#is this in any way financially or theatrically viable

[inklesspen]

today i got to thinking about Animorphs as a two-act musical

(I am very carefully ignoring the question of staging morph effects, aliens, a vast underground complex, and so on. they did spiderman on broadway; they can figure out how to do this.)

first act

the construction yard: Elfangor contrasting the beauty of Earth (in a way that makes it weirdly seem like he's lived among humans for a while) with the Yeerk Empire's plans for the world; the kids are very passive about this news, quite overwhelmed. the Visser devours Elfangor; the kids run.

High school, end of the next schoolday: They had a special assembly about the merits of community service; Vice-Principal Chapman delivers a very "how do you do fellow kids" quality "rap" about how the Sharing helps everyone in the community and the Sharing can help you too! The bell rings, Marco and Jake are heading to Jake's house, and Tom intercepts them on the steps outside the school. He interrogates them about the construction yard, briefly and blatently pushes them to join The Sharing, and then rushes off to "hang with some of his friends" from that group. Tobias in hawk morph approaches Jake and Marco as they walk home, only to give them the bad news: he's located the yeerk pool that Elfangor told them about, and it's hella tied in with the Sharing.

Meanwhile, Cassie and Rachel are checking up on Rachel's friend Melissa, who's having a tough time. Rachel, in cat morph, gets to hear Melissa sing about how lonely she feels; unfortunately, by the time Rachel gets away, Cassie has been caught poking around by Iniss 226, and is taken off to be infested. Rachel gets the others, they infilitrate the pool, and fight their way back out with Cassie. Unfortunately, Visser Three takes these events as a sign to increase security and speed up "recruitment"; they've saved themselves, but the very next day, Melissa tries to tell Rachel about this great new group she's joined, called The Sharing.

Erek and Ax join up at the same time, as mirrors of each other. Ax is the alien who knows next to nothing of Earth culture but loves it; Erek is the ancient robot who knows everything about humanity but really only cares about his own continued survival. Ax is the military cadet; Erek is the "plaything" with hardcoded pacifism. Jake gets infested by Temrash around this point, and the Animorphs see how far Erek is able to subvert his pacifism by helping them keep Jake contained. Temrash has a song about how he's going to totally get out of this, turn them in, achieve eternal glory in the Empire, and torment Jake forever. He manipulates Marco and Rachel into doubting that Jake's actually infested, and takes off, only to get caught by Cassie. Once Jake is freed, he welcomes Ax and Erek both to the team, and they start to plan something big.

I'm not sure of the exact structure here, but the act ends with the fight to destroy the ground-based kandrona, the first big victory the Animorphs have. They're feeling more confident in their chances. Winning the war, freeing their friends and family; it's something they can imagine now. Group song, obviously.

second act

Open with Ax having made contact with Andalite High Command, delivering a report to Lirem-Arrepath-Terrouss. This includes as recap things like the free Hork-Bajir, Aftran and the Peace Movement, the discovery that Marco's mother is Visser One's host, and saving the governor from infestation. (Also, a recipe for cinnamon buns.) Lirem warns Ax that it would be an unforgivable crime if any of the morph-capable humans were to be taken by the yeerks; he must be ready to kill them before letting such a thing happen.

And just in time, because David is here! He thinks he's hot stuff, has a song about how he's going to save his parents, win the war, get the girl. But Aftran is also in danger, and that's a problem, because she knows who the Animorphs are. The Animorphs stage a rescue op, and get away with Aftran, but David took the opportunity to pull a little side op of his own, except that he's not as clever as he thought and Visser Three absolutely knows that the humans he's trying to free are his parents, which means this andalite bandit isn't an andalite at all. Luckily Tobias overhears David's conversation and the rest of the Animorphs get to have a discussion about what to do about him. Cassie and Aftran have a duet abut saying what honesty demands — the Empire says "host bodies", but Aftran knows the truth is "slaves"; Cassie might say "deal with" or "remove", but they both know the truth is really "kill". Cassie takes the lead on the op to kill David; she tricks him into morphing into an animal form (to prove to the "Visser" he has the ability to morph) and then uses Jara Hamee's blades to kill him without leaving a human body behind. Aftran decides to die as a yeerk instead of become a nothlit; the two of them watch a sunrise and then Cassie gives Aftran a quick death. The other Animorphs (minus Erek, who has to leave the team when they start to plot David's murder) congratulate her on saving the day; Cassie just feels sick.

Unit 0 arrives to wipe out the yeerk infestation through biological warfare, heedless of the risks. At the Animorphs' urging, Unit 0 performs a safety trial of the virus, and 4 of the 5 hosts survive it, which they consider good enough to work with. The Animorphs bury Melissa's body before setting out to stop Unit 0 from their grim work. I think they probably ally with Arbat and other taxxons for this? In the process, the Animorphs' civilian identities are exposed and they have to rescue their families and flee to the wilderness, with mixed success. Somewhere around here, Jake has a song with Rachel about acceptable losses. He's becoming the sort of person who will be able to order a suicide mission.

Having learned that "her" son is an Animorph, Visser One returns to Earth. Marco constructs a plan to play the two Vissers against each other and eliminate them both; which works, and Eva and Alloran spend the rest of the war sedated and under Hork-Bajir guard. Marco takes Visser One's shuttle and bluffs their way onto the Pool ship. Cassie gets them in contact with the leaders of the Yeerk Peace Movement, who are able to smuggle them (in bug morph) over to the Blade ship. The Animorphs seize the Blade ship's bridge while Rachel stays on the Pool ship to keep Tom (host to the only remaining Yeerk who has command override codes) from interfering.

Jake takes the Pool ship (and therefore the pool) hostage and gets the surrender of all remaining Yeerk forces on Earth. At which point the Andalite fleet emerges from behind the Moon and blows up the defenseless Pool ship, while Jake looks on in satisfaction. Reprise the song about acceptable losses.

In the aftermath, nobody is all right. After the war, Cassie devotes herself to helping the Hork-Bajir, Marco craves recognition and pursues fame, Tobias retreats from the world, and Jake tries to find another cause to fight for, which is why when Menderash comes to him with the news that Ax needs help, Jake gives a huge grin, and says "Finally!"

[new-sandrafilter]

I learned in the news that Warner Bros. has decided to release “Dune” on HBO Max at the same time as our theatrical release, using prominent images from our movie to promote their streaming service. With this decision AT&T has hijacked one of the most respectable and important studios in film history. There is absolutely no love for cinema, nor for the audience here. It is all about the survival of a telecom mammoth, one that is currently bearing an astronomical debt of more than $150 billion. Therefore, even though “Dune” is about cinema and audiences, AT&T is about its own survival on Wall Street. With HBO Max’s launch a failure thus far, AT&T decided to sacrifice Warner Bros.’ entire 2021 slate in a desperate attempt to grab the audience’s attention.

Warner Bros.’ sudden reversal from being a legacy home for filmmakers to the new era of complete disregard draws a clear line for me. Filmmaking is a collaboration, reliant on the mutual trust of team work and Warner Bros. has declared they are no longer on the same team.

Streaming services are a positive and powerful addition to the movie and TV ecosystems. But I want the audience to understand that streaming alone can’t sustain the film industry as we knew it before COVID. Streaming can produce great content, but not movies of “Dune’s” scope and scale. Warner Bros.’ decision means “Dune” won’t have the chance to perform financially in order to be viable and piracy will ultimately triumph. Warner Bros. might just have killed the “Dune” franchise. This one is for the fans. AT&T’s John Stankey said that the streaming horse left the barn. In truth, the horse left the barn for the slaughterhouse.

Public safety comes first. Nobody argues with that. Which is why when it became apparent the winter would bring a second wave of the pandemic, I understood and supported the decision to delay “Dune’s” opening by almost a year. The plan was that “Dune” would open in theaters in October 2021, when vaccinations will be advanced and, hopefully, the virus behind us. Science tells us that everything should be back to a new normal next fall.

“Dune” is by far the best movie I’ve ever made. My team and I devoted more than three years of our lives to make it a unique big screen experience. Our movie’s image and sound were meticulously designed to be seen in theaters.

I’m speaking on my own behalf, though I stand in solidarity with the sixteen other filmmakers who now face the same fate. Please know I am with you and that together we are strong. The artists are the ones who create movies and series.

I strongly believe the future of cinema will be on the big screen, no matter what any Wall Street dilettante says. Since the dawn of time, humans have deeply needed communal storytelling experiences. Cinema on the big screen is more than a business, it is an art form that brings people together, celebrating humanity, enhancing our empathy for one another — it’s one of the very last artistic, in-person collective experiences we share as human beings.

Once the pandemic is over, theaters will be filled again with film lovers.

That is my strong belief.  Not because the movie industry needs it, but because we humans need cinema, as a collective experience.

So, just as I have both a fiduciary and creative responsibility to fulfill as the filmmaker, I call on AT&T to act swiftly with the same responsibility, respect and regard to protect this vital cultural medium. Economic impact to stakeholders is only one aspect of corporate social responsibility. Finding ways to enhance culture is another. The moviegoing experience is like no other. In those darkened theaters films capture our history, educate us, fuel our imagination and lift and inspire our collective spirit. It is our legacy.

Long live theatrical cinema!

— Denis Villeneuve

[jackie-talks-about-starkid]

Thoughts About StarKid, Theatre, and Money

StarKid is severely underlooked within the professional theatre industry as a viable source for providing theatrical entertainment and performing professional theatre worthy of artistic criticism. 

Though the company has gained a significant amount of internet fame and name-recognition within the laymen theatre community over the past decade, their mode of production and artistic work has gone undocumented by the greater professional theatre culture and been either flat-out ignored or deemed not worthy of taking the time of noting in academic journals or wide-reaching theatre influencers. While watching the evolution of their productions throughout this semester and tying my recent rewatching experiences with my personal knowledge and history of StarKid as a theatre company, I’ve come to the (easily reachable) conclusion that the only reason as to why more production companies do not take after StarKid’s multimedia, digital-heavy access to theatre is a combination of the desire for capitalist gain and the elitism that accompanies modern-day theatre culture. I’ve outlined both positive and negative points of comparison for StarKid Productions and traditional, commercial musical theatre, such as one sees on Broadway or the West End, to simply sum up my overall final thoughts regarding the work I’ve done in analyzing how StarKid produces their shows and hope that in some way, the points I’ve made will impact at least how one other person sees theatre from now on. 

Before theatre was about the best way to make the most money, which in relation to the rest of human history is a fairly new development, theatre was simply about providing entertainment. Because StarKid emphasizes artistic value and the enjoyment of their audience upon watching their productions, StarKid Productions has become successful in a way that no modern commercial theatre company is currently (there’s a reason why there are blogs like mine dedicated to StarKid Productions and not the Shubert Organization or regional companies like the Los Angeles Theatre Center). The reason why theatre kids (and I mean kids in the colloquial sense of the term-StarKid has fans in all age demographics) appreciate StarKid so much and allow them to continue making musicals so successfully is because of the combination of their dedication to access and good content. That does not mean to say that StarKid is perfect by any means; they are, in fact, people too. It just goes to show that theatre does not have to live in the exclusive little bubble that it’s built for itself within the past hundred years or so. I think that within the next hundred years, as theatre evolves and thrives in various corners of the globe throughout whatever our society throws at it *cough* Covid *cough*, theatrical content creators will look back at StarKid and think, “Wow, I wish I would have done that first!”, not because they would have made a fortune but because they would have made art.

StarKid

Negatives

Modems (rip) and other tech issues

Camera lens chooses perspective of audience, taking away individual viewer’s experience of choosing who/what/where to look at in any given moment

Still a developing area for theatre-what are the protections for content producers

Can online performances be equity? Can equity members perform in non-equity online performances (like performances during Covid in which little to no actors are currently working or making enough money to balance out what their wages would have been if Covid did not impact their work)?

Should payment be different? Production costs are generally lower but people still need to make a living

To what amount can the community control the distribution of other people’s IP? Live theatre already debates the negatives and positives of bootlegs. Providing theatre online for free and to purchase lessens bootlegging and increases audience accessibility but opens up opportunities for people to take advantage of online creators and the content they put out. Anybody can transcribe an online production, perform it either online or in-person, and charge tickets for people to see that production, but because it was transcribed from a production and not licensed, no money goes back to the creator which prevents the creator for making more of their accessible content

Positives

Accessibility

People in different geographical locations can access the same production as people experiencing it live

Online performances generally cost less to view online

Travelling is not always an option for viewing theatre-some people don’t have the financial ability to travel to places where a specific production is being performed

Physical and mental disabilities-not all theatres are physically accessible for people with wheelchairs, eyesight issues, hearing issues, or people with invisible disabilities (MS, chronic migraines) that are unable to sit in the average theatre seat for the length of a production. People with emotional anxiety, spatial anxiety, or sensitivity issues (ex. autism) may find live theatre too overwhelming to attend. Any person with a physical or mental health issue that has the financial ability to attend a live performance may find purchasing a ticket or making travel plans too risky because health issues can happen at any time and canceling tickets and reservations at the last minute is difficult at best, especially when one is dealing with the added stress of coping with a health issue

Less elitism

The lack of accessibility has created a culture of elitism in theatre. People with more financial ability or people with higher professional education in theatre have more access to experiencing live theatre, making traditional commercial theatre, like Broadway and the West End, only available to a small percentage of the theatre community.

Rewatching

It’s just nice to be able to rewatch a live performance for fun

Rewatching for academic purposes!

Free or significantly reduced price

Negative: Risk of price gouging for online performances and non-explicit processing fees

Live performances are also at more reasonable prices - average highest value Starkid ticket that includes set tours and meet & greets are still less expensive than the average cheapest ticket on the commercial theatre market for Broadway or off-Broadway, which averages at $79

Commercial Theatre

Negatives: ACCESSIBILITY IN ALL FORMS

Extremely limited accessibility for people with financial burdens

Buying theatre tickets shouldn’t require hours of research searching for the best prices so that you can go to a single performance (ex. 5 Ways to Buy Affordable Theatre Tickets https://www.playbill.com/article/5-ways-to-buy-affordable-theatre-tickets, http://www.broadwayforbrokepeople.com/, https://www.cheaptheatretickets.com/, https://officiallondontheatre.com/tkts/, https://www.todaytix.com/)

Many of these websites and third-party apps charge high fees for discounted tickets that make the cheaper ticket only $15-30 cheaper than a direct purchase from the theatre)

Outdated accessibility for people with physical and mental health issues, etc.

Programs like the Theatre Development Fund and theatre-specific programs at the Segerstrom in LA, the Kennedy Center in Washington DC, West End productions run by the Society of London Theatre, etc. are not commonplace and offer very limited performance dates

Not all audience members are respectful of live performances-talking, loud drinking/eating, etc.

Lack of accessibility provides incentive for people to make bootlegs that creators (actors, crew, directors, writers, composers) do not get any share of profit from. Producers have more to financially gain from a production than the average actor so making an illegal bootleg instead of a professional recording takes away an opportunity for a performer to make more money and get more financial recognition for their work

Cultural accessibility (see “Less Elitism” point in StarKid positives)

Historically disenfranchised groups have less access to live theatre because of social and financial burdens on top of mental and physical health issues that they get disproportionately less treatment for which would allow wealthier people with more access to healthcare attend the theatre more comfortably

Positives

Cultural capital!

Concentrated production areas in urban settings, regional or otherwise, give money back to the performance community in that area and boost the general economy by providing cultural centers in areas that rely on tourism for cashflow. It also legitimizes the production value of performances available in that geographic location by working with the given environment to create a culturally-specific niche for that location’s theatre scene (ex. The MUNY is St. Louis, The La Jolla Playhouse in California, Hartford Stage in Connecticut, etc. http://lort.org/theatres)

The live experience

Live theatre is simultaneously an individual and group experience. Each person attending a production interprets the performance differently and physically experiences the environment in ways unique from other audience members by sitting in different areas closer to/farther from/in different angles from the stage, lights, speakers, etc. Yet, the audience as a whole experiences the same unique production all at the same time, witnessing acting choices, understudies and standbys, or even stage mishaps all at once that a different performance of the same exact production may not have. The energy of a live performance in any venue changes with each performance and physical environment.

[mrchalamet-mrstyles]

I learned in the news that Warner Bros. has decided to release “Dune” on HBO Max at the same time as our theatrical release, using prominent images from our movie to promote their streaming service. With this decision AT&T has hijacked one of the most respectable and important studios in film history. There is absolutely no love for cinema, nor for the audience here. It is all about the survival of a telecom mammoth, one that is currently bearing an astronomical debt of more than $150 billion. Therefore, even though “Dune” is about cinema and audiences, AT&T is about its own survival on Wall Street. With HBO Max’s launch a failure thus far, AT&T decided to sacrifice Warner Bros.’ entire 2021 slate in a desperate attempt to grab the audience’s attention.

Warner Bros.’ sudden reversal from being a legacy home for filmmakers to the new era of complete disregard draws a clear line for me. Filmmaking is a collaboration, reliant on the mutual trust of team work and Warner Bros. has declared they are no longer on the same team.

Streaming services are a positive and powerful addition to the movie and TV ecosystems. But I want the audience to understand that streaming alone can’t sustain the film industry as we knew it before COVID. Streaming can produce great content, but not movies of “Dune’s” scope and scale. Warner Bros.’ decision means “Dune” won’t have the chance to perform financially in order to be viable and piracy will ultimately triumph. Warner Bros. might just have killed the “Dune” franchise. This one is for the fans. AT&T’s John Stankey said that the streaming horse left the barn. In truth, the horse left the barn for the slaughterhouse.

Public safety comes first. Nobody argues with that. Which is why when it became apparent the winter would bring a second wave of the pandemic, I understood and supported the decision to delay “Dune’s” opening by almost a year. The plan was that “Dune” would open in theaters in October 2021, when vaccinations will be advanced and, hopefully, the virus behind us. Science tells us that everything should be back to a new normal next fall.

"Dune” is by far the best movie I’ve ever made. My team and I devoted more than three years of our lives to make it a unique big screen experience. Our movie’s image and sound were meticulously designed to be seen in theaters.

I’m speaking on my own behalf, though I stand in solidarity with the sixteen other filmmakers who now face the same fate. Please know I am with you and that together we are strong. The artists are the ones who create movies and series.

I strongly believe the future of cinema will be on the big screen, no matter what any Wall Street dilettante says. Since the dawn of time, humans have deeply needed communal storytelling experiences. Cinema on the big screen is more than a business, it is an art form that brings people together, celebrating humanity, enhancing our empathy for one another — it’s one of the very last artistic, in-person collective experiences we share as human beings.

Once the pandemic is over, theaters will be filled again with film lovers.

That is my strong belief.  Not because the movie industry needs it, but because we humans need cinema, as a collective experience.

So, just as I have both a fiduciary and creative responsibility to fulfill as the filmmaker, I call on AT&T to act swiftly with the same responsibility, respect and regard to protect this vital cultural medium. Economic impact to stakeholders is only one aspect of corporate social responsibility. Finding ways to enhance culture is another. The moviegoing experience is like no other. In those darkened theaters films capture our history, educate us, fuel our imagination and lift and inspire our collective spirit. It is our legacy.

Long live theatrical cinema!

— Denis Villeneuve

[nzenuniverse-blog]

Tonight We Drink to New Life

On Sunday, January 6, 2019, esteemed actor Regina King echoed the sentiment of her character, Sharon Rivers, when she issued an oral call to arms to her fellow movie and television makers to produce media with half the sky, and drink to a new life, which includes women in active roles both behind and in front of the camera. What a last day of Christmas, always and forever day of the epiphany gift that would be to the world if that truly happens. Watching the trailer for “If Beale Street Could Talk” the film, which has so far garnered award nods from the New York Film Critics Circle, the National Board of Review and the Golden Globes, for Regina King in her role as the mother of Tish Rivers. The story follows the plot of the wrongfully incarcerated Alonzo “Fonny” Hunt, portrayed by actor Stephan James, an innocent who has been effectively framed by a white police officer for the rape of a Puerto Rican woman in the neighborhood of Harlem, while at the same time Hunt receives news that his childhood friend and soon-to-be-wife, the 19-year-old Tish Rivers, portrayed by actor KiKi Layne, is pregnant. To quote from the Atlantic article, writer Hannah Giorgis surmises, “If Beale Street Could Talk chronicles their gentle romance, as well as the strained fortitude of the Harlem families who support the two and help Tish prepare for the baby who arrives while Fonny is in carceral limbo.”

Watching a mini behind the scenes doc featuring members of the film's cast and crew recently published exclusively to the Huffington Post, can give one chills as it powerfully describes some of the significance relative to this adaptation of Baldwin's work with particular regard to the power of the love not just between the protagonists, but also the love of the black families of Harlem coming together in the face of this heinous crime to live by example the maxim “it takes a village” For instance director Barry Jenkins describes the power of intellectualizing current political circumstances through the characters narratives.

For further information, see the aforementioned Atlantic article that chronicles the movie's Apollo Theatre premiere which details how the Baldwin family was reluctant at first to the adaptation of the novel but came around when they understood the cultural vision for the film's narrative. And their reluctance is understandable, because a novel, much like a poem, has infinite dexterity for readers' imagination to grow with, but once the imagery travels through the tunnel of adaptation to film, though films can be recast and revised in certain skilled hands, the images have immortally become initially impressed on the public imagination thus altering forever the author's literary vision.

In dark and scary times such as these Baldwin's words which declare “Neither Love Nor Terror Make One Blind: Indifference Makes One Blind” echo a glimmer of the cultural significance of Regina King's call to action last Sunday. It has been 34 years since the collective consciousness birth of the Bechdel Test via comic artist Alison Bechdel who in 1985 published “Dykes to Watch Out For” in The Rule. Are men so indifferent to the insult of their inaction that communicates to women their stories are irrelevant? Why has it taken so many generations for the #metoo movement to galvanize political will for real change in action?

Film has historically been an elitist model masquerading as a popular artform. It very much mirrors the oligarchy masquerading as our democracy in action in this manner. As the top down traditional studio model continues to disintegrate, as movies continue to erode from their once singular dominance as the cultural face shaping mainstream public consciousness, it is an important contemporaneous moment to speak to why Madame King's platform invocation at the Golden Globes is so culturally significant.

If one is to research the Bechdel test at any length, the patriarchal biases for why the systemic problem persists are well documented . Finances, and the mistaken perception that female leads and narratives fail to drive sales are prolific examples. In the top 100 grossing films of 2012, women accounted for 4.1 percent of directors, 12.2 percent of writers and 20 percent of producers, according to a 2013 study by Stacy Smith, an associate professor at the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism at the University of Southern California. Of 4,475 speaking roles in those films, 28.4 percent were women. Smith says when more women were involved in the production of a film, it was more likely to have female cast members. In short, when one gender dominates the creative process for a picture, that comes out on the screen.

When one thinks about these examples combined with the preface of the disintegrating studio system, one can consider the argument that as the independent studio system emerges as the viable option for television and film as an industry, then these questions of a laissez-faire resolution to the Bechdel test issue will be met in a classical sense, as in supply meeting demand. To state this idea in another manner, in a similar way to how financiers predicted a complete crash in the disintegration of the hard copy book model of industry at the emergence of the online retail market; though diminished, people who love books will always really love books and those people want the tactile feel that an electronic copy can never deliver. Extend this to the concept of cinema as a community, though DVDs are dead as a doornail, people who really love cinema will always really love cinema and those people will go out to see the film in its theatrical release because they understand the larger scope of everything involved in the nexus of art and commerce involved in the production of a quality film like “If Beale Street Could Talk” A specific example herein could be the film “Springbreakers' put out by the studio A24 based in NYC. It is likely that this studio chose to produce this film aware of the intent to reach an audience which already had an awareness of the Bechdel test and would be the type of crowd that would like to entertain a conversation about a film that addresses the complexity of patriarchy and matriarchy because they follow the work of a director like Harmony Korine, an actor like James Franco, and/or a hottie artist like Selena Gomez, and thus much like an artist who puts work up in a new gallery exhibition and trusts that the right people will show up and that's it, there is an argument that in a similar way that studios who are conscious of the niche audiences they are creating artwork through film for will take a local economy laissez-faire approach to their individual solution to more female representation, both in front of and behind the camera.

[orbemnews]

This will be one of the most important summers for Hollywood ever Alas, not in this universe. Summer movie season, which usually kicks off the first weekend of May, will be delayed this year because of the pandemic. But the late start doesn’t mean that this summer is any less important than other years. In fact, this could be one of the most crucial summers for Hollywood ever. The summer movie season has been vital to the health of Hollywood ever since Steven Spielberg cleared out beaches with 1975’s “Jaws.” Since then, the season known for its big-budget blockbusters has helped propel the movie industry every year by bringing in a large chunk of studios’ annual ticket sales. For example, the summer season has made up roughly 35% to 40% of ticket sales every year at the North American box office since 2005, which depending on the year generates around $4 billion in revenue, according to Comscore (SCOR). Except for last year, of course, where summer accounted for a paltry $176 million, or just 7%, of the year’s ticket totals because the pandemic upended the industry. This summer is essential to studios’ bottom lines, as it always is, but the most crucial aspect may be in the optics. “This summer will be a true test for Hollywood” After being delayed because of the pandemic, many major films such as “Cruella,” “A Quiet Place Part II,” “In The Heights,” “F9” and “Black Widow” are set to open this summer. The box offices of these films will be vital, but their financial performances will be critical in building enough buzz to lure people back into theaters. With theaters still struggling to rebound and streaming gaining strength as a viable option to release films (cases in point: “Cruella,” “In The Heights” and “Black Widow” all have streaming options), how these films do with audiences could determine how studios release films for next summer, and beyond. “This summer will be a true test for Hollywood, one that will likely test the industry’s might as well as their magic,” Jeff Bock, senior analyst at entertainment research firm Exhibitor Relations, told CNN Business. “If all goes well, folks will be lining up for blockbusters from May through Labor Day, but for studios and exhibitors to be truly successful, they’ll not only need debuts that knock it out of the park but a string of victories week in and week out.” According to Bock, success builds momentum, and “that shows the kind of months-long sustainability cinemas regularly provided pre-pandemic.” “To do that, Hollywood will not only need quality films, but well-received ones,” Bock said. “Chatter. Word of mouth. That’s going to be key this summer.” Theaters aren’t yet at full strength, and with restrictions still in place studios may not be putting much stock in box office results yet. The movie theater industry is also arguably more global than it’s ever been, with China taking over as the No. 1 movie market worldwide. That means there are more markets to consider now, which have had different restrictions and reactions to the pandemic. No one is sure if audiences will return to theaters as they did before the pandemic. There’s been a fair amount of hope lately, however. Films like “Godzilla vs. Kong” and “Mortal Kombat” both found audiences this spring bringing in the top two openings of the pandemic so far ��� even with both films available on HBO Max. (HBO Max is owned by WarnerMedia, the parent company of CNN.) Are they the exception or the new norm? That’s what Hollywood and theaters will likely find out this summer. “It comes down to lifestyle choices” Shawn Robbins, for one, the chief analyst at Boxoffice.com, is bullish. “I absolutely believe that people will come back to the movies this summer,” Robbins told CNN Business. “Only a small number of blockbusters have been released directly into the home. That’s left the vast majority of event movies delayed until vaccines could have an impact and theaters could confidently reopen their doors. Those two things are happening as we speak.” Robbins added that the box office results this spring exceeded expectations, and that should give theaters some confidence as summer kicks off around Memorial Day with “A Quiet Place: Part II” and “Cruella.” “While there may be a complementary option in streaming, there is no substitute for the theatrical experience,” he noted. “The absence of going to the movies was not an organic development, after all. It was taken by necessity for a temporary amount of time while the worst months of the pandemic were battled and endured. Absence only makes the heart grow fonder.” The fall and winter seasons are full of potential hits, too, which could help sustain theaters for the rest of the year. Films like the new James Bond flick “No Time to Die,” Marvel’s “Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings,” “Ghostbusters: Afterlife,” Marvel’s “Eternals,” “Top Gun: Maverick,” “Dune,” “Spider-Man: No Way Home” and Spielberg’s remake of “West Side Story” are on the docket between September and December. And if the summer is a busy one for theaters, it could lead to a bustling fall and winter, which then could pave the way for a strong 2022. Still, the path to Hollywood’s future, whatever that is, likely starts Memorial Day weekend. “Theaters are struggling mightily. They need a consistent product that pays off not only at the box office but at the concession stand,” Bock said. “And that comes down to more than just the quality of films this summer. It comes down to lifestyle choices, which are much more difficult to predict.” Source link Orbem News #Hollywood #important #Media #Summers #ThiswillbeoneofthemostimportantsummersforHollywoodever-CNN

[dipulb3]

This will be one of the most important summers for Hollywood ever

New Post has been published on https://appradab.com/this-will-be-one-of-the-most-important-summers-for-hollywood-ever/

This will be one of the most important summers for Hollywood ever

Alas, not in this universe.

Summer movie season, which usually kicks off the first weekend of May, will be delayed this year because of the pandemic. But the late start doesn’t mean that this summer is any less important than other years.

In fact, this could be one of the most crucial summers for Hollywood ever.

The summer movie season has been vital to the health of Hollywood ever since Steven Spielberg cleared out beaches with 1975’s “Jaws.” Since then, the season known for its big-budget blockbusters has helped propel the movie industry every year by bringing in a large chunk of studios’ annual ticket sales.

For example, the summer season has made up roughly 35% to 40% of ticket sales every year at the North American box office since 2005, which depending on the year generates around $4 billion in revenue, according to Comscore (SCOR). Except for last year, of course, where summer accounted for a paltry $176 million, or just 7%, of the year��s ticket totals because the pandemic upended the industry.

This summer is essential to studios’ bottom lines, as it always is, but the most crucial aspect may be in the optics.

“This summer will be a true test for Hollywood”

After being delayed because of the pandemic, many major films such as “Cruella,” “A Quiet Place Part II,” “In The Heights,” “F9” and “Black Widow” are set to open this summer. The box offices of these films will be vital, but their financial performances will be critical in building enough buzz to lure people back into theaters.

With theaters still struggling to rebound and streaming gaining strength as a viable option to release films (cases in point: “Cruella,” “In The Heights” and “Black Widow” all have streaming options), how these films do with audiences could determine how studios release films for next summer, and beyond.

“This summer will be a true test for Hollywood, one that will likely test the industry’s might as well as their magic,” Jeff Bock, senior analyst at entertainment research firm Exhibitor Relations, told Appradab Business. “If all goes well, folks will be lining up for blockbusters from May through Labor Day, but for studios and exhibitors to be truly successful, they’ll not only need debuts that knock it out of the park but a string of victories week in and week out.”

According to Bock, success builds momentum, and “that shows the kind of months-long sustainability cinemas regularly provided pre-pandemic.”

“To do that, Hollywood will not only need quality films, but well-received ones,” Bock said. “Chatter. Word of mouth. That’s going to be key this summer.”

Theaters aren’t yet at full strength, and with restrictions still in place studios may not be putting much stock in box office results yet. The movie theater industry is also arguably more global than it’s ever been, with China taking over as the No. 1 movie market worldwide. That means there are more markets to consider now, which have had different restrictions and reactions to the pandemic. No one is sure if audiences will return to theaters as they did before the pandemic.

There’s been a fair amount of hope lately, however. Films like “Godzilla vs. Kong” and “Mortal Kombat” both found audiences this spring bringing in the top two openings of the pandemic so far — even with both films available on HBO Max. (HBO Max is owned by WarnerMedia, the parent company of Appradab.)

Are they the exception or the new norm? That’s what Hollywood and theaters will likely find out this summer.

“It comes down to lifestyle choices”

Shawn Robbins, for one, the chief analyst at Boxoffice.com, is bullish.

“I absolutely believe that people will come back to the movies this summer,” Robbins told Appradab Business. “Only a small number of blockbusters have been released directly into the home. That’s left the vast majority of event movies delayed until vaccines could have an impact and theaters could confidently reopen their doors. Those two things are happening as we speak.”

Robbins added that the box office results this spring exceeded expectations, and that should give theaters some confidence as summer kicks off around Memorial Day with “A Quiet Place: Part II” and “Cruella.”

“While there may be a complementary option in streaming, there is no substitute for the theatrical experience,” he noted. “The absence of going to the movies was not an organic development, after all. It was taken by necessity for a temporary amount of time while the worst months of the pandemic were battled and endured. Absence only makes the heart grow fonder.”

The fall and winter seasons are full of potential hits, too, which could help sustain theaters for the rest of the year.

Films like the new James Bond flick “No Time to Die,” Marvel’s “Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings,” “Ghostbusters: Afterlife,” Marvel’s “Eternals,” “Top Gun: Maverick,” “Dune,” “Spider-Man: No Way Home” and Spielberg’s remake of “West Side Story” are on the docket between September and December.

And if the summer is a busy one for theaters, it could lead to a bustling fall and winter, which then could pave the way for a strong 2022. Still, the path to Hollywood’s future, whatever that is, likely starts Memorial Day weekend.

“Theaters are struggling mightily. They need a consistent product that pays off not only at the box office but at the concession stand,” Bock said. “And that comes down to more than just the quality of films this summer. It comes down to lifestyle choices, which are much more difficult to predict.”

[hrjerry-me-blog]

The Five Pillars of Marketing Success

Does the following give a pretty good picture of your current marketing activity?

You have a website but you’re not really satisfied with it. You go to networking events once in awhile. If someone asks you to give a talk, you’re happy to do it. You post on Facebook and/or LinkedIn semi-regularly. When you find the time, you send an article to those on your relatively small email list. You occasionally set up meetings with colleagues to explore opportunities.

Now there’s nothing wrong with any of those marketing activities. And usually, they will result in landing some new clients.

But this is not the approach that works to get a steady, predictable stream of new clients.

Please don’t tune me out here, thinking, “Well, I really can’t do more than this. I’m already stretched thin. If you give me too much to do I’ll get overwhelmed.”

I agree. It’s not that you need to do more marketing, it’s that you need to shift your marketing paradigm from one of “Randomness” to one that is “Focused.”

Random marketing is just that; it’s all over the place. You do a little bit here and a little bit there on an inconsistent basis. You are trying to keep your face, name, and message in front of your prospective clients but the results are unpredictable.

The Random marketing paradigm is not very effective because it doesn’t gain a lot of momentum. You don’t do enough of one marketing activity to grab the attention of your prospective clients and move them to take action.  

The Focused Marketing Paradigm is very different. It’s based on repeatedly communicating very directly to your target market with a very definite end in mind. It gets the attention of your prospective clients and they ultimately take action.

The Focused Marketing Paradigm has Five Pillars

Understand and implement these five pillars and I promise you’ll see a shift in your marketing results.

Pillar One: Focused Goals

A Random goal is saying something like, “I’d like to attract a few more clients to my business.” Not very compelling is it?

A Focused goal is much more specific. “My goal is to land 3 new clients in the high-tech plastics business in the Houston area with an average project size of $30,000 each by the end of the year.”

The more detail, depth, and specificity about the goal, the better. You’ve really thought through what you want to achieve and also have confidence that you could deliver if you did reach your goal. It’s so real to you that you can taste it.

What is the Focused Goal for your marketing?

Pillar Two: Focused Program or Service Random programs or services are generalized consulting, coaching or training programs. “I offer management consulting and training to corporations.” Kind of vague, right? But this is what I hear all the time.  

A Focused Program or Service is more tangible. “I offer the high-tech plastics industry Management Acceleration Programs for emerging leaders in the industry.”

In my business, I’ve always offered programs: The Marketing Mastery Program, the Marketing Action Group, and the More Clients Club. And each program has very specific parameters, deliverables, and objectives. It sure makes intangible services easier to market and sell.

What is the Focused Program or Service you’re offering?

Pillar Three: Focused Target Market

In the above example, the target was the “high-tech plastics industry.” But it’s more common to hear things like, “I work with large companies who want to increase productivity.” This is too general and it makes it hard for clients to know if you understand them and can help them.

A Focused target market is where you are absolutely clear what kinds of people or companies can most benefit from your expertise. And then you articulate that clearly.

I worked with a financial planning company last year that targeted middle class families in the Buffalo New York area. Guess who they attracted to their practice? When people read about who they worked with on their website, they said, “That’s Us!” and called them.

Who exactly is your Focused Target Market?

Pillar Four: Focused Message and Value Proposition A Random message or value proposition tends to be too general and can be hard to pin down. It avoids making a promise that is meaningful to the prospective client.

Messages such as, “We offer the best service in the industry,” or “Smart insights into great management,” are meaningless to your prospective clients. The value is not immediately obvious.

A Focused message or value proposition zeros in on exactly what your clients get and what it means to them. I admit that this can be the marketing pillar that is hardest to pin down. Ultimately you have to test a number of different things.

For the re-launch of the More Clients Club, my current value proposition is: “Everything Self-Employed Professionals Need in One Place to Attract More Clients.” And now, of course, I’m bending over backward to deliver on that promise.

And a marketing message or value proposition is much more than a sound bite. Your message must permeate every aspect of your marketing, from your website to the emails you send out. Your prospects need to be constantly reminded of the value you offer.

What is your Focused Message or Value Proposition?

Pillar Five: Focused Marketing Strategy

A Random marketing strategy is much like the collection of marketing activities I outlined at the top of the article. You’re just all over the place, throwing something at the wall, hoping it will stick, with no organized system or plan 

A Focused marketing strategy is more like a putting on a theatrical production. You have the script, the actors, rehearsals, and opening night, all executed on a strict timeline.

Two examples:

For my Marketing Mastery Program, I held a series of introductory teleconferences, invited those interested to apply for the program, interviewed each applicant, and then converted 50% into participants. Over a 6-week period, I filled my business for a full year – four years in a row.

A career coach in one of my programs recently filled her practice in three months with a focused campaign of personalized emails designed to get appointments with her ideal clients. Then she converted a large percentage into paying clients.

That’s the power of a focused marketing strategy.

You need to identify the right marketing strategy for your business, but even more important is the way you organize and implement the strategy.

Developing a focused strategy is the most complex and challenging of the Five Pillars. You can’t just put together something haphazardly and hope you get the equivalent of a professional Shakespearian production.

What is your Focused Marketing Strategy?

If you work to build a focused plan with these five solid pillars, your marketing will work better and faster, attracting more of your ideal clients, usually at a higher rate.

I recommend you work on one pillar at a time. Write them out and fine-tune them until you feel confident and excited about them. Yes, you will need to do some research and study to make sure your plan is viable. But this is certainly better than spinning your wheels with a random strategy that is going nowhere.

Cheers, Robert

Action Plan Marketing helps self-employed people attract more clients through action-oriented marketing strategies that get you in front of prospective clients. Get our free report on how you can attract more of your ideal clients at this link: http://actionplan.club/free-stuff.

[nataliesexplodinghead-blog]

BLACK DRAWING #4 [2710mmx2710mm] // TEXT

BLACK DRAWING #4 [2710mmx2710mm]

PERFROMANCE DRAWING

(Performed by Natalie Wearden and Indigo Branscombe)

Accompanying text by Natalie Wearden.

The intention is to create an entirely black, time-based drawing using theatrical elements to question the authenticity of artistic process and referring to oneself as an artist.

To refer to oneself as an artist gives rise to the supposition that one makes art. In the case of performance (although documentation can and may exist in many forms) the work itself is more often than not lacking in a concrete ‘art-object’ that may be valued and displayed in contexts other than that for which it was originally intended.

In an unstable economic climate, as a young female performance artist, the choice not to study a vocational subject is called into question. And, for those who do choose to study fine art, despite the current financial climate, there is a notable emphasis in contemporary art education placed on the production of saleable work or the utilising of fine art practice as an agent to gaining transferable skills such as carpentry, printing or video-editing; so as to graduate an employable individual in the creative job market. Young people are hyper-aware (perhaps more so than ever before due to the recession and rise in university fees) of a sense of duty to contribute to society and the economy and are gripped by the desire to gain future financial stability. In many cases performance is neither a commercially viable art medium nor a transferable technique to other career pathways within a creative field. The intangibility of performance leaves us questioning what we have to show for our hard work and dedication to three years of art education (not forgetting this costs us £9000 per annum). Although it is untrue that there is no viable way to survive financially as a performance artist or indeed to replicate or sell a performance, an uneasiness is still felt by many choosing to work with this medium around the lack of physical evidence for the time spent conceptualising and realising a work. Perhaps, it may be said; time that could be spent more usefully in the production of art with greater monetary value, therefore justifying the thousands of pounds spent on obtaining a BA in Fine Art. 

At this point it makes sense to consider societal ideals of ‘The Artist’. Performance practice is often related to conceptual art or the art of ideas; relying heavily on research. However, it might be argued that this notion of the artist as a thinker is unpopular and, amongst the general population, the preferred viewpoint is one whereby the artist is romanticised as a labourer, suffering for hours in a studio, chiseling at stone or perfecting a landscape. This way of working is likely to be widely considered more authentic due to the time and skill level involved in its production being so evident in the outcome.

This leads me on to discussing more directly the performance I will be producing. The task-based work involves two performers or ‘The Artist’ being placed under a number of constraints, limiting their ability to easily complete the given task (to create an entirely black drawing.) The constraints are as follows:

-       ‘The Artist’ may not leave the room until the page is entirely black.

-       ‘The Artist’ may only use provided materials. This will not include any additional tools of application (eg. Paintbrushes); ‘The Artist’ must work with their hands or bodies.

-       ‘The Artist’ may not speak.

-       ‘The Artist’ may not acknowledge the audience; this is a theatrical event.

 One key point to make is that these constraints make the task difficult to complete and the performance is more than likely to last for several hours. This is a playful nod to the notion of ‘a days work’; something that is perhaps popularly considered to be eschewed by artists. The work is a tongue-in-cheek authentication of ‘The Artist’; it both acknowledges and exorcises common paranoia of the performance artist; that their work is seen as easy or lacking in skill and does not take a long time or large amount of hard work to produce.)

These constraints highlight the fact that this is a performance and not an authentic act of art-making; theatrical lighting and Pierrot-esque costumes emphasise this. The idea of ‘performance’ is important as the work addresses perhaps unrealistic ideals of the artist in society. The piece questions authenticity in artistic processes. For example, here unlike in the majority of performance art the objective is to create a stand-alone art object (it is worth noting that this will be clear to the audience due to the simplicity of the task). The fact that the process is being performed challenges the outcome’s status as an authentic work of art. The idea is to create an archetype of artistic practice and of ‘The Artist’ in relation to the romanticised societal views I referred to earlier.

It is essential not to ignore my choice to use two performers rather than one. The intention is to create a motif of ‘The Artist’ and not to refer in any way to identity or the individual. By using two performers, dressed identically, performing exactly the same task, the work seeks to reject individual personalities and art practices and perform a motif of a societal stereotype. Together we are ‘The Artist’, laboring unquestioning, not thinking or conceptualising any new ideas. In this respect the work produced is lacking in emotional integrity giving it a cold and detached presence and again questioning the authenticity of what is produced.

 As I mentioned earlier, the costumes in this work are inspired by tragic Commedia dell’Arte character, Pierrot and in particular the Pierrot of early nineteenth century Parisian, bohemian actor and mime Jean-Gaspard Deburau. Deburau’s Pierrot is driven to the verge of insanity by life’s remorseless denial of his desires. In traditional Commedia scenarios Pierrot relentlessly pursues the beautiful Columbine but is always rejected in favour of the brash, charismatic, acrobatic clown Harlequin. Humour is derided from Pierrot’s continuing pursuit of a futile situation. Like Pierrot, ‘The Artist’ in this work continues in their completion of a thankless task simply because they follow the stated rules of the performance, just as Pierrot’s repeated failed attempts to win the heart of Columbine is dictated by the rules of Commedia scenarios and stock characters.  For Pierrot there is no escape from this moonstruck, heartbroken state, he must continue on his futile quest as, here, ‘The Artist’ must continue to labour despite an unrewarding outcome (a blank sheet; exactly what is begun with.)

Pierrot is a symbol of theatre (we cannot imagine the theatre without Pierrot); he is an icon of performance. Referencing him within the work makes it immediately obvious to the viewer that this is a performed theatrical act and not the authentic process of two young artists. Symbolists saw Pierrot as their lonely fellow sufferer, struggling tragically to secure a place in the bourgeois world. It could be suggested that this work alludes to this wish in its motivation to create an authentic art object.

Pierrot is an outsider, an eternally suffering fool. He has captured the hearts of many including Picasso and Stravinsky as symbolic of the persecution of the artist in humanity. For many Pierrot holds a post-modern status as an archetype of art or ‘The Artist’, relating again to the romantic view of artists as loners and labourers. It is also popular to see both Pierrot and ‘The Artist’ as suffering under the burden of a creative mind. ‘The Artist’ is somebody who, like Pierrot, is continuously let down by the world yet fervently continues in his or her endeavors regardless of their perpetual failure. By performing a difficult task, under the constraints of an idealised popular view of art process, we too suffer in a relentless attempt to complete the performance’s task.

The costumes are entirely white and our bodies and hair will also be painted white. This alludes to the idea of a blank canvas and emphasises the depersonalisation of ‘The Artist’s’ body – we, perhaps, encompass all artists or perform a stereotype of the artist, but yet not a particular artist with a particular identity. Another factor worth noting is that the costumes will also be marked by the materials we are working with; so the costumes themselves will exist later as a remnant of the performance and could possibly be considered a sculptural object. It is possible to question the authenticity of this object as a work of art, considering the intent. The marking of the costumes is a byproduct and not an express motivation of the work; however, it is possible to contend that if the garments are displayed later in an exhibition context, they might become authentic artworks.

 Perhaps a relevant discussion to have in relation to this work is the way in which contemporary culture makes it possible to document and distribute vast archives of life via social media platforms. Never before has it been so straightforward and also so popular to share so much of one’s day-to-day existence. It is therefore logical to suggest that, in modern society, a far greater proportion of human activity could be described as ‘performed’ due to it’s undertaking with the assumption of a later perception by another individual in digital space. Sociologist Irving Goffman maintained that all human interaction is a performance and that we alter our behavior according to who we are interacting with. Goffman’s dramaturgical account refers to William Shakespeare’s As You Like it:

 ‘All the world’s a stage and all these men and women merely players’.

 According to Goffman all behavior that is perceived by another is performed and perhaps, therefore, not authentic. In the case of this performance we are able to relate Goffman’s ideas to the notion of a fraudulent or ‘performed’ art practice. The performance itself will be documented using time-lapse photography and a sound recorder, as well as a live audience that will drift in and out of the space. Using Goffman’s theory we can conclude that no aspect of this art-making process can ever be seen to be truly authentic, as it is constantly being perceived by the gaze of another or, at least, captured by a camera with the intention of it’s later viewing.

 ‘The Artist’ in this performance focuses on process and materials over concepts and ideas. However, as I have drawn much attention to throughout this text as the most important idea encompassed by this work, it is necessary to acknowledge that the art-making in this case is a performed act. This leads me on to refer to Hans Numath’s films of Jackson Pollock working on the production of his ‘Action Paintings’. It is impossible to know if, in the absence of a camera, Pollock would perform his painting process in quite such a physical theatrical style. The Gutai movement, like Pollock, triumphed materials and process over ideas and product. In the Gutai manifesto Jiro Yoshihara talks about the human spirit and the material reaching out their hands to each other. Yoshihara suggests that [in contemporary art practice] ‘under the cloak of intellectual aim, the materials have been completely murdered and can no longer speak to us’. It is this focus on materiality that has drawn me to create black drawings using multiple materials, the performance aims to guide the viewer away from any notion of meaning or symbolism that may be derided from colour, figuration or particular styles of mark-making. It’s important that the viewer of this work is able to focus on the art-making action, and view it as such. It is also important that attention is drawn to the fact that the work is stated to be a ‘performance’. The subject of what is being created should be forgotten. Many Gutai artists created live performances that involved working with materials; this often included the use of certain constraints. This is very much the case in the work of Kazuo Shiraga: an artist who created paintings swinging from a rope above his paper and using his feet to make marks. Shiraga, Yoshihara and the Gutai group believed that this was the most authentic act of art making as it brought them closer to their materials. However, it is definitely possible, and a clear aim of my performance; to challenge the Gutai ideal of authentic art making in consideration of it’s widespread documentation by a camera, or in many cases it’s status as performance rather than painting or other art object. 

In conclusion, this performance artwork will examine the status of the artist in society, using Pierrot and the theatre as an agent. The performers are a motif or a caricature of an idealised artist or artist’s process. It has a playful and mocking tone in its coldness and evasion of easily decipherable meaning or emotional integrity. Put simply; this is the performed act of turning a large sheet of paper from white to black using a variety of drawing materials. If one were to remove the word ‘performed’ from the previous sentence the work would have an entirely different meaning and become more complex. However this work is a performance, and ‘to perform’ is ‘to pretend’ or ‘to act’ and therefore performance is fundamentally unauthentic. So although the work may be able to touch upon many discussions around the subject of authenticity and art process, as well as what it means to be an artist in humanity, it is essentially just the unauthentic action of making an unauthentic work of art.

[aion-rsa]

The Universal AMC Deal Could Change Moviegoing

https://ift.tt/3hPMuLD

How quickly corporate adversaries become fast friends. That is at least the outward appearance Universal Pictures and AMC Theatres wished to project in the announcement of their historic agreement to reduce the theatrical window of Universal releases to as little as 17 days.

Under the arrangement revealed Tuesday, films distributed by Universal and Focus Features will play at AMC locations for a 17-day exclusive window, at which point Universal has the option to immediately make such titles available for premium video-on-demand (PVOD), including on AMC Theatres on Demand. However, Universal could just as easily keep films in theaters, including AMC’s, throughout a more traditional theatrical window if the studio deems a film as playing well. But perhaps most significant of all, Universal has agreed to share an undisclosed portion of PVOD revenue with AMC.

This is the kind of news on which industries are made and unmade, and wherein the solution to an immediate problem can potentially solve a longer-term one. Indeed, the agreement is a reaction to the immediate crisis of the coronavirus pandemic, which has left movie theaters, including AMC Theatres, the largest chain in North America, closed for going on five months. After Universal Pictures responded early (and without input from theatrical exhibitors) by putting April’s Trolls World Tour on VOD in lieu of a genuine theatrical release—and suggesting they may consider more VOD day-and-date releases even after the pandemic is behind us—AMC drew a line in the sand, threatening to outright ban future Universal films. This would’ve included major 2021 tentpoles like F9 and Jurassic World: Dominion, and the international exhibition of No Time to Die.

While that threat might’ve partially been bluster, it extracted the kind of solution many exhibitors have wondered for years might be possible: one in which Hollywood studios and exhibitors share in the digital profits of releasing a popular movie on demand. And yet, considering this is just an agreement between one studio and one theater chain, it raises just as many potential problems as it does solutions for the dual existential threats of coronavirus and lagging interest in moviegoing.

So perhaps one of the best ways to consider the fallout from this deal is to look at how it might immediately impact Universal Pictures’ next film, Candyman. The Nia DaCosta written and directed movie, which features Jordan Peele as another credited screenwriter and producer, is one of the last remaining Universal releases slated for 2020 due to COVID-influenced delays. While Universal previously delayed the movie from its original June date, it has almost defiantly kept DaCosta’s reboot of the ‘90s cult classic on its current release date of Oct. 16. (Universal’s Halloween Kills previously held that weekend before delaying to October 2021.)

A week ago another Candyman delay, or even a shift to VOD a la Universal’s The King of Staten Island, looked imminent. Now Candyman potentially having a theatrical bow for 17 days in October appears reasonable given the dire climate facing studios and especially theater owners. Admittedly, much still depends on how severely COVID-19 infection rates spike in the U.S. over the next several months, but if Warner Brothers’ aggressively optimistic Tenet strategy plays out in September, with a global release in European and Asian markets beginning at the end of August and a limited rollout in “select U.S. cities” in September, it could potentially light a way for WB to release Wonder Woman 1984 on its currently slated Oct. 2 release date, just as it gives cover to Disney for keeping its legacy films from the studio formerly known as Fox on the calendar this fall, including The New Mutants and The King’s Man.

If those work out, it gives precedence to Candyman staying the course in October. Yet even if WB decides to delay Wonder Woman 1984 to hopefully safer harbor in 2021, Universal and AMC have created a way to find profits in October from Candyman without completely spurning movie theaters. If Wonder Woman is delayed, Candyman could move to Oct. 2 and have a 17-day run before going to PVOD in time for Halloween. But perhaps more intriguingly, Candyman could play in “select U.S. cities”—which likely includes any state that refuses to close public places like bars and indoor restaurants—for 17 days beginning on Oct. 16. It would then play for three weekends, including Halloween weekend, with the quasi-holiday falling on a Saturday this year.

That means when demand is at its absolute highest for new horror movies among movie lovers, Candyman will be the only game in town, exclusively at movie theaters. For the type of cinephile who feels compelled to go to movie theaters in states where they’re open, like the parishioner who demands to crowd a church pew, Candyman will be the only option… and only in theaters, much to the relief of owners beyond just AMC.

For other potential moviegoers willing to wait until Nov. 2—still a time of high-demand in a pandemic—Candyman will soon be here, just a little after the traditional spooky season. This allows theater owners to profit off the film at its highest seasonal demand, and then in the case of AMC, to continue profiting off it should Universal likely choose to move it to VOD after that third weekend.

Ironically, this type of scenario may not have applied to Candyman in a COVID-free context, even with the new deal. Consider that Universal likely would’ve opted to keep Peele’s own Get Out in theaters as long as financially viable, even under the new theatrical window model, as that film had a long and healthy run in the domestic box office that kept it in the top five highest grossing movies for a month in 2017. Similarly, it is difficult to imagine Universal opting to handicap theatrical revenue for franchises like Fast and Furious or Jurassic World. But during the pandemic, this strategy suddenly becomes a lucrative option that seems potentially more sustainable than WB’s Tenet rollout. By contrast that blockbuster is angling to make most of its money internationally while largely abandoning domestic grosses—potentially for months if Tenet stays in the traditional theatrical window before a domestic home release, all while the film becomes available to pirate online.

Read more

Movies

Tenet’s Release Date Forgets the Lessons of Christopher Nolan’s Interstellar

By David Crow

Movies

What to Expect from the Candyman Reimagining

By David Crow

This is why the decision to share profits should appeal to other studios, particularly right now. It could also appeal to other film exhibitors, yet there is reason to note this will not be an overnight transition for either industry. Indeed, the first shot of the incoming chaos was fired by Cineworld, the company that owns the second largest chain of movie theaters in the world, including 7,155 screens at 542 Regal locations in the U.S.

“We do not see any business sense in the model,” Cineworld CEO Mooky Greidinger told Deadline Wednesday. While there may be some posturing there until Cineworld/Regal can establish its own agreement with Universal, there is the strong possibility they will not. Yet it’s hard to speculate without knowing the details of just how much of the PVOD revenue will be shared with AMC… or how willing one studio is to share PVOD revenue with multiple theater chains.

It is for that reason one might want to wonder what becomes of independent theater owners, or smaller chains like the Alamo Drafthouse, if major chains are squeezing out specific deals with individual studios. And if there could soon be a rush for specific theater chains to set-up deals with specific studios, one could also wonder how much this tiptoes toward the ancient vertical production-exhibition model from Hollywood’s golden age that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down as monopolistic in the 1948 case of United States vs. Paramount Pictures, Inc. One imagines smaller independent theater owners might soon begin talking to their lawyers about just such a scenario.

Nevertheless, by using Candyman as a snapshot of the financial benefits this model could have for Universal and at least AMC Theatres during the height of the coronavirus pandemic, the possibilities of making such arrangements for smaller movies that aren’t going to set the box office on fire, even after the pandemic is a distant, unpleasant memory, are too enticing to ignore. This is a seismic shift inside the industry. There is a legion of problems it creates, including for staggered releases around the world, but the financial benefit might just be a way to save at least some movie theaters during our current crisis, and those yet to come.

The post The Universal AMC Deal Could Change Moviegoing appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3jOyd3P

[mrchalamet-mrstyles]

I learned in the news that Warner Bros. has decided to release “Dune” on HBO Max at the same time as our theatrical release, using prominent images from our movie to promote their streaming service. With this decision AT&T has hijacked one of the most respectable and important studios in film history. There is absolutely no love for cinema, nor for the audience here. It is all about the survival of a telecom mammoth, one that is currently bearing an astronomical debt of more than $150 billion. Therefore, even though “Dune” is about cinema and audiences, AT&T is about its own survival on Wall Street. With HBO Max’s launch a failure thus far, AT&T decided to sacrifice Warner Bros.’ entire 2021 slate in a desperate attempt to grab the audience’s attention.

Warner Bros.’ sudden reversal from being a legacy home for filmmakers to the new era of complete disregard draws a clear line for me. Filmmaking is a collaboration, reliant on the mutual trust of team work and Warner Bros. has declared they are no longer on the same team.

Streaming services are a positive and powerful addition to the movie and TV ecosystems. But I want the audience to understand that streaming alone can’t sustain the film industry as we knew it before COVID. Streaming can produce great content, but not movies of “Dune’s” scope and scale. Warner Bros.’ decision means “Dune” won’t have the chance to perform financially in order to be viable and piracy will ultimately triumph. Warner Bros. might just have killed the “Dune” franchise. This one is for the fans. AT&T’s John Stankey said that the streaming horse left the barn. In truth, the horse left the barn for the slaughterhouse.

Public safety comes first. Nobody argues with that. Which is why when it became apparent the winter would bring a second wave of the pandemic, I understood and supported the decision to delay “Dune’s” opening by almost a year. The plan was that “Dune” would open in theaters in October 2021, when vaccinations will be advanced and, hopefully, the virus behind us. Science tells us that everything should be back to a new normal next fall.

"Dune” is by far the best movie I’ve ever made. My team and I devoted more than three years of our lives to make it a unique big screen experience. Our movie’s image and sound were meticulously designed to be seen in theaters.

I’m speaking on my own behalf, though I stand in solidarity with the sixteen other filmmakers who now face the same fate. Please know I am with you and that together we are strong. The artists are the ones who create movies and series.

I strongly believe the future of cinema will be on the big screen, no matter what any Wall Street dilettante says. Since the dawn of time, humans have deeply needed communal storytelling experiences. Cinema on the big screen is more than a business, it is an art form that brings people together, celebrating humanity, enhancing our empathy for one another — it’s one of the very last artistic, in-person collective experiences we share as human beings.

Once the pandemic is over, theaters will be filled again with film lovers.

That is my strong belief.  Not because the movie industry needs it, but because we humans need cinema, as a collective experience.

So, just as I have both a fiduciary and creative responsibility to fulfill as the filmmaker, I call on AT&T to act swiftly with the same responsibility, respect and regard to protect this vital cultural medium. Economic impact to stakeholders is only one aspect of corporate social responsibility. Finding ways to enhance culture is another. The moviegoing experience is like no other. In those darkened theaters films capture our history, educate us, fuel our imagination and lift and inspire our collective spirit. It is our legacy.

Long live theatrical cinema!

— Denis Villeneuve

[traffmagic-blog]

The Five Pillars of Marketing Success

Does the following give a pretty good picture of your current marketing activity?

You have a website but you're not really pleased with it. You go to networking events once in a while. If someone asks you to give a talk, you're happy to do it. You post on Facebook and/or LinkedIn semi-regularly. When you find the time, you send an article to those on your relatively small email list. You seldom set up meetings with colleagues to explore opportunities.

Now there's nothing wrong with any of those marketing happenings. And usually, they will result in landing some new clients.

But this is not the approach that works to get a steady, predictable stream of new clients.

Please don't tune me out here, thinking, "Well, I really can't do more than this. I'm already overextended thin. If you give me too much to do I'll get stunned."

I agree. It's not that you need to do more marketing, it's that you need to shift your marketing standard from one of "Haphazardness" to one that is "Focused."

Random marketing is just that; it's all over the place. You do a little bit here and a little bit there on an unpredictable basis. You are trying to keep your face, name, and message in front of your eventual clients but the results are unpredictable.

The Random marketing model is not very effective because it doesn't gain a lot of motion. You don't do enough of one marketing activity to grab the courtesy of your prospective clients and move them to take action.

The Focused Marketing Paradigm is very different. It's based on constantly communicating very directly to your target market with a very definite end in mind. It gets the attention of your prospective clients and they ultimately take action.

The Focused Marketing Paradigm has Five Pillars

Understand and implement these five pillars and I promise you'll see a shift in your marketing results.

Pillar One: Focused Goals

A Random goal is saying something like, "I'd like to fascinate a few more clients to my business." Not very convincing is it?

A Focused goal is much more specific. "My goal is to land 3 new clients in the high-tech plastics business in the Houston area with an average project size of $30,000 each by the end of the year."

The more detail, complexity, and specificity about the goal, the better. You've really thought through what you want to realize and also have confidence that you could deliver if you did reach your goal. It's so real to you that you can taste it.

What is the Focused Goal for your marketing?

Pillar Two: Focused Program or Service

Random programs or services are comprehensive consulting, coaching or training programs. "I offer management consulting and training to establishments." Kind of vague, right? But this is what I hear all the time.

A Focused Program or Service is more tangible. "I offer the high-tech plastics industry Management Hastening Programs for initial leaders in the industry."

In my business, I've always offered programs: The Marketing Mastery Program, the Marketing Action Group, and the More Clients Club. And each program has very specific parameters, deliverables, and objectives. It sure makes imperceptible services easier to market and sell.

What is the Focused Program or Service you're offering?

Pillar Three: Focused Target Market

In the above example, the target was the "high-tech plastics industry." But it's more common to hear things like, "I work with large companies who want to rise productivity." This is too general and it makes it hard for clients to know if you understand them and can help them.

A Focused target market is where you are categorically clear what kinds of people or companies can most benefit from your expertise. And then you articulate that clearly.

I worked with a financial planning company last year that targeted middle class families in the Buffalo New York area. Guess who they attracted to their practice? When people read about who they worked with on their website, they said, "That's Us!" and called them.

Who exactly is your Focused Target Market?

Pillar Four: Focused Message and Value Proposition

A Random message or value plan tends to be too general and can be hard to pin down. It avoids making a promise that is meaningful to the prospective client.

Messages such as, "We offer the best service in the industry," or "Smart insights into great management," are meaningless to your prospective clients. The value is not approximately obvious.

A Focused message or value proposition zeros in on exactly what your clients get and what it means to them. I admit that this can be the marketing pillar that is hardest to pin down. Eventually you have to test a number of different things.

For the re-launch of the More Clients Club, my current value proposition is: "Everything Self-Employed Professionals Need in One Place to Attract More Clients." And now, of course, I'm bending over backward to deliver on that promise.

And a marketing message or value proposition is much more than a sound bite. Your message must permeate every aspect of your marketing, from your website to the emails you send out. Your prospects need to be persistently reminded of the value you offer.

What is your Focused Message or Value Proposition?

Pillar Five: Focused Marketing Strategy

A Random marketing strategy is much like the collection of marketing activities I outlined at the top of the article. You're just all over the place, throwing something at the wall, hoping it will stick, with no organized system or plan.

A Focused marketing strategy is more like a putting on a theatrical production. You have the script, the actors, rehearsals, and opening night, all performed on a strict timeline.

Two examples:

For my Marketing Mastery Program, I held a series of introductory teleconferences, invited those interested to apply for the program, interviewed each applicant, and then converted 50% into participants. Over a 6-week period, I filled my business for a full year - four years in a row.

A career coach in one of my programs recently filled her practice in three months with a focused campaign of personalized emails designed to get appointments with her ideal clients. Then she converted a large percentage into paying clients.

That's the power of a focused marketing strategy.

You need to classify the right marketing strategy for your business, but even more important is the way you organize and appliance the strategy.

Developing a focused strategy is the most complex and challenging of the Five Pillars. You can't just put together something haphazardly and hope you get the equivalent of a professional Shakespearean production.

What is your Focused Marketing Strategy?

If you work to build a focused plan with these five solid pillars, your marketing will work better and faster, fascinating more of your ideal clients, usually at a higher rate.

I recommend you work on one pillar at a time. Write them out and fine-tune them until you feel self-assured and excited about them. Yes, you will need to do some research and study to make sure your plan is viable. But this is certainly better than spinning your wheels with a random strategy that is going nowhere.

We are team of successful internet marketers who have experience of almost 5 years in the relevant field. Having a lot of satisfied clients. We offer SEO, Email Marketing and PPC Advertising.

[theinvinciblenoob]

Matthew Carpenter-Arévalo Contributor

Share on Twitter

Matthew Carpenter-Arévalo is a former Google and Twitter manager and current CEO of Céntrico Digital, a Latin American-based digital agency.

More posts by this contributor

Desperate for jobs, Venezuelan immigrants turn to ride-hailing services across Latin America

Eduardo Gomez started with Bitcoin in 2012, though he didn’t quite understand what he was getting himself into nor how it would change his life.

Back in his home country of Venezuela, the struggling computer science student signed up to manually process thousands of captchas at a time, and he received Bitcoin in return. Little by little, Eduardo became intrigued. He saw bitrapreneurs pop-up all around him as savvy hackers set up mining operations that took advantage of the country’s subsidized though irregular electricity. He started reading more, writing more, and pretty soon he became a recognized authority on all things crypto.

Eventually he would be hired by a company that allows people to purchase things on Amazon using Bitcoin. When Venezuela became unlivable, Eduardo’s company helped him and his support team relocate to Argentina. In a moment of euphoria, Eduardo wrote:

Though Venezuela crumbled around him, Eduardo found a way to opt-out of his government’s mass-imposed misery. He still worries about his family and friends, but he’s grateful to have had a choice. Unlike the Silicon Valley-based techno-libertarians and utopians who claim Bitcoin will save us from inevitable tyrannical government meddling, Eduardo feels Bitcoin actually did save him from tyrannical government meddling. He believes it can do the same for other Latin Americans, as well.

Since its triumphant arrival to mainstream polite conversation, Bitcoin and its underlying technology blockchain have promised to revolutionize everything from commerce to voting.

While blockchain appears to be fulfilling its promise, many wonder if Bitcoin will ever get around to acting as a viable currency rather than just a store of value or speculative asset.

While Bitcoin can be credited with spawning a new industry of cryptocurrency, in 2018 we still seem to be a ways away from purchasing ice cream or hourly parking with Bitcoin — or any other cryptocurrency for that matter.  

If Bitcoin is to become a viable means of exchange, Latin America would appear to be the currency’s first point of entry on its journey toward ubiquity. Indeed, the region’s long history of economic mismanagement makes Bitcoin adoption as much a necessity as a luxury.  

For example, when you arrive at Simon Bolivar International Airport in Caracas you’ll see an official exchange rate listed above the currency exchange kiosks, and you might be tempted to cash-in your U.S. dollars for whatever the local currency happens to be that month.

Maybe even before you leave the airport someone, possibly a taxi driver, will approach you and offer a completely different and far more beneficial exchange rate. Though the government purports to control the exchange rate across the country of 30 million people, it struggles to control the exchange rate inside the airport.

If you’re dining in Buenos Aires and you offer to pay in U.S. dollars, you’ll be happy to know you’ll receive a favorable exchange rate for your Benjamins. However, once you pull a bill from your pocket, you may find yourself in a seemingly nonsensical discussion with the waiter about the quality of the bill and how the slightly bent edges means a lower rate than the one initially offered.

Finally, if you arrive in Quito, Ecuador as a tourist, you’ll be delighted to see that the country has no currency of its own in circulation: the country has used the greenback since a financial crisis in 1999 destroyed the banking system and the country’s currency. In an act of desperation, the country switched to the U.S. dollar.  

Your glee may turn to discomfort after you ask a taxi driver to break a $20 bill and you’ll see him fidget nervously and probably ask you for exact change. Few things are harder in the Andean capital than breaking a $20. Never having the right mix of bills is one of the downsides of not controlling your own money supply.

For your average tourist, these encounters are befuddling. To economists, these incidents are both sad and bemusing: all of the worst-case currency management scenarios first-year economics students study in textbooks seem to come to life in the countries that are fed by the Amazon river and its tributaries — like a twisted Narnia for economists.

To the local populations of the aforementioned countries, managing currencies has turned common people into artisanal forex traders. While annoying, volatile currencies have been around for as long as anyone can remember, and people adjust their behavior in order to survive. If you want to buy an apartment in Buenos Aires, for example, you’ll be expected to arrive with the payment in U.S. dollars in cash. Best to invest in a good briefcase.

Unequal access to technology often means unequal access to the benefits of technology.

As crypto enters its peak or its decent, depending on who you ask, Latin America offers the perfect testing ground for the technology’s practical application. Specifically, Argentines and Venezuelans would appear to be the test group for the use of crypto currencies as an alternative to unstable and unreliable national currencies.

In a parallel world, both Argentina and Venezuela would be the region’s richest countries, were it not for their leaders’ penchants for mismanagement and corruption. With oil reserves greater than those of Saudi Arabia, Venezuela should be thriving. Instead, its experiment with socialism has resulted in more than two million people leaving the country, a wrecked economy and a humanitarian crisis that threatens regional stability.  

Argentina’s current crisis is far more complex, and yet also more predictable due to the country’s history of boom and bust.

Despite the initial optimism voiced by foreign investors when a right-leaning pro-market government came to power in 2017, such optimism has not been reflected in support for the peso.

The peso has suffered due to, amongst other factors, a strengthening dollar, dwindling foreign currency reserves and investor mistrust. Inflation caused by past policies of over-printing money to service local debt combined with the current government’s elimination of energy subsidies means that Argentines can’t be sure on Monday what their money will be worth on Friday.

The theatrics of Argentina’s politics also doesn’t inspire confidence, and breaking news can often send the peso on nosedives. Stories of corruption unfold like Emmy-winning soap operas.  

For example, the recently discovered notebooks of a government chofer reveal that businesses close to the current president are alleged to have paid bribes to its bitter rivals from the previous government. Regardless of their ideological differences, Latin America’s political class is often united in its penchant for corruption.

The cyclical nature of Argentina’s currency crisis is what gives some hope that the country can become the first to develop a thriving national Bitcoin market. Already a hotbed for blockchain-based companies such as Ripio, Buenos Aires has a higher percentage of businesses that accept Bitcoin than New York. By the end of 2018, Argentina will have more than 100 Bitcoin ATMs, a number expected to increase to 1,600 by the end of 2019.

For Agustina Fainguersch, an Argentine entrepreneur who helps companies, including many in Latin America as managing partner at Wolox, manage digital transformation through the adoption of technologies such as the blockchain, Bitcoin is a practical solution for the average Argentine just trying to make ends meet.

“In Argentina, we exchange pesos into dollars and then back again within the span of a week,” she says. Given that the peso has lost 50 percent of its value against the dollar since the beginning of 2018, most are changing money for the purpose of short-term survival rather than long-term savings. “Many Argentines are often just trying to make sure they have enough money to cover basic expenses.”

According to Fainguersch, the advantage Bitcoin has over other currencies is its increasingly availability, and as such acts as an alternative to the U.S. dollar. Fainguersch has seen how, over the span of a few years, more and more Argentines can access the cryptocurrency and easily exchange pesos. “So long as it’s less volatile than the peso, it’s attractive. Argentine’s have a long history of navigating volatility,” notes Fainguersch.

That volatility, however, is also a risk that places Bitcoin at a disadvantage when compared to the U.S. dollar. Also widely available, the dollar is relatively stable and relatively easy to exchange, though not without burdens and risks, such as falsified bills, hence the extra-value placed on crisp bills.

The future of Bitcoin will depend on which narratives become the meta-narratives.

For Matías Bianchi, the Argentine political scientist and founder of the regional think-tank Asuntos del Sur, the demand for Bitcoin in Argentina follows a familiar pattern: Like much technology that promises to democratize access to something, the benefits of said technology most likely end up helping a wealthy few at the expense of the increasingly hard-luck masses.

In the case of Bitcoin, Bianchi opines that its adoption in Argentina is driven in large part by a wealthy class that has always looked for ways to subvert the country’s institutions to protect its wealth and to benefit from speculative financial activities. “Bitcoin allows the elites to opt-out of the poor decisions made by the government they help install.” After all, unequal access to technology often means unequal access to the benefits of technology.

For Bianchi, talk of an alternative to the national currency is elitist hogwash. Even if a larger and larger percentage of Argentines use Bitcoin, Bianchi argues, 100 percent of Argentines still need to use pesos. As such, opting out of the peso is a luxury for some but not for a viable solution for all. In Bianchi’s view of the world, Bitcoin is more like a modern-day offshore account that removes wealth from the economy and shifts the burden of bad government to the poor. It’s like a Cayman Islands account on your phone, and in countries where corruption is rife and stability is rare, such technology is bound to thrive.

For Venezuelans arriving in Argentina like the aforementioned Eduardo Gomez, their new country’s currency woes are not unfamiliar. As previously mentioned, Eduardo was a student in Venezuela when he first discovered Bitcoin. As the bottom fell out of the Venezuelan economy, Bitcoin mining became a popular activity in a country where everything is subsidized, including energy. Eventually the government caught on and cracked down, but not before a nascent Bitcoin community took form.

Undemocratic Socialist governments tend to replace economic elites with elites who are connected to the sources of power, and, according to Gomez, people with connections in the government eventually took over the Bitcoin mining space. Venezuela even launched its own cryptocurrency, the Petro, whose value is tied to oil production. The Petro has been met with skepticism from both crypto-enthusiasts as well as average Venezuelans who have long lost faith that the government responsible for their problems is capable of solving them.

As previously mentioned, Venezuelans have been leaving their country en masse to escape the entirely man-made crisis that has engulfed their country, and more than 130,000 have settled in Argentina. Gomez sees the parallels between Argentina’s current predicament and the one he left behind in Venezuela, though he feels Argentina’s crisis is tame compared to the complete social breakdown suffered in Venezuela.  

Compared to Venezuela, trading Bitcoin in Argentina is much easier: users in both countries use LocalBitCoin.bom to connect with buyers and sellers to facilitate converting money to and from local currencies. The process is somewhat archaic and not without risks. Unlike in Venezuela, in Argentina many money exchangers also offer Bitcoin exchange services. Whereas in Venezuela buyers and sellers run the risk of the government discovering their Bitcoin activities and blocking their bank accounts, in Argentina the government is more concerned about individuals not declaring their income or capital gains.

Both Argentina and Venezuela have offered the ideal conditions for the development of national Bitcoin communities, including the two key ingredients: subsidized energy and unstable national currencies.

As a result, both countries have benefited from the emergence of developer communities focused both on cryptocurrencies as well as blockchain-enabled technologies. Nonetheless, neither country is likely to fulfill the Bitcoin fantasy of replacing their national currencies, nor even overtaking the greenback as an alternative to unstable national currencies.

Bitcoin’s ultimate use cases are more likely to appear along the lines of existing power structures. Wealthy people in Argentina will use Bitcoin to hide their money. Corrupt Venezuelan officials will find a way to enrich themselves at the cost of the struggling masses. Having said that, if Bitcoin becomes as stable as the U.S. greenback, its use as a store of value will continue to increase.

Other innovations will also emerge: as Gomez points point, the launch of Coinbase’s USD coin, a cryptocurrency pegged to the U.S. dollar, could make it a lot easier for people to move money between dollars, pesos and bitcoins without the need to carry physical cash. One of Argentina’s leading Bitcoin thinkers, Santiago Siri, has proposed to the country’s Central Bank that it hold 1 percent of its foreign currency reserves in cryptocurrency. Though the plan is unlikely to succeed, Argentina’s desperate circumstances has opened the door for out-of-the-box thinking.

Is it easier for technology to co-opt power than it is for power to co-opt technology?

The emergence of Bitcoin as an alternative to the U.S. dollar will not reduce the need for sound monetary policy, nor will the stability promised by the U.S. dollar become less attractive for the average Argentine or Venezuelan looking to make ends meet rather than speculate away their savings. In either case, Bitcoin does not replace the need for sound institutions.

Of course, if President Trump is successful in gaining control of the U.S. Federal Reserve in order to begin manipulating monetary policy to benefit his short-term political agenda, the U.S. dollar could lose its attractiveness. So far, however, U.S. institutions appear to be fairly resilient in the face of the type of intrusive leadership Latin Americans know all too well.

Though its proponents will continue to tout Bitcoin’s superiority vis-à-vis fiat currencies, Bitcoin’s ultimate challenge is that it is hard to understand and will therefore be defined by stories we tell about it. In other words, the future of Bitcoin will depend on which narratives become the meta-narratives: will Bitcoin be defined by the Eduardo Gomez stories of individuals who escape systems of tyranny thanks to Bitcoin, or the corrupt government officials who receive bribes in their anonymous crypto-wallet, or the drug traffickers who evades detection by shifting from U.S. dollar payments to crypto?

Over 50 years ago Marshall McLuhan wrote, “the new media and technologies by which we amplify and extend ourselves constitute a huge collective surgery carried out on the social body with complete disregard for antiseptics.” Bitcoin is the perfect example of a surgery we are undertaking on the body politic without necessarily understanding the far-reaching consequences. We have to consider that making policy decisions based on the currency’s theoretical promise may not result in a better world.

At the same time, we should also be open to re-thinking how the world operates for the sake of empowering people through technology. The challenge for democratizing technologies is that they must take on and overcome existing power structures. In Latin America institutions are often weak, which is part of the reason why Bitcoin can flourish there: the poison and the antidote spring from the same well. That doesn’t mean, however, that there aren’t powerful and resilient interests filling the voids left by those floundering institutions.

Ultimately the question for Bitcoin in Latin America and elsewhere in the world is following: Is it easier for technology to co-opt power than it is for power to co-opt technology? Argentina and Venezuela are putting that question to the test. The world watches.

via TechCrunch

[fmservers]

Can Bitcoin find its practical use case as a currency in Latin America?

Matthew Carpenter-Arévalo Contributor

Share on Twitter

Matthew Carpenter-Arévalo is a former Google and Twitter manager and current CEO of Céntrico Digital, a Latin American-based digital agency.

More posts by this contributor

Desperate for jobs, Venezuelan immigrants turn to ride-hailing services across Latin America

Eduardo Gomez started with Bitcoin in 2012, though he didn’t quite understand what he was getting himself into nor how it would change his life.

Back in his home country of Venezuela, the struggling computer science student signed up to manually process thousands of captchas at a time, and he received Bitcoin in return. Little by little, Eduardo became intrigued. He saw bitrapreneurs pop-up all around him as savvy hackers set up mining operations that took advantage of the country’s subsidized though irregular electricity. He started reading more, writing more, and pretty soon he became a recognized authority on all things crypto.

Eventually he would be hired by a company that allows people to purchase things on Amazon using Bitcoin. When Venezuela became unlivable, Eduardo’s company helped him and his support team relocate to Argentina. In a moment of euphoria, Eduardo wrote:

Though Venezuela crumbled around him, Eduardo found a way to opt-out of his government’s mass-imposed misery. He still worries about his family and friends, but he’s grateful to have had a choice. Unlike the Silicon Valley-based techno-libertarians and utopians who claim Bitcoin will save us from inevitable tyrannical government meddling, Eduardo feels Bitcoin actually did save him from tyrannical government meddling. He believes it can do the same for other Latin Americans, as well.

Since its triumphant arrival to mainstream polite conversation, Bitcoin and its underlying technology blockchain have promised to revolutionize everything from commerce to voting.

While blockchain appears to be fulfilling its promise, many wonder if Bitcoin will ever get around to acting as a viable currency rather than just a store of value or speculative asset.

While Bitcoin can be credited with spawning a new industry of cryptocurrency, in 2018 we still seem to be a ways away from purchasing ice cream or hourly parking with Bitcoin — or any other cryptocurrency for that matter.  

If Bitcoin is to become a viable means of exchange, Latin America would appear to be the currency’s first point of entry on its journey toward ubiquity. Indeed, the region’s long history of economic mismanagement makes Bitcoin adoption as much a necessity as a luxury.  

For example, when you arrive at Simon Bolivar International Airport in Caracas you’ll see an official exchange rate listed above the currency exchange kiosks, and you might be tempted to cash-in your U.S. dollars for whatever the local currency happens to be that month.

Maybe even before you leave the airport someone, possibly a taxi driver, will approach you and offer a completely different and far more beneficial exchange rate. Though the government purports to control the exchange rate across the country of 30 million people, it struggles to control the exchange rate inside the airport.

If you’re dining in Buenos Aires and you offer to pay in U.S. dollars, you’ll be happy to know you’ll receive a favorable exchange rate for your Benjamins. However, once you pull a bill from your pocket, you may find yourself in a seemingly nonsensical discussion with the waiter about the quality of the bill and how the slightly bent edges means a lower rate than the one initially offered.

Finally, if you arrive in Quito, Ecuador as a tourist, you’ll be delighted to see that the country has no currency of its own in circulation: the country has used the greenback since a financial crisis in 1999 destroyed the banking system and the country’s currency. In an act of desperation, the country switched to the U.S. dollar.  

Your glee may turn to discomfort after you ask a taxi driver to break a $20 bill and you’ll see him fidget nervously and probably ask you for exact change. Few things are harder in the Andean capital than breaking a $20. Never having the right mix of bills is one of the downsides of not controlling your own money supply.

For your average tourist, these encounters are befuddling. To economists, these incidents are both sad and bemusing: all of the worst-case currency management scenarios first-year economics students study in textbooks seem to come to life in the countries that are fed by the Amazon river and its tributaries — like a twisted Narnia for economists.

To the local populations of the aforementioned countries, managing currencies has turned common people into artisanal forex traders. While annoying, volatile currencies have been around for as long as anyone can remember, and people adjust their behavior in order to survive. If you want to buy an apartment in Buenos Aires, for example, you’ll be expected to arrive with the payment in U.S. dollars in cash. Best to invest in a good briefcase.

Unequal access to technology often means unequal access to the benefits of technology.

As crypto enters its peak or its decent, depending on who you ask, Latin America offers the perfect testing ground for the technology’s practical application. Specifically, Argentines and Venezuelans would appear to be the test group for the use of crypto currencies as an alternative to unstable and unreliable national currencies.

In a parallel world, both Argentina and Venezuela would be the region’s richest countries, were it not for their leaders’ penchants for mismanagement and corruption. With oil reserves greater than those of Saudi Arabia, Venezuela should be thriving. Instead, its experiment with socialism has resulted in more than two million people leaving the country, a wrecked economy and a humanitarian crisis that threatens regional stability.  

Argentina’s current crisis is far more complex, and yet also more predictable due to the country’s history of boom and bust.

Despite the initial optimism voiced by foreign investors when a right-leaning pro-market government came to power in 2017, such optimism has not been reflected in support for the peso.

The peso has suffered due to, amongst other factors, a strengthening dollar, dwindling foreign currency reserves and investor mistrust. Inflation caused by past policies of over-printing money to service local debt combined with the current government’s elimination of energy subsidies means that Argentines can’t be sure on Monday what their money will be worth on Friday.

The theatrics of Argentina’s politics also doesn’t inspire confidence, and breaking news can often send the peso on nosedives. Stories of corruption unfold like Emmy-winning soap operas.  

For example, the recently discovered notebooks of a government chofer reveal that businesses close to the current president are alleged to have paid bribes to its bitter rivals from the previous government. Regardless of their ideological differences, Latin America’s political class is often united in its penchant for corruption.

The cyclical nature of Argentina’s currency crisis is what gives some hope that the country can become the first to develop a thriving national Bitcoin market. Already a hotbed for blockchain-based companies such as Ripio, Buenos Aires has a higher percentage of businesses that accept Bitcoin than New York. By the end of 2018, Argentina will have more than 100 Bitcoin ATMs, a number expected to increase to 1,600 by the end of 2019.

For Agustina Fainguersch, an Argentine entrepreneur who helps companies, including many in Latin America as managing partner at Wolox, manage digital transformation through the adoption of technologies such as the blockchain, Bitcoin is a practical solution for the average Argentine just trying to make ends meet.

“In Argentina, we exchange pesos into dollars and then back again within the span of a week,” she says. Given that the peso has lost 50 percent of its value against the dollar since the beginning of 2018, most are changing money for the purpose of short-term survival rather than long-term savings. “Many Argentines are often just trying to make sure they have enough money to cover basic expenses.”

According to Fainguersch, the advantage Bitcoin has over other currencies is its increasingly availability, and as such acts as an alternative to the U.S. dollar. Fainguersch has seen how, over the span of a few years, more and more Argentines can access the cryptocurrency and easily exchange pesos. “So long as it’s less volatile than the peso, it’s attractive. Argentine’s have a long history of navigating volatility,” notes Fainguersch.

That volatility, however, is also a risk that places Bitcoin at a disadvantage when compared to the U.S. dollar. Also widely available, the dollar is relatively stable and relatively easy to exchange, though not without burdens and risks, such as falsified bills, hence the extra-value placed on crisp bills.

The future of Bitcoin will depend on which narratives become the meta-narratives.

For Matías Bianchi, the Argentine political scientist and founder of the regional think-tank Asuntos del Sur, the demand for Bitcoin in Argentina follows a familiar pattern: Like much technology that promises to democratize access to something, the benefits of said technology most likely end up helping a wealthy few at the expense of the increasingly hard-luck masses.

In the case of Bitcoin, Bianchi opines that its adoption in Argentina is driven in large part by a wealthy class that has always looked for ways to subvert the country’s institutions to protect its wealth and to benefit from speculative financial activities. “Bitcoin allows the elites to opt-out of the poor decisions made by the government they help install.” After all, unequal access to technology often means unequal access to the benefits of technology.

For Bianchi, talk of an alternative to the national currency is elitist hogwash. Even if a larger and larger percentage of Argentines use Bitcoin, Bianchi argues, 100 percent of Argentines still need to use pesos. As such, opting out of the peso is a luxury for some but not for a viable solution for all. In Bianchi’s view of the world, Bitcoin is more like a modern-day offshore account that removes wealth from the economy and shifts the burden of bad government to the poor. It’s like a Cayman Islands account on your phone, and in countries where corruption is rife and stability is rare, such technology is bound to thrive.

For Venezuelans arriving in Argentina like the aforementioned Eduardo Gomez, their new country’s currency woes are not unfamiliar. As previously mentioned, Eduardo was a student in Venezuela when he first discovered Bitcoin. As the bottom fell out of the Venezuelan economy, Bitcoin mining became a popular activity in a country where everything is subsidized, including energy. Eventually the government caught on and cracked down, but not before a nascent Bitcoin community took form.

Undemocratic Socialist governments tend to replace economic elites with elites who are connected to the sources of power, and, according to Gomez, people with connections in the government eventually took over the Bitcoin mining space. Venezuela even launched its own cryptocurrency, the Petro, whose value is tied to oil production. The Petro has been met with skepticism from both crypto-enthusiasts as well as average Venezuelans who have long lost faith that the government responsible for their problems is capable of solving them.

As previously mentioned, Venezuelans have been leaving their country en masse to escape the entirely man-made crisis that has engulfed their country, and more than 130,000 have settled in Argentina. Gomez sees the parallels between Argentina’s current predicament and the one he left behind in Venezuela, though he feels Argentina’s crisis is tame compared to the complete social breakdown suffered in Venezuela.  

Compared to Venezuela, trading Bitcoin in Argentina is much easier: users in both countries use LocalBitCoin.bom to connect with buyers and sellers to facilitate converting money to and from local currencies. The process is somewhat archaic and not without risks. Unlike in Venezuela, in Argentina many money exchangers also offer Bitcoin exchange services. Whereas in Venezuela buyers and sellers run the risk of the government discovering their Bitcoin activities and blocking their bank accounts, in Argentina the government is more concerned about individuals not declaring their income or capital gains.

Both Argentina and Venezuela have offered the ideal conditions for the development of national Bitcoin communities, including the two key ingredients: subsidized energy and unstable national currencies.

As a result, both countries have benefited from the emergence of developer communities focused both on cryptocurrencies as well as blockchain-enabled technologies. Nonetheless, neither country is likely to fulfill the Bitcoin fantasy of replacing their national currencies, nor even overtaking the greenback as an alternative to unstable national currencies.

Bitcoin’s ultimate use cases are more likely to appear along the lines of existing power structures. Wealthy people in Argentina will use Bitcoin to hide their money. Corrupt Venezuelan officials will find a way to enrich themselves at the cost of the struggling masses. Having said that, if Bitcoin becomes as stable as the U.S. greenback, its use as a store of value will continue to increase.

Other innovations will also emerge: as Gomez points point, the launch of Coinbase’s USD coin, a cryptocurrency pegged to the U.S. dollar, could make it a lot easier for people to move money between dollars, pesos and bitcoins without the need to carry physical cash. One of Argentina’s leading Bitcoin thinkers, Santiago Siri, has proposed to the country’s Central Bank that it hold 1 percent of its foreign currency reserves in cryptocurrency. Though the plan is unlikely to succeed, Argentina’s desperate circumstances has opened the door for out-of-the-box thinking.

Is it easier for technology to co-opt power than it is for power to co-opt technology?

The emergence of Bitcoin as an alternative to the U.S. dollar will not reduce the need for sound monetary policy, nor will the stability promised by the U.S. dollar become less attractive for the average Argentine or Venezuelan looking to make ends meet rather than speculate away their savings. In either case, Bitcoin does not replace the need for sound institutions.

Of course, if President Trump is successful in gaining control of the U.S. Federal Reserve in order to begin manipulating monetary policy to benefit his short-term political agenda, the U.S. dollar could lose its attractiveness. So far, however, U.S. institutions appear to be fairly resilient in the face of the type of intrusive leadership Latin Americans know all too well.

Though its proponents will continue to tout Bitcoin’s superiority vis-à-vis fiat currencies, Bitcoin’s ultimate challenge is that it is hard to understand and will therefore be defined by stories we tell about it. In other words, the future of Bitcoin will depend on which narratives become the meta-narratives: will Bitcoin be defined by the Eduardo Gomez stories of individuals who escape systems of tyranny thanks to Bitcoin, or the corrupt government officials who receive bribes in their anonymous crypto-wallet, or the drug traffickers who evades detection by shifting from U.S. dollar payments to crypto?

Over 50 years ago Marshall McLuhan wrote, “the new media and technologies by which we amplify and extend ourselves constitute a huge collective surgery carried out on the social body with complete disregard for antiseptics.” Bitcoin is the perfect example of a surgery we are undertaking on the body politic without necessarily understanding the far-reaching consequences. We have to consider that making policy decisions based on the currency’s theoretical promise may not result in a better world.

At the same time, we should also be open to re-thinking how the world operates for the sake of empowering people through technology. The challenge for democratizing technologies is that they must take on and overcome existing power structures. In Latin America institutions are often weak, which is part of the reason why Bitcoin can flourish there: the poison and the antidote spring from the same well. That doesn’t mean, however, that there aren’t powerful and resilient interests filling the voids left by those floundering institutions.

Ultimately the question for Bitcoin in Latin America and elsewhere in the world is following: Is it easier for technology to co-opt power than it is for power to co-opt technology? Argentina and Venezuela are putting that question to the test. The world watches.

Via David Riggs https://techcrunch.com

[bermansplaining]

How Wonder Woman Reminds Us How "Super" a Superhero Film Can Be

Ever since the Marvel Industrial Complex started pumping out a hundred superhero films a year for the past decade, it's become harder and harder with each one to care about the ever growing pantheon of characters. While every once in awhile we get a Guardians of the Galaxy or a Captain America: The Winter Soldier, we have to trudge through a lot more mediocre films than I’d prefer to, just to get something that’s actually good. So when something does come out that I enjoy, I feel it's worth promoting to others so we can all share in the experience. Wonder Woman is definitely one of those good movies.

What strikes me most about Wonder Woman is that there were a lot of things stacked up against it. First off, DC has had a rough streak ever since they decided to play catch-up to Marvel and run with Zack Snyder’s continuity. Although Snyder has a fantastic eye for aesthetics, his failure to tie scenes together and put together a watchable theatrical cut really put a damper on what could have been a fantastic few movies. Luckily for Snyder, none of his films were box office failures, actually quite the contrary, thus giving DC enough funding to carry on to make a Justice League film. A Justice League film means we need backstories for the heroes, thus the Wonder Woman film. Another aspect that could’ve messed with the films success was the relative lack of experience its director, Patty Jenkins had in terms of blockbusters. Jenkins’ claim to fame was a low-budget indie flick, and since then hasn’t done much on the big screen. To jump from that to a multi hundred million dollar budget blockbuster with an all star cast and pull if off? Kudos to Jenkins. The final hurdle I saw this film having to overcome was making people care about this character. While not impossible, (Guardians has made us fall in love with a talking tree and a racoon) Wonder Woman just wasn’t in the cultural lexicon as deeply as someone like Batman or Captain America was to draw attention and fill theatres. Luckily, great marketing, a fantastic cast, and most importantly, universally positive word-of-mouth helped give this movie the push it took to make it financially viable.

Moving on from the hurdles this film had to overcome*, I wanna talk about all the things this film does right, and trust me, there’s a lot of them. Right off the bat I wanna say that I think this is one of the few movies in modern times that gets both female empowerment and tonal consistency right. While I could write a whole other blog about how I think this a perfect example of a feminist film, my brief summary of what elevates this movie above others is that Wonder Woman is constructive, while other so called “feminist films” are destructive. What made 2016’s Ghostbusters such a blunder was that its male director doubled down on spite and venom, forcing all-female leads, a dumb “him-bo”, and a broken, sexist script down our throats, telling us to accept it as art and the new norm or else we were all sexists. This was not the way to handle this, and the poor box office and negative legacy of the film reflected that. Wonder Woman meanwhile does such subtle yet obvious things, that just nail what it's going for. Chris Pine’s character in the film, British spy Steve Trevor, manages to totally retain his masculinity and dignity, while still clearly being the sidekick to the physically superior Diana. The film also comedically picks out negative aspects of the world’s more sexist past, questioning things as simple to dancing and clothing, to things as complex as love itself. By having our main character Diana be an outsider, we are able to view our world through an innocent, pure, and objectively good lens, allowing positive and constructive attempts at social progression, and not aggressive and negative ones. I’m avoiding spoilers, but there’s a scene where Diana’s new found human teammates physically boost her to take out an enemy, and as she does this, Steve watches her in awe. There are other moments in the film where Steve marvels at Diana, with a look that signifies not only mutual respect, but pure love as well.

Speaking of love, something this film also nails is its ability to allow Diana to retain her femininity, like running off to see a baby or taking a second to enjoy ice cream for the first time, while also being the strongest, coolest, and most morally correct character in the room. Diana, played by the lovely Gal Gadot, isn’t sexualized like every other female superhero. Something Marvel suffers from is its need to immediately pair off every single female character they have with a male partner. Think about it. Meanwhile, yes, Wonder Woman talks about love, romance, and dating, but it's done in a way more innocent and empowering way, partly due to the fact that it's clear that Diana is truly the one in power in any situation. It can’t be understated how refreshing it felt having walked out of a blockbuster, and being genuinely happy with the way every character was treated.

A final big thing this film handled well was its ability to pace. Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice suffered from this immensely, feeling like once unconnected and boring scene after the other, until we got to the poorly justified conclusion. Wonder Woman meanwhile perfectly hits narrative beats that land so well, I was actually in tears or in laughing fits through a solid portion of it. The action scales and feels justified, so although the beginning, middle, and end of the film are in totally different places and at totally different levels of risk and stake, as a viewer you never feel taken out of the film. That right there is called good filmmaking. 

I could go on forever about how much I love this movie. I think that it's not only an empowering and well made blockbuster, I think it can be a teaching tool for films that come after it. If future movies follow in the path of positive feminism and non-sexual female empowerment, I can get behind it hands down. Do yourself the favor of watching this movie in theaters as soon as you can, you won’t want to miss this. If you’ve already seen it, go watch it again. I know I will.

                                    Recommend: Of course.

                                           Rating: 9.5/10

                Theater or Digital: Multiple Theater Viewings

   Let me know below how you all end up liking the movie, and how you guys like this review content. I’ll be doing this every time I see a new film in theaters, and maybe even going back to review some of my favorites I think people should check out.

  *A political hurdle that is worth mentioning is that Wonder Woman has been banned in Lebanon due to lead actress Gal Gadot being an Israeli who has served in the IDF. While Lebanon doesn’t make up a significant chunk of the box office, this example of anti-semitism in 2017 is worth pointing out to those unaware.