EARLY DAYS PRODUCTIONS
Mr. Kotter and his sweathogs are being held hostage. Fantasy Island is shut down til further notice. The Love boat is no longer authorized to leave the dock. What is this some kind of sinister plot? What diabolical forces are at work here? Is this the end of civilization as we know it? Well, OK, maybe it's not quite that serious, but how many of us have been frustrated when our favorite TV shows have had one or two seasons released to dvd only to find out later that because the sales did not meet original expectations the rest of the seasons would not be released? Is it truly fair to punish the die hard fans just because there wasn't as many of them as you thought? On top of that, fans are threatened with legal action if they dare share their personal copies of unreleased shows.
While we understand that studios should be paid for their property it is kind of difficult when they refuse to make it available to the public that is interested in it. Is it really that difficult to come up with a mutually benificial solution to this problem? We realize that it would not be cost efficient to produce 10,000's of a product that will only sell 1000's, but what about offering them as downloads or dvds on demand? This would keep the cost to the producer at a small minimum while allowing for a larger profit, at the same time appeasing the fans of these great shows. The producer could offer as much or as little extra content as they want while giving the fans access to the entertainment they desire.
While it is true there will be some disatisfied with anything short of a fully produced, slickly packaged dvd box set, most will be more than happy just to get a solid copy of their beloved show. The price could even be more competitive because of the lack of extra packaging. The point is, it's time to look for alternative ways to market these shows to their loyal, intended audiences instead of holding them hostage.
While we understand that studios should be paid for their property it is kind of difficult when they refuse to make it available to the public that is interested in it. Is it really that difficult to come up with a mutually benificial solution to this problem? We realize that it would not be cost efficient to produce 10,000's of a product that will only sell 1000's, but what about offering them as downloads or dvds on demand? This would keep the cost to the producer at a small minimum while allowing for a larger profit, at the same time appeasing the fans of these great shows. The producer could offer as much or as little extra content as they want while giving the fans access to the entertainment they desire.
While it is true there will be some disatisfied with anything short of a fully produced, slickly packaged dvd box set, most will be more than happy just to get a solid copy of their beloved show. The price could even be more competitive because of the lack of extra packaging. The point is, it's time to look for alternative ways to market these shows to their loyal, intended audiences instead of holding them hostage.
STOP HOLDING MY FAVORITE TV SHOWS HOSTAGE!
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Bret Ziarnik is a longtime classic movie fan and film historian. He is a filmmaker and founder of Early Days Productions, a production company dedicated to educating new fans of classic films and creating new entertainment in the spirit of old. Learn more about your favorite classic movies and the filmakers who made them. Watch classic movies, see original programming, and shop for your favorite classic films at: www.earlydaysproductions.com
This article is the property of Early Days Productions, however, you may reprint this article on your website and/or blog as long as you reprint it in it's entirety including all of the author's bio.
It was the mid 80s when black and white films that had been computer colorized started flooding the market. "Topper"(1937) starring Cary Grant and "Way Out West"(1937) starring Laurel and Hardy were among the first. Proponents included Cary Grant who was reportedly "Gung-ho" with the results, while opponents of the process included John Huston and James Stewart.
I was a teenager when the colorized version of "Topper" first hit the shelves. I was intrigued by the possibility of adding color to black and white films while understanding the concern that colorization could actually change the film from its original vision. (In example: wiping out lighting and shading that was meticulously placed there by the original filmmakers.) The process at the time however was not very convincing. The color was often faded and blurry. The films looked like they had aged over time and had their colors fade. Instead of making the films more appealing it seemed to have the opposite affect.
Many years later I picked up a copy of the Three Stooges "Goofs on the Loose" on dvd that included both the original versions in black and white and colorized versions. I was not very excited about the colorized versions but decided to give them a chance anyway. I was completely blown away by the quality of these versions! Not only did they look like brand new films but they were obviously well researched. Unlike previously colorized versions that seemed to have the color just slapped on, these versions were meticulously researched to make sure that colors were all as authentic as possible. There was no fuzziness to the images and the colors were vibrant. Not only did they make the films more appealing to my children, but it made the these films that I had seen a hundred times before, seem like new films again.
It is now obvious that when done with care colorization can breath new life into old films while making them more accessible to a wider audience. This allows the newer generations a opportunity to enjoy films that they may have never given a chance before. As long as the original versions are included in the same package to give everyone a chance to see the filmmakers original vision, colorized films are a great tool for the classic film educator.
I was a teenager when the colorized version of "Topper" first hit the shelves. I was intrigued by the possibility of adding color to black and white films while understanding the concern that colorization could actually change the film from its original vision. (In example: wiping out lighting and shading that was meticulously placed there by the original filmmakers.) The process at the time however was not very convincing. The color was often faded and blurry. The films looked like they had aged over time and had their colors fade. Instead of making the films more appealing it seemed to have the opposite affect.
Many years later I picked up a copy of the Three Stooges "Goofs on the Loose" on dvd that included both the original versions in black and white and colorized versions. I was not very excited about the colorized versions but decided to give them a chance anyway. I was completely blown away by the quality of these versions! Not only did they look like brand new films but they were obviously well researched. Unlike previously colorized versions that seemed to have the color just slapped on, these versions were meticulously researched to make sure that colors were all as authentic as possible. There was no fuzziness to the images and the colors were vibrant. Not only did they make the films more appealing to my children, but it made the these films that I had seen a hundred times before, seem like new films again.
It is now obvious that when done with care colorization can breath new life into old films while making them more accessible to a wider audience. This allows the newer generations a opportunity to enjoy films that they may have never given a chance before. As long as the original versions are included in the same package to give everyone a chance to see the filmmakers original vision, colorized films are a great tool for the classic film educator.
TO COLORIZE OR NOT TO COLORIZE
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Bret Ziarnik is a longtime classic movie fan and film historian. He is a filmmaker and founder of Early Days Productions, a production company dedicated to educating new fans of classic films and creating new entertainment in the spirit of old. Learn more about your favorite classic movies and the filmakers who made them. Watch classic movies, see original programming, and shop for your favorite classic films at: www.earlydaysproductions.com
This article is the property of Early Days Productions, however, you may reprint this article on your website and/or blog as long as you reprint it in it's entirety including all of the author's bio.
In 1927, there was a change in the movie industry. A new technology had rocked Hollywood and many feared the industry would never be the same. Many movie stars, directors, and technicians found that their services were no longer in demand and even worse, no longer necessary.Some were hoping this would prove to be a passing fad. It wasn't. Sound had come to films and movies were never to be silent again (except as art or in defiance). Many predicted the industry would end in ruins. It didn't.
Then in the early 1950's Hollywood was again rocked by another new technology. This time, instead of embracing it as they had with radio, they feared and shunned it. Hopeing it might also be a passing fad. Again, it wasn't. Television had come to stay and while audiences would never be as large as they once were, when the smoke cleared the movie industry remained.
Now the movie industry has been rocked once more by another new technology. With the addition of the internet, instant entertainment is now at the world's fingertips. Home video distributors are running scared and rightly so...their industry is all but dried up and I'm afraid to say, it will never be the same. With the ability to cut out the middle man and go straight to their fans, independent filmmakers are breathing a deep sigh of relief and distributing their own films. Moviemakers are also running scared because of all the pirated copies of their movies floating around cyberspace. They should not be afraid... How do I know? Do you think James Cameron is worried about the internet? Do you think he's upset because he could have made another Billion dollars if Avatar wasn't readily available in cyberspace? Absolutely not. If anything the presence of Avatar on the internet has helped his sales. Once people realize they like his movie, they want to get the total SHARED experience. They want to sit in a darkened room full of strangers with a screen as big as a house and sound several decibels louder than Lambeau Field. What the presence of the internet does, is it educates it's audience. They know before they go to a theatre whether the movie is good or not. This, in turn, forces filmmakers to make good movies so people will want to go to a theatre to see them.
When the "flickers" came out, Broadway theatre didn't disappear. People still wanted "live" theatre as a shared experience. When records (and then tapes and cds) came out people didn't stop going to concerts. They still wanted the "live" shared experience. (That should be a hint to the current music industry....your money will be made by concert, not cd sales) The truth is the movie industry will never go away. People will always want that shared experience. It's just growing pains.
Then in the early 1950's Hollywood was again rocked by another new technology. This time, instead of embracing it as they had with radio, they feared and shunned it. Hopeing it might also be a passing fad. Again, it wasn't. Television had come to stay and while audiences would never be as large as they once were, when the smoke cleared the movie industry remained.
Now the movie industry has been rocked once more by another new technology. With the addition of the internet, instant entertainment is now at the world's fingertips. Home video distributors are running scared and rightly so...their industry is all but dried up and I'm afraid to say, it will never be the same. With the ability to cut out the middle man and go straight to their fans, independent filmmakers are breathing a deep sigh of relief and distributing their own films. Moviemakers are also running scared because of all the pirated copies of their movies floating around cyberspace. They should not be afraid... How do I know? Do you think James Cameron is worried about the internet? Do you think he's upset because he could have made another Billion dollars if Avatar wasn't readily available in cyberspace? Absolutely not. If anything the presence of Avatar on the internet has helped his sales. Once people realize they like his movie, they want to get the total SHARED experience. They want to sit in a darkened room full of strangers with a screen as big as a house and sound several decibels louder than Lambeau Field. What the presence of the internet does, is it educates it's audience. They know before they go to a theatre whether the movie is good or not. This, in turn, forces filmmakers to make good movies so people will want to go to a theatre to see them.
When the "flickers" came out, Broadway theatre didn't disappear. People still wanted "live" theatre as a shared experience. When records (and then tapes and cds) came out people didn't stop going to concerts. They still wanted the "live" shared experience. (That should be a hint to the current music industry....your money will be made by concert, not cd sales) The truth is the movie industry will never go away. People will always want that shared experience. It's just growing pains.
THE FUTURE OF THE FILM INDUSTRY
Have you ever wondered what movies would be like without music? Can you imagine Star Wars, Jaws, or the Indiana Jones films without John Williams rousing scores? What about Psycho without Bernard Herrman's screeching strings, or Franco Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet without Nino Rota's haunting melodies?
Even when movies were silent they were never truly silent but always accompanied by a pianist or even a full orchestra to sweep the audience into what they were watching. As "talkies" took over it wasn't long before filmmakers realized that they could enhance the mood of their films and create the proper reponse from their audience by applying the right music at the right time. What would a mystery picture be without the dun, dun, daawww, or the action film without the fanfare that accompanies a hero as he jumps to the rescue?
Why, music is so powerful in movies, it even inspired its own genre with the introduction of the movie musical. Originally songs were added to increase the entertainment value and the length of the film, but it wasn't long before filmmakers realized they could add songs that would continue the story and not merely interupt it. The next time you watch the Wizard of Oz try turning the sound off during those wonderful songs by Harold Arlen and E. Y. Harburg- What your left with is a good movie, but not a great one.
Truly great movie music transports you into the story without bringing too much attention to itself. In fact a successful score becomes so much a part of the viewing experience that it should be difficult to imagine the film without it. Walt Disney understood this which is why so many of his films have left us with indelible mental images that just hearing a bit of "You can Fly" takes us on a journey with Peter Pan, or "When you wish upon a star" and suddenly our minds are filled with images of Pinocchio and Jiminy Cricket.
As long as there are truly great movies there will continue to be truly great music and audiences around the world will continue to enjoy the marriage of these two story tellers for generations to come.
Even when movies were silent they were never truly silent but always accompanied by a pianist or even a full orchestra to sweep the audience into what they were watching. As "talkies" took over it wasn't long before filmmakers realized that they could enhance the mood of their films and create the proper reponse from their audience by applying the right music at the right time. What would a mystery picture be without the dun, dun, daawww, or the action film without the fanfare that accompanies a hero as he jumps to the rescue?
Why, music is so powerful in movies, it even inspired its own genre with the introduction of the movie musical. Originally songs were added to increase the entertainment value and the length of the film, but it wasn't long before filmmakers realized they could add songs that would continue the story and not merely interupt it. The next time you watch the Wizard of Oz try turning the sound off during those wonderful songs by Harold Arlen and E. Y. Harburg- What your left with is a good movie, but not a great one.
Truly great movie music transports you into the story without bringing too much attention to itself. In fact a successful score becomes so much a part of the viewing experience that it should be difficult to imagine the film without it. Walt Disney understood this which is why so many of his films have left us with indelible mental images that just hearing a bit of "You can Fly" takes us on a journey with Peter Pan, or "When you wish upon a star" and suddenly our minds are filled with images of Pinocchio and Jiminy Cricket.
As long as there are truly great movies there will continue to be truly great music and audiences around the world will continue to enjoy the marriage of these two story tellers for generations to come.
MOVIES WITHOUT MUSIC
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Bret Ziarnik is a longtime classic movie fan and film historian. He is a filmmaker and founder of Early Days Productions, a production company dedicated to educating new fans of classic films and creating new entertainment in the spirit of old. Learn more about your favorite classic movies and the filmakers who made them. Watch classic movies, see original programming, and shop for your favorite classic films at: www.earlydaysproductions.com
This article is the property of Early Days Productions, however, you may reprint this article on your website and/or blog as long as you reprint it in it's entirety including all of the author's bio.
Early Days Productions: Articles 09/04/2011
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Bret Ziarnik is a longtime classic movie fan and film historian. He is a filmmaker and founder of Early Days Productions, a production company dedicated to educating new fans of classic films and creating new entertainment in the spirit of old. Learn more about your favorite classic movies and the filmakers who made them. Watch classic movies, see original programming, and shop for your favorite classic films at: www.earlydaysproductions.com
This article is the property of Early Days Productions, however, you may reprint this article on your website and/or blog as long as you reprint it in it's entirety including all of the author's bio.
This Month's Article: Gilligan's Island-The Movie
The entertainment world lost one of its beacons of light earlier this year when Sherwood Schwartz passed away at the age of 94. The creator of such beloved TV shows as The Brady Bunch and Gilligans Island was a genius at tackling tough social issues by wrapping them in family entertainment. What's that you say? What tough social issues? Think about it. The Brady Bunch was about a blended family trying to adjust to living together, while Gilligans Island was about a group of people from different backgrounds and social status being stranded together on an island. It is often easy to overlook the lessons on politics, greed, pride, economy, social status, and the like when they are wrapped in slapstick with a little canned laughter for good measure. Ok, I realize that what we saw on screen was often how it should be instead of how it really is, but that is most likely part of the charm.
Just a few months before Sherwood passed away he signed a contract for the making of a cinematic version of Gilligans Island, a longtime pet project of his. Without his continued involvement one wonders if it will be casted properly. While the script is the most important part of any production, casting is easily the second most important. (If you don't believe me just look at the movie versions of The Beverly Hillbillies and The Honeymooners.) When you are casting material this iconic, the characters are the stars and it is actually more of a distraction (and more costly) to hire too much star power or to stray too far from the original look and mannerisms of the characters. It is with this in mind that I humbly suggest my picks for the Gilligan's Island movie cast:
DJ Qualls as Gilligan. Fans are familiar with DJ from movies such as Road Trip and The New Guy. Not only is he slight of build like the original Gilligan (Bob Denver) but he has a goofy likability that is perfect for this kind of slapstick role. Brendan Gleeson as the Skipper. Brendan is mostly known to U.S. audiences as "Mad Eye" Morgan from the Harry Potter films. Not only does he resemble Alan Hale Jr (the original Skipper) but he is also capable of being gruff and lovable at the same time...an absolute must for any potential Skipper. A solid alternative Skipper would be Eric Allen Kramer who already took on the role in the Gilligan's Island biopic "Surviving Gilligan's Island".
Larry Blamire as the professer. I know what your thinking...who's Larry Blamire? He is the writer,director, and star of several low budget cult films including The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra. Larry is very good at playing wooden professor types and is perfectly suited for spouting the scientific jargon required for the role. Not onlt that, he greatly resembles Russell Johnson (the original Professor).Christina Hendricks as Ginger. Christina is best known for her role as Joan Holloway on the series Mad Men. She was recently voted the "sexiest woman in the world" in a poll of female readers taken by Esquire magazine. She not only has the right height and figure for the role of Ginger but is fully capable of the breathless delivery associated with the role.
Ginnifer Goodwin as Mary Ann. Ginnifer is a true rising star in Hollywood thanks to her appearances in Walk the Line, He's Just not that into You, and Something Borrowed. Ginnifer has a girl next door appeal that is crucial to the role of Mary Ann and would look adoreable in the required pigtails. With the pairing of Ginnifer and Christina in the roles of Mary Ann and Ginger the age old debate of which one is sexier, Ginger or Mary Ann, would be sure to continue on. Holland Taylor as Mrs Howell (aka "Lovey"). Holland Taylor has been playing the "slightly snobbish but still appealing" roles for years now and is best known to modern audiences as the mother of Jon Cryer and Charlie Sheen's characters on Two and a Half Men. She would most likely bring a little edgier bent to the character than Natalie Schaeffer (the original Mrs Howell) but would still perfectly compliment the rest of the cast while still holding her own in a sometimes thankless role.
Robin Williams as Mr Howell. The Mr Howell character is almost as important to the comedy potential of the film as the casting of Gilligan and Skipper. The ability to be stuffy, gruff, goofy, and loveable at the same time is no small feat to pull off. To be able to pay homage to Jim Backus (the original Mr Howell) without coming off as a poor substitute needs someone who is genuinely funny and has true acting chops. Robin is a comedic genius with the talent to pull off almost any role. He also has the ability to reel himself in and keep from overshadowing his fellow performers. Attaching him to the film almost guarentees it will be made (and funny). Another alterative casting choice would be Steve Martin.
While the likliehood of all (or any) of these individuals being casted in their respective role on the Gilligan's Island Movie is small, the reasoning behind their nominations remains. Whoever is cast in these roles must compliment each other and still evoke memories of the original cast. The creators of the film version must resist the temptation of "reinventing the wheel" and instead capture the original intent of the show and appeal of its characters or this three hour tour will not come close to capturing the popularity of "the longest three hour tour in history".
Just a few months before Sherwood passed away he signed a contract for the making of a cinematic version of Gilligans Island, a longtime pet project of his. Without his continued involvement one wonders if it will be casted properly. While the script is the most important part of any production, casting is easily the second most important. (If you don't believe me just look at the movie versions of The Beverly Hillbillies and The Honeymooners.) When you are casting material this iconic, the characters are the stars and it is actually more of a distraction (and more costly) to hire too much star power or to stray too far from the original look and mannerisms of the characters. It is with this in mind that I humbly suggest my picks for the Gilligan's Island movie cast:
DJ Qualls as Gilligan. Fans are familiar with DJ from movies such as Road Trip and The New Guy. Not only is he slight of build like the original Gilligan (Bob Denver) but he has a goofy likability that is perfect for this kind of slapstick role. Brendan Gleeson as the Skipper. Brendan is mostly known to U.S. audiences as "Mad Eye" Morgan from the Harry Potter films. Not only does he resemble Alan Hale Jr (the original Skipper) but he is also capable of being gruff and lovable at the same time...an absolute must for any potential Skipper. A solid alternative Skipper would be Eric Allen Kramer who already took on the role in the Gilligan's Island biopic "Surviving Gilligan's Island".
Larry Blamire as the professer. I know what your thinking...who's Larry Blamire? He is the writer,director, and star of several low budget cult films including The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra. Larry is very good at playing wooden professor types and is perfectly suited for spouting the scientific jargon required for the role. Not onlt that, he greatly resembles Russell Johnson (the original Professor).Christina Hendricks as Ginger. Christina is best known for her role as Joan Holloway on the series Mad Men. She was recently voted the "sexiest woman in the world" in a poll of female readers taken by Esquire magazine. She not only has the right height and figure for the role of Ginger but is fully capable of the breathless delivery associated with the role.
Ginnifer Goodwin as Mary Ann. Ginnifer is a true rising star in Hollywood thanks to her appearances in Walk the Line, He's Just not that into You, and Something Borrowed. Ginnifer has a girl next door appeal that is crucial to the role of Mary Ann and would look adoreable in the required pigtails. With the pairing of Ginnifer and Christina in the roles of Mary Ann and Ginger the age old debate of which one is sexier, Ginger or Mary Ann, would be sure to continue on. Holland Taylor as Mrs Howell (aka "Lovey"). Holland Taylor has been playing the "slightly snobbish but still appealing" roles for years now and is best known to modern audiences as the mother of Jon Cryer and Charlie Sheen's characters on Two and a Half Men. She would most likely bring a little edgier bent to the character than Natalie Schaeffer (the original Mrs Howell) but would still perfectly compliment the rest of the cast while still holding her own in a sometimes thankless role.
Robin Williams as Mr Howell. The Mr Howell character is almost as important to the comedy potential of the film as the casting of Gilligan and Skipper. The ability to be stuffy, gruff, goofy, and loveable at the same time is no small feat to pull off. To be able to pay homage to Jim Backus (the original Mr Howell) without coming off as a poor substitute needs someone who is genuinely funny and has true acting chops. Robin is a comedic genius with the talent to pull off almost any role. He also has the ability to reel himself in and keep from overshadowing his fellow performers. Attaching him to the film almost guarentees it will be made (and funny). Another alterative casting choice would be Steve Martin.
While the likliehood of all (or any) of these individuals being casted in their respective role on the Gilligan's Island Movie is small, the reasoning behind their nominations remains. Whoever is cast in these roles must compliment each other and still evoke memories of the original cast. The creators of the film version must resist the temptation of "reinventing the wheel" and instead capture the original intent of the show and appeal of its characters or this three hour tour will not come close to capturing the popularity of "the longest three hour tour in history".
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Bret Ziarnik is a longtime classic movie fan and film historian. He is a filmmaker and founder of Early Days Productions, a production company dedicated to educating new fans of classic films and creating new entertainment in the spirit of old. Learn more about your favorite classic movies and the filmakers who made them. Watch classic movies, see original programming, and shop for your favorite classic films at: www.earlydaysproductions.com
This article is the property of Early Days Productions, however, you may reprint this article on your website and/or blog as long as you reprint it in it's entirety including all of the author's bio.