25 July 2000

MORE SAG-GING: The SAG commercial strike continues and now seems to be going in reverse. The latest meeting with producers reps ended up being to untenable even for the professional negotiator, who called a time out. If I may simplify, the TV business has changed a lot in the last decade and cable TV is now on par with network TV…especially with networks like The WB and UPN out there. The numbers are lower, as a rule, on cable, but you are no longer talking about a marginal enterprise. The way commercial actors get paid residuals on ads is either on a pay-per-view basis--very lucrative--on network TV or in a quarterly buyout--doesn’t suck, but not nearly as much money--for all other TV, including cable and syndication. There is no agreement about payment for repurposing for the Internet. So, when the agreement came up for discussion, the actors said that they wanted to be paid for cable ads the same way they were paid for network ads. Instead of saying something like, "Okay, but only over a certain rating" or "Okay, but we need to bring the per-view rate down a little to compensate for the huge added costs," the advertisers said, "Not only aren't we going to pay you each time a cable spot runs, but we are only going to pay you quarterly for network spots as well in the future." And so, the battle continues. I've never been in the middle of a high-powered labor negotiation, so I am always amazed when one that's so clearly polarizing as this one ends up being resolved. In the end, it seems that someone always blinks. But at what moment and why is always my question. And the "loser" can never admit defeat, so they can never tell uninvolved parties how and why they finally gave up more than they would have ever admitted to being willing to give up. There's a terrific strike doc by Barbara Kopple called American Dream, but even that can't quite find the note…I guess because no one wanted to sing the note. And you know, I haven't noticed one commercial less since this all started. Maybe we aren't getting "Wasssssss-uuuppppp in Space" because of it, but the machine, how it keeps turning.

BAD EXCUSE OF THE WEEK: Eric Corley, testifying in his own behalf at the trial against him over his publication of code that can be used to break DVD encryption technology, said that he printed the code as part of a news article, not to encourage piracy of movies on the Web. Geez, they just don't make rebels like they used to, huh?

INSIDE STUFF: The question of what a writer like Kim Masters will really bring to Inside.com has been open-ended through the first months of the on line magazine's existence. But she finally hit a homer in her coverage of DreamWorks and their search for a new partner for distribution. The story has everything, from specific info to speculation to insights from specific personalities. Very nice. Take a look here.

READER OF THE DAY: 31 Flavors writes: "That ROTD (THB 7/24) is hilarious! What a dumb-ass. Jesus, talk about being high-strung. You wanna bet he isn't even really a peace officer? People like him are the fun ones to meet on the Internet, because it's easy to piss them off with a simple remark that doesn't really mean anything at all.

As for your question, 'Should critics walk a mile in the shoes of those they write about?' Of course not, that's preposterous. Should the people who criticize critics and say they don't know what they're talking about have to walk a mile in your shoes before they make such a statement? No!

As for What Lies Beneath, I really enjoyed it. I haven't seen too many Hitchcock films, but I did catch references to at least Rear Window and Psycho (as well as The Shining; MEF, MEF MEF...). The first 2/3 of the film was great, I thought, but the third act seemed a little clumsy to me. Still, it was highly enjoyable, and when it got to the Sleeping with the Enemy part, I felt it regained its momentum. I gave it an A-."

From M&M UK: "Can I pedantically point out that the Prince Charles--the London cinema where they run The Sound Of Music late nights--is neither 'gay' nor 'neighborhood,' being just off Leicester Square, the heart of London's entertainment district. What it is cheap, showing second run and cult movies for a quarter of the price of admission at the shiny supercinemas next door to it..."

And this from the Resident Assistant: "Looking at the box office results of this summers movies proves one thing and one thing only--it's all in the trailer, baby. Look at the movies with GREAT trailers: Mission: Impossible 2, Gladiator, The Perfect Storm, Scary Movie, X-Men, Frequency.

ALL Fantastic trailers

Now look at the trailers for the following movies

Me, Myself and Irene--one of the UNfunniest Jim Carrey trailers ever. Good idea to leave some of the jokes for the film but c'mon not ALL of them! Gone in 60 Seconds--BORING! Rocky & Bullwinkle--DULL! Titan A.E.--nothing new or exciting here. The Patriot--historical = DULL!

So for all those people who think that it's all about stars, take a look at the top movies so far of the summer--only one (M: I's) has a real star in it. And look at the movies that had real stars (Mel! Nicholas! Carrey!) but bad trailers--these movies are the seasons disappointments.

So, what do you think--it's all in the trailer???

E ME: So…what DO you think?