First time I [finished watching Avatar] and got that strange depressed feeling. That forced me to go to the cinema the next day. Again I got that feeling, even got it after the 3rd time. Now i think I’m an addict of this depression, and i like it, it kinda makes me a better person, or something like that. That’s why I’m here, writing. – KalaKuival, posted on Avatar-Forums.com

I want to preface all this by telling you that I am not going to make fun of these people, or make fun of Avatar. If people are depressed, they need to find the best way out of that depression. If that happens to be writing about it on a message board, so be it. What is a little confusing to me is that cinema as a storytelling device has been around for over 100 years. I had assumed we all knew that movies were fake by now.

As much as it pains me, people typically pay to see movies for escapism. Nothing in their lives looks and sounds like it does in the cinemas, and they’ll pay some money to forget that they have a presentation in a couple of days, or that they just had a really irate customer. It’s a constructive way of memory loss, just like alcohol. But, once again, it’s not real. How many times have your parents or friends had to remind you “it’s only a movie,” when things get a little intense on-screen?

So why now? Certainly Avatar has the best special effects ever put to screen, but what about the movies that feature real people in real environments? I’ve never heard of a Star Wars related phenomenon. Nor even a Star Trek. Do people get depressed that there are no Evil Dead deadites running around for them to go all Ash on? Fans of those series seem to celebrate their fandom – collecting toys and memorabilia, making their own costumes and props. They take the experience they had in the theater and translate it into a positive, albeit possibly unhealthy, lifestyle. Movies, especially gigantic blockbusters, are supposed to have a positive effect on the audience. Apparently there is a subsection of Avatar fans that need genuine counseling because the imaginary world presented in the film remains that way upon their exit.

How do 75 pages of posts about the hardships of living life outside of that planet moon crop up in less than two weeks? Maybe it’s a little harder to dress up as a Na’vi than it is to rush out and buy a lightsaber, but the same principle applies. Unless Avatar is the first movie ever seen by this group of people, I am at a loss as to why its revelation as a fictional universe is so gutwrenching. Films can transport you. But, a film like Avatar, lush in its presentation, lousy in its characterization, seems an odd choice to get all wrapped up in. Having a breakdown because a movie is fake is like throwing a tantrum about how your kid doesn’t actually become an orange when he puts on the costume for the school play. Haven’t we progressed just a little in the century that movies have been around? It’s understandable that the first audience to see a moving train coming at them inside a cinematheque might be a little terrified. We live in an era of mass communication and content from cell phones, television, YouTube, and movies in the theater and the home. LARPing was supposed to be the cure for all of this.

I’m certainly not the biggest advocate of professional therapy. I can see how it’s helpful, and I can see how having an educated point of view can pinpoint the problems and make things a little easier to get a grip on.  At the same time, why pay for the things your friends give you for free? And why take the time to sit with someone and talk about changes instead of making the changes from your own desire? Yeah, yeah. It’s a lot harder than it sounds. Trust me, I know.

…It’s unfortunate that we live in a world where, just by pulling a trigger or making a corporate decision, one single greedy human being can wipe out the hard works of love of many people. But this is why we need to stop focusing on money and start focusing on our environment. Because we have the intelligence to kill ourselves, but not the wisdom to stop it. What will our money buy, when everything that is worth having is destroyed? The only way you can fill the emptiness you feel after this movie, is to jump on the leonopteryx. – Neytiri, posted on Avatar-Forums.com

But the thing that slaps me around the most is this post. Essentially, it’s every self-help mantra ever assembled, clothed in references to people, animals, and places that are set in that universe. It’s a good thought to tell people to get out and do stuff, but why the reliance on the movie’s characters? If you are feeling bad, the best way to overcome is to change something about either yourself or the situation. How is it possible that people can be affected by what is almost directly a Joel Osteen quote but with “Let Jesus In” replaced with “Jump on the leonopteryx.” I should also make it known that this specific task is one of the easiest things that Jake Sully does in the movie. He has a harder time shooting a bow, riding a horse, and bonding with one of the tiny dragons than mastering the most powerful being in the sky. It’d be nice if the people using the movie as a motivator actually watched it.

Overcoming depression and making a change is a lot more difficult than falling off one animal and onto another. It seems that these are people that truly need help, even if the cause for the depression is a little on the ridiculous side. There is a lot of work to be done on the Earth in general. If they were (and I don’t know how) clued into the environmental issues plaguing the planet solely by this movie, then part of that post-partem recovery could be spent volunteering at green charities. Who cares if you’re doing it because some fictional bink told you to? This is a measurable difference being made, and the filmmakers would be much more proud of their fans and their film for affecting a change.

I am aware that films are a cultural force. They truly move people, and in the best scenarios, they can change the world for the better. But, after 100 years of narrative storytelling, the last thing they should cause is a fit of depression over their fakeness. You are a lucky human if your saddest hour comes when you realize that you will never be able to ride a direhorse. Be depressed that the situations so hamfistedly portrayed in Avatar are actually happening, for real, on the planet. Be depressed that there are people starving because they were born the wrong color, and a couple thousand miles too far East. Be depressed that blatant corporate greed only leads to bailouts.

And then, fight against it. If Avatar could actually have a positive effect on the real, physical world through all of this sulking-cum-compassion, I may even like the film a little more.

The messageboard  in question can be found here.

Wonder why the image associated with this post has nothing to do with the content or message in the Comments Section.

Share

By Tom Nix

UPDATE 01.06.10: Warner Brothers has become the first studio to institute a release window. All new WB titles will become available on Neflix 28 days after release to retail. However, part of the deal with WB constitutes that the studio will make more Direct-to DVD titles available to Netflix subscribers, as well as increasing the amount of Instant Play content. These certainly feel like consolation prizes, but any steps taken to increase Netflix’s already fantastic On-Demand section is good news.

Now we just wait for the floodgates to open, as the rest of the studios neatly get in line to broker similar deals. Warner Brothers was the studio that decided the HD-DVD/Blu-ray War. It looks like they’ve fired the first shot in this one.

The good guys might lose this one.

It looks like Hollywood, in a move that can only be described as recklessly greedy, is in the final stages of implementing a 30-Day Waiting Period with Netflix for access to new release content. You see, they feel that the allure of an all-you-can eat model of film consumption is driving people away from the big box retailers, and thus away from purchasing DVDs and Blu-Rays. And thus, keeping money out of the pockets of the studio heads. It’s a blame game that has no business being played. Sales are down from last year, but maybe it’s  because instead of films like The Dark Knight, Iron Man, and Wall-E as top selling discs of 2008, we’re faced with Twilight, Madagascar 2, and the Miley Cyrus movie holding the weight this year.

The reason less and less movies are being sold is that less and less movies are worth owning.

But, regardless. Let’s look at the facts of this new development. The studios want a 30 Day Window in which they can exclusively sell their wares at retail without consumers fleeing to their Netflix queue. In return, they have offered to sell Neflix the movies they ship out to their 11 Million subscribers at a lower rate. Netflix sees an improvement in thier NOP (That’s Net Operating Profit), and the studios will hopefully see an increase in DVD and Blu-Ray sales and rentals. It seems though, in an age where piracy of media is so rampant to begin with, taking away one of the only real-deal legitimate ways of consuming new material will only lead to an increase of people stealing money from the studios. In terms of the relationship between Hollywood and its audience, its decidedly lose/lose.

Let’s be clear on one important thing: Rental chains like Blockbuster and Hollywood are NOT affected by the 30 Day Window. These retailers charge per disc rental fees, and they also sell new release films. This is the model Hollywood would prefer. It’s strictly companies like Netflix who have a monthly plan, and RedBox, who rent out heavily discounted new releases via their ubiquitous machine, who will be subject to this new policy.

Netflix gets 70% of its business from catalog titles being shipped out all across the country, leaving a relatively small 30% of strictly new content being pushed into mailboxes around the country. So, maybe this deal won’t hurt Netflix as bad as a lot of people are saying it will. But there’s still a question floating around: What constitutes a new release? Are we to assume that a new release is any film released on any format on a certain date, or are new releases the movies that are getting their first time introduction to home video after a few moths of theatrical screenings? For example, this week saw both Up and Monsters Inc. hit blu-ray. Would Netflix subscribers have to wait until December 10th to rent both flicks, or would the already released on DVD Monsters Inc. see no restrictions placed on its availability?

I contacted Netflix to ask this specific question and was given a “no comment” by Steve Swasey, VP of Corporate Communications. Either its simply too early in negotiations to give a reliable answer (probably the case), or we are looking at a day-and-date lockout. Which means that not only will James Cameron’s Avatar be a month delayed in getting to our TV screens, so, too will Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings Blu-Ray re-release. I think its a no-brainer how this will affect RedBox’s business. Let’s take a look at the potential outcomes of this agreement for Netflix.

1. Netflix rejects the 30-Day Window. The least plausible scenario. Netflix turning down this agreement will inevitably lead to one or more studios pulling support from Netflix. This will see less and less titles available, and more and more customers leaving the company. Bottom Line: Netflix loses customers. Neflix loses revenue.

2. Netflix agrees to the 30-Day Window, goes about business a usual. Netflix users will still get their catalog titles in a fair amount of time. With the cost break offered by the studios, Netflix is able to purchase more of the new release titles that are delayed, decreasing ship time to subscribers who have stayed on. They will also be able to increase the amount of films available for instant play, increasing the customer base who does not need a physical format. The customers who use Netflix as a one-price-fits-all alternative to waiting in line at Blockbuster may find the need to cancel their memberships. Bottom Line: Netflix loses customers. Netflix remains profitable.

3. Netflix offers the triple dip. As I’m sure many of you are aware, there is an additional fee to get Blu-Ray discs shipped as part of your plan. The $8.99/mo 1-at-a-time unlimited rental/streaming becomes $10.99. The $17.99/mo three-at-a-time unlimited plan (easily the most popular choice) becomes $20.99. With the addition of a “New Release Fee,” those prices could increase another three to five dollars a month for access to the newest content. The Netflix loyalists will either bite the bullet or stay on and not pay the new fee. Netflix will see a drastic downturn in new subscribers, and many long-time users will feel betrayed and over-charged. Bottom Line: Netflix loses customers. Netflix loses revenue.

4. Netflix takes out stake in Brick and Mortar. Netflis opens a small amount of brick and mortar stores with a 30-Day shelf life on new releases. These rentals are handled only through a monthly subscription to Netflix – All existing users are welcome to the store – and Netflix options a new “Store Based” pricing scheme that does not ship by mail, and is relegated to an all you can eat of New Releases handled through the store. Perhaps $30/mo for non subscribers, and an additional $10/mo for existing users. This allows both Netflix to maintain a very profitable web-and-post based business, as well as a way of issuing new releases in a pseudo-pay-per-use plan to keep the studios happy. The likelihood of this becoming a reality is incredibly slim, but the Bottom Line: Netflix Adds Customers (but charges them significantly more). Netflix remains profitable.

Netflix has had its share of defeats in the past, and to be sure, this is just a stumbling block. Their business is almost bulletproof. The more they focus on the on-demand market, and the more they can increase the flow of next-gen media to the customers not equipped with the digital download tech, the better off they will be.

It’s just a shame that no matter how you look at it, the good guys – Us – the people that pay for these services and media – get the short end of the stick again. As if the release of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen didn’t signify that Hollywood thinks of us as a bunch of idiots with dollar signs tattooed on our foreheads, this pretty much seals the deal.

Are you a Netflix subscriber? How do you feel about this development? Leave a comment below!

Share

photo-Illustration by Ryan Brlecic

Why does Dave Karger have a job? He’s just written an article for Entertainment Weekly that not only consists of one sentence summarys of film, but dares to call itself an analysis of the Oscar Race. For those not in the know, The 82nd Academy Awards will feature an expanded selection of nominees in the Best Picture Category. Instead of the usual five nominees, the field has moved up to an almost obscene ten films. So I guess it’s rather fitting of EWs crack writing team to mention the 10 film field, and then promptly give us a rundown of… five films.

There is not a face and a palm large enough. I’ve included scans of the article here and here. Follow along if you dare.

This article is supposed to, I imagine, give some insight into how the Oscar Race will pan out this year. The problem is, aside from the complete lack of insight into anything, a vast majority of the films being mentioned and fawned over are films THAT NO ONE ANYWHERE HAS EVEN SEEN.

When you position Invictus as a Oscar frontrunner with the phrase “judging from the trailer” in the description, a problem happens. Why does this article exist? It’s more of a Winter Movie Preview than it is an Oscar rundown (Editor’s Note: We are aware that this piece ran as PART of a Holiday Movie Preview. This does not excuse it). From the flicks that actually get face-time in print, three of them are already released. Only another two have been making festival appearances where a journalist could make judgment calls on their quality and awards potential.

A vast majority of this is pure speculation. Speculation based on trailers. Why is this happening?

2009 has been a FANTASTIC year for film. There’s some legitimate awards-worthy flicks that actually came out in the summer and spring of this year. Is it too much to ask for some leg work and thought when an article has the world analysis above the byline? How about a comparative piece about the gems from earlier in the year stacking up against the loaded holiday season? How about a discussion dealing with… well… anything? How does a 3 x 4 grid with pictures and one sentence describing the film further anyone’s understanding? How about not putting Quentin Tarantino on your “longshots” list of Best Directors? How about not even considering Avatar as an Oscar movie? How about watching the movies you want to nominate for an Oscar? How about not making Tom Nix want to hurt himself.

Hell, maybe EW just had two pages to fill. Maybe the complete lack of any interesting commentary is just as well. It’s not like they have any loyalty to providing readers with any real opinions or insight. They’re simply there to provide me with an aneurysm while trying to deduce why anyone would pay anyone else to produce worthless, opinionless, spineless writing like this.

Star Trek is listed with the same likelihood of getting a Best Picture nod as Where The Wild Things Are. The Cohens the same likelihood of winning Best Director  for a pounding character study as James Cameron’s 20 minute sizzle reel for Avatar. Morgan Freeman’s ability to turn Nelson Mandela into gentle, caring, inspirational black man #56 overmatches Jeremy Renner’s career defining turn as a bomb technician sweating it out in Iraq.

I hope this upsets people as much as it upsets me. This is a largely opinion based entertainment mag that is as far away as possible from giving one that means a damn thing. We have so many flicks floating around this half of the year that were worth talking about that its such a shame to see such a huge missed opportunity from one of the best selling publications out there.

I should stop being surprised at EWeekly’s constant failing uphill. Their articles are by and large filler, their reviews are aimed at the lowest common denominator. Hell, as CHUD.com’s head honcho Nick Nunziata pointed out in his recent blog about the mistreatment of The Men Who Stare At Goats, they gave Terry Gilliams Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas a D Minus. It is now open for debate whether there is any good left in the world or not.

This magazine is both unacceptable and unnecessary. This magazine and all the others like it is why The Red Circle exists. I hope we have provided you with all of the things that you aren’t getting elsewhere. I hope you’ll continue to let us for years to come.

Tom Nix // 11.08.09

Share