there may be room for a number of streaming providers. Facebook streaming offers a unique experience, but it's also not for everyone. Cult movies like The Big Lebowski seem tailor-made for the site, since they're all about repeating catchphrases with friends. But if you're in the mood for a movie, Facebook has no directory page that allows you to browse through titles and make a decision. Since there are so few movies on Facebook right now, a library may only reveal the site's paltry collection, but it will be a grave error if Facebook doesn't add such a page if it's really serious about getting into the movie rental game.



The other reason multiple sites will proliferate for movie rentals has to do with consumer habits. Not everyone is interested in the next big thing, so they won't be willing to watch a movie on Facebook. Some people prefer to rent, but balk at 48-hour windows in which they must see a film. Others would rent if the movie file expired in 30 days, like some sites offer. I recently joined the music streaming service Spotify, and was interested to see that Spotify and iTunes had significantly different artists and songs in their top ten. In fact, only three songs were in the top ten on both Spotify and iTunes. Clearly, people with different demographics and different tastes are using the service. Additionally, iTunes charts purchases while Spotify tracks listens. This is pretty similar to movie rental vs. movie purchase. Some songs you like to listen to, others you're willing to buy. As each of the movie streaming sites develop, they may end up succeeding not because of their mass appeal, but because they offer content that appeals to those who like it unlimited, pay-per-use, or with a strong social component.



Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Twitter is just another form of word-of-mouth advertising, not a harbinger of doom


By Sarah Sluis

So last weekend, Bruno did big business on Friday, then dropped dramatically through the weekend. Who's to blame? According to some, Twitter.

Twitter_logo An article posted in The Wrap (on Thursday, before the movie released) posited that the new communication tool could spread word-of-mouth reviews even faster, making disappointing films drop before the weekend is through, instead of on their second weekend. Time seconded the article, which was in turn followed by a backlash on Movie Marketing Madness, which cited an even more vehement backlash on The Hot Blog.

The gist is that information is disseminated faster and faster (through Twitter), making movies that are bombs more easily recognizable. However, Bruno was something of a "fan" film, the kind that normally has outsized grosses on Friday because people want to be the first to see it. Couldn't that be the reason? I noted on Monday that most of the other comedies in the top ten (The Proposal, The Hangover) barely dropped at all, indicating that people just weren't that interested in seeing Bruno. Perhaps they felt they had already had their fill of Bruno from all of his talk show appearances, done in character.

Also, Twitter isn't new. It's the same idea as AOL Instant Messenger away messages, which people use to broadcast their whereabouts, and Facebook status updates. The only difference is, it's more visible, which has made it the darling of journalists. Feelings about the Iraq election, for example, could be viewed not Harry potter twitter only by someone's friends, but the whole world. You can do a Twitter search for "Harry Potter," for example (one of the "hot trending" topics right now) and instantly have access to the vox populi. The "man on the street" is replaced by "Je_taime_Erik: has seen Harry Potter 6 and is impressed." The sheer volume of Harry Potter-related tweets shows the excitement over the film. Even when people grumble about authenticity, they're not giving a negative review, but voicing an opinion that can make people even more eager to see the film, so they can weigh in as well. Bruno, apparently, did not inspire that level of engagement. Negative or positive

tweets don't matter nearly as much as volume. The question to ask is, "Is this the kind of film that people will talk (or tweet) about before and after?





People love talking about films they loved (or hated), and Twitter is

just another place to do that. There's something to be said for the

amount of people on my Facebook (which I prefer over Twitter) who have

their status updates set to "Going tonight Harry Potter" or "[insert comment

about] Harry Potter." It makes the film more of a must-see. Yes,

this happens more quickly than if you were to wait until the next time

you have coffee with your friend or speak to him/her on the telephone.

In focusing on people's impressions of movies after they see them, these journalists often overlook forward-looking statements like "JaRaized: On our way to watch Harry Potter and The Half Blood Prince! Wheeeeeee!" and people saying things like "Going to tonight with [insert friend]" or ""Who wants to go see Harry Potter with me?" Looking at random people's plans can help studios (and journalists) gauge interest and also measure the effectiveness of a marketing campaign. People's tweets do serve as word-of-mouth advertising, and can even recruit audience members. When Sugahill tweeted "I dont have anyone to go see Harry potter with :(", and Etsears tweeted "...Also, I need someone to see Harry Potter with me. Anyone?" I bet it was only a matter of time before these Twitter users found a friend to join them.

I see Twitter as more of a reflection of people's interest in a film, as well as a visible, written version of "word-of-mouth." According to this Nielsen survey, word-of-mouth and online are among the top four ways people hear about a film, but I think it's no coincidence that studio advertising from television and in-theatre are the other big two. Personally, as an 18-34 female speaking, I think people like to see the trailer and commercials for a movie as well as some kind of social reinforcement, whether it's a recommendation from a friend or a pre-release conversation along the lines of "I really want to see this movie!" Twitter is certainly part of that, but it doesn't have the power to make a film bomb over one day.



Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Amateur filmmaker arrested for murder he wrote in screenplay


By Sarah Sluis

For all the borrowing that goes on between real life and fiction, occasionally people step over the line.  Severely.  After writing a screenplay called House of Cards about a man who posed as a woman online and then lured his dates to their death by arranging to meet them in person, the man, Mark Andrew Twitchell, allegedly went out and committed the crime.  Police seized the screenplay, which had already been the subject of a dubious "work now, maybe get paid later" Facebook casting call, and possibly was in the midst of shooting:

"I'm casting all of these roles personally so just contact me through facebook to start the process. We're short on time so the sooner the better.

Roles are non paid for House of Cards but we are working on a $3M feature right after this with major A-list talent and I remember things like work ethic and true acting chops when considering roles for that too."

As he wrote in the screenplay, Twitchell reportedly hacked into the e-mail account of the victim and sent a message saying he had left town to go on a tropical vacation.  More details involving the method of the killing and disposal of the body also match up to the screenplay.



The screenplay itself was inspired by the television show "Dexter," about a vigilante serial killer.  Adding another twist to the sordid tale, the man who was killed was apparently his second target.  A first man, attacked while wearing a mask, escaped and did not report the incident--perhaps out of embarrassment for his involvement in online dating?  The "Dexter"-inspired screenplay was not the first of Twitchell's rip-offs: he helmed an unauthorized, 60k "fan film" featuring Star Wars characters a few years ago.



The odd things is, I could imagine the Twitchell story itself being turned into a movie: a film about a Peepingtom
man who makes a film about murder, then commits it.  With this idea in mind, I was reminded of the 1960 Michael Powell film Peeping Tom, a creepy and self-implicating movie about a man (a member of a film crew) who films the murders of his victims.  He gets a voyeuristic thrill out of watching and re-watching his victims' deaths.  The problem is, you're watching his secret films too, and enjoying (or tolerating) them, putting you in the same camp as the twisted serial killer.  If you hate the killer, you must address your own love for the suspense and thrill of his actions.  Twitchell has already been brought into custody, but the bizarre events put a shivering reverse on the oft-heard "based on a true story."



Links:
Original Story
Update
Cinematical