THE CLONING’S PHANTOM MENACE?:  I’m a little torn on this story, but I shall plunge ahead, assured by LucasFilm that there won’t be anyone on the ranch who can address the issue until next week.  Roger Ebert’s on-air complaints about the visual quality of the Star Wars: Episode Two - Attack of the Clones seemed quite odd when I heard them  (You can read Ebert’s Sun-Times review, which also speaks to the visual issues, by clicking here.   On air and in the paper, Ebert wondered aloud about whether the “certain fuzziness” of the film, which was shot digitally and that George Lucas wanted shown digitally, was a product of the tape to film transfer.  So they showed Roger the film digitally on Sunday.  And he wrote a follow up piece.

Thing is, putting aside Roger’s ongoing issues with digital production and projection, I’ve heard from a number of critics around America who have had the same reservations about the visual look of Attack of the Clones after seeing the film on celluloid, some far more aggressive than Ebert in their comments.  (One writes: “Projected on film, Attack of the Clones is visually hideous - just disgusting to look at.  The actors look sickly and pasty with that blurry halo you get in Dogme movies, and any scene that takes place in the dark is all under-exposed-looking and full of what looks like pixelated interference.”)

The same phenomenon seems to have been in play after the press screenings last Tuesday, where the film was shown on celluloid at the first show.  And what do you know, the critics who seem to have had the worst comments about the movie saw that show.

This is all, of course, extremely unscientific.  The early press screening could have been inhabited by the most “serious” journalists and by extension, the toughest critics.  And maybe the Clone Moaners were looking for reasons to hate the film and found it in the celluloid transfer.  The truth is probably somewhere in between. 

Perhaps the only writer other than Ebert to have seen both the digitally projected and celluloid versions of Clones is Jeff Wells, who says that he did not notice a significant difference in the image quality.  But interestingly, Wells was warmer on the film, if still pretty chilly, after seeing the digitally projected version. 

Much as I like to stir things up when something smells funny, I don’t like to create controversy where there is none.  And I have no way of seeing Clones on celluloid before Friday.  (I’ve gotten a number of e-mails from around the U.S. about theaters already sold out for all of Thursday’s screenings.)  But there could be a problem here… and given that I expect Clones to gross over $450 million domestically, a subtle problem – a phantom menace, if you will – could make more of a difference than anyone expects.

RELEASING THE MATRIX: A reader pointed out something that I had completely glossed over in Jess Cagle’s Matrix article in Time Magazine… the potential of same summer releases for both the second and third Matrix films.  Cagle innocently writes, “Matrix Reloaded (part two) and Matrix Revolutions (part three)… won't come out until 2003 (Reloaded in May, Revolutions in either August or November)…,”  missing what would be one of the biggest stories in the history of the movie business. 

Think about it.  Two movies that should do well over $200 million apiece, perhaps over $300 million apiece… sequels… separated by just three months.  Forget for a moment the monumental nature of making this happen on the production and post-production side.  (That’s what will likely make the whole idea impossible.)  Look at the evolution of film distribution.  Star Wars, probably as a simple issue of function, set the three-years-between-films structure.  Batman stayed on that cycle then crashed when they rushed Batman & Robin out two years after Batman Forever.  The Indiana Jones cycle went three years, then five.  The Mission: Impossible films are on a four-year cycle.  But now Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter changed the dynamic, speeding up the production cycle. 

Lord of the Rings, all three films shot in a single production cycle and released on an annual cycle, expands on the concept originally used on Superman, which was the only series that had a short cycle (two years for Supes) and worked.  Rings pushes the envelope created by Batman thirteen years ago.  That is to say that Warner Bros. changed it all with Batman by releasing the video just six months after its release, effectively shortening the theatrical release period by announcing in July that the film would be available on tape by Thanksgiving.   Ironically, Lord of the Rings won’t hit video/DVD stores until August because to release the long completed product now would create a premature wave of interest that wouldn’t help market the December release of the next film.  A year between films may be too long for the best effect!

And now, The Matrix “quells.”  In the less ambitious plan, the two films will be released seven months apart, with the first film presumably hitting video/DVD stores a month or so prior to the release of the second.  There could be no clearer confirmation that theatrical “legs” are now long at eight weeks, while just nine years ago, Jurassic Park was playing in theaters for over a year.  Seven months is a lifetime in the distribution world these days.

The idea of a May/August release schedule, while it makes me queasy just thinking about it, is quite brilliant.  No films run at a $1 million-plus level more than 12 weeks anymore.  None.  Attack of the Clones, whether it makes $300 million or $400 million or $500 million domestic, will be done by Labor Day.  And so, why not take that into account and ride Summer 2003 for all it’s worth?  Matrix Revolutions, released the first weekend of August, could be over the $250 million mark before Labor Day.  Then Warner Bros. could release the double DVD for Thanksgiving at $50, not releasing the two films separately for $25 each until spring and not releasing the three-film package (for $50 again) for Thanksgiving 2004. 

I wish I could say that none of this makes sense… but it does. 

And how ironic would it be for one of Hollywood’s most entertaining film series ever, that also has a whole lot to say about the disconnection of our society, to be the vehicle that pushes the industry to the brink?  The brink of what?  That is the question, isn’t it?  Are we arming monkeys with AK-47s or typewriters?  Are we ready to evolve or will we, as Randy Newman put it, “drop the big one and see what happens?”

Que sera, sera.

READER OF THE DAY:  The Cracker writes:  “RE: the summer blockbuster buzzkill of recent years… I think you need to go back a tad further to see what happened. 

What do Jaws, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and Batman all have in common?  Well, for the most part they all brought something new to the table.  Each were big.  Most took us to places or showed us stories we hadn't seen before.  And in a few cases we saw actors playing roles which took themselves to new territory and it was amazing to watch.

Cut to 93 and Spielberg does it again.  Just like Jaws, Jurassic Park comes out with something we truly had not seen before.  Say what you will about the movie now, but back in 93 it was something to see.  You watched it knowing you were watching something that would change movies. 

And for a while, audiences were willing to put up with bad stories with phenomenal CGI because it was new and exciting. 

In 1996 comes Independence Day.  One of the most hyped up films of the past decade.  Watching the various trailers for the movie in the months leading up to it's opening put me in such a giddy state.  I know many others felt the same way.  What we thought we were watching was the first true Science Fiction film that would take this new technology and send us places not seen since the Star Wars films. 

In the end, we were all tricked.  ID4 was so ungodly awful that it was hard not to feel violated after it's release.  To me it was like the equivalent of getting a date with Charlize Theron and her telling you at dinner that she's actually a man.  Traumatic. 

And this same feeling would accompany just about every big event film in the years to come. 

The final blow would be with Episode 1 in 1999.  Finally Lucas, a legend who created films which account for cherished childhood and/or film-going memories of millions, would return to filmmaking and finally show everyone how it was truly done.

The image of Jar Jar Binks.  Think of that image.  It was the straw that broke the camels back.  Not even a master could deliver greatness the likes of which we were accustomed to back in the day when miniature models were the FX phenomenon of choice. 

Event Films over the course of the past eight years have burned their audiences.  It's like fooling your dog when having a catch.  You fake like you are going to throw and the stupid dog runs frantically searching everywhere for the ball you neglected to offer him.  You might get away with it once.  You may get away with it twice.  Hell, you may get away with it forty times.  Over time, the dog will continue to run, but it's enthusiasm will be that of the public movie going crowd sitting in the theater for The Scorpion King.  Yeah, they sort of showed up, but they sure aren't expecting a damn thing.

And why are you not feeling Spider-Man?  Why, after such a groundbreaking first 10 days are you not really Spideriffic?  Because of the same reason you weren't Spawnrific after the first 10 days of Spawn's release.  Or Batmantastic after the first 10 days of Batman and Robin's release.  We've been burned on these superhero movies so many times in the past nine years that even a very good one doesn't register that much.

Movie studios have absolutely no reason to put out something new and groundbreaking.  Something to get excited over. 

But I'll tell you one thing David.  There is at least one exception for the upcoming future.  These bsequels will have everybody primed liked they were for b.  I kid you not.  There hasn't been a film like The Matrix in a very very long time.  Something new.  Something groundbreaking.  Something just utterly cool from someone with a new vision.

If these b sequels falter like the new Star Wars vehicles I'm not quite sure what could possibly win back any enthusiasm from movie going audiences.”

E ME:  I also heard from a reader yesterday who pinpointed Batman & Robin as the beginning of the end.  What film do you see as the “video that killed the radio star?”  If you keep it brief, I’ll run a load of them.  If not, I’ll have to choose… and I hate to choose.