Author Archives: William H Adams

Oct 24 2010
1 Comment
Everything Else, Fun stuff, Random Thoughts, technology

…and TV as we know it will cease to exist…

This is about as controversial as I get…

There’s been a great deal of speculation over the ‘future of TV’ and the ‘future of the internet’ or the ‘future of the internet and TV’ I went looking for some blog posts on this and the theories are both wide in their variance and numerous in count, but none of them quite capture what I believe to be one obvious theory on what TV will look like in only a short time from now.

What do others think?

Its funny to me that many “experts” try to use year-old statistics about cable or broadcast TV as proof those things will be the same in ten years. I’ve read lots of blog posts and I’ve heard people say things about how cable/broadcast TV is still the primary medium by which people get their news and how TV sales have increased over 2009. (which is a DUH by the way – I don’t know if these same people heard about a certain digital conversion that took place in 2009) TV network execs like to make a very cyclical argument that in short says “we already exist, so we’ll continue to exist – online TV basically doesn’t exist so it will never exist.” In other words they think they are ‘too big to fail’ and that internet-based video cannot compete with cable or broadcast. (Sounds similar to the record industry in 1999) One very experienced media professional actually simply said to me “The internet is a terrible delivery system for video” Its clear to me that in general, today’s TV professionals have no idea what’s coming. First off TV sales won’t stop the Internet from being the delivery medium. Second off when those ‘experts’ say “Internet” they’re thinking ‘search engines,’ ‘computer,’ and ‘browser’ – these words aren’t in the vocabulary of what internet-delivered TV will look like in the future.

So they’re just going to merge together right?

Well let me start off by saying that I heard someone say recently “these two are just going to keep growing together” which sounds like a simple answer that most people would probably agree with. This answer is totally correct in one way and totally incorrect in another way.

  • I believe that it is correct in that to the end user, the effect will still be that you sit down on a couch, Turn on your TV and be able to choose the programming in a similar fashion that you might to a DVR or a Video-on-demand service. It’ll still be on your TV.
  • I think that it is incorrect in thinking because the effect for the content producer and network execs will be totally different since it will no longer be sent over a cable TV service

…yeah so here’s where some people just aren’t going to believe me. Cable as you know it may no longer exist – possibly within your lifetime. Sorry to drop a bomb on you like that, but that’s it. I don’t make the rules. Do I think that the computer will just replace the TV? No. Do I expect that people are going to start hooking up their TVs to their computers every night to watch the overpriced movies on iTunes? No. Do I believe live television will cease to exist? No. Do I believe 24-hour TV stations will cease to exist entirely? Doubtful, though possible.

So what will TV to become?

I think in ten years you’re going buy a TV with an operating system on it with a GUI similar to Apple’s “Front Row”, Hulu’s “Hulu Desktop” or Microsoft’s Xbox 360 “360 Experience”. The TV will have a small solid-state hard drive on it, which will allow you to download ‘apps’ much like the ones everyone’s so crazy about on their phones right now. These apps might serve functions ranging from playing games to telling you the weather or helping your kid with their algebra homework. Many of these apps will simply be TV Channels. You’ll download only the channels you want – some of them will be ad supported – others will cost a premium. Some will be available for individual download – others I suspect will still be packaged together.

At the forefront of all these apps will be your queue – anytime that a new episode of the shows that you subscribe to comes up, it goes into your queue. So you sit down on your couch and turn on your TV – if you turned it off in the middle of something it’ll start playing that again as if it had just been paused. You may think that sounds just like DVR – well it does, but there’s more to it. You see, instead of receiving a stream of channels over digital cable, you’ll get it over cable-based Internet. And instead of storing that episode on a hard drive in a set-top box, you’re streaming from an online service. I do think that live events will still stream live over their respective channels- though I imagine that they will likely still be available at our convenience for a period afterwards. When you finish one Item in your queue, your TV will advance right on to the next unwatched item and so on, and so fourth. If you don’t have anything in your queue it’ll most likely select something else similar to what you’ve already watched, so in the end the effect is still the same: you can sit and aimlessly watch TV all day long. Don’t worry, there was never any chance that was no longer going to be the case.

So this is what I’m sayin’

A television device with the power of the average computer in its innards. No more flipping through ‘channels’ but rather subscribing to specific shows off of specific channels that will land in your queue. Ads will definitely still be in there – and there won’t be anything you can do about it, but they will likely be more things that actually interest you. And yes, more than likely over-the-air 24 hour local stations will still exist and your TV will allow you to open those up too. But if you’re a local TV station, ten years down the road you’d better be saying ‘we have an app for that’ to your customer so they can still tune in.

Permission to treat the witness as hostile

Why do I think this? Am I just being or crazy? No, I actually have some research to back me up. Perhaps the greatest argument is this: TV’s primary reason for existence is not to entertain, but to deliver ads. The market penetration of DVRs is steadily increasing. According to a Barclays Capitol study, a third (33%) of homes with TV now have a DVR also. Try to follow me here: according to this same study: 1) DVRs increase the amount of TV watched 2) most of these DVRs are new within the past year 3) People who haven’t had DVRs as long (2 years or less) don’t usually skip commercials those who have had it a while do skip commercials – so therefore 4) At this point, commercial viewership is still up. (I liken this to the initial increase in CD sales the year Napster was introduced) Think about it: as consumers become more savvy and as DVRs get more popular – guess what isn’t going to be watched? Ads! – People are going to be fast-forwarding right through them! An internet-based medium allows for assurance that not only are ads being viewed, but also they can be tailored specifically to the household watching. Once advertisers start realizing that thanks to DVRs ratings of TV shows ≠ viewings of ads any longer there will have to be a shift in the way people deliver those ads.

Another issue to be considered is the advent of these subscription-based and ad-supported streaming services being available on devices like the Android, iPad, iPhone and iPod as well as your netbook, notebook desktop and work station computers. It’s available in all of these places and not on the big screen in your home? Um, is anyone else seeing why this is the obvious next step? If you had one of these new subscriptions to a premium service like Netflix or Hulu Plus – you’d be able to watch it on your break at work on your desktop, while you’re waiting to pick up your kids on your phone, flying to Tokyo on an iPad or amazingly, just at home on your TV.

The third reason why I think this is so likely is because ITS ALREADY HAPPENING. I have my Xbox set up to stream Netflix movies in HD – I often use Hulu Desktop to watch movies and TV. While I’m sure that doesn’t surprise you as I am probably a little more knowledgeable than the average user, I also recently helped a couple (who would not really call themselves ‘super tech savvy’) install a new blu-ray player that has Netflix, youtube and Pandora streaming right to it. After a few minutes of watching a 720p HD show on Netflix they decided to get rid of their cable and just hang onto the internet. You know where this 30 something guy got the idea? His Dad! – His Dad who had already bought a Roku streaming device to replace his cable box. And I know several more families that have already gone this route – citing its affordable price and customizability as strong reasons for jumping on it early. I could write another whole article about how streaming video is ideal for sports fans – and how they are already using it. Most folks have at least one team that they love that doesn’t see much coverage on the major networks – imagine, you just download the “Redwings” app, pay a subscription and you won’t miss a game!

The next big step in the process is going to happen soon when Apple releases its App store for the newly upgraded “Apple TV.” The Apple TV isn’t a TV at all – it’s a box that works with iTunes and allows you to play your HD content directly to an HDTV. The App store will work like the app store on iPhone, iPad, iPod touch and now Mac computers. So you could download apps – like the Netflix steaming app, the Hulu app, the ABC app….are you getting the picture yet? It’ll replace the need for cable or satellite in many homes.

Apple is actually late arriving at this game, Boxee – a very forward thinking company – has developed a similar product that uses existing streaming services like Hulu and Netflix as well as services provided many sporting franchises. People are even buying cheap PCs and Mac Minis to dedicate to their internet-based TV watching using Hulu desktop, Apple front row or boxee. You can find out more about boxee by checking out their site. Mark Cuban wrote an interesting blog post entitled “the future of TV is TV” wherein he said he didn’t think these ‘extra boxes’ will catch on because they’re complicated and people like things to be simple. I agree with him – the boxes won’t last, but I think that’s only because people will start integrating the same functionality into the sets themselves. Eventually, just like the guy who decided to put a cable receiver and a TV into one box, someone is going to realize the value of having this device integrated into the TV – no extra boxes externally.

Think inside the box

Still think I’m crazy? Okay well here’s a surpise for you: What I’m talking about already exists. Samsung has integrated into their last two TV model series what they call “Yahoo Widgets” available for download to your TV – one of which is Netflix. Think that’s an outlier? Sony’s Bravia Series (already 68% of the market) now ships with the ability to stream Netflix directly. Are you starting to see a trend here? I think that the TV will still basically look like a HDTV does today, but I think that it will have a role similar to an enormous iPad – simple, yet versatile. It will sync with the computers in your house and may even have a built-in camera for video chatting (which is already becoming more popular thanks to skype and Apple’s ‘face time’ commercials) Imagine – finally being at the Jetsons/ back to the future 2 stage where your TV rings and its your grandma or your boss. It’s all the very least we could have in ten years.

But this really can’t happen in ten years . . . right?

Ten years ago I remember having to explain the idea of an MP3 player to the average teenager. I also remember people saying that MP3s would never replace CDs – I was one of them. Then in 2001 Apple introduced the iPod. I don’t know that I have to explain that any further but, what the heck; To date, Apple has sold a quarter of a billion iPods (yes, that’s billion – with a ‘b’) – I couldn’t find an exact figure but based off of the iPod’s current market penetration I think that it’s safe to say that this is just over half of the total number of digital audio players sold over the past ten years – that puts the total players (of any brand) somewhere close to 500,000,000. I could give you tons of staggering statistics about how quickly the adoption of file-based digital audio caught on – like the fact that when apple released iTunes for Windows it reached one-million downloads in less than three days – but what it comes down to is this: technology changes fast and if something is a good idea people will jump on it. If anything, I think ten years is conservative.

These crazy kids and their interwebs…

If you’re over age 60 and you’re thinking “I’d never use that! – that sounds complicated” first – I completely agree. You probably wouldn’t – but your children will. In fact, it’s likely some of them already do. Second, the iPhone is yet again an example of how if a device is way more capable in some ways, people are willing for it to be a little more complicated. You don’t buy the iPhone because its an awesome phone – you buy it because its cool and can do lots more than a regular phone can.

In Conclusion…

So, the future of TV will be very awesome for the consumer – lots more personalized and versatile.The future of TV for the professional will only be as hard as they try to make it – if they can accept the change and jump into a forward thinking group and things will be on the up and up. But if they resist, I think we’ll see a great deal of the same thing that happened to the music industry who tried to bury the MP3. If I could paint it in a word picture –its like trying to plug a leak in a cardboard boat – it won’t ever stop. People will find the content they want in the most convenient way for them.

What does this mean for you if you’re an upstart non-profit, church or small business? Awesome news! Instead of paying absurd fees to appear on cable or even more absurd fees to be on broadcast TV, you can own your own channel! You can have visibility that rivals any Turner network if you just hire a developer or get your code-monkey friend to put together an App for you. Online video services like vimeo and youtube are free, but you can even develop and host your own for only a few thousand a year. In addition, local advertising will be more accessible than ever! You’ll still be able to advertise to the local area (much like you already can with facebook) on preexisting services.

So yeah, I’m excited. TV’s only going to get cooler.

Tagged , ,
Oct 22 2010
Leave a comment
Fun stuff, Music Video Fridays

Music Video Friday: SMS [Shine] by David Crowder Band

This Friday I’d like to feature a video that just came out this week. David Crowder Band’s latest music video for their song SMS [Shine] The video was shot directed and edited entirely by the band. The entire thing is a stop motion animation with a Light Bright at the center of the action. The video appeared on Fox News where they revealed that it took 700,000 Light Bright pieces to pull this thing off. After seeing this video I’m wondering if the Light Bright is going to make a come back this holiday season.

Tagged , ,
Oct 18 2010
Leave a comment
Everything Else, Quotes

Today’s Quote: Political Ad Campaigns

I love what comedian Brian Regan said about political ad billboards – he points out that they’re often just the person’s name and 2-3 words they’ve chosen to describe themselves, as if that’s all that was needed to make an informed decision. Political Ads are ridiculous. Alabama is famous for its political ads – whether its for Young Boozer (and yes, that’s his real name) or Dale Peterson. But funny ads are everywhere else too. One of my favorites is anti Sam Katz, a guy who is apparently running for mayor of Winnipeg. It ends with footage of him playing soccer and accidentally kicking a kid in the face. You’ll want to check it out sometime. I don’t know what they’re like where you are – but here in Montgomery the negative ads have gotten so intense that I almost don’t want to watch TV until after the elections are over.
By this time everyone has to be getting tired of the mudslinging – in relation to that, this quote about negative political ads caught my eye.

Every two years the American politics industry fills the airwaves with the most virulent, scurrilous, wall-to-wall character assassination of nearly every political practitioner in the country — and then declares itself puzzled that America has lost trust in its politicians.
– Charles Krauthammer

Tagged , , ,
Oct 14 2010
Leave a comment
Everything Else, Quotes

A Quote for Today

saw a quote that caught my attention today thought I’d share;

“One of the great disadvantages of hurry is that it takes such a long time.” – G.K. Chesterton

Tagged , , , ,
Oct 12 2010
1 Comment
Musings, Spirituality

Why I Pray

Do you pray? Do you know why?

A study was released in 2006 that seemingly proved that prayers for healing were ineffective. This is the largest study of its kind and to many it seemed to prove that prayer was a useless escapade and that if there is a God, he doesn’t seem to be listening. My first reaction was depression. I thought “God! – Why didn’t you show up?” and for a little while I let it affect my faith, but then I did some of my own research both in the scriptures and elsewhere and I realized that this study doesn’t change anything because that’s not why I pray.

So how do we as Christians react to this study? Well, we could point out that most of the studies before this one seemed to show the opposite to be true – such as a similar study in 1988 which showed that people who were prayed for anonymously needed fewer meds than those in the control group. Or we could point to the fact that statistically those who are involved in church are more likely to heal from diseases. But I really don’t think any of these prove anything. I’m not saying I don’t believe that the most recent study is conclusive; I think none of them are, and I don’t think any of them ever will be.

Why?

If someone asked a wise and generous millionaire for $100 randomly, he might say yes, he might say no – he could have good reasons for both. Perhaps he knows that the person in question is just going to waste that money or perhaps he knows that if he doesn’t give his money to that person, they’ll have the opportunity earn it themselves and in the process learn something. He might even say no and then offer them a job and in the long run, give them way more that $100. He also might give to people who didn’t even ask for it. If someone with whom he’s close asks him for $1 wouldn’t he be more likely to give them the money? Even more so if they were asking for that money so they could use it to help someone else in need? Obviously this analogy has its limits, but I think it changes things we you stop thinking of God as a giant slot machine and start thinking of him as a person. You can measure the statistical likelihood of a slot machine giving you a jackpot and it will not change over time. God is dynamic and while his character is unchanging, in scripture it’s clear that he’s not a slot machine.

So is it useless to Pray?

Medically prayer is shown to be effective for the person praying in that it promotes healthy blood pressure, reduces stress hormones and lowers heart rate. So regardless of what you believe, it is not useless to pray.

But do all of the effects of prayer have to be measurable by numbers? Think of your best friend, your husband, wife, boyfriend or girlfriend – do you find a conversation with that person to be ‘effective’ or ‘ineffective’? Do you only consider it a ‘success’ if you received something from them? Do you quantify all of your relationships in statistics – saying that the relationship isn’t ‘effective’ if you’re not receiving what you ask for? I hope not – most people wouldn’t stand for that. Why do we expect a relationship with a living God to be any different?

The Real Authority

A few years ago there was a distinct drop in pretty much every car’s estimated miles per gallon. Why was this? Did every car actually get less efficient? No, It was because the testing standards became more realistic – the auto industry realized that their mode of testing wasn’t really testing anything real – instead it was just measuring what the MPG would be if a professional driver on a closed course were driving their car. They had to actually study what they were trying to study. I’d suggest that in addition to the fact that prayer isn’t quantifiable, these studies are much the same as the original MPG test; the conditions didn’t actually consider what real prayer looks like – what its purpose is or even simply, how to do it. That brings us to the question, “What then should prayer look like?” For the answer to that question we have to go to where we should have started: Scripture.

Tagged , ,
Oct 10 2010
Leave a comment
Everything Else, Random Thoughts

If you’re like me, you never think “I wonder if I’ll have enough water today”

While at catalyst this year I was reminded of one of my favorite charities. Charity:Water is one the many charities that’s helping provide people in developing countries with drinking water. I’d heard about it last year at catalyst, but this year Scott Harrison, the founder of Charity:Water came and spoke at the main event. His testimony of God’s faithfulness in his own life was powerful enough, but his story of bringing water to over a million people in developing countries was one of my favorite talks given at the conference this year.

Dirty water kills more people per year than any form of violence, including war. But by donating even $20 to charity water you can give clean water to one person for 20 years! $5,000 is enough to dig a well for a whole community! Today is ‘blog action day’ wherein bloggers are chellenged to write about an issue and this week’s issue happens to be – you guessed it, Water. So I decided to use this opportunity to launch a campaign to build a well.

You can help me raise money by visiting my charity water page

Click here to donate

Charity water is an awesome charity for several reasons:

  1. 100% of what you donate goes straight to drilling water wells in developing countries, giving people clean water who never would have otherwise. All the administrative fees are paid for by private donors, so if you donate to Charity:Water you can know that all of your contributions are helping people get water, not for office furniture or travel expenses.
  2. Branding – Charity: Water has created a brand that people recognize – if you haven’t seen their ad campaign you should take a look at it. They do a good job of bringing the need home, not just guilting people into donating.
  3. The movement – In addition thousands of people making small donations – many more are collecting donations towards goals. This was made much easier by the launch of mycharitywater.com which is one of the first social-networking style donation sites run by a Charity
  4. Perhaps the coolest thing to me about Charity:Water is that it’s founder, Scott Harrison is a Christian. His amazing story at Catalyst was a testimony of God’s faithfulness to us.

So that’s it

Please, take some time and donate – you can donate as little as one dollar. In the words of Jesus in Matthew Chapter 25,

“…whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.”

Tagged , , , , , ,
Oct 09 2010
Leave a comment
Random Thoughts

If I had to describe catalyst in 300 words, I’d write “Awesome” 300 times.

Catalyst 2010 was awesome. There are no two ways about it – the only real disappointment I had they didn’t hand out LED key chains this year. That may not sound like much, but it was one of the biggest ‘wow’ factors of last year – when they turned off all the lights in that arena and 12,000 little red,blue and white LEDs start twinkling 360 degrees around that enormous room – wow. It really added to the crowd participation during  the performance songs.

But, this year was awesome in its own ways. So I thought I’d highlight a few of my favorite things about the conference in 2010.

My favorite parts of Catalyst this year

  • Andy Stanley – I don’t think that I could pick out a favorite talk. They were all so incredible, but I really appreciated both of Andy’s talks. His first message focused on setting aside our appetites for  God’s plans while his second was about tensions within the church and how some tensions don’t need to be solved, but they do need to be managed.
  • Tim Elmore – Of the Labs that I went to this year, Tim Elmore was without a doubt the coolest speaker. He talked about the differences between generations, specifically focusing on the younger half of Generation Y. I was so impressed with him that I bought his book, “Generation iY” before they handed them out free to everyone there. So someone in my family is getting this book for Christmas.
  • Randall Wallace – After lunch on friday they surprised us by having Randall Wallace, screenwriter of Braveheart and director of Secretariat which released that day. Randall turned to the crowd of Christian leaders and admitted that he would probably meet with trouble in his industry for coming to such a conference but then said to the crowd “I’m with you.” It was very encouraging to know that there are still Christian people in Hollywood.
  • Michael Junior – I’d never heard of Michael Junior, a comedian who has appeared on Jay Leno and numerous comedy clubs. Michael had been a Christian since a young age when one day he was praying before going out on stage and he felt God was calling him to use his gift as an outreach. Now he does comedy in rehab centers, children’s hospitals and even prisons. He made a documentary about the different places he went and a played a segment of it, but more than anything – he was just funny. I’m usually pretty snobby about humor and he made me laugh out loud several times.
  • Scott Harrison – The founder of Charity:Water, Scott Harrison has a great story. I can’t do it justice in just a few lines, but the most amazing part was that his mother, whose immune system was destroyed due to carbon monoxide poisoning, was miraculously healed after he decided to start Charity:Water.

So those were a few of my favorite parts this year – Catalyst basically inspired this whole blog, so it won’t surprise you to know that I expect it to inspire four or five more posts before the month is out. There were lots of great videos, ministries and charities showcased there and I’ll be featuring those in the weeks to come.

What I, as a creative, took away from Catalyst this year:

  • Theme, Theme, Theme – It’s not a new lesson, but like most lessons worth learning, it’s always good to be reminded. Many of the big events (church or other-wise) that I’ve been a part of producing have had a theme of some kind. Most of those events didn’t follow through with the theme in any way beyond the graphics. This year’s theme was “The Tension is Good” – which upon first hearing, I thought was too wordy and thus made for poor branding. When I got there I realized that they followed through with this theme in many of the talks, the interviews and creative videos throughout the conference. From beginning to end we were being taught that ‘the Tension is Good’
  • Nobody’s perfect (I know, I was shocked too) If you’re like me you have to put many of the most important elements of church work in the hands of volunteers. Let me say that my volunteers are awesome and I literally couldn’t do what I do without them, but there’s a reason why calling someone a ‘pro’ is a compliment while ‘amateur’ is not. Generally we have at least one small but significant flub in any given worship service and sometimes it can be pretty frustrating, but take heart! There were several technical snafus at Catalyst, from feedback over the PA to totally wrong lyrics on the screens. I don’t know if they did it on purpose to make the rest of us feel better, but I certainly thought “you know, if these guys can’t get it perfect at this one event, I think I can accept a few mistakes on a weekend service.”
  • Content is King – I know this one isn’t new either, but Michael Hyatt, CEO of Thomas Nelson made a pretty good statement about this, he said “Good product is the new marketing – Good marketing just makes a bad product fail faster” In other words – if you don’t have content worth communicating, it doesn’t matter how cool it looks or how well stated it is, if you don’t have anything to say it’ll come through. My boss, Ken Roach – the communication director here says if he ever writes a book on communication it’ll be called “First, have Something to Say”  (© Ken Roach 2010) I think we need to make sure we’re spending as much time on our message as we are on our medium.
  • Lots of great ideas for creative elements – Videos, crowd participation and great sermon illustrations galore! One of my favorites was during Craig Groeschel’s talk he played a video of  ”An Interview With the Devil” which I think he may have done as a series back at life church.tv Either way, it was very funny and very simple. There are lots of great crowd participation elements at Catalyst every year. Like I mentioned, last year they handed out LED key chains (which are surprisingly inexpensive) when the lights get turned out, all the LEDs come flashing. It created a really cool effect. Our church is planning on borrowing this play in an upcoming series. There were too many great sermon illustrations to mention, you’ll just have to come next year to get the experience.

It was a blast! I can’t wait until next year!


Aug 20 2010
Leave a comment
Movies & TV

Review: Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World

This review was made in August of 2010, and edited for release on this blog in May of 2011

Most people will think that I’m exaggerating if I say that Scott pilgrim is the kind of modern-day epic that comes about once a generation, but I truly believe it. While it wasn’t a large financial success, I’m sure it will be a cult classic for years to come. I would put it in the same category as Wayne’s World in that it acts as both a survey and a commentary on the culture of the 20-something culture of the day. Before I continue I should say that it is not a family friendly movie. And I struggle with how much I enjoy this movie. The sexual lifestyle portrayed through several of the films scenes is directly contrary to scripture. If you read my entry regarding my personal rules for watching movies you’ll know that I don’t watch movies flippantly – when considering a movie, I take it very seriously. While there are several scenes that make solid strikes against it I do believe that you will see the hipster subculture values displayed, for good or ill and that there is much to learn about identifying with this culture by observing its values and while entertainment value alone cannot redeem a movie, it does have great entertainment value. If you totally ignore a movie because of its content you may miss what is happening in the culture and this film changes the game in some ways. Perhaps the film’s greatest accomplishment is that it cannot be defined by anything other than itself: it’s truly original. Placing it in a single genre is impossible. The best that I could say is that it’s 3 parts kung fu, 4 parts comedy, 3 part super-hero, 2 parts romance, 1 part musical and 100% comic book. It exemplifies what high quality, fast-cut editing can do for the pace of what could’ve been a trilogy of movies and the incorporation of the comic-book onomatopoeia and the different uses of written text as an added layer throughout the movie flows so well with the comedy of the story that you almost ask your self “Why hasn’t every comic book movie done this?” It’s a feel good movie that moves at a breakneck speed, which begs to be watched again as it’s nearly impossible to catch every subtly, every popular culture reference, every sound bite that is taken out of a video game, every witty throw-away line. It’s a well-written and well-produced collage of 2010’s 20-something je ne sais pas. Some people will be overwhelmed by the pace of the movie coupled with suspension of disbelief required to really enjoy the movie; one friend of mine could only say “That movie was all over the place.” It is not going to reach as wide an audience as most summer blockbusters, but within the culture that it depicts it will continue to be influential in a way that most movies will never be. Any fan of the original comic series (a Canadian work that largely draws on video games and other mid-90’s popular culture) would love it, as it goes out of its way to be true to the text. It replicates exact moments in the book down to pain-staking detail as small as the motion lines around a character’s head. Based on the source material, the casting is perfect and every character is lovable – even if in an antagonist’s role. In summary, for entertainment value I give it 5/5 stars, for family friendliness I give it 1/5. It’s very clever and extremely fun to watch, but much of it is based on a post-modern morals that are equal parts distracting and humorous, so its easy to overlook them, but they are no less prevalent. In short, it’s a geeky 20-something’s dream and for better or worse, will likely to be considered one of my favorite movies if it stands the test of time. Though I can’t whole-heartedly recommend it due to some of it’s content, the very least I can say is: It’s definitely worth a viewing. If you see one movie this summer – you have to see Inception, it’s the best movie of the summer, but if you see two – this should be the second.

Dec 29 2009
Leave a comment
Movies & TV

Review: Sherlock Holmes

This review was originally written in December of 2009 it was edited for this blog in May of 2011

Guy Richie’s Sherlock Holmes greatly exceeded my expectations. While it definitely has that cotton-candy hollywood quality to it, it actually has a complex and thoughtful plot. And as you should expect it has plenty of twists, enough that you’re likely to get caught off guard at least once or twice. Its exceptionally entertaining, but has a slight intellectual edge that I wasn’t totally expecting.

Any strict fans of Holmes will likely not be satisfied with this incarnation who is equal parts action hero and sleuth. Though, I personally think that all additions to the character only made the movie more enjoyable. Robert Downey Jr does a great Job in his portrayal of Holmes and Jude Law is a great sidekick. This dynamic was very different than past depictions of the Holmes/Watson relationship, but as far as I can find it is actually more accurate to the books. Watson is never painted as a bumbling old man, rather an uptight and structured foil to Holme’s seemingly whimsical nature. Bringing this element to their partnership allows for the whole of the story to have a more energetic feel.

RD Jr.’s greatest success might be his british accent – I can’t think of a recent movie where I have heard an American actor more successfully pull off a british accent. It certainly seems like every British and Australian actor is fully capable of doing an American accent. I think after Kevin Costner’s portrayal of Robin Hood the Queen probably threatened to gather the Knights of the realm and attack us if we had another bad American actor portray a beloved British character. (Only to realize that most of the Knights of the realm are merely mediocre british actors themselves)

The biggest surprise to me was how un-steampunk the whole movie was. Giving the director, I expected there to be a more ‘spray paint and bubblegum’ quality to both the scenery and plot. My concerns were abated early on however, when the first scene opens with harpsichord music. Anachronisms were minimal and tasteful, and the plot didn’t suffer much obvious imposition of postmodernism on the industrial age.

Over all I give it a 4/5 stars; 5/5 for entertainment value and quality of production and 3/5 for family friendly-ness. It is PG-13 for a reason – the depiction of spiritualism of the 1800s is a rather mature theme for one. It is also not without its fare share sexual innuendo, language and violence – though for the most part I would say that it is surprisingly tasteful throughout. Ultimately it is really nothing but a fun movie and I think that most movie goers will enjoy it thoroughly.

Jul 10 2009
Leave a comment
Movies & TV

Review: Star Trek

Many people who know me are surprised to find that I was not a an avid Star Trek fan before now – I did watch a little bit of the show, both the original and “The Next Generation” but I myself am not a huge fan of sci-fi. I am, however a fan of sprawling movies with scale to them and this, my friend is a true epic.

Now I know even the previews tell you that this isn’t your daddy’s Star Trek, but the first thing that impressed me about the film was the way it maintained what charm there was in the original TV show. All of the same hokey catch-phrases that you know and love from the original appear in the film. J.J. Abrams did a phenomenal of crafting a story that both Trekkies and Human movie-goers alike will enjoy by having both the edgy, effect-driven, adrenaline-pumping action scenes and the comical nods to the original – like one brief scene where we find Kirk in bed with a green woman, at which point even I, with my near-zero tolerance for thematic material, had to chuckle.

The movie starts with an event that takes place roughly 25 years before the rest of the plot. We see a federation starship being attacked and the 1st officer forced to take command. To save most of the people on the ship (including his wife who is giving birth as the attack is happening) he is forced to stay on the bridge while all others board escape pods so that they will get away safely while he kamikazes his way into star-fleet history.

Fast-forward a few scenes and about 20 years later and we find that that man’s son has grown up to be an arrogant, smooth and talented young James T. Kirk, played by Chris Pine who will be one of Holly Wood’s sexiest men this year – mark my words. After a scuffle in a bar with some star fleet cadets A recruiter grabs Kirk and in a matter of minutes convinces the young rapscallion to enlist in Star Fleet. We’re introduced to all the Iconic characters one by one. First Uhura then Dr. McCoy who immediately befriends Kirk. Karl Urban, who plays “Bones” McCoy has a name you don’t recognize, but a face you will – considering he had principal roles in two Lord of the Rings movies and one of the Borne movies. His portrayal of Dr.McCoy is nothing more than an impersonation of the original Actor, and I loved it.

We’re also introduced to Zachary Quinto portraying perhaps one the most recognizable characters in all of Science Fiction, that lovable vulcan, Spock. Quinto’s name might not ring a bell for you, but if you, like me can’t miss an episode of that Monday night shamless X-men rip-off known as Heroes – you might know him by his other name: Sylar. You’ll probably be surprised to know that Quinto does a phenomenal job of actually making the character of Spock quite . . . well . . . human.

The Rubber hits the road when a distress call is sent out from the planet Vulcan and, since the primary fleet is engaged elsewhere in the galaxy, the cadets at star fleet have to take point on this assignment. The enterprise, the fleet’s newest flagship, is no different, and all at once we meet the rest of the crew. This element of having most of the major characters being rookies forced into action is a great way of handling the otherwise improbable course of action that lands Kirk the position of captain two-thirds of the way through the movie.

We find out that the same space craft which initiated the attack resulting in the death of Kirk’s father has returned, and as the plot thickens, we discover that they are actually from the future and so all the events that take place in this movie are, you guessed it, are a deviation from normal-space time, resulting in an alternate reality. If that was too heady for you let me put it this way: in one fell swoop the writers have not only explained what has taken place in the plot, but they are also explaining to all the Trekkies that it is perfectly acceptable for this course of events to be inconsistent with those in the existing Star Trek canon. Brilliant.

Appropriate for all ages? No. I’d say that the rating is quite accurate that children under 13 should probably wait a few years, but all in all the movie doesn’t ever go over-the-top with any of the ‘big 3′ (sex, language, violence) I’d say that I was impressed with the level of propriety and that I wouldn’t discourage anyone with a moderate stomach for violence from seeing it based on content. It is all handled fairly well and is no worse certainly than once should expect.

Over all Star Trek has the full package: Great effects, good acting, pithy dialogue, lovable characters and the most die-hard fan base this planet’s ever seen. Perhaps the only thing that I was slightly disappointed in was the lack of even a brief cameo from William Shatner. But in all reality, this movie wins, through and through. Don’t wait for the blu-ray. Go see it now, because weather you like it or not, its the next big thing. Move over sliced bread- you just got owned by Star Trek!

Newer posts →