With Oscar season upon us, it’s a good time to reflect on the past year in movies. My favorites may not align with the Academy’s, so rather than try and predict the big winners, I offer up my very subjective and admittedly random recap of what I liked (and didn’t like) amid the dozens of movies I experienced in 2011. New reviews are constantly being added to my website, chickflix.net, so feel free to check it out for additional perspectives on a slew of movies – including several Oscar-buzzy flicks that are just coming out in theaters.

My favorite movies of the year:

50/50 - I laughed, I cried. I loved this movie with Seth Rogen and Joseph Gordon Levitt. Don’t let the premise of a buddy movie about a guy with cancer scare you off.

Win Win - This indie with Paul Giamatti came out early in the year and didn’t get the love and respect and marketing it deserves. It’s kind of like The Blind Side, only better.

The Descendants - George Clooney shines in this dramedy that I liked way more than the The Ides of March (despite my appreciation for both Clooney and Ryan Gosling).

The Help - It did the book proud, and featured a strong ensemble cast of phenomenal actresses.

Bridesmaids - This breakout hit also featured a strong ensemble cast of phenomenal actresses who also happened to be pretty darn funny.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part Two - I wasn’t an obsessive fan of the series, but I was still impressed and satisfied with how the 11-year epic drew to a close. Well done, Harry.

The Artist – It took me about 20 minutes to ‘acclimate’ to watching a silent movie. But ultimately, this flick drew me in. It’s a work of art that reminds us what on-screen chemistry is all about.

Honorable Mentions:

Moneyball - The relationship between Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill made this more than an ‘inside baseball’ movie.

Midnight in Paris - I’m generally not a fan of Woody Allen flicks, but this one was a pleasant surprise.

Drive - This type of movie (Pulp Fiction-esque violence) is not my usual cup of tea, but Ryan Gosling was incredibly compelling to watch.

Individual performances of note:

Meryl Streep in The Iron Lady – Streep is insanely good (as always) as the former British PM Maggie Thatcher, but the movie itself is very uneven.

Michelle Williams in My Week with Marilyn – Williams embodies the iconic Marilyn Monroe but a week felt more like a year in ‘movie time’.

Leonardo DiCaprio in J. Edgar – The movie was rather weak, but Leo’s performance was very strong. The guy’s got range.

Agree. Disagree. Agree to disagree. Or share your list here!

By Hannah R. Buchdahl for media-match.com/usa

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed

According to the omni-knowing Wikipedia, “A 3-D (three-dimensional) film is a motion picture that enhances the illusion of depth perception”. The bigger question facing film-makers and the film industry is, “does it enhance the actual film or viewing experience?” It is being debated whether there are actually any worthy 3D movies out there… Has Hollywood got carried away with a gimmick?

To 3D

One positive point put forward by Richard Gelfond of IMAX Corp., is that “visionaries like Tim Burton, James Cameron, Peter Jackson, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Steven Spielberg and Robert Zemeckis all have 3D projects under way. With that talent at the helm, it is certain to reset the benchmark for 3D film experiences“. You could even say that Cameron help push the technology forward in it’s current wave with his own-specification Reality Camera system, developed in 2003 in order to film ‘Ghosts of the Abyss’.

With these creative minds realizing that the filming process should be use to enhance the storytelling, and not simply slapped on to try and pick up a current trend, there is promise for the quality of 3D films being made. In that regard, we are seeing some smart uses of 3D, also including a number of documentaries and nature adventures where 3D does add to the effect of some staggering scenes.

Do moviegoers want 3D movies? The figures would suggest so: back when ‘The Polar Express’ was released as IMAX’s first full-length, animated 3-D feature, the 3-D version earned about 14 times as much per screen as the 2D version. This was a few years ago, and certainly encouraged a number of directors to experiment further with the medium; fast forward to last year and we saw some pretty epic releases in ‘Alice in Wonderland’ and ‘How to Train Your Dragon’. Figures may be dipping in 2011, in regards to the percentage of box office total that is received through the 3D version of the film, but that small dip is only after several years of decent increase, and partly due to the wider selection of 3D movies around.

Not To 3D

Not every movie works in 3D. Hollywood is treading a thin line this time around, and needs to avoid the similar recent record industry fad that ‘every song needs an auto-tuned T-Pain vocal’, which became so ridiculous it lost all credibility, and crashed and burned in a short time frame. Converting old classics to 3D just for the sake of it has hurt the reputation pretty badly of late (‘Jaws 3D’, anyone?). Rather refreshingly, Tim Burton isn’t shooting ‘Dark Shadows’ in 3D, which is a great thing to hear. It can be argued that such movies need a crisp, darker tone to them, and there would be little artistic advantage to use it in those cases.

The medium has been getting a lot of stick this year, from the quip of “Is there a way for Woody Allen to be neurotic in an added dimension?“, to the sudden decline of favor from Dreamworks CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg. Has Hollywood already overcooked it?

2.5D?

Ultimately, I think, and hope, there should be an equal balance of 3D and non-3D movies, and a distinction that you can like or dislike any of them for reasons other than the format. Studios don’t have to make everything in that medium, and reviewers don’t have to absolutely and automatically detest anything made in it. It is about using the technology as another tool in a wide arsenal, similar to the way that talented directors may use CGI and digital conversion on some projects. Using it to add to the overall cinematic experience is a way that the technology can survive and remain special for the movie-goer, rather than an all-out assault from the big studios and ultimate audience over-saturation.

by Lee Jarvis.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed

Nothing defines Hollywood more than the parties. Whether its a wrap party an invite up in the hills or a holiday party you better be ready to put your best foot forward.

Bring a Friend
There is nothing more awkward than not really knowing anyone at a party. You feel uncomfortable, you look uncomfortable, and your new best friend quickly becomes the bartender or the nearest waiter with a delicious tray of appetizers.

Having a friend with you will not only help you fit in and relax, the odds of you seeing someone you know doubles (it’s a small world).

2 Drink Maximum
These parties usually mean open bar* and while there is nothing better than endless free alcoholic drinks, now is not the time to totally let loose and get wasted. For those Millionaire Matchmaker fans out there you know we’re taking a cue from Patti on making a good impression, if you think about it, dating and networking aren’t really all that different . That being said it’s ok to have a drink or two to help loosen up.

*Even if it’s an open bar, be sure to bring a few dollar bills to tip with. $1 a drink is good.

Stars and Big Wigs
Odds are you’ll bump into some of the big players (Show Runners, EPs, Directors, Cast). If you get the opportunity don’t hesitate to introduce yourself and say hi, but don’t push yourself on them and don’t get clingy. Read the signs and don’t overstay your welcome.

Step Out of Your Comfort Zone
It’s tough to put yourself out there and meet new people, but now is (more…)

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed

I sometimes wonder how many people in Hollywood (or anywhere, for that matter) have actually heard the term “Dustbuster” before. I certainly hadn’t, at least not until I started working as a post-production assistant. Unless you really studied these things in college, it’s only once you start to work for (or with) a production company do you truly understand just how many different types of film and television production jobs there really are.

“Dustbuster” was the loose name given to the job of digital colorist assist-assist, though the job title was not exactly accurate (in fact, it always seemed an afterthought, something to give us some sort of hierarchy within the company). I mean, we were working a film post-production job, in an assistant capacity, beneath the Colorist Assists, so I suppose you could give us that particularly cumbersome label. However, to save time and spare confusion, I and my fellow workers were called dustbusters, as we were literally responsible for removing dust (as well as scratches, and blotches) from every single frame of every single film the company took on. The colorists needed an impeccably pristine “canvas” with which to do their work, and that’s where we came in.

The process for cleaning film is simple enough to describe on the surface: they would scan the film digitally, and would then send the files to the main computers in our workspace. The film was then broken up into sections, with each section typically assigned to one of the nine or so workstations. Each workstation was loaded with the company’s proprietary software program, which would run the film frame by frame, shot by shot, and scene by scene. The dustbusters would then literally clean the film, by digitally removing every scratch or hair or discoloration. We did this by surrounding the offending mark with a box, which would then scan the next frame for a similar image to render. If there was little movement, the job was simple; if there was a lot of movement, we then had to tweak the box to get it as close as possible to blemish-free.

If this sounds mundane, it’s because it was. An eight hour shift, locked in a small, dark, windowless room, working at a cubicle, and staring at the same couple of thousand frames of film all day isn’t exactly how I would describe the fun side of Hollywood. But more than that, it served to illustrate just how many production jobs there truly are, and how varied they can be. Now, whenever I look at a film’s budget, I can’t help but be impressed by the number of people working behind the scenes, on the smallest details, people whose names will never appear in the credits; I think of the countless production companies, each specializing in an aspect of the filmmaking process. And I marvel at just how big and yet small this town can feel.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed

My first production assistant job was misleading, to say the least. It was back in the year 2000; I’d recently graduated from USC, having PA’d on various student films before. But I’d never worked a true production, and as such had little idea what to expect. So when the offer came to work a music video with a friend of mine, I figured it would give me a good chance to learn what a production assistant job entails in a short amount of time (I was assured the production wouldn’t go over two days, unlike a film, which could stretch out over a longer period).

I showed up at a studio in Hollywood dressed in comfortable clothes: sneakers, jeans and a tee-shirt, as I’d been instructed. I was met by my friend, who handed a walkie-talkie and showed me how to key the various channels. So far so good. He then took me around and introduced me to his boss, along with some of the other production assistants I’d be working with. More importantly, he taught me some of the valuable lexicon I would need while working on set: “what’s your 20?” (where are you?)… and “ten one hundred” (I’m in the bathroom). Personally, I didn’t think I’d ever feel comfortable letting thirty or so people know I was in the can, so I figured I’d just skip over that part. But I got a kick out of saying “what’s your 20?”, and used it often that first day. I think I even started throwing in things like “ETA five minutes”.

Anyway, only once I was on set was I told what they’d be shooting: turns out Bob Dylan was filming a video of his original song from Curtis Hanson’s film “Wonder Boys”. Everyone was instructed in no uncertain terms that, once Mr. Dylan was on set, we were all to maintain our distance, avoid prolonged eye contact, and lastly, under no circumstances, were we to talk to him. Ever. I nodded, figuring it was cool enough that I’d get to see Bob Dylan in person. And sure enough, when he walked on set, it was a bit of a thrill that he was standing only five feet away.

I didn’t expect what came next, however: in between shots, to help pass the time, Dylan decided to practice. He started strumming his guitar, and singing songs like “Hurricane” under his breath. I looked at the other production assistants around me, and could see the same barely-suppressed excitement on their faces: we were basically being treated to a private concert by the man himself. I didn’t think the day could get better from there, but it did.

Because of my limited experience, I was plucked from the set and sent to work the monitors in the video village, the area where the director (Hanson), the producers, and the talent all gathered to watch the various takes; in this case, the talent included Dylan, as well as Michael Douglas, who was there to reprise his role in the film for some scenes with Dylan. My job was simple: press play and rewind. I took drink orders, handed out coffee and pastries, and then settled in a chair next to Michael Douglas for the next couple of hours. The highlight came when everyone wandered away except for myself and Bob Dylan; figuring it would be rude not to talk to him, I struck up a conversation and we chatted for about five minutes. At that point, I couldn’t believe they were actually paying me to be there! When the day finally ended, I walked away whistling, having had one of my best days in this city. This is showbiz, I thought to myself; I now have a PRODUCTION ASSISTANT job, and I love it!

Two weeks later, I PA’d a music video in downtown Long Beach, for some crappy boy band that no one had ever heard of. It rained… I was stuck outside, hauling cables and lights, from 10p.m. to 9a.m…. I made $75… I got yelled at twice by the psychotic 2^nd Assistant Director… and I broke my walkie-talkie (and nearly my hand) when some idiot slammed a metal pipe into it. As the rain poured down, I marveled at just how much I had been misled.

This is showbiz, I thought to myself the next morning as I trudged home; and I now have a production assistant job. Yay.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed

Ever thought about landing a gig in Tinseltown? Well, here are 5 ways you can break into Hollywood by being a production assistant (in no particular order):

1. Get a Production Assistant Job
Working as a production assistant, or a PA, on a film or TV show is a beneficial way to learn about the production process and to get familiar with the folks making the decisions. The day-to-day duties can vary greatly depending on the production and budget, but the elbow-rubbing time can not be underestimated. Some will tell you assistants exist to feed the egos of their self-important bosses, but others know it’s a rite of passage to the Hollywood fraternity (or sorority). While much of the job consists of pouring coffee and answering phones, occasionally there can be some free time to read scripts and write coverage too. Also, production companies fill most new positions from within. When there’s a new position to fill, most managers would rather promote a qualified production assistant to the position, rather than hiring a stranger, even if some outside applicant had better work on his reel. In many studios, you find top people who initially started as PA’s. The key is getting in the gate in the first place.

Check out Media-Match to search for production assistant jobs and apply for as many as seem appropriate. For a small fee Media-Match will post your resume and try to match you with a job opening in the television and film industries. Also, it has a forum and a social network that allows you to interact with other people working as production assistants and job seekers looking for production assistant jobs.

2. Educate Yourself
Do you know what the terms “call sheet,” “sides,” “honey wagon,” and “call time” mean? If you don’t, you need to learn the terminology, “the lingo” that’s used in the industry. Or else, you can’t do your job properly as a production assistant.

Do you know the difference between a Director of Photography and an Assistant Director? Do you know what the Production Designer does? Learn more about the various production job roles found on television and film sets.

Next, familiarize yourself with the “trades.” These are magazines and newspapers geared towards entertainment industry professionals. The main ones are “The Hollywood Reporter,” “Variety,” “Film & Video,” and “Backstage West/East”. “Film & Video” is specifically for those who work behind the camera. Get “The Hollywood Reporter” on Tuesdays and “Variety” on Fridays. Those are the two days when the Production Charts are listed.

Learn as much as you can about the workings of film and TV production before you arrive on set for your first day of work.

3. Network, Network, Network
In Hollywood it’s not so much what you know as who you know in the entertainment industry. As many Tinseltown residents will tell you, this city is built on connections.
Take advantage and leverage your connections as a production assistant. Network, network, network. Talk to the people you work with and get to know them. The film or television industry is all about who you know and the people you are working with are a great place to start. Make those connections. You can meet people this way and begin to build up a network and beef up your Rolodex.

4. Be Persistent
Being a production assistant is not glamorous, but it is an important role. While you are on a set, be a sponge and soak up everything you can. When one show ends, be on the lookout for another one. Don’t ever stop working or looking for work because the next <a href=”http://www.media-match.com/jobsboard.php” title=”Production Assistant Job”>production assistant job</a> you take could be the one that takes you to the next level in your career.

5. Figure Out Your Ultimate Goal
Think about what your eventual career goal is. When you’re working as a production assistant, knowing what you want to do and knowing what you must accomplish before you get there is an effective way to move up. You have to put yourself on the proper path to where you want to be in the film or television industry.

If you’re currently a production assistant or are pursuing to be one, we’d like to hear your tips and suggestions.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed

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…

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed

It’s been announced that ABC has decided not to produce any new episodes of “Pushing Daisies”.  Despite critical acclaim and the love of their small yet fiercely devoted audience, ABC is going to pull the plug.  Is this the result of an inability to market the show properly?  Was the work-stoppage that resulted from the writer’s strike simply too much for the show’s creators to overcome?  Did the diminished returns not justify the show’s high budget?  Most likely, the answer lies in a combination of the three.  When the TV show first premiered, the initial advertising push was strong, as was the promotion for the second season, but any momentum gained last season was seemingly lost once the strike took hold of Hollywood.  

The vocal support from critics notwithstanding, the show faced a steep climb to reclaim the attention of its casual viewers (loyal viewers will always be there for a show they love – it’s the viewer who tunes in in passing who’s the hardest to grab).  In the aftermath of the writer’s strike, this is a perfect example of “the better the show, the harder the road”.  Any show can have problems following up a successful first year… yet battling those problems while also climbing back from a strike is even more daunting.  And although it was a procedural drama with relatively simple running storylines, the show apparently had problems creating a strong second-season push.  It debuted to numbers well below those of last season’s premiere, undoubtedly causing the executives at ABC to rethink their ties to the show.

As the audience, all of this is to our disadvantage.  We, too, are casualties of this strike.  A show like “Pushing Daisies” needs stability and time to grow, due to its own quirky nature and the unusual charm of its characters.  And we as the audience needed time to appreciate it.  But that’s what makes shows like this so much fun to watch, is that they accept their quirks, and in fact revel in them.  From episode one, “Pushing Daisies” knew itself and its characters; they trusted the idea that, with enough time, the audience would as well.  Unfortunately, the strike ruined that, and we are now left to mourn one of the more unfortunate victims of this television season.  

In other cancellation news…
On October 31, 2008, Fox announced its decision to cancel “King of the Hill” after its 13th season, and here’s guessing it goes quietly into the night, with little to no fanfare to celebrate its remarkable run.  And yet this is only fitting, considering that’s how the show has thrived all these years: by keeping below the radar, and plowing ahead slowly but surely.  Much like the main character Hank Hill, “King of the Hill” has been one of television’s steadiest performers, always managing to keep itself relevant despite being seemingly overshadowed by it’s more prolific brethren “The Simpsons” and “Family Guy”.  This television show had a broad appeal that few shows can match; the storylines covered a variety of topics, from a variety of perspectives, and yet it never lost sight of its true self.  The characters, though the lived in Texas, were more than just left or right, red state or blue state… they were real people with real morals, who never bowed to the pressure to change who or what they were.  And in some small way, it’s nice to know they never will.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed

The Emmy nominations for 2008 were released, and while premium cable and the broadcast networks are still dominant forces in television, we are clearly seeing a growth of basic cable programming, both in terms of quality and recognition.  Shows like ‘Breaking Bad’, ‘Mad Men’, and ‘Damages’ have all garnered attention this year, and their nominations in various categories reflect that.  For these shows’ networks, AMC and FX, it is validation that ad-supported niche cable shows can appeal to voters and audiences alike.

Every year, the Hollywood community inevitably complains about the shows that didn’t get nominated (I would include myself in that list, seeing as how ‘Battlestar Galactica’ was not nominated for best drama series, while ‘Lost’ was overlooked in the writing and directing categories; however, since the former received a writing nod, and the latter is once again in the running for best drama, I really can’t complain).  But this year is different, and should be remembered as such, for the fact that two basic cable networks have shows that are being considered for best drama.  That is not to take anything away from what the broadcast networks have done; shows like ‘House’ and the aforementioned ‘Lost’ not only withstand the test of time, they actually reinvent themselves to remain fresh and interesting.  The cable networks, too, have remained viable, with shows like ‘Dexter’ and ‘The Wire’ receiving nothing but praise from fans and critics both. 

But the emergence of networks like AMC is notable for the fact that they have come seemingly out of nowhere to challenge convention.  They have presented us with small, character-driven shows dominated by great acting and compelling writing, and as a result have found steadily growing audiences.  They even seem to come up with ways to deal with some of the challenges facing television as a whole, such as the growing worry that people with DVRs are fast-forwarding through commercials: while watching ‘Mad Men’, a show about ad executives in the 1960’s, each first-half commercial break features title cards that give interesting tidbits about the sponsor or product in the ensuing commercials (who knew the first Orkin ad dates way back to 1954?)  Simple yet informative, these commercial teasers, for lack of a better description, keep you interested – they actually make you want to watch the commercial!  It’s creativity like this that illustrates, in a small way, what networks like AMC bring to the mix. 

Basic cable networks in general have been upping the ante in recent years.  It’s fitting that FX has recently changed its slogan to “There is No Box”, because that is how the network approaches its programming.  By thinking beyond what’s safe and what works, they have risen the level of quality; in doing so, they have also questioned many of Hollywood’s beliefs, including what, exactly, a hero should look and act like.  FX (along with TNT and USA) has also helped to dispel the notion that there are no primetime, desirable roles for women over 40 – just ask Glenn Close, Holly Hunter, or Kyra Sedgwick.

Here’s hoping that the broadcast networks take a look at what their basic cable counterparts are doing, and realize that there are in fact lessons to be learned. 

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed

As Comic-Con prepares to descend on San Diego on July 24^th, it’s worth taking a quick look to see just how this small gathering of comic book aficionados became such an annual powerhouse.  Some will say things really took off when the “Harry Potter”, “Lord of the Rings”, and “X-Men” franchises were all released – three enormously popular (and successful) science-fiction/fantasy film series that had a home at the convention; it was there that fans could find the actors, the stories, and all the additional merchandise they could want.  Yet it is simplistic to say that Hollywood has only recently taken notice of the event; it has had a presence there almost since the beginning, after all, with Lucasfilm setting up a booth at the 1976 convention to promote “Star Wars”.  Even Mark Hamill – Luke Skywalker himself – was once a young comic book fan; he recently set his film “Comic Book: The Movie” at the convention, knowing what it’s like to both be on the stage and in the audience.

Beyond merely the industry taking notice, the growth of Comic-Con lies with those actually attending the event.  What we’re seeing is a growing trend of quality.  Comic fans have always been passionate about story; they’ve always had an exacting stance on what the characters can and cannot do.  And they now have the power to demand that quality from the studios and the filmmakers.  As films like “Iron Man” and the new “Star Trek” and “The Incredible Hulk” are brought to the big screen, their fans scrutinize every detail for authenticity… they discuss rumors, dig for advance copies of the script, and theorize to no end.  Some filmmakers find this intrusive, feeling it hinders the creative process.  Others, though, have taken notice, and have in fact embraced these fans (called “fanboys” for their devotion).  For these filmmakers, it makes sense to use this resource.  These directors and writers understand full well that any work based on an existing product will have to get these people’s stamp of approval… an advance thumbs-up can do wonders; conversely, early bad press can be hard to overcome.

In the end, the fans just want to see the best product they can, and while it’s not possible to satisfy all of them all the time, one can still get close. With the growth of the internet – a realm dominated initially by those who love computers – we’ve seen an influx of fan sites like “Ain’t It Cool News”, whose sole purpose was to analyze, discuss, and review their favorite films and television shows.  Now, this site has grown so much since its inception that its founder, Harry Knowles, is now being invited by directors like J.J. Abrams to view a clip of his newest “Star Trek” film – months before its release – in the hopes that he’ll relate something positive to his readers.  This kind of buzz is vital to a film’s success, especially those in the science-fiction and fantasy realms, and guys like Abrams are smart enough to realize it.  That’s why he also uses Comic-con to promote his hit show “Lost”, drawing in the audience with mysteries and teasers well after the show has hit its summer break. 

Comic-Con’s growth can also be attributed to the development of its truest fans.  Back in the 70’s, the convention started with only a few hundred people; one of the first notable guests was not a filmmaker but the sci-fi author, Ray Bradbury.  As the convention grew, it attracted kids of all ages, whose love of comics and films brought them together.  Now, these children are adults, and are themselves responsible for many of the films and TV shows that screen there.  The kids have grown up, yet they still have the same exacting standards as when they were young.  It is this dedication to quality that keeps the convention going, and it will continue to thrive so long as it stays true to this vision.

That, and it also doesn’t hurt that Ray Bradbury will be there again this year…

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed