In “The Late Shift”, an early 1990’s television film, we see the behind-the-scenes story of how Jay Leno came to be selected as Johnny Carson’s replacement on “The Tonight Show”, over David Letterman.  We also see that both men were heavily recruited by other networks, and that thanks to Leno’s ruthless agent, he was passed the keys to the kingdom, leaving Letterman to head to CBS.  Things have remained pretty static since then, and even though we’ve seen the emergence of talent like Jimmy Kimmel, Jon Stewart, and Stephen Colbert, Leno and Letterman have remained as the top two talents in late night television.

Now, however, things are again shifting, as Leno makes ready to leave “The Tonight Show” and instead take over the 10p.m. slot just before it.  Word on the streets (a.k.a. various articles and blogs) is that Leno is unhappy with his imminent departure, as he isn’t quite ready yet to give up his seat.  Conan O’Brien, his future replacement, has popped by the show a couple of times, and while not necessarily frosty, lately his and Jay’s relationship has been merely cordial at best.

On the whole, however, everything seems to be fine between Leno and O’Brien, most likely because any rift that’s developed these few months has less to do about them, and more about Leno versus NBC.  Jay is, after all, heading to that 10p.m. show, which gives Conan a great gift in the form of a lead-in to his own time slot.  Besides, Conan was selected to take Jay’s place, so if Jay wants to blame anyone, it should be the executives at NBC, not Conan.  Leno has known for some time that his run on “The Tonight Show” would come to an end regardless of ratings – that he would go out on a high note.  But apparently it’s easier to talk about pulling the plug than it is to actually do it.

Conan actually emerges from all of this the clear winner.  With Leno staying in house, as it were, O’Brien avoids generating the perception that he ran Leno off; Leno fans, in turn, will be more likely to forgive O’Brien for hosting “The Tonight Show”, and may even tune in to watch him.  Also, by staying at NBC, Jay eliminates the possibility of popping up on another network as a time-slot rival (a move that some networks hoped would happen, considering Jay was said to be upset with NBC).

In the end, the new late night shift isn’t affecting “The Tonight Show” so much as it is the late-night shows on other networks.  Comedy Central, ABC, and CBS are toying with various ideas in order to take advantage of the upheaval that will come when Conan replaces Jay (ABC is even considering killing off “Nightline”, and moving Kimmel up earlier).  It will be interesting to see how this current round plays out, and who’s left standing once the bell rings.

I’ve been hearing tidbits for months now, from various friends and family in the northeast, about a film studio or two popping up in that area.  The talk centers around the number and variety of film and television production jobs that will be available, in complexes that are set to rival those found anywhere in the country (even Los Angeles).  As time went on, the chatter grew, and so I decided to look into the claims; and soon, two words stood out above the others, both in terms of scope and ambition: Hollywood East.

That’s right, film and television production is coming to Massachusetts in a way never-before seen on the east coast.  As of now, there are two distinct groups emerging as favorites to build studios within the state.  The first, Plymouth Rock Studios, is a film and television digital complex set to open in Plymouth, MA; the second is Los Angeles-based International Studio Group, which intends to build eleven sound stages and related office space in SouthField, MA.  Both of these groups intend to work together, not in competition, to ensure that the larger goal of creating a viable studio system in the state is reached.

These are no fly-by-night endeavors, the kind of operations that build themselves up on promises but fail to deliver for whatever reason (anything from a lack of funding, to a lack of approval by the local legislature).  No, these are legitimate collections of Hollywood producers and executives, including a former producer who once ran Paramount, Walt Disney and Touchstone studios.  And yet despite coming from outside the state, these men and women are showing a keen understanding of how to work with local governments and business leaders, to not only gain approval for the land they need, but also to clearly and concisely lay out their plan for what will be an ambitious business model (one that could conceivably bring 7,000 jobs to their respective regions).  There’s also a youth-oriented feeling among many of the proposals for the studio development, with the goal of retaining a creative and young workforce who would otherwise be lured to California or New York in their pursuit of filmmaking opportunities.

And yet this kind of ambition should come as no surprise to anyone who’s followed the film tax credit battles that have been waged these past few years between states like New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Michigan.  Each one is looking to make the claim of being THE BEST home for filmmaking outside of Hollywood, and are competing to be just that.  Such grand-scale plans are exactly what Massachusetts has been searching for ever since the 25% film tax credit that was created in 2006 (and subsequently expanded in July 2007).  There have even been public hearings on proposed legislation to give an equally-high tax credit on studio construction costs as well.  Already the state has seen a dramatic increase in production in the Commonwealth, and if the first step of their intent was to attract the filmmakers, then the next logical step seems to be keeping them there.  Hence the idea behind Hollywood East.

Next up, now that we know who the players are, we’ll take a look at what they’re offering, everything from specific jobs in film and television, to increases in tourism…

Now that the fall television season has officially kicked off, it’s worth visiting this year’s slate of shows to see what lingering affects there are from the recent writer’s strike.  In many ways, this is a season of proving one’s self, as we find numerous shows returning from strong freshman debuts who are desperate to reclaim what momentum they had prior to the strike.

It’s safe to say the 2007-2008 television season was an unusual one.  The strike caused a work-stoppage that rushed season finales and left many shows (particularly those with serial narratives) in the lurch.  It’s also a safe assumption that heavyweights like “Lost” and “24” will come back in early 2009 at comfortable ratings levels despite the interruption to their respective narratives – both shows have tinkered before with their schedules and have not suffered greatly for it, thanks to their strong fan bases.  But other shows are facing riskier futures, as they had barely had time to establish themselves before being unceremoniously yanked from the small screen.

Look at three of these shows returning for their sophomore seasons: “Life”, “Private Practice”, and “Pushing Daisies”.  At first glance, these shows should see success, for a variety of reasons.  “Life” is a procedural police drama on NBC, which always seems a relatively simple formula of success.  “Practice” is a spin-off from ABC’s incredibly successful show “Grey’s Anatomy”.  And “Daisies” is a quirky ABC show that quickly found a receptive audience for its offbeat yet likeable characters.  Aside from the fact that all three are well-positioned on strong networks, these shows share something else in common: they’ve all been off the air since 2007.  That’s a long time away, yet all three are hoping to pick up where they left off.  Unfortunately, that’s easier said than done.  The fear is that audiences have forgotten these shows and their characters, and they’ll have a hard time reconnecting as a result.  And that’s what ABC and NBC are hoping to counter, with strong advertising and a gradual reintroduction to the lineups.

Television executives are looking for a return to normalcy with popular shows as well, which will also have to reassert themselves with audiences.  And new shows are coming down the line (some retooled, like the newer version of “Life on Mars”, or remakes, like the new “Knight Rider”).  Networks are understandably cautious about green-lighting new shows (ABC had only one new scripted show this fall), and are finding new ways to deal with the changing landscape.  Many are unveiling new shows or episodes in the summer (such as TNT’s “The Closer”, or USA’s “In Plain Sight”), betting that audiences who are used to repeats will be more likely to embrace new fare.

In the end, all it’ll take is one hit show to make a network forget the hassles and uncertainty caused by the writer’s strike.  And so long as they can avoid an actor’s strike, all should be close to normal by the time February sweep’s week rolls around.

We’re approaching the 70^th anniversary of the “War of the Worlds”, the infamous radio broadcast that instilled panic in a nation. We’re also coming up on the 7^th anniversary of September 11^th, another fear-inducing event. Two separate and distinct points in American history, yet both examples of the role that media plays in shaping our society.

Most people know the story of Orson Wells’ infamous radio broadcast. On October of 1938, Wells perpetrated one of the greatest hoaxes in American history. He was able to convince the general public that an alien invasion was taking place in rural New Jersey. The ensuing panic was widespread, unlike anything most police and government officials had ever seen. By the time the “Martians” landed in Jersey, all hell had broken loose. Because most people only tuned in once they’d heard about the “news” from friends, they missed the announcement that the broadcast was a fake (and to be fair, Wells didn’t try overly hard to convince them otherwise once the program was in full swing). Many joined in just in time to hear how a group of aliens were destroying homes and entire towns, many using some horrific type of Martian gas on the unsuspecting populace. When the broadcast was finished, and Wells came on to explain how the story was akin to dressing up on Halloween, the damage had been done: tens (if not hundreds) of thousands believed the broadcast to be real, and many of them were genuinely terrified.

In the end, the broadcast caused an important shift in public perception concerning news and its delivery. CBS, though it did not face public censure, promised in the future not to use the phrase “We interrupt this program—” for anything other than real news bulletins. But beyond that, an even more important aspect of the hoax was revealed: the power of radio (and, later, television) to reach a vast audience. At that time, even phones were not available to the entire public. Many still relied on word of mouth to receive (and confirm or disprove) breaking news, along with their trusty radios. Lost, perhaps, in the anger at being duped by a radio show was the fact that so many had heard it to begin with.

Flash-forward to today. We live in a multi-media age, where news is broken in real time. When the events of September 11^th happened, many of us (myself included) watched the news on television while also streaming news feeds online from Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC. It was an unprecedented amount of information available on a 24-hour feed, and it fit with the idea that audiences have become more discerning, if not more demanding. Unlike that night in October of 1938, the horrors of 9-11 were witnessed first-hand, in living color, by most of the nation. We didn’t need word-of-mouth to tell us whether what we were seeing was real – we could see for ourselves. Like those in 1938, we huddled together, barely able to comprehend what we were hearing. But unlike Wells’ hoax, our tragedy was much too real.

The Olympics begin tomorrow in Beijing, and with that comes the inevitable question: should the athletes use this very public forum to deride China on its human rights violations (including jailing dissidents and violently suppressing protests), or should they remain silent?  It is an issue that has dogged these Olympics since it was announced that Beijing would host the games, and the fervor has only intensified as we’ve neared the starting date.  For the athletes, it’s a sensitive question: to some, the Olympics are a place of competition, the one venue where every country involved can unite in the quest for athletic glory; to others, though, it provides them with a chance to voice their opinions to countless millions, one they may never have again.  It’s a question every athlete will wrestle with, one that depends on which way his or her own moral compass swings.  And it’s a question that will play out every day, with every medal ceremony and interview, across television and computer screens around the world. 

The television aspect is nothing new.  While the Olympics have reached a worldwide audience in the past, this year will see a virtual TV saturation (NBC will provide an unprecedented 1,400 hours of coverage across six of its networks, according to the Associated Press – “more that all previous Summer Olympics combined”; it will also present 2,200 hours of live web coverage and 3,000 additional hours of clips available online).  But what truly makes this Olympics different is that the potential to reach people is even greater, and surpasses mere television exposure.  That’s because, since the last Olympics in 2004, we have seen the advent (and subsequent explosions in popularity) of sites like myspace, facebook, and, perhaps most importantly, YouTube.

For the first time ever, we will be given an almost real-time glimpse into the Olympics – everything from videos to blogs to photos, all created and uploaded instantly.  People at these games will shoot videos from the stands, on the streets, in hotels, and at restaurants…they will have their cameras and computers with them at all times (oftentimes both in one), and you can bet that everything they capture will be uploaded immediately to YouTube (or Liveleak, etc.).  Countless more people will be documenting their experiences on myspace or facebook, writing about what they’ve seen and heard.

The television coverage will be limited by its own rigidly structured design – and for all things sports, there’s no better place to turn.  But this means that the true heart of the games will be found online, on those sites that China and NBC can’t control.  There, we will see the real athletes, unbound and unprocessed.  Throughout their time in Beijing, they will be presented with a sea of people capturing their every move.  What’s more, the athletes themselves will have access to all of these sites; they will add messages to their myspace sites, or perhaps will upload their own videos – documenting everything from the opening day festivities, to the sidelines at the events, even their own medal ceremonies.  Simply put, we are looking at an extraordinary amount of access to this year’s games, the likes of which we’ve never seen before.

Which brings us back to the original question of just how much (if anything) the athletes should say about the way China conducts its affairs.  Because the reality is, they may be unable to avoid it.  If an athlete uses any of the above-mentioned media, they will be opening themselves to scrutiny.  Even a casual remark can be read as making some kind of statement – whether it’s a comment on the friendliness of the host country, or an expression of surprise at the seeming openness of a Communist regime.  The majority of what we will see on television will be about the sports… what we see in the other media will be about the people.  And if the athletes aren’t careful, they could be taking a stand whether they realize it or not.  Which, at the end of the day, might not be such a bad thing – after all, a heartfelt opinion is the best kind.

All of this, of course, will be a moot point if China decides to block access to YouTube and the like, as they did earlier this year during the Tibet protests.  But hey, if that happens, we still have almost 7,000 hours of NBC coverage to look forward to.

I’ll admit it: checking the box office numbers of “The Dark Knight” has become a habit with me.  I keep going to www.boxofficemojo.com, and staring at the total domestic take (over $363 million in just 15 days); I read various articles wondering if the film is poised to make a run at Titanic’s epic $600 million domestic haul.  And I find myself theorizing exactly why this film is generating as much noise as it is.  The answer, I believe, lies beyond mere filmmaking.  What we’re seeing is truly a small phenomenon – a perfect storm of a film.  This is what happens when an excellent sequel (even better than its predecessor), rave critical reviews, a magnetic performance by a recently-deceased actor, and incessant word of mouth come together.

It starts, of course, with the movie itself: wonderfully written and directed, with a haunting yet moving score to accompany the great action and suspense.  Even when the first feedback was trickling in from sources close to the production, before any trailer was complete, there were raves about the dark story and the actors bringing it to life (everyone from Christian Bale, to Heath Ledger and Aaron Eckhart).  And the early reviews were dead on:  every major actor in this picture is worthy of recognition.  They add complexity to the story, as well as to their characters’ development within that framework.  I feel I can watch this film again and again, if only to see each actor so skillfully inhabit their role, wondering in the back of my mind what’s not being said – the stories behind the stories.  Take the Joker, for instance, who proclaims himself an agent of chaos, and yet so meticulously plans his schemes he’s almost like a deranged mathematician.  Ledger plays both sides so well, and so believably, that one can’t help but sit back and marvel at the odd duality of this character, the way he can be almost two distinct psychotics in one.

People like to point to the death of Ledger as the main reason to the film’s success, but that is merely simplifying the issue.  Rather, his passing is one of the cogs in a greater machine.  Critics were already raving about his performance prior to his death; they will talk about it for months to come.  And yes, there are some out there who will see the film only to watch the last performance of a young actor.  But there are so many more who will be pulled in for the other reasons mentioned above. 

Look at the overwhelmingly positive collection of reviews.  It is so rare to see critics getting behind a summer comic book movie, usually because they are so lean on story or character development.  Not so in this case: out of 247 reviews on www.rottentomatoes.com, only 14 are negative.  Read those reviews, and they’re less analytical assessments of the film, and more excited examinations of why the film is so good. 

The best part is, the film actually manages to live up to the intense hype.  What you read in the reviews is the same thing you hear from the average filmgoer; you can feel a breathless kind of enjoyment, can see a “there are so many reasons this film was good I can’t even pick one” gleam in the eye. 

Which, in the end, might be the best explanation for why this film continues to do so well: seeing it once (or twice) is simply not enough.

**Note:  I have to say, I’ll be amazed if the film passes “Titanic” for the domestic box office record. Think about it this way: let’s say at best that “The Dark Knight” grosses approximately $18 million tomorrow and another $12 million on Sunday (at BEST!!!)…  that would put the total box office at just under the $400 million mark.  That would mean that the film would have to earn another $200 million just to tie “Titanic”’s record.  To put it in perspective, that’s almost the entire domestic box office take of ‘Batman Begins’!  It’s a staggering figure when you think of it on those terms.

The one silver lining in all of this is that ‘The Dark Knight’ is on pace to reach the $400 million mark within 20 days (maybe 25)– obliterating the old record of 43 days set by ‘Shrek 2′.

I’ve seen more and more articles recently decrying “runaway film production” – film and TV shows leaving our city and our state, and heading toward more tax-friendly environs.  I have heard for years about Canada, for instance, offering a way out to productions seeking to trim costs… their streets and their locations serve well as a substitute for American locales, but at lower prices (for both location use as well as crews).  But I didn’t know why, in the past year, the issue had ballooned.  So I decided to do some research, to discover what moves the “competition” had made, and what (if anything) our state had done in the past few years to halt this trend.

One article I found dated back to November of 2006.  It talked about the need to retain film production in Los Angeles, and was written by our own mayor, Antonio R. Villaraigosa.  He was writing the piece in response to an editorial in the LA Times, which criticized closing the 105 in order to film a scene for “Live Free or Die Hard”; he stated in simple yet concise tones the need for our legislators to do all they can to keep these productions from heading elsewhere.  He writes: “Today, only 11% of all feature films are being made in California, and we cannot afford to cede this integral industry to other cities, especially as competition grows more fierce.”  He then goes on to cite that competition, pointing out that “14 states [have] passed new tax incentives or improved existing incentives for film productions,” and the “troubling, long-term implications to that trend.”  Finally, he rounds out his opinion piece by mentioning his support AB 777, a bill which could provide tax incentives for productions to stay in California. 

Sounds good to me.  So, this being a year-and-a-half ago, I did some research to find out what happened to “Assembly Bill 777 – Motion Picture Production Tax Incentives for California”.  While some criticism was levied against it with respect to its effectiveness, or the cost to California taxpayers, overall the bill seemed to be a good start.  The only problem is, this bill seems to have disappeared.  The most recent reference I could find to AB 777 was dated February of 2007, and talked about cruelty to elephants.  Obviously, the bill had had a makeover.

Searching for similar bills led me to an article from June of 2007.  One line in particular caught my eye, because of its familiarity:  “We will not sit idly by and watch this homegrown industry disappear because other states are being more aggressive.” This from Majority Leader Karen Bass, of Los Angeles.  Very similar to Villaraigosa’s stance, and yet again, I can find no follow-up article discussing a bill being passed.  It seems this push, too, had stalled.

I did, however, find an article from April of this year, which discusses the New York State legislature’s plan to triple their film and TV tax credits for productions within its borders.  The article goes on to say how “New York City [in particular] also offers a 5% credit, so city shoots can reap a total of 35%.”  And what was the reasoning for these increased credits?  Was the legislature responding to some move made by California’s lawmakers, a sort of tit-for-tat?  Was it trying to break the west coast’s hold on film and TV production?  No, these incentives were done “in a bid to regain an edge over [New York’s] credit-happy neighbors Connecticut, New Jersey and Massachusetts.”  That’s right – not to counter any moves that California or Hollywood had made, but to beat the moves made by other states.

Which finally led me to this article, from May 2008, in which Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger calls for legislative action, saying “California must increase tax incentives to movie and television studios as a way to keep them from moving their productions out of state.”  These comments came days after ABC Studios said it was moving production of ”Ugly Betty” from Los Angeles to New York – meaning the siphoning has extended to include not just individual shoots, but entire productions as well.  The article adds that Schwarzenegger has been pushing for such legislation for four years, but so far has found no success.

That is our loss – and this loss extends beyond the revenue generated by the productions themselves.  It seems simple to say, but keeping these shoots in Los Angeles and California in general can only have a positive impact, especially on tourism.  Because what else are we primarily known for, if not being the entertainment capital of the world?  Take away our film and TV shoots, and you take a major part of our identity.