Out Of Time

Some days news is one note or just uninteresting. Nothing with a long term impact or any impact worth mentioning at all. And some days are Wednesday. California talent managers lose a pivotal legal upheaval, Bob Iger spells out his future with Disney, the Viacom and Cablevision Bundle War gets simplified and the ongoing VFX Rebellion gets complicated (it now involves India). Any other day, these would be the topic of discussion. Some of them will be (I won't leave you hanging on the India shout out). But more than any story, the one that has the most buzz is the Time Warner spinoff of publishing branch, Time Inc. Following a failed deal with Meredith Corp., resulting in a 500 staff layoff, Time Warner, the media conglomerate, is spinning Time Inc. into its own independent company in the same way it released AOL and and Time Warner Cable in 2009 and sold Warner Music Group in 2004. Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes would not comment on the future of Time Inc. at a media event hosted by Deutsche Bank in Florida on Monday, leaving the publisher of popular magazines, such as Sports Illustrated, Time, People and Entertainment Weekly, in jeopardy. Speculation was of course confirmed Wednesday afternoon with the announcement that shook the publishing world (Variety reported the split around 3:00 PT). Divorcing from print media assets is becoming a trend in this era of e-readers and Internet blogs (irony noted). Former News Corp. entity, Fox Group, will now compete head to head with Time Warner once they separate from their publishing assets this summer. These once diversified media outlets will now focus strategy on film and television networks and production. Time Inc. has long been considered an anchor on Time Warner stock, recently growing due to increased chatter over a potential separation. The stock closed up at $55.46 at close on Wednesday. Time Warner sees this spin off as an opportunity to hone in on visual media, including its holdings Turner Broadcasting and HBO, while having a stronger footing in new deals, such as its attempt to purchase the MGM library. The split is also considered a boost to Time Inc., now able to attract shareholders purely interested in the magazine business as well control its own cash. (Anyone who's ever had to share funds with a household knows the new found power in having money be solely your own). The separation is pending SEC and board approval and should finalize by the end of the year. It will be overseen by current Time Inc. CEO Laura Lang, who helped initiate the split in 2011 and will resign from her position at the conclusion of the division. So there's my best attempt at detailing a lengthy business decision. Now, lets go further. Why should absorbing any of the previous information be worth a damn? Legacy. That's right: legacy. Time Warner is a relic of its prime days in the early nineties. The1989 merger of Time Inc., a publishing empire started in 1923 by Henry Luce, and Warner Communications, a combination of Warner Bros. film and television assets, Time Warner was a giant in media. The company understood synergy. A conglomerate must have synergy. Time Warner was a model for acquiring diverse assets and melding them together. However, after AOL purchased Time Warner in 2001, the giant took a hit to the forehead. It has yet to recover. The creation of AOL Time Warner lasted less than a decade and stalled out due to a loss of interest in AOL after the burst of the dot com bubble and the declining economy beginning in 2001. With so many parts of Time Warner now separated, the real impact of this division is the lack of interest on the part of media conglomerates to commit to synergy. There is no longer a perception that published material can meld with visual media. While there are noted failures in this realm, such as a 2009 CBS and Entertainment Weekly venture with a print video ad, there are other, more realistic ventures to be considered. Magazines develop well known personalities, fan bases and niche markets. It would seem wise to tie these magazines into television news programs. Allow these personalities and fan loyalties to bring reading audiences to television and, more importantly, bring television audiences to magazines. An ability to make publishing and visual media work together could have rejuvenated Time Warner. A company that had the potential to create a new level of unprecedented synergy and become an example of how to conglomerate in a new century of media, will now be best known for its lack of vision. And more so, its lack of accomplishment. From the past decade, the biggest news regarding Time Warner consists of downsizing and spin offs. While this spin off, like its predecessors, is likely to produce an equally competent, if not stronger Time Inc., the implication is clear. Publishing is dying. Print is dying. And with it, so is innovation. Rather than find new ways to integrate one of the oldest American institutions with the newest technologies, companies are surrendering. They are giving in when the heat turns up and show no signs of standing up to the challenge. Time Warner talks of the challenges it faces heading into the future of visual media without acknowledging the challenge it usurped. Legacy is important in business. It is vital in entertainment. And it creates history. What this recent Time Warner news comes down to is the clear indication of a legacy for the company as a savvy businessman, but a lost opportunity to salvage an industry and synergize greatness. Sorry, but time's up.

Just Good Ol' Fashioned Revenge

Let's talk about "Iron Man 3." Of course, the big news today is the release of the new trailer for the summer blockbuster. And that is definitely a talking point all it's own. However, as a nifty little tie in to the trailer release, I would be remiss not to mention yesterday's Variety report of a blog post (potentially written by former Digital Domain Media Group CEO John Textor) accusing Marvel of being complicit in the ongoing studio v. VFX debacle (see The VFX Rebellion). First, the trailer. As any number of reviews on the trailer will attest, this is not your average Iron Man. While the first two films in the franchise were cheesy super hero fun (although the overly long "Iron Man 2" was probably more fun in theory than execution), "Iron Man 3" appears to have a darker tone right off the bat. Tony Stark can't sleep. At first it would appear he has it made. "Im Tony Stark: I build neat stuff, I got a great girl and, occasionally - save the world. So why cant I sleep?" Well, it could have something to do with the slew of attacks throughout the city, no doubt caused by new villains The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) and Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce), and protecting the love of his life, Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), from an untimely demise. The trailer promises a more introspective approach to Tony Stark and Iron Man. More along the lines of "The Dark Night Rises" brooding Bruce Wayne or, hopefully to a lesser degree, "Spider Man 3" and the tortured asshole persona Peter Parker adopted. The trend here being that by the third go around our favorite heroes have been heroes for so long, they now question who they are and how to balance life with duty. Bruce Wayne went rock climbing, Peter Parker threw temper tantrums and it looks like Tony Stark will blow things up, suffer from anxiety and clone himself until he reaches self-realization. It is an interesting theme to tackle in this age of fame: a seemingly beyond human super hero grappling with doing his job and living his life. "Do you want an empty life or a meaningful death?" The Mandarin puts this ultimatum to Iron Man in his slowest drawl, evoking what could be the strongest aspect of the film - to live a normal life, or die in the name of some self imposed value. Tony Stark, typically a flat persona, has the potential to become a more complex and interesting character given the introduction of such inner struggle. This is obviously speculation on what could be a throw away one liner. But if the Iron Man franchise really is heading in a stronger dramatic direction, Tony Stark/Robert Downey Jr. is probably the best brooding super hero to stew in self reflection given his vast wealth, playboy past and wildly unknown future (sound familiar). Despite some clear intersections between the recently concluded (?) Dark Knight franchise (a slow speaking brute of a villain, a plane stunt nearly identical to the opening sequence of "The Dark Knight Rises"), "Iron Man 3" looks ready to provide a stronger, more dynamic, better structured film for the summer audiences now wanting cerebral heft with their popcorn and slushy. And now, you might be thinking, what was that less notable talk about a blog post from some guy you've never heard of? Variety reported yesterday that blogger "VFX Soldier" suspects a comment on his recent post regarding the Oscar day Hollywood and Highland protest, signed John, could be from the former CEO of Digital Domain Media Group, John Textor. Digital Domain is one of five VFX facilities who worked on the recent Iron Man installment, the first in the series not to receive its visual wonder from previous facility, Industrial Light And Magic. Digital Domain Media Group filed for bankruptcy in September of last year, leaving Mr. Textor with a rather disgraced name in the VFX industry, and Digital Domain visual effects was sold to Beijing Galloping Horse America and Reliance Media Works. The main portion of the post can be read here: http://variety.com/2013/film/news/did-former-digital-domain-ceo-dish-on-bad-iron-man-3-deal-1200002686/
At its core, the post puts blame on Marvels Victoria Alonso and Marvel itself for supposedly being in support of visual artists, but providing little more than 14% gross margin to Digital Domain for its work on "Iron Man 3." In the commenters words, "not enough to even cover the light bill." The post also intimates that studios are the main culprit in disabling the VFX industry due to a lack of proper compensation for the work. The post concludes with a veiled accusation that this practice is what destroyed Rhythm & Hues. The author of this post has not been confirmed. However, Textor has often made the same opinion publicly known. Whether or not it really is Textor, the accusation establishes "Iron Man 3" as an unwilling symbol of the current VFX dilemma. As the supposed rebellion continues to stir, more attention is being focussed on visual effects. And with words as harsh as those aimed at Marvel, studios will come under more scrutiny in their handling of VFX in their films. With threats looming of retaliation by visual artists, it is possible the VFX industry will use the effects heavy summer season to bring attention to their plight and put a negative light on Hollywood studios. Suddenly, the summer blockbuster season will not only have action on the screen, but in Hollywood itself. As attested by Iron Man himself, "No politics here. Just good ol' fashioned revenge."

The VFX Rebellion Begins

Life Of Pi

Lets talk about the tension building in Hollywood VFX facilities. California VFX artists are angry. How angry? Variety reported Thursday the threat of extremists launching a cyber attack on a major California VFX facility in retaliation for declining business due to out of state subsidies and incentives. Phew, that was a mouthful. The amusing mental image of tech nerds up in arms aside, some in the industry perceive the threat to be very real and very dangerous. What it breaks down to is California is no longer financially plausible for VFX facilities to function. By itself, the issue seems dull. Another financially strapped industry struggling to stay afloat in a harsh economic climate. When El Segundo, Calif. based VFX beacon Rhythm & Hues announced it would file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in early February, the visual effects industry was shaken but Hollywood was mostly unfazed. Universal and 20th Century Fox jumped in days later with a court approved $17 million loan and that was that. Not so. As the 2013 Hollywood awards season hit full speed, unforeseen events in the wake of Rhythm & Hues turned the bankruptcy into a catalyst for a deeper rooted problem: visual artists want respect. Hollywood has never been shy it does not consider the hard working artists behind studio tentpoles such as "Jack And The Giant Slayer" or the latest Rhythm & Hues creation, "Life Of Pi", to be the same caliber as A-list actors and directors. Following the Oscar day Hollywood and Highland protest staged by aggrieved artists, the ceremony itself added fuel to the fire, transforming a business issue into a fully heated flame of emotion. Slights were reported post-Oscar of "The Avengers" cast supposedly scripted gaff butchering the intro before the presentation of the Best Visual Effects award. Best Director winner Ang Lee was accused of glancing over any mention of visual effects or Rhythm & Hues during his acceptance speech despite Life Of Pi's reliance on CG technology (though he is quoted as thanking "all 3000" who worked on the film). And most noteworthy, the play off of lead VFX supervisor for Life Of Pi, Bill Westenhofer, during the Best Visual Effects award acceptance speech, by no less than the theme to Jaws. This struck a chord among many who watched it happen due to the strict 44 second time allotted to the VFX artist when some speeches clocked in at over a minute. Westenhofer's mic was turned off right as he was brining attention to the struggles of Rhythm & Hues. Westenhofer is reported as proclaiming backstage, "The visual effects business is definitely in a challenging position right now. We're not technicians, were artists. And I'm concerned if we don't find a new business model, were going to lose some of the artistry." And now were here, at this point in the present, sitting on the precipice between continued tongue biting and fully fledged rebellion. VFX artists feel victimized by Hollywood studios. They spend hundreds of hours creating, in some cases, entire movies that yield large profits in the long run but do not receive health care coverage, retirement plans or job security. Not even a pat on the back, as the Oscar ceremony debacle proves. But as in any David and Goliath situation, good and bad are not as clearly defined as a drama junkie might want. With the prospect of a VFX cyber attack looming, others in the industry have called the move detrimental. It is believed (and accurately so) that attacking a VFX facility only further dents the industry and leaves the studios without any real consequence. It is entirely evident that change is coming. But unlike a guild strike or inner studio rumblings, VFX artists are displaced as outside of the immediate film industry. Their awards are almost entirely separated as "Technical Awards," their work is being pushed outside of California and their needs are considered low priority and low interest. The VFX industry is in need of change and the big, bad Hollywood studios are in need of some sympathy for what are now their joint partners in creating movies. There really is no distinct good and evil in this situation, despite my overt characterization. Business is business. But there is a distinct necessity for understanding. Business is also understanding. Understanding the economic environment. Understanding what and who is necessary to survive. And understanding that making Hollywood into a bigger, sexier, bitchier version of high school is good for tabloids, and bad for business.

This Is Gonna Be Swell

Welcome to Chester Hall. To anyone and everyone (meaning no one at this point) who is reading this, I like to talk about entertainment and Hollywood and pop culture. Like, a lot. So now that I've driven all my friends away with constant references to Variety and Nielsen and endless banter about Oscar, Tony, Emmy and Grammy, I have relocated to the Internet to let out all my talk. Trust me, it'll be swell.