|
|
The Future of
DVD |
||
|
|
Perhaps because VHS is on
the verge of extinction, DVDs are finally catching up to their potential.
InterActual is the company that developed DVD technology, and they're at the
forefront of an explosion of new features. "Perhaps the biggest
change to happen to DVD/video-based supplements in the past couple of years
is the heavy involvement of the filmmakers in the production process,"
explains InterActual's Peter Bracke. "In the future, in terms of
technological advancements, the trend seems to be leaning towards integrating
more of the DVD format's capabilities for interactivity. The use of multiple
angles to present material such as effects how-tos (where you can watch a
special effect being created, step by step), seamless and extended branching
to allow multiple versions and cuts of a film on one DVD, and the combination
of video- and text-based elements allows an information-immersive experience
unique to DVD, one that combines video and text commentary all at the same
time," such as with New Line's Infinifilm series. The Infinifilm series
includes titles like Austin
Powers in Goldmember, Spider-Man,
Thirteen Days, Blow, and John Q. For example, with
the Goldmember DVD, in addition to Mini-Me's family photo album
(including a great, timely, tongue-in-cheek "history of cloning"
montage), users can dub in their own voices. The DVD has finally
become a truly interactive experience — a film and game all in one. Whereas
previously DVD viewers have had maybe an extra hour of entertainment beyond
the film itself, now there are literally endless ways to enjoy the
experience. |
||
|
|
The leaders of the
"Easter egg" pack are the two recent Star Wars DVDs, Moulin Rouge (which has
nearly a dozen), Ice Age,
Lord of the Rings: The
Fellowship of the Ring, Austin Powers in Goldmember, Men in Black II, and Insomnia. The level of DVD
interactivity really depends upon the filmmaker, Bracke says. Baz Luhrmann,
James Cameron, and Kevin Smith love to maximize their use of the technology,
while other directors, like Spielberg, Scorsese, and even Ridley Scott,
almost never include Easter eggs. And when it comes to DVDs, the filmmaker
has the final say. Caveat: These features
are only available on a Windows platform, and they work best — being
cutting-edge and all — with Windows XP, which hasn't yet caught on as the OS
of choice for home users. The good news is that the features are accessible
for anyone running Windows 98 or higher. (Side note: XP is not nearly as
buggy as the buzz would have you believe, and it makes both watching movies
and listening to music an absolute joy.) |
||
|
|
CGI Crisis |
||
|
|
I wasn't quite so aware
of this until I saw a British DVD called Walking with Dinosaurs.
This BBC-produced documentary, narrated by Kenneth Branagh, has nearly
photo-quality, full-motion graphics of dinosaurs in action, far superior to
anything ever created by Hollywood, even — especially — Jurassic Park. First comes the question:
What are they doing right that we're doing wrong? Granted, almost anything
the BBC does is going to be of a higher caliber than Hollywood, but
presumably we all have access to the same technology. Why do American special
effects still look so awkwardly like special effects? Secondly, dinosaurs have
been extinct for roughly 65 billion years. Humans (or remarkable facsimiles)
are still alive and thriving. How is it that the BBC can make a dinosaur look
like it's straight out of Wild Kingdom, and yet Hollywood can't create
a CGI human to save its life (remember, S1m0ne was played by actress Rachel
Roberts)? I'm not saying creating
realistic computer-generated images is easy — it requires remarkable skill,
and the standard to which CGI is held increases almost daily. So what's the
problem? I'm open to hearing from
any effects designers out there, or just anyone who wants to weigh in with
their opinion about the quality of computer-generated imagery in films. If
there's something I'm not understanding, some reason why it's easier to
create dinosaurs than people, I'll be glad to write a follow-up piece. (Note:
If you see Walking with Dinosaurs, you'll know that it's not just
because we don't have a real-life point of reference — those things look like
they're about to leap off the screen and eat your keyboard.) |
||
|
|
Just Julie |
||
|
|
The 67-year-old Andrews
recently finished back-to-back filming of Eloise at the Plaza and Eloise
at Christmas for ABC's Wonderful World of Disney. Somewhere in there, she
managed to find time for a 15-city, 17-day tour of "A Royal
Christmas" with Christopher Plummer and a company of 250, including the
Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, the Westminster Concert Choir, and the
Westminster Bell Choir. In case you're not
feeling inadequate (or underemployed) enough, Andrews will also direct
"The Boyfriend," the musical which first brought her to Broadway,
at the Bay Street Theater in Sag Harbor, New York, with an eye towards
bringing the show back to the Great White (and Newly Scrubbed) Way. Given the
recent success of revivals and the feel-good nature of the show, I'd bet
money that "The Boyfriend" will be back in the Big Apple within a
year. But that's not all
Andrews has on her plate. There's another Eloise installment in development,
and Disney wants Andrews to produce The Secret Diaries of Great Aunt Clara
— in which she'll have the option to star. Then there are the two
"princess" movies: the sequel to Shrek (Andrews will lend
her voice as the princess queens' mother), and The Princess Diaries II,
directed by Garry Marshall. As if all that weren't
enough, Andrews, along with her grown daughter, Emma, is working on four
books to be released next fall on her own imprint under HarperCollins. |
||
|
|
Meaningless Awards |
||
|
|
The one thing I will give
the People's Choice Awards is that they're honest. It is a popularity
contest. No bothering with all that highbrow stuff about art vs. commerce,
character development, deus ex machina, or anything else analyzed to death in
Adaptation. Just plain
"Whaddaya like?" It's fun for the viewing public, because, for the
only time, they have the opportunity to influence an award. But despite what
winners say at the podium, getting a People's Choice Award doesn't provide
much leverage when it comes to the next salary negotiation. After all — and
I've seen this happen — a nominee can just hire a whole bunch of people to vote
for him or her. But most don't bother, because that time and energy is better
spent lobbying for an Oscar nomination. If you think I'm treating
this as a joke — well, I am. How seriously do you expect me to take the
opinions of a public that made the certified clunker Just Married (a/k/a Dude,
Where's My Prenup?) the #1 movie at the box office? While I'm on a rant, I
have one more thing to say about the whole awards season: Who cares what
anyone is wearing? I find the fashion part of the whole red-carpet thing
astonishingly irrelevant, boring, and frankly, embarrassing. Just once, I'd
like to see some real interviewers on the pre-show, asking real questions.
And make Joan and Melissa wear sweats. |
||
|
|
Reader Responses |
||
|
|
"The
reason that CGI dinosaurs looked so real, yet there hasn't been a convincing
human CGI created IS because we don't have a point of reference. It's why
every single cow looks exactly the same to you and me, but a farmer would be
able to differentiate each one at a hundred yards. It isn't a coincidence
that the more direct experience we have with something, the more 'fake' it
looks when rendered into CGI. It's not that the CGI dinosaurs are good, it's
just that we don't recognize that they're bad. Trust me, if you planted a T.
rex's butt into your local cineplex and had him watch scenes from Walking
with Dinosaurs and scenes of the humans from the dreadful CGI opus Final
Fantasy, that dinosaur would probably giggle at the dinosaurs and be awed
by the realism of the humans. And then he'd eat all of us." — Richard
Huffman "I couldn't agree
with you more about CGI looking like CGI. For the most part the CGI in The
Two Towers was good, at least better than average and it didn't distract
or detract for the most part. A very good film overall. I felt the same about
the CGI in Gangs of New York. It's so noticable when it's used, but
fortunately it's not an effects-heavy film. The sets for Gangs are
awsome. Great design and costumes as well. A great film. "If the Walking
with Dinosaurs is what was on the Discovery Channel, they are very well
done. I work in video, but have no clue about why the dinos are so well done
while most film CGI still looks like CGI. Hope we get some answers. Thanks
for the column." — Ed Klein, Salem, Oregon |
||
|
|
The Missing Link |
||
|
|
Note: I'm in New York, and the names of
last week's winners are in Toronto. My apologies, but you'll have to return
on Monday to see who won. What did Boris Karloff
and Lauren Bacall have in common (not including any professional
connections)? |
||
|
|
Quote-a-Matic |
||
|
|
"You
take people like Albert Einstein, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci — nobody
talked about the way they looked!" |
