LATV FEST ’10 brings together creative TV & digital content producers
with development execs, agents, advertising executives, technology
solution providers.

July 12-15, 2010

Hyatt Regency Century Plaza Hotel

Expanded 4-day conference: *Networking events *Enlightened panel
discussions *Never before seen screenings *Guaranteed Pitch Meetings
(Register ASAP for priority access)

A La Carte Offerings: *Pitch Critiques *Mentor Round Robins *Premium
Pitch Packages

Featured Speakers: *Howie Mandel, Actor/Comedian/TV Host, David Hudson,
TBS/TNT *Mark Horowitz, NCIS *JD Roth, 3Ball Productions *Kevin Pollak,
Kevin Pollak’s Chat Show *Michelle King & Robert King, THE GOOD WIFE

Register Now with Promo Code 10MATCH for a $100 savings!

www.latvfest.net

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

As we mentioned in part I, good product placement is based on a few simple tenets: keep it subtle, make the product look enticing, and create a lasting image.  Sometimes, however, you simply can’t be subtle, especially with certain products (or films, or television shows, etc.).  Paid branding in movies and TV shows rose to $1 billion in 2004; those kinds of figures can cause some business owners to salivate, and lose themselves in the idea of “more is better”.  But as we saw in the films named in the last posting, if you’re not careful, you can actually alienate the audience you’re trying to lure in.  That’s where advertisers need to think outside the box, to bring in the next-level dose of “cool”, so to speak.

One of the first to do so was BMW, a company that has often sought to reinvent itself with respect to advertising.  The minds behind BMW’s ad campaigns understand that they have a distinctly known product — consumers know to expect quality and efficiency with their cars, SUV’s, and motorcycles.  And yet for BMW, this was not enough.  That was why they pushed the creators of the Pierce Brosnan “007” films to switch James Bond’s gadget-filled car, from Aston Martin to BMW. 

With the short film series “The Hire”, however, the company went even further.  In a collection of unrelated short films, there were two constants: BMW, and the man who drove them, Clive Owen (known only as The Driver).  In an ingenious move, the marketers approached numerous successful directors at the time, and had them structure short films around his character – a mysterious man for hire, who drove BMW sedans and SUVs with amazing skill.  Not only did it highlight the power and beauty of BMW’s cars, it also showed just how cool they could operate under pressure (and gunfire, and oil spills, and car accidents).  Rather than wait for some filmmaker to come along and showcase this, BMW chose to do it themselves, and the results were phenomenal.  Beyond what any mere commercial could do, these short films turned the cars themselves into characters.

There’s one final example of product placement worth looking at, and that’s on the Sci-Fi channel original series “Eureka”.  The product is Degree antiperspirant, and the genesis of the branding in this instance is simple: the show is about a town called Eureka, which is chocked full of genius inventors and scientists.  One of the products they’ve supposedly created is an antiperspirant that is incredibly powerful against wetness and odor.  This, of course, is what eventually becomes the formula for Degree.  Seems simple enough, however the advertisers have taken this premise a step further: rather than merely showing the product in various scenes, they’ve actually shown it being created.  In two episodes so far, the product has been an integral part of the show’s storyline (in a not-so-tongue in cheek admission that the town of “Eureka” needs the sponsorship dollars).  In addition to the placement, the advertisers also run “Infomercials” during the ad time, that show various products created in Eureka.  The first of these miracle products is, of course, Degree antiperspirant.  All in all, a very clever way of pushing a product; the only problem is that, despite the crossover, these two episodes were simply inundated with all things Degree, and it became obvious and a little tiresome.

Such is the state of advertising these days.  Branding will continue, in newer and better (and sometimes worse) ways.

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

If there’s one topic related to film and television that can promote both high praise and scathing vitriol, it’s that of product placement – or branding, as it’s called.  When done right, branding can (and should) be innocuous — a glimpse of a product here, or a mere reference there.  Truly masterful branding, of course, goes beyond simple product recognition, and actually instills in the audience a desire to possess the item in question as soon as possible.  Branding has, after all, always been an extension of advertising.  But there are those unique individuals who are able to embrace both the business aspect of product placement, and the creative side as well.  It is these people we applaud, because the contrast is often too glaring, and ends up deserving of our criticism.  Obvious instances of branding can actually end up turning an audience against a product.  Certain films and television shows have been guilty of this throughout the years, and have paid the price in the court of public opinion.  That’s because, at the end of the day, audiences respect creativity and ingenuity; what they don’t like are “sell-outs”.  They don’t mind being sold products, they just don’t like it when the intent is so blatantly obvious.  And that is why proper product placement in films and television is such a fine line to walk.

One of the first (and seemingly most innocent) branding opportunities came in the film “ET”, when Reese’s Pieces were used to entice a cute little alien out of hiding.  In the hands of a filmmaker like Steven Spielberg, the simplistic use of candy as a device in the film propelled the brand into new levels of popularity.  The importance of that one scene cannot be overstated: in the back of the audience’s minds, then and now, it is firmly rooted that Reese’s Pieces can transcend time and even space (if an alien ET likes them, then surely all of us will).  All these years later, and the candy is a part of the film’s lasting impression; like the film itself, it is a part of our childhood, intertwined in one large mess of products (the film itself, and the countless toys and stuffed animals and movie posters that came after).  Ask children of the 80s, and it’s almost as if the candy were created for the film (or because of it).

Again, that was simply a type of candy, used in the hands of a very talented director.  That was advertising done outside the box.  Advertising executives are a creative lot in their own right… they know that in order to sell a product in an increasingly saturated marketplace, there are times when one must think bigger, and times when one must think outside the box.  Bigger, however, is not necessarily better, as seen in the films “I, Robot” and “The Island” – two movies that were so blatantly saturated with product placements that they at times distracted from the actual plots (such as they were).  The best branding, as mentioned before, uses subtlety; these films did not.  And while the films themselves didn’t particularly suffer, the products that were placed in the films will always be remembered for “trying too hard” (during “I, Robot”, there was actually a scene in which the film’s main character is complimented on his Chuck Taylors; as the movie is set in the future, the sneakers were referred to as vintage – though in real life, they are available right down the street at your local store).

“I, Robot” serves as an example of what not to do.  However, in the next part of this examination, we’ll look at two companies that have re-thought the idea of product placement…

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

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.

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

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.

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