Archive

Archive for the ‘previews’ Category

Extratextuals’ 2007 Awards Extraordinaire, Pt. 2

January 11th, 2008 | Jonathan Gray

Derek’s first part is a hard act to follow, but I decided to focus on trailers, teasers, hype, and TV opening credit sequences. I’ll wage in later about the TV opening credit sequences, but for now, should the clip embedding work:

Best Movie Trailer
Trailers are one of the most underrated, under-appreciated art forms in the contemporary media environment. Indeed, it bears reminding that amidst enthusiastic discussion of YouTube debates, political satire, reporting, virals, etc., many of the most viewed videos on YouTube are trailers. Moreover, as media companies try to saturate our daily lives with trailers, so that we see them somewhere, they also need to be aware that many of us will see many trailers multiple times, and so there’s a fine art to making a trailer that hasn’t sickened you by the time you see it for the tenth time.

Runner-Up: Juno. Ideally, I’d have loved to pick two excellent trailers for bad movies here, but (a) I didn’t see many movies in 2007, so I don’t have much to work with, and (b) the point is that Juno’s trailer had me convinced that I’d like the film. The crispness of the script jumps out at you, and it offers a supremely recognizable (ie: real, not Saved By the Bell-ized) high school life. Ellen Page’s performance announces itself as fantastic, and the trailer chooses wonderful scenes to showcase two great cult properties in Rainn Wilson and Michael Cera. Plus it has Allison Janney/CJ Cregg in it. It pandered to everything I wanted, right down to being filmed in my hometown, Vancouver (which I can nearly always tell visually. No bullshit. It’s the quality of the green. All that rain. And the sky. And the houses).

Winner: Vantage Point. I already blogged about this, so let me just link to it here. But I haven’t seen it, and even if I don’t, or don’t like it, I think the trailer rocks.

More below the fold

Read more…

awards, previews , , , , , , , , ,

Reading Between the Lines: The Wire’s Poster Art

January 6th, 2008 | Jonathan Gray

First, apologies for the lengthy time off. Grading. Stuff to write. Holiday without Internet. They all added up. Anyways, we’re back, hopefully with a slightly new look soon too. Wasting no time, let’s get down to business:

Today, I call Time Warner and resubscribe to HBO, not being able to care less about many of the shows on the channel, but eagerly anticipating Season 5 of The Wire. Amidst other bloggers’ stated goal to blog the season, I thought I’d start by commenting on its fantastic poster art.

The Wire Season 5

For the uninitiated, The Wire’s place in television history is already entrenched alongside Sesame Street and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart as shows that challenged what the medium could and should do. If you teach television studies, you’re no doubt tired by having to repeat the line that most television only focuses on problems as individual, not/never institutional. If you study television studies, you’re probably tired of hearing it. And as a watcher of television, hopefully you’re tired of seeing the moral play out again and again. But The Wire is a show about institutions. Beginning as seemingly a serial cop show, Season 1 examined the street drug trade in West Baltimore, all the while interrogating the social system and structure of crime and punishment with considerable skill. Season 2 added the ports to the picture, Season 3 added politics, Season 4 added schooling, and now Season 5 promises to end with the media.

I could glow about The Wire all day. Its characters, writing, acting, directing, and filming all surpass much of what even the best television can muster. And yet each season’s just made the whole thing better, rounding out the story even more, adding nuance to characters and institutions.

And here the poster art brilliantly communicates the (bold) promise of a season that will conclude the series, and bring it to a head. More below the fold.

Read more…

poster art, previews , ,

Kudos to the Trailer:Vantage Point

December 9th, 2007 | Jonathan Gray

I’ve now seen this trailer several times, and am a massive fan of it. I don’t know if ultimately I’ll like the film (the evil Arab bad guys motif is often recipe for stereotypes and lazy writing, and the scrolling Manichean pairings of “life-death,” “truth-lies,” “good-evil” in the trailer leave me concerned whether the script will be equally divided into tidy binaries), but the trailer’s editing, look, concept, and cast all really jump out at me.

From the beginning, it’s a brilliantly edited trailer, with scene or image changes following the audio quite neatly, with captivating then breathless pacing, and with a nice balance of intrigue and action. It’s good on the small screen, but on a big screen it’s masterful: each of the four times I’ve seen it in a cinema now, it’s easily won the trailer sweepstakes for me.

It also seems to give surprisingly little of the plot away — yes, the president is shot, some Arab bad guys seem behind it, we learn the president was a decoy, and the real president seems to be in subsequent danger, but Dennis Quaid’s “something else is going to happen” seems the mantra for the trailer (much as Charlie’s “guys, where are we?” was a mantra for the equally intriguing Lost trailers in 2004). These days, it seems quite a skill to advertise a thriller — I don’t tend to watch many, not because I don’t like them, but because most are (or at least appear to be) ruined by the trailers. Trailers need to capture the tone of a film, and thrillers seem too much for many editors to handle — how do they show narrative intrigue and plot twists without spoiling the film left, right, and center? Advertising a comedy or an action film, by contrast, are so much easier — you just need to show a really funny joke or a fight sequence respectively. Jokes can be funny the second time, fight sequences too (especially if they involve free jumping. I love free jumping), but spoil the plot twist and you can’t go back on that. This trailer here, though, handles the issue with skill.

And, segueing off my previous post on casting, the combination of William Hurt, Matthew Fox (complete with good Jack-faces aplenty), Sigourney Weaver, Forest Whitaker, and Dennis Quaid is intriguing in and of itself. It’s Smoke meets Lost meets Alien meets Ghost Dog: Way of the Samurai meets, um, errr, Jaws 3D. Sounded good till the end there, didn’t it.

previews ,

Arm Chair Casting Directors

December 5th, 2007 | Jonathan Gray

As casting news for the J. J. Abrams Star Trek continues to be released, amidst much fan discussion, derision, anticipation, and debate, I’m quite fascinated by the anticipatory joys of casting, and of what this says of stars as texts, intertexts, and brands.

Significant pleasure exists simply from combining actors and projects in one’s head. Who would you cast in the Star Trek movie? Or, if Trek isn’t your thing, pick any movie and recast it, pick your favorite novel or comic book and think of who you’d cast in the movie version, or simply think of who you’d like to replace in an existing television show or movie. Speaking personally, for instance, I remember well the joys of discussing who should play whom when Lord of the Rings and X-Men were announced; and though I liked X-Men, I probably had more fun casting the film than watching it. Even hearing about upcoming new films’ casting can be intriguing (a buddy film with Dolly Parton and Snoop Dogg?? A new drama with Kevin Spacey, Steve Carell, Javier Bardem, and Denzel Washington? Etc.)

Hence, in part, the huge industry of entertainment magazines, television shows, and websites that peddle casting information, and “exclusives” on what projects are occurring. See Comingsoon.net, in particular. And hence in part the popularity of trailers, not only ensuring that many an audience member gets to the theatre twenty minutes early, but also that many go surfing for trailers online, making trailer viewing one of the more common activities on YouTube, IFilm, and company.

What the joys of speculative casting seem to speak to, on one hand, is the degree to which star images can operate as texts independent of even a film, scandal, or latenight talk show as site, and, on the other hand, the significant pleasures of anticipation.

Regarding star image, though it is the acting projects and public appearances that largely author the star as text, the meaning and utility of that text extend far beyond those projects and public appearances. Stars come to represent ideas, ways of being, styles of acting, beloved or detested genres, political causes, personal motifs, and so forth, all or many of which have value and meaning outside of the moments of performance.

This then leads to the pleasures of anticipation, since combining actors is an act of combining these ideas, ways, styles, genres, causes, motifs, and so forth. While not as dramatic or camp as the late television show Celebrity Deathmatch, there is nevertheless the element of a battle of images and texts. Or a dance and an intricate, artful mixing (Dancing with the Stars?). Much of the most important cultural work of stories lies in how they make us think or conceive of the world, and thus anticipation of stories, and of casting combinations, often engages front-on with that cultural work. While we contemplate what it would be like for Pacino and Keaton to share a scene again, for instance, their acting histories to date are summoned, complete with potentially all of the textual meanings of their work, and thus the contemplation of what we think of such casting stands to invoke and focus a vast collection of textual responses.

In this respect, thinking about casting, and playing the casting game, can be quite stunningly intricate tasks, important correlates to the work of stories, even if they seem mundane and trivial. It can be fun to play this game not just because it can quickly get silly (my all-time favorite being someone’s pre-Peter Jackson Lord of the Rings suggestion that Calista Flockhart should play Golem), but also because it’s in the thinking about casting that we continue the work of stories.

With this in mind, here’s the task. Recast Star Wars. Or find a fresh cast for a West Coast Avengers or Excalibur film. Or any other project. Clive Owen as Captain Britain, and James Marsters as Nightcrawler, perhaps? Or Christian Bale as Han Solo? Clint Eastwood as Obi-Wan Kenobi? Okay, just kidding with that last one. Your thoughts?

previews, stars

Movie Poster Design: What Would Neil Patrick Harris Do?

November 5th, 2007 | Jonathan Gray

Harold&Kumar2

This poster for Harold and Kumar 2 is excellent. It marks a fairly rare occurrence of a poster that works at a conceptual level. Neil Patrick Harris’s cameo in the first movie was one of the more celebrated parts of the film, but I’d argue that this poster isn’t about advertising his inclusion in the sequel, nor does it necessarily imply that “NPH” will be seen on a unicorn in the film. Meanwhile, neither Harold nor Kumar is on the poster, nor any reference to the show’s plot (wherein the two are arrested on an airplane when an old woman thinks Kumar is a terrorist). Rather, the simple point is itself comically rich, suggesting that the sensibility behind the making of this film is the same that might find the notion of NPH on a unicorn amusing, or that might find the act of substituting NPH for Jesus by asking “What Would NPH Do?” entertaining. And they’ve really committed to the concept, too, with the blinding light, and NPH’s priceless look and seemingly unbuttoned shirt and jacket.

Of course, it has the luxury of being a sequel, so the mere words “Harold and Kumar” already tell viewers what to expect, but all the same, the promotional strategy here is arresting and deeply amusing. I saw the poster while going to see two films (two? See here for explanation) and I burst out laughing. Trailers for comedies should make one laugh, just as trailers for action films should excite one, but posters more often are left teasing the viewer, promising gratification later on. The poster for Harold and Kumar 2, though, delivers the goods upfront.

Compare, for instance, to the posters to the films I saw: Dan in Real Life (a lovely film) and We Own the Night (an okay film, though nothing special, save for a brilliant car chase in the pouring rain). More after the fold

Read more…

poster art, previews , , , , , ,

Bees and Donuts: Hyping Bee Movie and The Simpsons Game

October 31st, 2007 | Jonathan Gray

Bee Movie

 

Through much of the nineties, two television programs sustained me: The Simpsons and Seinfeld. Others came and went, but not only did those two shows consistently hold my interest, but their many repeats would too. One of my roommates would even record the evening reruns of Seinfeld while watching them, and watch them again first thing the next morning, and I’d often join him. So Jerry and Homer are close to me. I don’t spend as much time with them now as I used to, but I like to check in on them every once in a while, since they are old friends.

Recently, the Jerry Seinfeld and Simpsons franchises have been doing interesting transmedia jigs. Seinfeld’s Bee Movie is coming out on Friday, and television is all abuzz with cross-promotion: Seinfeld appeared on 30 Rock (and through that episode, he appeared on most other NBC shows too), he has an HP ad that refers to the movie, and he’s filmed a seemingly endless number of shorts that are filling ad breaks. He’s ubiquitous, so much so that I’m sure I’m missing about 453 other venues where he’s hawking his movie (I could’ve sworn the dude behind the counter at McDonalds looked familiar today), and in the time it takes me to type this, Seinfeld will have appeared in 58 more venues. The Simpsons meanwhile have a forthcoming video game, based on the film (so, yes, it’s the game of the film of the television show), with some ads on television, and a particularly innovative and fun official website. In case it’s not evident yet, I find the Seinfeld transmedia jig annoying, and the Simpsons one exemplary. More below the fold…

Read more…

ads, previews, stars , , , , , , , , ,

Aliens from Africa, Hell, Pakistan, and the Upper East: Previewing The CW’s New Shows

September 16th, 2007 | Jonathan Gray

Last year marked the first for The CW, the upstart hybrid of The WB and UPN. So programming was mostly about picking which shows from which networks they liked. This year therefore represents their first go at producing their own shows with their own imprint on them.The exec who introduced them proudly noted that 3 of the 4 were listed by USA Today on its Top 10 New Shows to watch list. So what did I think? Below the fold, the final installment of my fall pilot reviews Read more…

previews , , , , , ,

What, No CSI: Cleveland? Previewing CBS’s New Shows

September 15th, 2007 | Jonathan Gray

As premier dates rapidly approach, let me offer the fourth of five installments, with my reactions to three of CBS’s pilots. None are much to write home about, but they are something to blog about, so here we go, below the fold: Read more…

previews , , , , ,

Super Powers and Super Agents: Previewing NBC’s Shows

September 14th, 2007 | Jonathan Gray

NBC sure loves superpowers: first Heroes last year, now the time-traveling Journeyman (though don’t expect much similarity between Kevin McKidd and Hiro), the new Bionic Woman, the supposed super-cop in Life, and super agent Chuck. Maybe Dwight from The Office is next in line for powers? Below the fold, I continue with my fall pilot reviews. Read more…

previews , , , , , ,

Rich People I Don’t Care About, and Dead People I Do: Previewing ABC’s New Shows

September 13th, 2007 | Jonathan Gray

Continuing with my reactions to the pilots for new shows, below the fold, I review ABC’s Pushing Daisies, Dirty Sexy Money, Samantha Who?, and Big Shots. Sorry Grey’s Anatomy fans, ABC didn’t show Private Practice. Nor did they show Cavemen, Carpoolers, or Women’s Murder Club. Read more…

previews , , , , , ,