RKNet Blog... Thing

If someone reliable could tell me when in the future films would become solely based on finances it’d certainly save me the hassle of looking up articles on the Internet. If someone told me it would be next week I wouldn’t be shocked in the least since in it’s current state it’s just about at the point where it’s not about telling a story but a good way to rope in a few thousand people and scam them out of $10 because Will Smith pretends to act (I’ll get into that in just a moment.) As an up and coming independent film maker I have many issues of how things are dealt with in Hollyweird. To rattle of several quick ones — planning sequels months prior to the film’s release (it’s a half-cocked gesture mostly from the studios and regardless of how good you think it is or how profitable you believe it will become you must keep in mind the judgment of the public will have the real say), the MPAA and their rating system and advertising standards, 20th Century Fox (I’ll get into them later as well), studios pushing for PG-13 ratings for a wider audience (I don’t care what educational background you have but to try and make “Punisher: War Zone” PG-13 because “The Dark Knight” conveniently was and made a shit-ton of money doesn’t make it just. How can you make a man’s head exploding soft-core?), and painful “actors”. Let’s break it down, kids.

In case you haven’t noticed that for the last several years 20th Century Fox has prowled on modern celluloid like a drunk man in a bar or a 13 year-old white kid from Iowa who thinks he’s black, they think showing their cock will win affection. Wrong. Lately they’ve really been pouring gas on themselves. The bigger stunt recently is their lawsuit against Warner Bros. over upcoming comic book movie “Watchmen”. The studio claimed that Warner Bros. didn’t hold the rights to make the Alan Moore graphic novel or at least distribute the picture, never minding the fact that Warner Bros. owns DC Comics/Vertigo for which the graphic novel resides on.  So now they are currently in a legal battle to do either one of two things — make it so that Fox is the distributor (which can only mean they will ghastly edit the movie into a mind-numbing 90-minute feature that contains only the parts where there is fighting and shit blowing up with no intellectual transition) or to completely wipe the movie’s release date off the calendar completely, never releasing it. Though luckily given that the justice system moves about as fast as tree sap downhill in the winter the trial may not actually begin until January of 2009, a mere two months before it’s slated release date. Given that Fox has a tendency to shoot their wad like they know what they’re doing chances are (this is at least wishful thinking) the case will rule in Warner Bros.’s favor.

Another valid point that Fox has no idea what they are doing to tell a story visually is going around the creators to have it your way. This is unprofessional and also a dick move. One instance stated in the following article is on the upcoming “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” which tells the tale of how Wolverine came to be (Weapon X program, scrapes with Sabertooth, etc.) and needless to say a very dark tale which requires seemingly dark environments.  One such environment was changed without the director’s knowledge. What called for something “dark, dinghy and somber” was changed to something less depressing with lighter colors and cleaner textures. Now if in the correct fashion this can work in favor but unless you’re doing some “One Hour Photo”/”American Psycho” clean-looking thriller then you are a pussy of a film maker. Changing a set’s design to something more cheery (a colorful euphemism) is almost a denial of reality itself, thinking it can’t be this dark and disgusting when in truth it can be because it fucking is! You can’t cover a bald Kevin Spacey in Laffy Taffy and believe he just killed Brad Pitt’s girlfriend (if you can, please lower your dosage.)

Changing lanes here — YOU CAN’T PUT WILL SMITH IN EVERYTHING! Okay, chances are I’m blaspheming here but you know what I have to say this, why should I really give a shit about a movie because Will Smith is in it? Because conveniently 98% of the movies he’s done have raked in billions?  Will Smith isn’t that fantastic an actor. His barometer for character ranges from a good guy who says “fuck” a lot to a good guy who doesn’t say “fuck” at all. Occasionally he’ll mix it up and have the good guy be a bit of a dick or an arrogant douche but for the love of God just knock it off. It doesn’t matter how fantastic he seems you can’t cast him as “The Karate Kid” or Captain America, it’s wrong on every level imaginable to the sane. If I could ever afford his salary for a movie I’d have him play a serial killer who hardly speaks just to break the mold, and when he does speak it’s in a strange language. To help illustrate my point, whenever I see a movie that has Will Smith in it I know it’s Will Smith, I can’t believe he’s anyone else. I can believe Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne and Trent Reznik, I can believe Josh Hartnett as Slevin Kelevra and The Salesman, but you throw Will Smith into a role I’m gonna know it’s him regardless. Captain Hillard, Muhammad Ali, Jesus Christ, I’ll only think, “Oh, hey, Will Smith.” You may think I’m daft for uttering or even thinking such a thing but I’ve heard a similar tear about Christopher Walken and look at his fucking acting skills. (Inside joke: 111th biopic on Andy Warhol starring Chris Walken.)

A couple other mini-rants. If you’ve never been to Massachusetts or talked to someone from there for more than 20 minutes then it’s news to you that often people from their have a habit of shooting their mouth off. Mark Wahlberg is from Massachusetts, so for him saying that Max Payne could take down Batman in hand-to-hand combat makes sense coming from him but is ghastly offensive to the point where if I saw him in a pub I would shatter the closest bottle near me and jab it into his eye socket. First of all the two characters are miles apart, Payne wants revenge for his wife’s death while Bruce Wayne/Batman wants justice for them and others. And also dropping the obvious factor to play in, he’s fucking Batman. Imagine if you will a man standing before an expert martial artist who is performing a series of moves for intimidation and Joe Guy takes him down by jabbing him in the throat. And in the interview where he made this claim he mentioned it was strictly in the matter of fisticuffs, not the box office which shows even more delusion since if you’ve seen any previews for “Max Payne” you’d know that Fox has ruined another video game on the big screen. Well kids I’m putting out the ashes for now. My next piece will detail the new releases of Metallica’s “Death Magnetic” and Nine Inch Nails’ “The Slip”, and how the two contrast each other. See you on the other side, keep it sketchy.

=Sketch/Ed

Go on and just tell me what’s wrong with this picture! I don’t know if it’s coincidental or contextual but either way it is downright hilarious! Well, except for the obvious reminder that the Almighty Google is not really all that mighty. Especially when you pit them against the hundreds of thousands of people working day and night to hack the crap out of them for personal gain.
The image links directly to the slashdot article in question.

Last month I posted an article about a little blog that thought it could, but failed pretty hard. My hypothesis was that by advertising using Google’s services (most notably in this case the web clip news ticker in Google Mail), the intrepid blogger had underestimated the amount of traffic that would draw and got himself shut partly down.

The link reappeared in my Google Mail news ticker this evening so I decided to see if it would finally work out for me.

Not only was this blogger’s site not restored, but that’s all that was left of it! Not even the shell and the company’s logos. This guy got owned and owned hard. Your guess is as good as mine as to what finally killed it. Bandwidth? Inappropriate content? The user’s inability to pay for services? It’s a mystery for sure.

I’ll keep an eye on my news ticker in the future. If this link continues to come up, perhaps some light can be shed on the subject.

I was poking around in my google mail, when the news crawl, ticker, whatever you want to call it, came across with the blurb mentioned here. It sounded relatively interesting, so I clicked. Go ahead, check it out. I’ll wait.
http://www.forbes.com/video/?video=fvn/forbesonfilm/ve_fof111706?partner=rss

As those of you who followed that link can see, I sat through no less than a minute and a half of advertising and financial news data that had absolutely nothing to do with the article I was supposed to be seeing. For those of you who didn’t visit that link, allow me to provide a breakdown.

First 10 seconds: Summary of upcoming content. No mention of the article shown in the above link.
Next 30 seconds: Samsung commercial.
Next 100 seconds: Various financial news, again, no mention of the linked article.
Next 30 seconds: The EXACT SAME Samsung ad.
Next 20 seconds: Another ad.

Then and only they did get they get to the “point” i.e. the piece about Jack Black. It was apparently about the upcoming Tenacious D movie, but by the time I got to that point, I was so irritated by the barrage of un-asked for information I no longer had any interest in the information that actually related to the link that brought me there.

Color me stupid, but I was under the impression that have the attraction to internet media had to do with the lack of bullshit and filler one typically associates with the more “traditional” forms of media. Television, for example, is stuck with static streaming, and basically have to bend the way their revenue source wants them to bend. Internet content is a bit more fluid in nature. They could rip that down, promote it, or move it however they see fit at any time. I could understand running an ad before the main content, and even another one after, but this was ridiculous.

To get people to read this article here, for example, I wouldn’t draw people in using links for Viagra or casinos, feed them this article, then say “oh by the way, Viagra is great if you’re at a casino”. That would be a shitty thing to do. There’s a lot of internet, and not all that much time. Incidentally, based off of this ill behavior on the part of Forbes, I’m half-tempted to go marketing this article with Viagra and casinos, since I’ve now mentioned them. Or maybe a slightly less competative term, like maybe “emo” or “pony midget porn”.

Hey, why not? If the big dogs can use deceptive content presentation and linking tactics to get people to watch their advertising, why can’t I? Afterall, the promise of relevant content is what makes MySpace so popular, isn’t it? “Hey look my friend from high school, hey look, cursors and diplomas and lots of people to date through x service… wait, where’s that friend of mine again?”
Time to sign me up for some contextual advertising… post haste. Jerks.

Read the rest of this entry »

I watched Hellraiser II last night and got fairly drunk. I talked a lot of shit about that movie, I feel as though the movie deserved it. Of course, I talked far more shit about the commercials that seemed to crop up every 2 minutes or so. AMC must not charge much for their advertising, and therefore make up for it in quantity of ads.
Might go catch Saw III this evening. I haven’t managed to watch Saw II yet, but the first one was alright.
Straightened up the house a little and I suddenly feel better about life. Shocking what a little order will do for your chi sometimes, ne?

I will be the first to admit that I have been off the deep end lately. So I was not actually thinking when, earlier today, I pulled any and all notes of interest or personal information off of my profile page. However, upon further consideration I have come to a solid reason as to why it’s a good idea to leave it blank.

That reason is, I prefer not to be yet another willing whore to statistical marketing. Every bit of information that is input here in terms of what one is interested in, what category of things one clings to, the type of profiles one is linked to, is all juicy advertising feedback that you just willingly forked over. I never had a particular issue with standardized testing when I was in grade school (remember that stuff?) with the strong exception of one part: the personal data part. That being all the requested statistical data one was “strongly encouraged” to fill out prior to taking the test. I always had a problem with this procedure. “Why,” I thought to myself in my youth, “do they need to know if i’m white or asian, male or female, if this is a standardized test? It should be based on standards of education, not standards of human types, right?” Well, of course not, how can we continue to compartmentalize people by gender, race and religion in this country unless we do so via proper education and of course proper marketing? There are disadvantages to be had within a free, democratic, capitalist environment.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a fan of this new wave of contextual advertising sites and blogs and the like. Hell, it’s very likely that it will make me some money as well, in which case I suppose that will make me some kind of statistical whore master, but I’d much rather be the master of this situation than the slave.

I am aware that every single day that goes by, I need things. Things to get my job done, things to stay alive, things because I want things. That isn’t slated to change any time in the near future. This site network is so bloated with advertising that I think it’s safe to say I’ve seen over-fed ticks that were more attractive. A very large percentage of this advertising is absolutely nothing that I want, need, or could be persuaded to buy. The beauty of the internet should be finding what you want, and need, faster than just having a bundle of Madison Avenue folks decide after months of grueling testing what you might want based on the reactions of a handful of people who are presumably just like you. How many times do you not give a shit what commercials are playing on TV? Unless you like making fun of them, my money is on a lot of the time.

And poor The Internet. It was once a paragon of searchable, on-demand information. Now with the advent of dummy sites, multiple sites with marginal differences, splogs, spam, and onmouseOver advertising media (fucking smilies can fuck off), how is it any different from from any of the other boxes that talk at us all day? Radio, papers, magazines, tv, you know, “traditional” media.
Anybody remember the old cartoons where the protagonist was trying to avoid something? Eating, or sleeping or killing some canary? All they would see everywhere would be signs for food, or rest, or roast chicken or something. And it would become a blur of neon signs until they could think of absolutely NOTHING besides that which they wanted to avoid. Traditional media (including billboards and shopfronts) pretty much innundates us with this kind of constant exposure conditioning towards consumption of goods and services. (When they aren’t taking a cue from our lovely government and using the fear tactic.)

This is the part where I get back to the idea at hand. Remember the concept of a searchable, on-demand, useful source of information…what was it called again? The Internet, right. Except for the part where we’re going to have to wait for Internet 2: Because We Fucked it Up Royal in Part One! Just like government, and any actual market for any goods or services, the end product is controlled by those allowed to be in control. In the case of the internet, control of the most visible sites is being left to the same type of people who convince you that Budweiser isn’t canned old people urine every year during the Super Bowl. This, I believe, falls under the category of “Just Fucking Lame”.

Myspace is a really convenient way for all types of marketers to mine for interest-related data on a very large group of people without having to pay for it or talk to anybody. I hate to pay for things, and I hate talking to people a little more every day, so I understand the allure here. How is anyone going to know that you have goods and services available unless you actually get the word out? The short answer is they won’t. In walks advertising to remedy the situation of woeful product anonymity. Yet there are more respectful ways to advertise on the internet without relying on a series of “personalized” pages that look like some kind of crayon box full of reconstituted dog shit and leet. (Note from the author: My current profile set up is hopefully minimized of these characteristics, however I have never been the most color-savvy web developer.)

I do have faith in search engine marketing, if the power-houses of search keep putting their foot down as much as they can about what sites are and are not authorities on keywords. I have faith in contextual advertising to an extent, although I fear the potential for rampant abuse is going to lead to issues with that as well. I would just like to move away from the constant bump-and-grind of the public media, and I was pretty sure that the internet should be able to provide that for me. Two types of sites seriously bother me: those with little control or direction in their actual visible marketing, those too much control over how interests are categorized and turned against the users, and those that fall under both catagories. As long as those type of sites exist, and are wildly popular, I find it hard to believe that the broadcasting medium of the internet will continue to hold much validity. All forms of media have had their novelty period, heyday, public trial, and ultimately have ended up as mistrustful sources of information. Yes, even the Almighty Internet. The cynicism isn’t too deeply ingrained in regards to the internet yet so I do reserve some hope for virtue over profit margin.

Not MySpace though, MySpace was created for the marketers, by the marketers, and unless you know a way to overthrow a dot-com, that’s what it’s here for and how it will stay.

Recommended Reading for those unimpressed by MySpace: http://www.trentl.com/?name=News&file=article&sid=50