On October 24, 2012, the breakfast restaurant chain Denny’s announced that they will be serving a special menu themed around Peter Jackson’s upcoming film series based on The Hobbit. If this seems odd to you, you’re not the only one, but it’s hardly rare anymore. Estimates are that McDonald’s sells almost $3 Billion in Happy Meals each year, each one coming with a movie tie-in toy, and Disney earned roughly $3 Billion dollars as well in its Consumer Product Division –which controls the merchandise licensing for its key properties– last year, a 21% growth from 2010. Even with these astronomic numbers, the Toronto Sun claims that film merchandising continues to be a growth industry. Should we as cinephiles be concerned by this growing trend?

In 1987, McDonald’s introduced the first Disney-themed Happy Meal toy set, themed around Mickey Mouse and his friends. Sales were incredible, and ever since they haven’t looked back. For children’s movies in particular, these deals are incredibly lucrative and a win-win for both companies. They were both trying to reach the same audience, and mind share for one product would then in turn positively affect the other as well. 

However, this concept has some key problems when applied to films that are not targeted at a young audience. Firstly, while young children will consume McDonald’s food almost regardless of the quality, adults have much more discerning tastes for food and drink. Attaching a film’s name to a restaurant — especially a franchised restaurant like Denny’s, where quality and even selection might vary from restaurant to restaurant — seems a risky move. If a customer’s “Gandolf’s Gobble Melt” or “Shire Sausage Skillet” (both real items on the Denny’s menu) don’t look or taste good, or even if the customer doesn’t appreciate the wait staff at the restaurant, his or her image of both the restaurant and the film will be tainted. Conversely, if the customer doesn’t enjoy The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey when her or she goes to see it in theaters, the likelihood that he or she will be ordering a Hobbit-themed meal any time soon is significantly lower.

Tying a product to one which your company does not also create is generally a huge risk not only in the case of food, but in the case of other products where the combination might leave a bad taste in consumers’ mouths. This is exactly what happened to Universal Studios and Illumination Entertainment’s adaptation of the beloved Dr. Seuss book “The Lorax” when they struck a deal with Mazda to jointly advertise the film and car. The result was an odd hodgepodge of a television commercial and a number of angry activists, who were concerned that the book’s message of environmental friendliness was being undermined by its commercial control.

Those activists had the right idea, because while corporations seem to understand the benefits of forming promotional alliances, they don’t seem to see a very important, yet somewhat intangible, factor that should govern their use of these promotions: taste. Selling pancakes under the name of a fantasy action-adventure film is not tasteful, nor is selling cars with a movie about the dangers of pollution and deforestation. As we discover new methods of marketing in this growing space, Studios and Publishers should be very careful to weigh the possibilities that these opportunities present against the potential consequences the provide, and strive to keep what little artistic integrity remains in the jungles of the main stream American film industry.

During my work as a Fellow on the Obama campaign, I was able to capture this image before a Tarmac Rally in Green Bay, WI.

In our first Film Studies class this week, the professor led her instructions on screening the required films with the statement that watching them on anything smaller than a television screen in the Library was unacceptable. Though I did not take down a quote, I think it is appropriate to paraphrase that she said she would “have a conniption” if she caught us watching or even talking about watching the films on a mobile device. To back this up, she sent us a link to an excerpt from and interview with David Lynch from the special edition copy of his film, Inland Empire which seems to agree with her assessment of the mobile device as a film consumption mechanism:

“Playing the movie on a telephone, you will never in a trillion years experience the film. You’ll think think you’ve experienced it, but you’ll  be cheated. It’s –uh—such a sadness that you think you’ve seen a film on your FUCKING telephone. Get real.”

Though both Mr. Lynch (whom I deeply respect) and my Film Studies Professor (whom I just met, but suspect I will also come to deeply respect) are incredibly vehement in their positions on the issue, I don’t think that the simple and broad conclusion they have come to is necessarily correct. Though it isn’t perfect, I think that a mobile device can still provide an effective presentation of the film.

When I thought of an instance where the effect of a big-screen presentation is vital to the understanding of a scene, the first shot that came to mind was the helicopter shot that occupies much of the opening title sequence in Stanley Kubrick’s famous adaptation of The Shining. On a big screen, this shot has a special kind of power for me: looking down and following one little car as it travels up a curving mountain road and curving with the road has two effects on me: it first reminds me how small and insignificant I am, but secondly – and almost more importantly – feeling the frame move along swiftly, as if being dragged by the car gives you this feeling of lack of control, of instability, as if you are being pulled by an invisible spiritual string towards the vehicle. This sense that you are actually moving is what makes these shots great, and you risk losing it entirely if you watch the film on a phone or tablet.

However, this is not an issue of screen size as much as it is a combination of screen size and distance from the screen. In my own personal tests, I found that this sense of motion was preserved on a variety of devices from a variety of distances, as long as the film’s frame occupied the vast majority of my vision. On my laptop, which has a 15.6” screen, I was able to sit up to about 18 inches away from the screen and still feel the motion. On my 10.1” Motorola Xoom tablet, I had to be much closer: about 12 inches away. Finally, on my smartphone, a Samsung Galaxy Nexus with a 4.65” screen, I found that I had to be the incredibly close (and possibly eye-damaging) distance of 4 inches from the screen. Though this sounds crazy, it does show that the effect of motion is preservable on these smaller devices.

Another argument made is that, because the films are so much larger on the big screen, you might miss something interesting or important in a shot. This is once again largely covered by moving closer to the screen, however there is another issue that plays into this: resolution. If the screen does not have high enough resolution, then there is no possible way to see all the details that one might see on the big screen. Luckily, most devices today have incredibly high resolutions. The third generation (most recent) iPad, for example, has an incredibly sharp display at 2048×1535 pixels. This screen is more than capable of handling 1080p video, which has a resolution of 1920×1080 pixels, and even the lowest end phones and tablets have screen resolutions of 1024×768 or higher, something that, while not adhering to any specifications for HD video, is perfectly capable of playing back DVD-quality video, which only has a resolution of 720×480 pixels.

The last argument that people make against film on a small device is something that I just can’t possibly refute. I agree wholeheartedly that many films, especially comedies, are community experiences. When you’re watching a comedy alone, it’s just not as funny. Jokes may strike you as amusing, but your own personal guards keep you from laughing or enjoying them. In a group, the mob psychology seems to kick in. Personal inhibitions are lifted and everyone laughs at the jokes that he or she finds funny.  The movie is transformed from just a picture on the screen to a bona fide social event. There is no way to replicate this personal interaction, and there never will be.

All these things said, filmmakers will still have to adapt to the use of mobile devices as film consumption tools. Here, Kubrick’s The Shining is an interesting example again. I found it odd that The Shining would be presented in the film cell’s (and television’s) raw aspect ratio 4:3, so I did a little research. As it turns out, there is indeed a story to it. Knowing that the film would find its way to home video and that the studio would “pan and scan” the film to make it fit onto a television set (thus compromising his notoriously meticulous directorial decisions), Kubrick decided not to film it with an anamorphic lens, as he would have otherwise. Instead, he filmed directly onto the 35mm film stock, giving him a 4:3 aspect ratio, which he cropped for theaters to get the widescreen look he wanted. With every shot he made, he considered how it would look both on the big screen and at home. This mirrors what filmmakers need to do today. There is now a huge range of different screen sizes that may be used to watch a film. Sometimes, directors and cinematographers will need to compromise to ensure that the important things can be seen on any device. It’s not the ideal solution, but – like it or not – mobile devices are here to stay.

Many people are familiar with the Boy Scout motto, “Be Prepared,” and almost as many are familiar with its slogan, “Do a good turn daily,” however if you are able to recite the Scout Oath by heart, it’s probably because you were once, like me, a card-carrying member of the Boy Scouts of America organization. For those of you that never were, here it is:

“On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.”

Now there is a lot of strange language in here that deserves close reading (“physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight” in particular stands out to me as potentially exclusive of many minorities like the wheelchair-bound, developmentally disabled, and homosexual), but what I want to focus on is this idea of doing your duty “to God.”

What if you don’t believe in god? What if you’re an atheist? Or a polytheist who can’t do a duty “to God,” because the word is not in plural? This oath presents problems for these individuals, problems that have been demonstrated again and again.

In 2002, an Eagle Scout was kicked out of the organization for his atheist beliefs and the case of Boy Scouts of America v. Dale shows that this same principle has been used as a tenet to exclude homosexual teens from the Boy Scouts because of the all too commonly held belief that homosexuality is an abomination before God, and thus not in adherence to the oath, which insists that you “do [your] duty to God.”

I understand why this principle might be important to the BSA: the moral framework which religion can provide is an important part of being a Boy Scout. However, this moral framework sure seems redundant when pressed up against the Scout Law, which the Oath also insists you follow:

“A Scout is:
Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful,
Friendly, Courteous, Kind,
Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty,
Brave, Clean, Reverent.”

Are these not the same standards that religion is supposed to bring? Why are both needed? What is the purpose? Adding this requirement simply turns the BSA into a believers-only country club instead of the once great organization it used to be.

Images, Scout Oath, and Scout Law courtesy of Boy Scouts of America.

That was excusable, but I felt that the line between “homage” or “allusion” and “rip-off” was crossed when Flightplan blatantly copied one of the key plot points from The Lady Vanishes.

In The Lady Vanishes, the woman who disappears writes her name in the mist on the dining car window.  Later, when the main character is dining at that same table, she sees the name in the mist. Similarly, the daughter in Flightplan draws a heart in the mist on the airplane window, a heart which Foster’s character is able to find by breathing warm air onto said window. Here’s the video evidence:

Mentioned on How I Met Your Mother, this website consists of a series of pictures of a fictional couple posing. The man wears clothes while the woman wears, as the title might suggest, a garbage bag. I checked the whois page and the site belongs to Twentieth Century Fox; this is designed to be a direct tie-in to the series. It may not be the most exciting thing ever, but it’s pretty cool.

Here’s the part of the show that references it:

It all started with a video titled “Llamas with Hats 5.” This was a clever, if a little backhanded, way of marketing his channel. He knew that viewers would click through the videos in the popular “Llamas with Hats” series and – expecting more—continue to his own videos. Unfortunately, this was not met with happiness.

Consisting of nothing but images of the two characters from the “Llamas with Hats” videos superimposed on different settings and backed by the Nintendo Store theme song, “Llamas with Hats 5” was nothing but a blatant rip-off of a far better original. However, things got interesting from there.

Smax’s videos now attempt to redirect people from a number of legitimate topics, but all end in the same place: a collage commenting on the remix culture and shallow attitude of the YouTube and the internet at large.

In the “stuff for people with more dollars than sense” category, I submit for your enjoyment Vertu, purveyors of ridiculously expensive cell phones.

This site consists of about half a dozen different cell phone models, ranging in price from a couple thousand to a couple hundred thousand dollars. Yes, you read that correctly. Vertu actually expects people to pay $200,000+ for a cell phone.

What makes these cell phones so special, you ask? Well, it seems that they vary. The entry level phones are made of brushed steel and real leather, but the top-of-the-line phones can be made from sterling silver, yellow gold, white gold, and even platinum. Buttons are often made of sapphires and- in at least one case- the “select” button at the center of the archaic five-way navigation pad is a diamond.

The crown jewel, as it were, of this company, though, can only be found in an area of the site so exclusive that you have to go through a 20 second registration process before you get access. (This is the internet, after all; nothing can take too long.) Here you find even fancier phones, such as the Signature Precious(shown above), which – in addition to being made of white gold – is bordered on each side by hand placed diamonds. Like many items on this site, all phones in this “private showroom” section are on an “if you have to ask, you can’t afford it” basis. No prices are listed and purchase is only by appointment.

As icing on the cake, the technology in these incredibly expensive phones is terrible. Vertu has only recently introduced their first smart phone and touch-screen phone. These are two separate products; if you want a touch-screen smart phone, you’re out of luck. The touch screen phone uses the inferior resistive technology found on old Palm devices like the Treo, and even the smart phone runs Nokia’s dying Symbian platform, which the company has since replaced with Windows Phone.

If you want one of these phones, you will have to fly your private jet to one of their flagship boutiques in Beverly Hills, Las Vegas, or  Manhattan. Only the most rudimentary models are sold online.

1. You create a “trigger.” When this occurs, your task will run.
2. You tell it what to do when triggered.

That’s it. It’s super intuitive and easy. Here are some examples I have come up with:

Archive Your Tweets and Facebook Statuses

This is something I have been wanting to do for quite a while. Since this data isn’t self-hosted or stored locally, you rely on the company to stay around forever if you want the information you post. These tasks create an archive of everything you post on either service. These each have to be set up separately, but it’s totally worth your time if you ever post anything original on Twitter or Facebook.

Trigger:

• Twitter > New tweet by you
• Facebook > New status message by you

For the task, you can choose a number of services to which you might want to archive. I use 2, Evernote and Gmail. Gmail is a great place to store these because the search works so well, but you will need to set up some filters for the incoming emails if you don’t want to get inundated with messages.

Task:

• Evernote > Create a new note
• Gmail > Send an email (send this to yourself)

Archive Your Blog Posts

This, like the last one, is because I don’t host my blog myself. This way, I have lots of backup copies of everything I write.

Trigger: WordPress > New blog post by you

Task:

• Evernote > Create a new note
• Dropbox > Upload file from URL (this will download the blog post’s HTML file and place it into the folder of your choice on Dropbox)

[blank] Sent You an Email

If you seem to miss emails but always see text messages, you can set this up for people you care the most about.

Trigger: Gmail > New email from

Task: SMS> Send text message to me

Well, that’s just about all I have, but I’ll keep you updated as I come up with more uses (I’m sure I will).

I imagine these getting more use as sarcasm than actual, genuine emotion, but that’s why they’re perfect for the internet!

Some Examples

If someone gives you an underhanded compliment:

If someone complains about something stupid:

That last one is actually really interesting because it comes from an old home movie I made with my brother and friends. That’s right; the terrible actor is me.

If you want to say something is awesome:

That’s just a few examples. To see all of them, you can visit my YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/NathanBLawrence?feature=mhee