Is the Future of Television The Internet?

Just two months ago I was immovably of the belief that television as the traditional media platform we’ve enjoyed for decades was here to stay and that Internet viewing options did not pose a threat to the status quo.  I now have to admit that I was wrong.   Television is a living, breathing, vital media source that, like all living things, must evolve to the environment it inhabits.  While I remain convinced that both broadcast and cable television networks will not be planning their farewell parties just yet I do recognize that the dynamic has changed.

Historically has been an informative and entertaining medium whose content was dictated by network executives who planned every time slot down to the second.  However, with the advent of Internet and digital content viewing platforms such as Netflix, Hulu, and Crackle, viewers have now been empowered with the ability to choose what content they want to see, when they want to see it, and where they want to see it.  Through smartphones, laptops, tablets, or on regular HD TV screens via Internet television programs audiences of virtually every demographic have been given the ability to construct the system of entertainment that is right for them.

These newfound superpowers are great for viewers, not so great for traditional television networks.  Realizing which way the pendulum is swinging, cable providers have presented customers with DVRs that allow viewers to pause live television and record programs for later viewing.  Cable companies have also given promotional rate reductions and custom channel packages to loyal customers.   Just a couple of weeks ago The Hollywood Reporter announced Nielsen will be adding streaming data for Fall 2013. 

So why do I care about this information?  For a few reasons- 1. I’m a media professional currently employed by a cable network that does not stream over the Internet.  I find it helps to know if your industry is drastically changing or falling to pieces.  2.  Because my ultimate goal is to own a successful television network.  When pondering this idea just two months ago, I was convinced that cable television would be the platform to launch my network.  Now I’m not so sure.  Now I’m thinking viral might not sound that bad.

Paramount is Back in Business… the Television Business, That Is

March has proved to be a busy month for Viacom as the entertainment conglomerate announced its intention to get back in to television.  Paramount, a Viacom company, who after splitting with CBS Corp. eight years ago, has primarily been known as a movie studio, is now said to be working on a pilot that would launch it back into television.  Viacom CEO, PhilippeDauman made the announcement that shocked the media world March 4th. 

While for any other company this declaration might not seem like a big deal- for Paramount and Viacom this is a big deal indeed.  Why?  Because up to 2005 the century-old Paramount had been quite successful at churning out television hits- everything from I Love Lucy, to Happy Days, to Star Trek, Cheers, and Frasier.  Then, Sumner Redstone, the executive chairman of both Viacom and CBS decided it best for branding to divide television and movie production between both of the companies he controls.  Television went to CBS and movies went to Paramount.  Though this sounds like a pretty cut and dry deal for both of Redstone’s holdings, CBS and Paramount have a long and well-publicized history of competition and this unexpected declaration was no exception.   Soon after Viacom announced a new pilot CBS said they would be making a play for the same series. 

Paramount said that the new TV project would be based on one of its films.  The details were at first vague, but this blogger has heard that it will be based on the Beverly Hills Cop film series starring Eddie Murphy from the 80s and early 90s.  Given that television spin-offs are generally unsuccessful, (think Clueless and My Big Fat Greek Life) many critics are skeptical.  Also, fueling the doubtful fire is the apparent absence of Redstone’s influence in making this decision.  Then there is the looming question of why would Paramount want to get back in to television in the first place?  That answer, besides the obvious awesomeness of the medium, is that recently television networks have been branded by their original programming.  Content is king and if Paramount wants to stay at the “paramount” of entertainment this is a good move.  However, I, along with prominent New Testament writers, am of the belief that a house divided against itself cannot stand.  My concerns are first the success of the series spinoff of Beverly Hills Cop.  Though it is rumored that Eddie Murphy will be front and center reprising the role of Axel Foley, if previous performance is any indicator, this may be a hard sell.  Especially with the hackneyed police detective show genre on practically every channel.  Second the competition between CBS and Paramount and third Sumner Redstone’s obviously nonexistent stamp of approval.  I guess we’ll all just have to wait and see how this pans out. 

Oz The Great and Powerful Review

One of the most highly anticipated movies of 2013 definitely proved it was worth the wait.  Oz is a star-studded cinematic masterpiece.  James Franco leads the cast as Oz, a womanizing small time magician who, above all else, desires to be great.  Though his definition of greatness is superficial- fame, power, money, respect- he is willing to set aside true love, family, and even friendships to attain it.  After a clever turn of events puts him in a hot air balloon during a tornado he finds himself plunged in to a mysterious and enchanted land of wonder in the midst of civil war.   Three witches, who are also sisters, contend for the rule of this land and Oz has to choose whose side he’s on- the side of good, of evil, or his own.  Initially entering the battle for selfish reasons, Oz is on a journey to learn what it takes to become a genuine man of greatness. 

The main cast of characters is rounded out by Mila Kunis as Theodora, Rachel Weisz as Evanora, Michelle Williams as Annie and Glinda, and Zach Braff as Frank and the cutest flying monkey ever, Finley.  There is also an appearance by the legendary Bill Cobbs.  But the real breakout star of the film is Joey King who plays the girl in the wheelchair and voices china girl.  King, who is no acting neophyte with more than 20 blockbusters to her credit, shines in an extra special way playing two different characters in Oz. 

As the girl in the wheelchair who longs to be healed by Franco’s magic she is sincere and vulnerable.  And as the china girl who joins Oz on his adventure she is gutsy and earnest.

With a strong storyline, amazing actors, and unparalleled animation and special effects, this prequel to The Wizard of Oz will at the least be one of the best movies you’ll see all year and at the most one of the best films you ever seen! 

For me the movie’s paramount theme was that anything is possible when you believe.  When Oz starts believing in the greatness that is already inside him he is able to conquer evil and appreciate his friends.  I love when movies highlight ideals that translate to real life.  Oz The Great and Powerful exemplifies such an ideal.   We are already the heroes we long to be.   We just have to BELIEVE.

PS- For the maximum viewing experience I highly recommend seeing Oz in IMAX 3D.

Rating: 5/5

Side Effects Review

 

Steven Soderbergh rarely disappoints.  I have to admit that I am very much a fan.  However, Side Effects was so off of what I expected this film to be it was insane.  I mean in-freaking-sane!  I’m not saying the movie was bad; it was well written, well acted, and well interpreted for the screen by the director.  That being said, it was kind of like being invited to a steak dinner and being served spaghetti.  Spaghetti is great; I have nothing against spaghetti; I was just expecting steak.

Trailers marketed Side Effects as a movie that exposed the hidden adverse “side effects” of anti-depressants specifically and prescription drugs in general, or so I thought.  The actual movie was nothing of the sort.  I thought I would walk in to my next appointment telling my doctor, “NO!!  I will NOT take this prescription!!!  I know the side effects!!  I saw the movie!”  I don’t think I can do that now.  In fact, I even want to rethink therapy.  All I can tell you without being a spoiler alert is that it’s a thrilling psychological who-done-it that will keep you guessing until the last minute.  

At the beginning of the film Rooney Mara is married to an incarcerated Channing Tatum and upon his release finds herself in the throws of a depressive state.  So much so, that she attempts a violent suicide and consequently undergoes treatment with Jude Law, an experienced psychiatrist with a wife and family of his own.

During Mara’s treatment Law consults with her previous psychiatrist, Catherine Zeta-Jones, to get to know his patient’s history better.  When Zeta-Jones recommends a particular medication to treat her previous patient, Law jumps at the suggestion.  Especially since other medications up to that point haven’t been working well for Mara, giving her annoying and scary “side effects.”  All of this seems very innocent but there is a spider’s web of deception being cleverly woven around this whole situation and everyone looks suspect. 

There.  That’s all I can say without telling you the plot.  If you want a good nail-biter this is your film.  In retrospect, maybe I’m more vexed at the trailer than Soderbergh.  Just remember to expect spaghetti.   Bring along some Parmesan.  

Rating- 3.75/5