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

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.

“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.

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 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…

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 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.