Earlier this week the Oscar nominations were released, and, as with every year, there were a few surprising picks (or not picked, as the case may be). While not being nominated for an Oscar doesn’t mean the film isn’t a classic, there is no denying the thrill of anticipation as you get your first look at the lucky nominees.

Leading the tally with 11 nominations, including Best Picture, is Martin Scorsese’s Hugo, a 3D homage to film preservation. However, The Artist, a silent, black and white film about the Hollywood of yore, is considered to be the favorite for the Best Picture award. I was personally astonished by the inclusion of War Horse in the Best Picture category; while it was visually appealing I found the overall story uninteresting. Everyone was surprised about Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close getting nominated for Best Picture as it was very polarizing amongst critics and audiences alike, which is why it got shut out of the Golden Globes this year. The Tree of Life, another polarizing film, was also nominated for Best Picture, and Terrence Malick was nominated for Best Director.

Although it wasn’t surprising I was still a little disappointed to see that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt. 2 wasn’t nominated for Best Picture. I’m aware that it was no Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, and you could always count on me to rank among the annoyed fans citing book vs. film criticisms, just the same, I would’ve liked to see the series get some recognition.

Drive was shut out completely, resulting in the offensive decision to not include Albert Brooks in the Best Supporting Actor nominations for his portrayal as chilling and deadly small-time mobster Bernie Rose. I firmly believe that this was a fantastic performance in an already illustrious career. Albert Brooks of course took the news with his patented sense of humor.

Rooney Mara got a surprising nomination for her performance in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, even though that movie was snubbed in regards to the Best Picture category. I was not that enthused over the film, so that didn’t bother me as much as David Fincher’s failure to be recognized in the Best Director category as he is one of my favorite directors of all time.

One of the best nominations was Bridesmaids for Best Original Screenplay. Given that it’s up against Woody Allen’s Midnight in Paris and Michel Hazanavicius’ The Artist I know that there is no chance it will actually win. However, after all the disparaging remarks made about women and comedy it makes me glad to see it honored. I hope if Kristen Wiig and Annie Mumolo do win we will end up seeing more comedies written and performed by talented comediennes.

50/50 and Young Adult were sadly rebuffed for Best Original Screenplay. They were both personal favorites of mine this year, and they were thought to have a good shot at being nominated. This was especially true of Young Adult, as people thought that Patton Oswalt was a shoe in for Best Supporting Actor. The comedian reacted to his snub in a hilarious string of tweets.

I was also quite excited to see “Man or Muppet” up for Best Original Song this year. Anyone who has seen Flight of the Conchords knows of Bret McKenzie’s masterful skills as a lyricist and musician, so it would come as no surprise that he has written a delightfully charming song for The Muppets. If he does not walk out an Oscar winner I will be filled with a righteous indignation.

Last, but far, far, from being least, there is the nomination of Gary Oldman as Best Actor for his role as George Smiley in Tinker Tailor Solider Spy. This is his first nomination, which seems to me to be a crime against humanity. Mr. Gary Oldman has been one of my favorite actors for many years now, and the idea that he has never been honored for his outstanding work as an actor is truly shocking. If I had my way he would’ve won for his portrayal of Sid Vicious in Sid and Nancy back in 1986, or any one of the several performances that make up his filmography like Beethoven, Lee Harvey Oswald, or Norman Stansfield.

Those are my thoughts on this year’s Oscars. Please feel free to share yours below. For the full list of nominations for the 2012 Oscars click here.

2012 Documentary of the Chinese dissident was premiered at Sundance this week.

Utah is getting a lot of love from the film world this week, and one piece that caught our attention tells of the struggle of Beijing artist Ai Weiwei, who last year was detained for 81 days by the government due to his belief in (and actions of) freely expressing himself.

Ai’s story is depicted as a bold and brash artist who became somewhat cautious after his detention period in 2011. Understandably so, from some of the footage and reports unearthed; the dark edginess to the film is not just for dramatic effect, it is genuine uneasiness that manages to creep into the viewer from the shady goings on. The documentary also chronicles several years leading up to his arrest, from his childhood in Beijing, to his blossoming years in New York, to his high profile work and his growing politically-charged comments and works.

Director Alison Klayman, who lived in China from 2006 to 2010 working as a freelance journalist, says she made Never Sorry wanting to “record what happens when someone makes the choice to speak openly and provocatively and face down the consequences”, and that is exactly what Ai Weiwei has done. Crossing the line from popular artist into social activist sees him shy away from post-detention interviews, and choose his appearances wisely (Ai did not attend the premiere screening at Sundance).

Although you’re going to have to wait a little while to see the film in full, you can check out the teaser preview below.

Director / Producer & Cinematographer: Alison Klayman
Executive Producers: Julie Goldman, Andrew Cohen, Karl Katz
Contributing Producer: Colin Jones
Producer: Adam Schlesinger
Editor: Jen Fineran
Music: Illan Isakov

This video was produced by independent filmmakers supported in part by the nonprofit Sundance Institute.

For more information, head to aiweiweineversorry.com/

by Lee Jarvis.

The British music legends team up with visual collaborator Adam Smith to create a unique perspective on a live show.

On 26th January, The Chemical Brothers will start an exclusive screening of ‘Don’t Think’, their live concert film piece directed by Smith. The screenings will happen at 20 cities around the word, including Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, and Toronto. After the January screenings, a wider release will follow on February 1st.

The film was recorded at Japan’s Fuji Rock festival, back in July 2011, at which the Chems performed one of their infamous live sets. Smith used 20 different camera angles to create a piece from the perspective of the crowd. “After 18 years of working on the Chemical Brothers live show we have finally captured it on film. I wanted to capture what it is like to experience the show from right in the middle of the crowd as well as showing and combining the visuals featured in the show with the footage we captured on this one night, to see how the music and visuals emotionally affect and connect with the audience.”

‘Don’t Think’ consists of the entire headline set of The Chemical Brother’s performance in Dolby 7:1 surround sound, probably the first concert to be recorded and mixed for the big screen with such technology. The official trailer looks pretty epic, and you can watch the it here…

For more info, check out http://www.dontthinkmovie.com/

by Lee Jarvis.

It has been quite a turbulent year with the DVD and streaming giant. Last week saw the release of their Q3 reports, which followed a rocky couple of months of price hikes, confusion, psuedo-startups and backtracks.

So just what is going on with Netflix? How did CEO and Founder Reed Hastings go from Fortune magazine’s ‘business- person of the year’ just 12 months ago to this? To be honest, the first six months of 2011 started promisingly, with stocks up 40% and the ever-growing subscriber base topping 25 million.

However, the future of the on-demand/rental of movies lies in streaming, and it will be the quality of instant content that will affect consumers’ habits and future contributions. 2011 has seen an aggressive expansion, in part as response to user feedback, and some of the ever-changing deals announced include… Addition of CBS Content (February), Extended Deal with 20th Century Fox, First Exclusive TV Series Commissioned (March), New Partnership with Viz Media, Marvel Content Added (April), Miramax Content Deal Announced, More Viacom Content Added (May), New Agreement with Discovery Communications (September), Extending and Expanding Disney-ABC Agreement, New NBC Universal Content (October).

The downside is that studios keep demanding higher fees for their content, and can do so now that other video-streaming websites are offering competition (including Hulu and Amazon). Then come the costs of moving into new territories. In July, Netflix announced they would be expanding into 43 countries. The new markets include Mexico, Central America, South America and the Caribbean, and will give those members access to Netflix content in Spanish, Portuguese or English. Add in the launching on iPad and Android platforms and you have a sharp incline in costs, prompting Netflix to alter their prices in the second half of the year.

It was the steepness of the increase that first riled customers and shook shareholders. In July Netflix announced that the streaming + 1 DVD option that had cost $9.99 would increase to $15.98 per month. Loyal customers were furious at the 60% hike. Last week, the confirmation came out that subscribers had left in droves; the Netflix user base decline by 800,000 people in just 3 months. This caused further instability in stocks, resulting the new current price of just $92 per share, down from a high of $299 in July.

As if all this wasn’t enough, there is the Qwikster debacle. Splitting the DVD rentals from streaming and replacing a strong brand with something that sounds like a Chocolate shake product didn’t go down too well with customers either. Whilst there would be room for that to expand into video game rental, and a large market is still mostly up for grabs there, the annoyance of having two websites and two simultaneous accounts was well vented (also very well ridiculed by this Oatmeal comic strip). Ultimately, the Qwikster brand was scrapped less than one month after it was announced, prompting the rather awkward question, ‘Is Netflix the next AOL?‘

I think that is a little premature; we can now write Qwikster off as a very bad decision, whilst the price increases were a necessary step, albeit to steep and handled badly. In the long run, Netflix’s profits will level off, with the lost revenue from those migrating subscribers being balanced out by those who still see the value (and there is great value) in a near infinite amount of TV and movie options available for one quarter the price of a cable provider.

Do you currently use Netflix? Are you one of the ex-subscribers now seeking other alternatives? Please share in the comments…

by Lee Jarvis.

Often the simultaneous and alternate scourges and saviors of the TV and film industry, Netflix and Hulu are becoming more and more aligned, and yet they carry two distinct different audiences. The two media giants are both relatively new, and have amassed large audience bases among the TV and movie consuming public. They both essentially offer the same things, albeit with different pricing models and subscription options, but according to new data, their customers see them as having two different uses or functions. After a brief look at the Nielsen charts published last week, you could sum up people’s thoughts on the brands as follows: ‘Watch Movies on the TV with Netflix’ vs ‘Watch TV on the laptop with Hulu’.

This leaves an interesting question: are the companies direct rivals or do they aim to mainly cater to a specific segment of consumers and the rest is ‘peripheral’ viewing? In one respect, they certainly overlap a lot – both offer a lot of the same of content, although recent changes from Hulu have meant that some of that is only available to their ‘Hulu Plus’ premium subscribers. On the other hand, Hulu offers a free account, where you can still catch up on various TV shows, which is not even possible with Netflix – you now pay then anywhere between $8 and $35 for your regular fix.

Much argument has been made about Netflix’s new pricing structure – perhaps this will emphasize the divide between the two? Maybe people are more than happy to have the two together and use them for separate purposes. This new data certainly seems to support that theory.

Does this ring true with you? How do you consume TV and film? Do you have a favorite of Netflix and Hulu? Are you a regular movie downloader and ignore the both? Do you binge on a whole series over the course of a weekend? Share your thoughts and habits in the comments.


by Lee Jarvis.

MoviePass hopes to build upon the success of ‘all-you-can-eat’ style subscriptions such as Netflix and R.dio, and is aimed squarely at cinema-going fanatics. On the surface, this sounds like a great idea, but there seem to be a few faults or miscalculations once you look further.

Firstly, the MoviePass that has launched in 21 theaters in the the San Francisco area will cost $50 per month, which is a fair expense for today’s free- and discount-driven digital society. Assuming they are not aiming to draw people off their sofas and are just looking to capitalize on those who already venture out regularly, the price point is still a little high. The average movie ticket in the San Fran area is somewhere around the $11 region, which means that if you hit the local theater every Saturday for a year. you currently spend $605. With MoviePass, it will cost you $600, an annual saving of five dollars.

So, you have to go more than once per week in order to really get any value from this. And that’s where you hit another catch… you can only view one movie per day. No double features on that rainy lazy afternoon in April. There are more rules, which are understandable to a degree, although none of which are hinted at in this rather confusing promotional video…

In brief, the rules are:

• Users are limited to seeing one movie per day. We understand this limitation, but it’s a bummer for those of us who like to see multiple movies on a rainy Saturday.
• Users can only see a movie one time. If you want to re-watch Transformers 3 or another summer blockbuster, you’ll need to pay for your ticket.
• Tickets are non-transferrable.
• Tickets must be purchased the day of the show.
• 3D and IMAX tickets will cost an additional $3. The user will just pay the difference in ticket price between 2D and 3D but can still purchase and pick up tickets the same way as with a regular 2D film.

More info is at http://www.moviepass.com/.

So, kind of a good idea, that may need some ironing out after the beta testing stage. What do you think of the model? What is your current rate of movie-going? What are cinema ticket prices in your neighborhood? Share your thoughts below…


by Lee Jarvis.

Highs, Lows, backtracks, retracts, sidesteps, referrals… no, not a day in the life of a C-list movie star, but State Film Tax Credits. There has been a lot of news of late about these incentives, with each US state varying wildly with new schemes, tweaks to initial offerings, extensions and deadlines. Do movie jobs depend on them? Do they cost the taxpayer in the long run?

It was recently announced by the Los Angeles Economic Development Corp. that the tax credits in California were responsible for pumping $3.8 billion into the local economy since it’s launch in 2009 to slow runaway production. It also helped create over 20,000 film industry jobs. Perfect timing, as the California State Assembly has just approved a bill to extend these tax incentives for an additional five years, and if passed, another $100 million in credits will be handed out after July 1. The report by the LAEDC concluded that “for each tax dollar allocated the local and state governments get back at least $1.13 in tax revenue, while the total GDP in the state will increase by $8.48“.

The problem for Hollywood specifically is that California jobs aren’t guaranteed – CA is not the only state offering these incentives, and others offer a larger budget, and less restrictions for projects to qualify.

Kansas Film Production

The Kansas Film Production Tax Credit is back after a two year hiatus, and offers a credit on “30% of the direct production expenditures made in Kansas that are directly attributable to the production of a film in Kansas“.

New York Film Production

New York State Film Production Tax Credit Program has been extended and expanded, offering a whopping $420 million per year to production companies. Again, this incentive will be running until 2014, and offers 30% tax credit on qualified costs incurred in New York State.

Utah Film Production

“Gov. Gary Herbert signed into law HB99, bumping Utah’s motion-picture incentive from a 20 percent tax rebate to 25 percent“, reports The Salt Lake Tribune.

Wyoming Film Production

After lowing their minimum spend two years ago, Wyoming now has a five-year extension of the Film Industry Financial Incentive program, which, as Wyoming Film Office blog states, “will continue the cash rebate incentives for production companies of up to 15 percent on dollars spent in Wyoming during a film shoot“.

Virginia Film Production

“Gov. Bob McDonnell signed legislation that establishes a film tax credit program in Virginia” tells Hampton Roads.com. With a minimum spend of $250,000, production companies can now seek tax credits from the state.

Leaving Los Angeles?

On the downside…

Got through the good news? The LAEDC report followed hot on the heels of a more damning review. The Tax Foundation claimed a couple of weeks back that “film tax credits fail to live up to their promises to encourage economic growth“. As a result, some states suspended or rejected any extensions of their incentive schemes, whilst many more reeled back the amount of credit offered or are questioning any continuation of their current system.

Connecticut Film Production

The new Connecticut budget places “restrictions on the film and television tax credit program” which “may make the state less appealing to Hollywood” claims the CT Post. Specifically, worries are regarding the reducing of ability to transfer these credits to other Connecticut based companies, and limiting the way that insurance companies can use the credits when bought.

Michigan Film Production

Michigan, which has offered the most bountiful credits to film companies at up to 42% of production related expenses, is in the middle of plans to slash those levels drastically. The overall budget for film credits will likely be reduced from $100 million to $25 million, although, as WSJ points out, Gov. Rick Snyder would have liked to put an end to the idea completely.

Washington Film Production

After two years of operation, the Washington Film Works will be closed as state legislators decide to not offer any kind of initiative moving forward. The News Tribune reported that local representatives had been “questioning the worth of film incentives in particular”.

New Jersey Film Production

Earlier this year, New Jersey announced that they were suspending their Film Tax Credit program, with much deliberating from CSINJ along the way.

Arkansas, Idaho and Maine all appropriated no funds for their programs this year, and Wisconsin allocated just $500,000 after deciding that any movie productions would equal a net loss for the state.

The pros and cons are often being heavily debated. Check out this transcript from Boston’s WBUR, between Peter Enrich, “a law professor at Northeastern University who opposes the state’s film tax credit program”, and Vinca Jarrett, “founder of the Boston firm FilmPro Finance, which helps movie-makers get financial backing”.

Ultimately, the bottom line for studios is what it comes down to when dictating job locations… if they can make the same movie for less money in a different US state, then why wouldn’t they? Without various credits, will we see these projects move to Vancouver or Rio de Janerio?

Hopefully this post shares some new information with you, and here at Media Match we’d love to hear if you have any views on or experience with the film tax credits system in your state.


by Lee Jarvis.

Online streaming service Hulu hit the headlines twice this week when they announced that, firstly, when an as-yet unnamed company made an unsolicited enquiry regarding acquisition, and then, secondly, that they were indeed, open to offers of acquisition. This follows yet more recent news and opinions on the future of Hulu, with constant talk of an IPO, then its subsequent delay.

The streaming giant has caused quite a stir in Hollywood, and opinion has been pretty divided: some say it is the savior of TV, others say it has affected film industry jobs for the worse. Their launch of a premium subscription service, Hulu Plus, last year helped the company edge into solid profitability territory, and obviously peaked the interest of some internet big wigs. NBCUniversal, Fox and Disney-ABC all currently have stakes in Hulu, yet have limited influence on the overall running of the company, and this had led to clashes among board members and CEO Jason Kilar about the way it has affected older revenue streams of cable and TV. This may in turn be the reason for those holding companies looking to exit the venture.

Hulu announced that it would retain investment banks Guggenheim Partners and Morgan Stanley on Wednesday, who will then reach out to any prospective bidders with news that they are formally accepting offers. Expect the rumor-mill to start churning very soon.

The success of Hulu is largely due to their free ad-funded model, which also allows embedded videos of new and archived content, as well as clips and behind-the-scenes specials from providers and studios such as NBC, Fox, ABC and many more. Recently, the free-thinking institution TED has enable Hulu to share and distribute their series of ground-breaking talks. The embedded feature helps clips such as this go viral…

Hulu’s actions may well be blazing a path for the future of visual content for the end user, but the key TV networks and companies sure have kicked up a fuss along the way.


by Lee Jarvis.

This week saw a bit of a shake up regarding the nominations for Best Picture at the Academy Awards. The Academy changed the rules so that anything between five and ten movies will be nominated each year. The default used to be five for 70 years or more, until 2009 when they upped the total to ten. The awards for the 2011 year will see the new new rules come into effect.

The last couple of years there has been the train of thought that some of the nominees were there to simply fill out the spaces, and so this new rule change dismisses the need to do so (if that were to be true, naturally). Having said that, I found that 2010 was a solid year for movies, and that all ten nominees fully deserved a nod. (Of the ten ‘Best Picture’ nominees, six were in our own ‘Best of 2010‘ round up.)

Retiring Academy Executive Director Bruce Davis said, “In studying the data, what stood out was that Academy members had regularly shown a strong admiration for more than five movies. A Best Picture nomination should be an indication of extraordinary merit. If there are only eight pictures that truly earn that honor in a given year, we shouldn’t feel an obligation to round out the number.”

It seems that they have good intentions on making this category an accurate and true representation of the year in film, and that only the best deserve the right to the claim. Several blogs have already cried out that the new rules won’t work, with The Atlantic calling the changes a flat out ‘mistake‘, and will make the awards ‘less inclusive’. It will certainly be interesting to see the nominees being announced, and stoke even more deliberating and guesstimating as to who will be nominated next year. If you feel the need to be that organized, then get your diary ready: The 84th Academy Awards nominations will be announced live on Tuesday, January 24, 2012, and will be presented on Sunday, February 26, 2012.

We’ll leave you with this snippet of the 2010 Best Picture winner, The King’s Speech.

by Lee Jarvis.

Walt Disney Pictures has recently announced that Oscar-winning composer Hans Zimmer is to team up with popular acoustic duo, Rodrigo y Gabriela. The at first unusual, but ultimately exciting collaboration will span the soundtrack to the fourth installment of Disney’s Pirates of the Caribbean. The film will be released in typical summer blockbuster fashion, in late May, with the soundtrack available to purchase the same week. From the official press release….

One of summer’s most highly anticipated blockbuster movies, Walt Disney Pictures and Jerry Bruckheimer Films’ “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides” features original music by Academy Award®-winning composer Hans Zimmer and a first-time collaboration with the internationally acclaimed Mexican guitar duo Rodrigo y Gabriela. Walt Disney Records will release the soundtrack for Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides May 17, 2011.

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides original motion picture soundtrack will be available wherever music is sold on May 17, 2011. For more information on Walt Disney Records’ releases, please visit Disney.com/music, become a fan at Facebook.com/disneymusic or follow us at Twitter.com/disneymusic. For more information on Rodrigo y Gabriela, please visit www.rodgab.com