I consult with small and mid-cap investment firms in the NYC area - evaluating media opportunities. In my capacity as a consultant I see how many bosses deal with employees and I am grateful and humbled that I have the opportunity to build a business the way I do, where I mostly report to myself.
One of my clients - head of a small sized hedge fund has two analysts that report directly to him. Both are Ivy educated, under 30, and scared out of their mind at this man.
Because I spend a significant amount of time with him out of the office - I have a true gauge for the kind of man that he is. This is what he told me: His hires are based on psychological profiles. He hires overachieving young men with father issues (this guy strikes kind of a very photogenic prototype father figure - I've heard many an employee comment on how great a father he'd make). He uses this ammunition to twist these guys into knots - competing with one another, betraying one another for "fatherly" favor... working ungodly hours to one-up one's "sibling" - setting the two in diametric opposition. I asked him why he did it - he said that fear lasts longer than love. He also said, in the NY finance market, there are plenty of opportunities for well educated finance guys - in order to retain talent (other than with significant financial compensation) one has to get the employee so emotionally invested in the task at hand, to the struggle the firm is trying to overcome, make it so the firm's fight becomes personal. These guys hate each other and do everything they can to outwit one another, and to this boss, it's a big joke. It's what he does.
I've seen other bosses develop a method of manipulating underlings that utilizes a code. They run it in meetings - wide open. One manager might make a reference to having a headache - and the other manager replies that they are out of brand X of medicine for headaches, but brand Y seems that it would be most effective in this situation (the situation being a particular impasse with the team). They gauge situations and resolve them by manipulating workers in real time using pre-established "plays" or social strategies - I've watched employees react like puppets, on cue.
Women in the workplace are controlled in a similar way - but using aesthetics and attractiveness as the meter. Even women who profess to not be affected by it become embittered when the boss champions the hot chick, so the other women work doubly hard to prove their worth on different merits. Checkmate, boss wins. I've seen the hot chick go from belle of the ball to also ran when a new round of hiring brings in younger, hotter eye candy.
The best thing an employee can do in my experience is NOT INTERNALIZE the firm's business, and be aware that almost EVERY ACTION by a boss is done to manipulate you to HIS ENDS. Objectivity goes a great way. FEND FOR YOURSELF and realize that your skills and experience determine your market value - and realize that a bosses' power relies totally on the self-sacrifice of those under him.
Record companies actually do this and more for premiere and/or favored artists. Floor tickets to athletic contests, concert tickets with backstage passes, escorts, etc. Payola, it's called.
Wow. I agree very strongly with your point. You're one of the few I think who have the courage to say this.
In truth, regardless of whose side you're on, war is supposed to be nasty and brutish. I can imagine the worst thing to happen to the US military is pervasive media and the internet. It magnifies everything a millionfold and filters war through the eyes of civilians. It should not. It hampers the efficacy of military operations because the military now attempts to please the public.
I agree with you - this war has become a nightmare of public relations because the US refuses to use crushing force to annihilate insurgents for fear of public outcry. Thus the irony of a military force doomed to failure for attempting to please the very people already predicting their demise.
Any military treatise preaches on the psychological aspects of war. For better or worse, the United States airs its dirty laundry for the world to see - on the news, online, message boards, etc. It sends a message of a country divided... a military CASTRATED. It's a shame, mostly to the soldiers who are in the field. Incidentally, your points about speed and decisiveness are key tenets of basic military philosophy as well - but group think in the US is a serious handcuff to that prospect.
There is no tactical reason for this conflagration to still exist - it's like the heavyweight pulling punches against a flyweight in the ring because the crowd is crying foul/unfair... etc. The same crowd will point derisively when the lightweight pulls out the decision. smh.
George Bush is an idiot - and the hesitance of this administration to close this out is damning. They've already taken the PR/IA hit... just close it the fuck out and pull out already.
it's not the same. vhs to dvd was a paradigm shift with obvious advantages to the layperson consumer. quite simply, it was easy for the lay consumer to see the quality differences, the ease of use differences, etc. dvd to hd-dvd/blu-ray is not as apparent; it is not readily discernible to the average technophobe. I can imagine that the subset of consumer looking for the advantages of blu-ray is extremely small as to be statistically insignificant at launch and for the forseeable future, with it being completely dependent on Sony's ability to accurately convey the advantages of blu-ray and create a demand for it, then convincing the audience that the blu-ray format on the ps3 is added value to justify what the market feels (I disagree) is an unacceptable price point.
it is interesting to note that sony has had a lot of problems with proprietary formats. I know that blu-ray is not proprietary per se - but I can imagine that the lay person, given a choice of choosing between a HD-DVD and a Blu-Ray to play on their HDTV - it seems safe to say that the average consumer will assume that the common HD conveys compatibility with their HDTV - it becomes no-brainer decision. Pertinent, when you consider that the average consumer in the United States is more likely to be a woman.
A friend of mine is the assistant to a very rich hedge fund exec here in NY. She's worked for him for over three years and has never gotten a raise nor has she received a bonus. She is generously salaried, however.
When I asked her about how she felt about never receiving a bonus or raise despite the enormous windfalls the company has enjoyed during her time there, as well as the fact that much of the rest of the company has received generous bonuses at the end of the year - she replied with something to the affect of: "What they say is true. More money equals more problems. He has so many problems that I feel sorry for him. I could never ask him for a raise until his circumstances get better."
This is a man in his late 30s, of pristine health, of gorgeous wife and numerous equally stunning out-in-the-open mistresses (open marriage), two healthy children, worth $500 million easily. And my friend feels "sorry" for him.
I asked him once (I was a consultant for the firm at the time) about his relationship with her. His reply: "I'm worth $500 million... she lives with her mother, but I know that she feels sorry for me and places my trivial problems on a par with her own arguably more pertinent and pressing problems. You can't BUY that, and indeed, I don't need to."
So I can imagine that as far as you're concerned, you are probably a bit more like my friend than you are like Microsoft, which makes it absurd that you "feel sorry" for them considering the relative positioning.
As of right now, Xbox 360 is the best console on the market, in part because of prudent and bullish positioning and a strong emphasis on the development of xbox live, in addition to having the largest next gen game library. www.live.com is a viable competitor to google in terms of product offerings and it's experiencing organic growth, microsoft automotive is in about 25 models of cars for at least ten carmakers (and is on the rise), and corporate uptake from 2000/xp to xp/vista is going to be a cash cow for the next five years. If they can get wireless and marketing right, the zune becomes a significant competitor in the dap marketplace, especially because the ipod is already in the "late adopters" phase of the Rogers Bell Curve for innovation adoption (and if you ignore the christmas 05 quarter, the adoption rate is textbook rogers bell curve). The only direction for ipod sales is down. the brand has had its run. Microsoft has its first generation Zune out as the ipod's market share recedes (and will get real world feedback) and is thus poised to get the second generation out at the laggard phase of the Ipod's Rogers Bell Curve, which poises them to replace the ipod. It's prudent positioning.
this happened to me. my passport expired and i needed to travel out of the country asap. i was warned that reentry would be a bitch. it was.
i work in film as a risk assessment consultant. i was detained for 6 hours upon return from filming in st. lucia. this was on a large film that exhibited this past year. a full background check was performed and I was interrogated by marshals at JFK under the watch of two national guardsmen with m-16s at the ready. i was told that as an "unemployed single multi-ethnic male under 30 without documents" that I essentially triggered all of their flags. I clearly wasn't unemployed - and a significant part of my time was spent explaining "consultant" to them. I was interrogated (pardon my ignorance in this) using a technique whereby I was asked the same question several times - basic questions like my date of birth and the names of my parents and the schools i went to, etc. They also asked questions like: "So how long did you spend in Brazil?" when it had already been established that I'd gone to st. lucia. many other questions were asked in this manner in rapid succession with several men staring intently at me, with another comparing my answers to something onscreen. Their voices were raised and stern; weapons were casually brandished. my frustration at being asked the same thing over and over without recourse was considered an act of "aggression" which according to them justified the brandishing of weapons.
My laptop and pda were turned on and I presume given a thorough looking over. my cell phone was turned on and call lists were duplicated. apparently, they confirmed my information to grade school, apologized for the intrusion and sent me on my way, at which point the airline said they didn't know where my luggage was. another hour later, my luggage was "found" - with my bags clearly rifled through.
There are some legal proceedings under way in regards to this action. the funny thing about this incident is that one of the international sales agents on this film was actually illegal here in the US at the time and he shares the last name of a famous currently incarcerated former mid-east leader. he expressed having a strong case of nerves whenever reentering, and was less than cool about it when we hit the arrival gates. we both hit the gates at the same time - i was stopped, and he breezed through without a second look. So in this instance, while I was apparently profiled in some way, the most obvious guy to profile in this situation was not.
I will explain. Peter Jackson directed several feature films ( I think the exact number is 4; he'd produced twice as many features roughly in the same time span) by the time he was commisioned to do LOTR. He proved himself capable of handling multimillion dollar budgets and incorporating his technical expertise into telling cogent narrative. He also proved himself an excellent manager of resources and was ready to exploit the tax advantages of shooting in New Zealand. So to say that Jackson made it big only through special effects is not accurate. I suspect this is why you posted as AC.
Your assessment is based on emotion (he's created the most unbelievable 3d work I've ever seen... I can imagine... etc.) and hype; there are a lot of people who are far more qualified to direct a film of this magnitude who have displayed Blomkamp's skillset and more.
I suspect the following: Blomkamp is a layer to shield Peter Jackson from personal damage to his brand should the film not do well or not be well received. Thus there needs to be significant disparity between relative skillsets. A failure is chalked up to: he's young and inexperienced, but shows promise. A success is win/win for everyone. This is risk mitigation. Jackson will essentially be directing this film. Blomkamp serves a dual role; he will essentially be pimped out on Hollywood projects afterwards; Jackson will be attached to all as exec producer (as will Weta be, of course: he needs to work hard to chip away at ILM's Hollywood monopoly) and collect his cut in addition to working on his own projects, essentially doubling his earning potential with nominal additional work.
I work in film. I've seen his work. As much as I've heard, much of the conflict revolves around the studios refusing to put this much cash behind this film if he's directing. It only confirms the fact that they feel this to be a risky proposition for a first time director.
I don't know of an instance where a 200 million dollar film is directed by a first time feature director. I don't think such an instance exists.
The Jackson co-sign notwithstanding, I'm interested in a couple of things: why Peter isn't directing himself, and whether Microsoft is as enthusiastic about Blomkamp as Jackson is.
definitely. in fact this would be open/shut if peter jackson was directing. it's frankly puzzling why they chose the blomkamp guy when he AFAIK has not even directed a distributed feature yet. Not even one. It's tough to sell studios on that much cash and tell them that a guy who technically has never directed a movie before is in charge of what they'll see on-screen. in fact, that is a fool's errand on paper. especially given the mixed success of video game adaptations.
I don't think AOL is dying. A free aol that offers search, mail, IM, and content under one umbrella is exactly what google is assembling. The concept of AOL is alive and well. We can definitely talk about implementation and how one differs from another, but frankly, the user is becoming less aware of what goes on under the hood as time goes along, not more. The concept of an all in one place for everything on a dumbed down terminal is becoming more practical to the end user. And in key places, AOL still has mindshare that it can leverage and a user base that it can monetize.
It needs new leadership, but to me AOL represents an opportunity, not a loss.
No... teens have plenty of disposable income. in fact - 13-24s are the LARGEST single moviegoing demographic, with much of that constrained to the 13-21 market. They have plenty of it becuase a significant percentage of them work and their entire salaries are disposable. Also, they are spending their parent's money. Other than that - they have WAAAAAY more free time.
This is why producers bend over backwards to get a pg-13 rating. This is why the MPAA is arguably one of the most profitable rackets in the film industry, on account of all the payola given to acquire the coveted pg-13 rating. Acquisition of a pg-13 rating is often at the expense of more "adult" elements of a film. This is why you'll often see marketing of a film before a rating has been conferred. Why? It usually means that the delivered cut got an R - they are re-cutting for a PG-13, and don't want to lose any marketing time in the interim.
So what you said is a fact, in fact, isn't.
radio and tv stations geared to teens? teens don't watch television that much anymore and they DEFINITELY DON'T listen to the radio. LOL. The radio? are you serious? LOL.
Kids have the largest untapped disposable income because THEY ARE SPENDING THEIR PARENTS MONEY. Teens get both sides - they have jobs for small shit - and parents for big ticket: cars, etc.
I don't remember an instance where a director without a widely released feature was giventhis amount of money to direct a film. It's a coup for him, but investors run from that.
directors are to film what executives are to corporations. For the most part - they impart a vision, manage the process, and assemble an exemplary team for the various departments. having peter jackson behind him mitigates risk, and assures that the teams involved will be top notch. but if the director doesn't inspire confidence - then the trickle-down is obvious.
i'm surprised they hung around this long. in my experience, private investors would not have risked 10 million on a first time feature director. i say this being an analyst who analyzes film properties for private investors.
The flags:
-known property (previously widely released IP - or one of several profitable genres: horror, black/urban, youth comedy; the foregoing are the most profitable genres of feature film). -attached talent (A-list, etc/respective to the genre). -director's track record (box office/public perception). -budget.
It should be understood that the feature film industry is about making movies with other people's money. So whoever these studios are dealing with probably just weren't satisfied with the guy to dole out that kind of cash. I don't blame them.
Sci-fi films mitigate risk by using the Japanese market as a buffer; american sci-fi films tend to do well there. in this instance though - because of the cultural backlash in Japan over the X-Box business itself - there is a risk of not being able to monetize this market and this is a huge risk of exposure, especially because data indicates a slight contraction of the US moviegoing audience.
Overall, this would be a strong pass, especially considering the track record for game movies.
I do however, think this film is going to do very well. I just couldn't advise anyone to get in at these prices.
I think it's a combination of both. He cannot write good dialogue. It's difficult for talented actors to deliver badly written dialogue.
Second, his weakness as a director is his overreliance on green-screen. Watch any movie mostly done on green-screen (with the exception of Sin City probably) and notice that the performances are wooden. It's because they are performing with nothing around them - no props, no settings, no sense of perspective.
If you're going to spend 150 million on a movie - you might as well fly out to the location and get the real shit as much as you can.
I remember reading a quote from the guy who played Anakin: he forgot his wig on the way to the set. Lucas takes a look at him and says - forget it, we'll put it on in post.
It's an overreliance on the tech and an underreliance on the critical aspects of film that forge bonds - the emotive ones.
To conclude - he has major flaws in writing and directing. No one is willing to or able to tell him this though.
I agree. This is a plausible solution and it makes all english resourses online available to them as well. Teaching some form of bilingualism makes sense for a number of reasons. good post.
This is exactly it. Both Hollywood and the music industry consider the threshold where everything starts to get "bad" at about 35. Most people, by this age, are no longer consuming popular culture, and are looking back instead of forward (in the sense that they think their best years are behind them). In that regard, they regard the music of their youth as great and significant - relative to what current youth are creating, etc.
It has little to do with the movies and more to do with adults reaching an age where they have enough to recognize the repetitive patterns and cycles in film, music and fashion. Once one becomes aware of the cyclical nature of popular culture, it becomes less genuine, unlike the first time you discovered it (which makes it the first time it ever happened, as far as you know).
THIS IS THE PRIME REASON THAT MUSIC AND FILM DO NOT TARGET MATURE AUDIENCES. Too hard to impress, too jaded, too intelligent, too discriminating. It's fool's gold.
Wrap anything with shiny enough foil and it can be sold to youth. I work in film; this is the thought process.
however, in each instance, you point out failed NEGOTIATIONS. Failed attempts at diplomacy. How those situations relate to my original point about how to ENTER into negotiations with religious zealots in order to gain common ground is dubious. Your point assumes a step we haven't taken yet, as we are not negotiating with an opposing body. In fact, we're not even sure who the opposing body is yet... and where they are and what they're doing.
However, I don't deny that we in fact might be the dumbest guys at the table.
huge numbers is relative. there are six billion people on the planet. an argument can be made tha organized religion has been inordinately successful. Too successful.
I think your point is valid to some degree but I think its because another inexorable drive has reached critical mass. Technology. Information is available to all and is free. We've developed sophisticated ways of waging war. What once required the might of a country now requires nothing more than some cash and enough dedicated people to fill your average classroom. The BARRIERS TO ENTRY are too low. It makes EVERYONE a threat.
A theory floats around about why we've never heard from another species. It proposes that they all reach a point at which they use their own technology to destroy themselves. In other words, no civilization can survive its own technological advancement past a critical juncture.
We've been on the brink of it since the dawn of the atomic age.
So, in hindsight, the post I originally responded to wasn't too far off. At some point, organized religions are going to have to concede to something else... some other unifying force. However, I don't think banning religion or making it a forceful change is going to work. People have to evolve.
My mom always said not to argue with fools. I never understood what she meant as a child. She explained it to me further - that when you discuss something with someone, you're at the mercy of the person in the group with the least ability to comprehend. The group can only move forward with consensus when that person does so. So in a group, you're not at the mercy of the top of curve so much as at the mercy of those at the bottom. Here in the US, Bush's appeal is somewhat an indication of this.
Not to label religious zealots as fools, but we can't move to another place until the zealots decide, one way or another, to not be zealots anymore.
I'm not an atheist. I am not implying that atheism is a higher evolutionary step. Marx did, hence the reference.
Re: arrogance being an opiate, I'm certain it can be for some. I tend to think that there is some arrogance in atheists, as absolute certainty in the nonexistence of God is probably as foolhardy as absolute certainty (not any evidence). In that sense I think atheists and believers have a lot more in common than they think.
Slashdot Mirror
Re: fending for yourself. You're exactly right.
I consult with small and mid-cap investment firms in the NYC area - evaluating media opportunities. In my capacity as a consultant I see how many bosses deal with employees and I am grateful and humbled that I have the opportunity to build a business the way I do, where I mostly report to myself.
One of my clients - head of a small sized hedge fund has two analysts that report directly to him. Both are Ivy educated, under 30, and scared out of their mind at this man.
Because I spend a significant amount of time with him out of the office - I have a true gauge for the kind of man that he is. This is what he told me: His hires are based on psychological profiles. He hires overachieving young men with father issues (this guy strikes kind of a very photogenic prototype father figure - I've heard many an employee comment on how great a father he'd make). He uses this ammunition to twist these guys into knots - competing with one another, betraying one another for "fatherly" favor... working ungodly hours to one-up one's "sibling" - setting the two in diametric opposition. I asked him why he did it - he said that fear lasts longer than love. He also said, in the NY finance market, there are plenty of opportunities for well educated finance guys - in order to retain talent (other than with significant financial compensation) one has to get the employee so emotionally invested in the task at hand, to the struggle the firm is trying to overcome, make it so the firm's fight becomes personal. These guys hate each other and do everything they can to outwit one another, and to this boss, it's a big joke. It's what he does.
I've seen other bosses develop a method of manipulating underlings that utilizes a code. They run it in meetings - wide open. One manager might make a reference to having a headache - and the other manager replies that they are out of brand X of medicine for headaches, but brand Y seems that it would be most effective in this situation (the situation being a particular impasse with the team). They gauge situations and resolve them by manipulating workers in real time using pre-established "plays" or social strategies - I've watched employees react like puppets, on cue.
Women in the workplace are controlled in a similar way - but using aesthetics and attractiveness as the meter. Even women who profess to not be affected by it become embittered when the boss champions the hot chick, so the other women work doubly hard to prove their worth on different merits. Checkmate, boss wins. I've seen the hot chick go from belle of the ball to also ran when a new round of hiring brings in younger, hotter eye candy.
The best thing an employee can do in my experience is NOT INTERNALIZE the firm's business, and be aware that almost EVERY ACTION by a boss is done to manipulate you to HIS ENDS. Objectivity goes a great way. FEND FOR YOURSELF and realize that your skills and experience determine your market value - and realize that a bosses' power relies totally on the self-sacrifice of those under him.
Record companies actually do this and more for premiere and/or favored artists. Floor tickets to athletic contests, concert tickets with backstage passes, escorts, etc. Payola, it's called.
Wow. I agree very strongly with your point. You're one of the few I think who have the courage to say this.
In truth, regardless of whose side you're on, war is supposed to be nasty and brutish. I can imagine the worst thing to happen to the US military is pervasive media and the internet. It magnifies everything a millionfold and filters war through the eyes of civilians. It should not. It hampers the efficacy of military operations because the military now attempts to please the public.
I agree with you - this war has become a nightmare of public relations because the US refuses to use crushing force to annihilate insurgents for fear of public outcry. Thus the irony of a military force doomed to failure for attempting to please the very people already predicting their demise.
Any military treatise preaches on the psychological aspects of war. For better or worse, the United States airs its dirty laundry for the world to see - on the news, online, message boards, etc. It sends a message of a country divided... a military CASTRATED. It's a shame, mostly to the soldiers who are in the field. Incidentally, your points about speed and decisiveness are key tenets of basic military philosophy as well - but group think in the US is a serious handcuff to that prospect.
There is no tactical reason for this conflagration to still exist - it's like the heavyweight pulling punches against a flyweight in the ring because the crowd is crying foul/unfair... etc. The same crowd will point derisively when the lightweight pulls out the decision. smh.
George Bush is an idiot - and the hesitance of this administration to close this out is damning. They've already taken the PR/IA hit... just close it the fuck out and pull out already.
it's not the same. vhs to dvd was a paradigm shift with obvious advantages to the layperson consumer. quite simply, it was easy for the lay consumer to see the quality differences, the ease of use differences, etc. dvd to hd-dvd/blu-ray is not as apparent; it is not readily discernible to the average technophobe. I can imagine that the subset of consumer looking for the advantages of blu-ray is extremely small as to be statistically insignificant at launch and for the forseeable future, with it being completely dependent on Sony's ability to accurately convey the advantages of blu-ray and create a demand for it, then convincing the audience that the blu-ray format on the ps3 is added value to justify what the market feels (I disagree) is an unacceptable price point.
it is interesting to note that sony has had a lot of problems with proprietary formats. I know that blu-ray is not proprietary per se - but I can imagine that the lay person, given a choice of choosing between a HD-DVD and a Blu-Ray to play on their HDTV - it seems safe to say that the average consumer will assume that the common HD conveys compatibility with their HDTV - it becomes no-brainer decision. Pertinent, when you consider that the average consumer in the United States is more likely to be a woman.
What's going on with the UMD format?
A friend of mine is the assistant to a very rich hedge fund exec here in NY. She's worked for him for over three years and has never gotten a raise nor has she received a bonus. She is generously salaried, however.
When I asked her about how she felt about never receiving a bonus or raise despite the enormous windfalls the company has enjoyed during her time there, as well as the fact that much of the rest of the company has received generous bonuses at the end of the year - she replied with something to the affect of: "What they say is true. More money equals more problems. He has so many problems that I feel sorry for him. I could never ask him for a raise until his circumstances get better."
This is a man in his late 30s, of pristine health, of gorgeous wife and numerous equally stunning out-in-the-open mistresses (open marriage), two healthy children, worth $500 million easily. And my friend feels "sorry" for him.
I asked him once (I was a consultant for the firm at the time) about his relationship with her. His reply: "I'm worth $500 million... she lives with her mother, but I know that she feels sorry for me and places my trivial problems on a par with her own arguably more pertinent and pressing problems. You can't BUY that, and indeed, I don't need to."
So I can imagine that as far as you're concerned, you are probably a bit more like my friend than you are like Microsoft, which makes it absurd that you "feel sorry" for them considering the relative positioning.
As of right now, Xbox 360 is the best console on the market, in part because of prudent and bullish positioning and a strong emphasis on the development of xbox live, in addition to having the largest next gen game library. www.live.com is a viable competitor to google in terms of product offerings and it's experiencing organic growth, microsoft automotive is in about 25 models of cars for at least ten carmakers (and is on the rise), and corporate uptake from 2000/xp to xp/vista is going to be a cash cow for the next five years. If they can get wireless and marketing right, the zune becomes a significant competitor in the dap marketplace, especially because the ipod is already in the "late adopters" phase of the Rogers Bell Curve for innovation adoption (and if you ignore the christmas 05 quarter, the adoption rate is textbook rogers bell curve). The only direction for ipod sales is down. the brand has had its run. Microsoft has its first generation Zune out as the ipod's market share recedes (and will get real world feedback) and is thus poised to get the second generation out at the laggard phase of the Ipod's Rogers Bell Curve, which poises them to replace the ipod. It's prudent positioning.
I had a valid license and a birth certificate in addition to my expired passport.
this happened to me. my passport expired and i needed to travel out of the country asap. i was warned that reentry would be a bitch. it was.
i work in film as a risk assessment consultant. i was detained for 6 hours upon return from filming in st. lucia. this was on a large film that exhibited this past year. a full background check was performed and I was interrogated by marshals at JFK under the watch of two national guardsmen with m-16s at the ready. i was told that as an "unemployed single multi-ethnic male under 30 without documents" that I essentially triggered all of their flags. I clearly wasn't unemployed - and a significant part of my time was spent explaining "consultant" to them. I was interrogated (pardon my ignorance in this) using a technique whereby I was asked the same question several times - basic questions like my date of birth and the names of my parents and the schools i went to, etc. They also asked questions like: "So how long did you spend in Brazil?" when it had already been established that I'd gone to st. lucia. many other questions were asked in this manner in rapid succession with several men staring intently at me, with another comparing my answers to something onscreen. Their voices were raised and stern; weapons were casually brandished. my frustration at being asked the same thing over and over without recourse was considered an act of "aggression" which according to them justified the brandishing of weapons.
My laptop and pda were turned on and I presume given a thorough looking over. my cell phone was turned on and call lists were duplicated. apparently, they confirmed my information to grade school, apologized for the intrusion and sent me on my way, at which point the airline said they didn't know where my luggage was. another hour later, my luggage was "found" - with my bags clearly rifled through.
There are some legal proceedings under way in regards to this action. the funny thing about this incident is that one of the international sales agents on this film was actually illegal here in the US at the time and he shares the last name of a famous currently incarcerated former mid-east leader. he expressed having a strong case of nerves whenever reentering, and was less than cool about it when we hit the arrival gates. we both hit the gates at the same time - i was stopped, and he breezed through without a second look. So in this instance, while I was apparently profiled in some way, the most obvious guy to profile in this situation was not.
I agree with you. Even Peter Jackson himself noted that he finds games more exciting these days than film.
I will explain. Peter Jackson directed several feature films ( I think the exact number is 4; he'd produced twice as many features roughly in the same time span) by the time he was commisioned to do LOTR. He proved himself capable of handling multimillion dollar budgets and incorporating his technical expertise into telling cogent narrative. He also proved himself an excellent manager of resources and was ready to exploit the tax advantages of shooting in New Zealand. So to say that Jackson made it big only through special effects is not accurate. I suspect this is why you posted as AC.
Your assessment is based on emotion (he's created the most unbelievable 3d work I've ever seen... I can imagine... etc.) and hype; there are a lot of people who are far more qualified to direct a film of this magnitude who have displayed Blomkamp's skillset and more.
I suspect the following: Blomkamp is a layer to shield Peter Jackson from personal damage to his brand should the film not do well or not be well received. Thus there needs to be significant disparity between relative skillsets. A failure is chalked up to: he's young and inexperienced, but shows promise. A success is win/win for everyone. This is risk mitigation. Jackson will essentially be directing this film. Blomkamp serves a dual role; he will essentially be pimped out on Hollywood projects afterwards; Jackson will be attached to all as exec producer (as will Weta be, of course: he needs to work hard to chip away at ILM's Hollywood monopoly) and collect his cut in addition to working on his own projects, essentially doubling his earning potential with nominal additional work.
I work in film. I've seen his work. As much as I've heard, much of the conflict revolves around the studios refusing to put this much cash behind this film if he's directing. It only confirms the fact that they feel this to be a risky proposition for a first time director.
I don't know of an instance where a 200 million dollar film is directed by a first time feature director. I don't think such an instance exists.
The Jackson co-sign notwithstanding, I'm interested in a couple of things: why Peter isn't directing himself, and whether Microsoft is as enthusiastic about Blomkamp as Jackson is.
definitely. in fact this would be open/shut if peter jackson was directing. it's frankly puzzling why they chose the blomkamp guy when he AFAIK has not even directed a distributed feature yet. Not even one. It's tough to sell studios on that much cash and tell them that a guy who technically has never directed a movie before is in charge of what they'll see on-screen. in fact, that is a fool's errand on paper. especially given the mixed success of video game adaptations.
Much goes on that isn't being disclosed.
I don't think AOL is dying. A free aol that offers search, mail, IM, and content under one umbrella is exactly what google is assembling. The concept of AOL is alive and well. We can definitely talk about implementation and how one differs from another, but frankly, the user is becoming less aware of what goes on under the hood as time goes along, not more. The concept of an all in one place for everything on a dumbed down terminal is becoming more practical to the end user. And in key places, AOL still has mindshare that it can leverage and a user base that it can monetize.
It needs new leadership, but to me AOL represents an opportunity, not a loss.
they make awesome pdas.
wasn't there already an apple branded phone that did not sell?
No... teens have plenty of disposable income. in fact - 13-24s are the LARGEST single moviegoing demographic, with much of that constrained to the 13-21 market. They have plenty of it becuase a significant percentage of them work and their entire salaries are disposable. Also, they are spending their parent's money. Other than that - they have WAAAAAY more free time.
This is why producers bend over backwards to get a pg-13 rating. This is why the MPAA is arguably one of the most profitable rackets in the film industry, on account of all the payola given to acquire the coveted pg-13 rating. Acquisition of a pg-13 rating is often at the expense of more "adult" elements of a film. This is why you'll often see marketing of a film before a rating has been conferred. Why? It usually means that the delivered cut got an R - they are re-cutting for a PG-13, and don't want to lose any marketing time in the interim.
So what you said is a fact, in fact, isn't.
radio and tv stations geared to teens? teens don't watch television that much anymore and they DEFINITELY DON'T listen to the radio. LOL. The radio? are you serious? LOL.
Kids have the largest untapped disposable income because THEY ARE SPENDING THEIR PARENTS MONEY. Teens get both sides - they have jobs for small shit - and parents for big ticket: cars, etc.
I don't remember an instance where a director without a widely released feature was giventhis amount of money to direct a film. It's a coup for him, but investors run from that.
directors are to film what executives are to corporations. For the most part - they impart a vision, manage the process, and assemble an exemplary team for the various departments. having peter jackson behind him mitigates risk, and assures that the teams involved will be top notch. but if the director doesn't inspire confidence - then the trickle-down is obvious.
i'm surprised they hung around this long. in my experience, private investors would not have risked 10 million on a first time feature director. i say this being an analyst who analyzes film properties for private investors.
The flags:
-known property (previously widely released IP - or one of several profitable genres: horror, black/urban, youth comedy; the foregoing are the most profitable genres of feature film).
-attached talent (A-list, etc/respective to the genre).
-director's track record (box office/public perception).
-budget.
It should be understood that the feature film industry is about making movies with other people's money. So whoever these studios are dealing with probably just weren't satisfied with the guy to dole out that kind of cash. I don't blame them.
Sci-fi films mitigate risk by using the Japanese market as a buffer; american sci-fi films tend to do well there. in this instance though - because of the cultural backlash in Japan over the X-Box business itself - there is a risk of not being able to monetize this market and this is a huge risk of exposure, especially because data indicates a slight contraction of the US moviegoing audience.
Overall, this would be a strong pass, especially considering the track record for game movies.
I do however, think this film is going to do very well. I just couldn't advise anyone to get in at these prices.
Is youtube worth more than myspace?
if those same programmers own a piece of youtube at time of sale, then it's probably the best interview they've ever flubbed.
I think it's a combination of both. He cannot write good dialogue. It's difficult for talented actors to deliver badly written dialogue.
Second, his weakness as a director is his overreliance on green-screen. Watch any movie mostly done on green-screen (with the exception of Sin City probably) and notice that the performances are wooden. It's because they are performing with nothing around them - no props, no settings, no sense of perspective.
If you're going to spend 150 million on a movie - you might as well fly out to the location and get the real shit as much as you can.
I remember reading a quote from the guy who played Anakin: he forgot his wig on the way to the set. Lucas takes a look at him and says - forget it, we'll put it on in post.
It's an overreliance on the tech and an underreliance on the critical aspects of film that forge bonds - the emotive ones.
To conclude - he has major flaws in writing and directing. No one is willing to or able to tell him this though.
I agree. This is a plausible solution and it makes all english resourses online available to them as well. Teaching some form of bilingualism makes sense for a number of reasons. good post.
This is exactly it. Both Hollywood and the music industry consider the threshold where everything starts to get "bad" at about 35. Most people, by this age, are no longer consuming popular culture, and are looking back instead of forward (in the sense that they think their best years are behind them). In that regard, they regard the music of their youth as great and significant - relative to what current youth are creating, etc.
It has little to do with the movies and more to do with adults reaching an age where they have enough to recognize the repetitive patterns and cycles in film, music and fashion. Once one becomes aware of the cyclical nature of popular culture, it becomes less genuine, unlike the first time you discovered it (which makes it the first time it ever happened, as far as you know).
THIS IS THE PRIME REASON THAT MUSIC AND FILM DO NOT TARGET MATURE AUDIENCES. Too hard to impress, too jaded, too intelligent, too discriminating. It's fool's gold.
Wrap anything with shiny enough foil and it can be sold to youth. I work in film; this is the thought process.
You refer to the number of votes received. I refer to his appeal. I don't think those things are the same.
absolutely. i agree that the possibility exists.
however, in each instance, you point out failed NEGOTIATIONS. Failed attempts at diplomacy. How those situations relate to my original point about how to ENTER into negotiations with religious zealots in order to gain common ground is dubious. Your point assumes a step we haven't taken yet, as we are not negotiating with an opposing body. In fact, we're not even sure who the opposing body is yet... and where they are and what they're doing.
However, I don't deny that we in fact might be the dumbest guys at the table.
huge numbers is relative. there are six billion people on the planet. an argument can be made tha organized religion has been inordinately successful. Too successful.
I think your point is valid to some degree but I think its because another inexorable drive has reached critical mass. Technology. Information is available to all and is free. We've developed sophisticated ways of waging war. What once required the might of a country now requires nothing more than some cash and enough dedicated people to fill your average classroom. The BARRIERS TO ENTRY are too low. It makes EVERYONE a threat.
A theory floats around about why we've never heard from another species. It proposes that they all reach a point at which they use their own technology to destroy themselves. In other words, no civilization can survive its own technological advancement past a critical juncture.
We've been on the brink of it since the dawn of the atomic age.
So, in hindsight, the post I originally responded to wasn't too far off. At some point, organized religions are going to have to concede to something else... some other unifying force. However, I don't think banning religion or making it a forceful change is going to work. People have to evolve.
My mom always said not to argue with fools. I never understood what she meant as a child. She explained it to me further - that when you discuss something with someone, you're at the mercy of the person in the group with the least ability to comprehend. The group can only move forward with consensus when that person does so. So in a group, you're not at the mercy of the top of curve so much as at the mercy of those at the bottom. Here in the US, Bush's appeal is somewhat an indication of this.
Not to label religious zealots as fools, but we can't move to another place until the zealots decide, one way or another, to not be zealots anymore.
I'm not an atheist. I am not implying that atheism is a higher evolutionary step. Marx did, hence the reference.
Re: arrogance being an opiate, I'm certain it can be for some. I tend to think that there is some arrogance in atheists, as absolute certainty in the nonexistence of God is probably as foolhardy as absolute certainty (not any evidence). In that sense I think atheists and believers have a lot more in common than they think.