Netflix Future - Digital Streaming

I'm basically just days away from making my first television purchase ever (seriously...up until now i've been able to survive off of hand-me-down sets). For the last three years or so, i've been fighting the beast within me who has been screaming for me to make an HD TV purchase...and it would appear that the beast is about to win the argument.

I use a DVR to enhance my viewing experience. There are a lot of different shows i like to watch, and i don't enjoy being a slave to the prime-time cable schedule. My DVR of choice is Tivo. I like Tivo because of its relative ease of use, and because it has more customized features than a generic DVR one could recieve from his cable company. Because of this, I'm going to need to upgrade from the Tivo i currently own to a Tivo of the HD variety. I can't possibly be expected to record my shows in SD format now (blasphemy!).

The HD Tivo includes a feature that will enable me to watch Netflix content on my television. I have used Netflix's streaming video feature online before, but now i can pull the video directly onto my TV. I don't know how you feel about this, but quite frankly, the couch is a much more comfortable area from which to view a flick than my computer chair.

This feature led me to a question I have been pondering…at what point will Netflix (or similar services) be delivered purely through streaming video? How far away are consumers from truly being able to discard tangible discs for video, in much the same way that many have discarded CDs for music?

Currently, Netflix has a large catalogue of online film/television content and it continues to grow, but not yet to the point at which they could eliminate DVD mailings. This digital catalogue is likely limited by the lack of rights/royalty agreements for certain films, but it is still a fairly wide selection.

In addition, there may be some titles that Netflix does not want to stream, the fear being that this could cut into profit margins. Overhead costs for a business like Netflix would presumably consist of a lot of postage for the physical discs, and would present itself in the form of bandwidth costs, i suppose, for their streaming content. Just as 24-Hour Fitness makes money by relying on many of its members to avoid the gym regularly, Netflix turns a profit on the similar theory that many of its members will not return their DVD/blu-ray discs in a timely manner (lower postage costs). The easier it is to receive the films (streaming), the more likely one would be to watch more (increased bandwidth costs).

If you were already a Netflix subscriber, would you pay more for online streaming's ease of use?...at least, initially? I think i would consider it.

Another obvious obstacle is that Netflix streaming is only presently available in Standard Definition (streaming video in HD is problematic due to bandwidth issues/costs). However, with advancements in technology being made at such a rapid pace right now, i fully expect issues with bandwidth to be resolved shortly (check out this video on the subject of HD streaming from HowStuffWorks.com).

Netflix also recently announced that it has teamed up with LG Electronics to enable some LG HDTVs to have Netflix streaming software embedded directly into the TV, requiring no external device to instantly view their content. This may sound a little gimmicky, and it is. However, if it assists in propelling LG sales beyond its competitors while further increasing Netflix's notoriety, I'm sure neither company will be disappointed.

It's an extremely exciting time to be around as far as technology and its entertainment/convenience applications are concerned. The geek in me is really looking forward to posting additional thoughts about tech toys and future advancements.

Let me know what you think about the future of tech toys and the differing ways in which you envision the masses being entertained?

Most Anticipated Movies of 2009

Below is the list of movies that I'm currently most excited about viewing in 2009. Some of these have piqued my interest more than others, and I've placed an asterisk next to those I believe have the most suckage potential but am hoping will be good anyway.

January
Paul Blart: Mall Cop* - Few guys make me laugh like Kevin James ("Hitch"), so despite the fact that i would probably not be interested in this movie were it starring anyone else, i will likely go see it because i'm betting that i will be amused...and my guess would be that Sony is betting there are more Kevin James fans out there just like me.


Underworld: Rise of the Lycans* - This prequel (origin story) to the first two Underworld films looks really cool, but i base that almost solely on the trailer. As we all know, trailers can be made to look way more impressive than the actual film. But they've hooked me, and with a cast that still includes Bill Nighy ("Valkyrie") and adds Michael Sheen ("Frost/Nixon"), it certainly seems promising.

Taken - Liam Neeson ("Batman Begins") looks to kill some baddies as a kickass former spy trying to save his kidnapped daughter - it's the recipe for awesome!


March
Watchmen - Who watches the Watchmen? Hopefully all of us as long as this pesky legal battle reaches a resolution by its planned March release. For better or worse, i was never a graphic novel kid, so i didn't know anything about this story until about a year ago. The more i learn about it as not just entertainment but also a sharp social commentary on American policies in the 1980s, the more intrigued i am.

Monsters vs. Aliens - This Dreamworks Animation battle royale is set to continue proving to the world that Disney Pixar is not the only studio producing the highest quality animated entertainment. The story, about a ragtag group of monsters collected over the years by the US government and unleashed to combat an evil alien takeover of the world, sounds very cool.

I Love You, Man - Paul Rudd is looking for a best man because he has no guy friends...enter Jason Segel ("Forgetting Sarah Marshall") and a possible bromance of epic proportions.

Adventureland - Kristen Stewart is a little hottie. Rumor has it, she's into vampires now but i'm still holding out hope. I'm a pretty pale guy, so i've got that going for me. Regardless of my future endeavors with Ms. Stewart, this flick appears to be the stuff from which entertainment is made (written and directed by Greg Mottola, director of "Superbad"). James (Jesse Eisenberg), a recent college grad, is forced to take a summer job at a local amusement park when his parents drop the news that they will no longer be able to pay for a trip he had planned on taking to Europe. I wonder if his character will fall for Stewart's character? My Magic 8-ball says..."Signs point to yes".


April
Fast And Furious* - Yes, there have been some horrible installments in this series of films...but come on, the first one was fun, mindless, popcorn entertainment. Eight years after the original was released, this series brings back the four leading actors (Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Michelle Rodriguez, Jordana Brewster) that made that one so much fun. I could tell you what the plot is, but you should really know what to expect going into this one - thrills and spills in the form of exceptional car chase sequences, and probably a fair amount of horrible dialogue.


May
Star Trek - With the science fiction dream team of director J.J. Abrams ("Mission Impossible III", "Lost", "Alias") with writers Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci ("Transformers", "Fringe"), I cannot imagine this film being steered off course. I am not a "trekker", nor do I claim to be anywhere close to the foremost authority on the series. However, I believe this team has the ability to take the Star Trek franchise to previously unheard of heights in terms of mainstream fan base and critical acclaim.

Angels and Demons - Ron Howard shockingly teams up again with Tom Hanks to make tons of money. This film is based on the novel of the same name by author Dan Brown ("The Da Vinci Code"). Hanks reprises his role as symbologist Robert Langdon, who discovers evidence that would suggest the rebirth and scheming of a shady ancient organization known as the Illuminati. The film is being released as a sequel, despite the fact that this novel was written before "The Da Vinci Code". Regardless, here's hoping the film does justice to the novel, as it was one of the more thrilling ones i have had the pleasure to read.

Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian - It's a different museum than the original, but as I understand it, some exhibits and/or replicas of famous people may "come to life" in a similar fashion as the original. Ben Stiller stars again as security guard Larry, and will be acting next to uber-cutie Amy Adams. Look, i don't really care about the details that much, but what i do know is that I really liked the original. Although this has a chance to be mostly a re-hashing of the first film, I'm hoping for the best and have a feeling I'll dig this one too.

Terminator Salvation - Christian Bale will surely be the coolest and least whiny John Connor to date, either on the big screen or small. McG is at the helm, and the film has wisely cast Moon Bloodgood ("Journeyman", "Day Break") and Bryce Dallas Howard ("Spider-Man 3", "The Village") as the female eye-candy counterparts to Bale's dreaminess factor with the ladies. Skynet and its arsenal of Terminators are hell-bent on destroying all of mankind...enter the adult version of John Connor to take the machines to task.


June
Year One* - Jack Black ("Tropic Thunder") and Michael Cera ("Juno") star as primitive cave-men types who are banished from their village and embark on an epic journey or sorts. This film is as much of a toss-up as the "Land of the Lost" movie being released around the same time starring Will Ferrell. The difference is, the latter is relying solely on Ferrell's comedic skills, while "Year One" has an outstanding supporting cast comprised of David Cross ("Arrested Development"), Hank Azaria ("The Simpsons"), Paul Rudd ("Role Models"), and other proven talent. Plus, it's written and directed by Harold Ramis ("Ghostbusters", "Groundhog Day"), who is something of a comic genius.

Transformers 2 - Autobots vs. Decepticons...again. If you enjoyed the first one, there's an excellent chance that this one will also float your boat. I, for one, am a little bit psyched! The real stars of this show are the Transformers themselves, but also on hand will be Shia Labeouf ("Eagle Eye") and Megan Fox ("Transformers") reprising their roles from the original film.


July
Public Enemies - Is there any chance that an action adventure film involving gangsters and starring the likes of Johnny Depp ("Pirates of the Carribean") and Christian Bale ("The Dark Knight") will bring the masses to the multiplex? Michael Mann ("Heat") directs, while Depp stars as John Dillinger, the notorious 1930's-era gangster who is chased after by the FBI. Bale plays the role of FBI agent, Melvin Purvis. Not to mention that the rest of the cast is loaded with solid character actors. Mark your calendars for this one.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Warner Brothers, fearing the rest of their 2009 slate would suck as a result of last year's writers' strike, decided to move this highly anticipated installment of the Harry Potter franchise from a November 2008 release to the summer blockbuster season of 2009. If you're a Harry Potter fan, this will be a must-see.

Funny People - this show, written and directed by Judd Apatow ("The 40 Year Old Virgin"), actually does star quite a few funny people. At least Universal Pictures isn't trying to pull a fast one on us right from the start. The story revolves around a famous comedian, George Simmons, played by Adam Sandler ("Bedtime Stories"), who has a near-death experience. Seth Rogen ("Knocked Up") will play the role of a stand-up hopeful that Sandler's character takes under his wing.


August
GI Joe* - I'm not 100% sure why i'm so excited about this one. I was never a giant fan of this television series as a kid, but it still looks like it could be an action thrill-ride. Here's hoping that Dennis Quaid's acting skills (or lack thereof) don't bring this movie down several notches on their own.


Julie & Julia - This movie is about a woman, Julie Powell, who decides to make her way through a cookbook by Julia Child and blogs about her experiences along the way. Not exactly a premise in which i would ordinarily be interested, but the fact that the acting tour de force of Meryl Streep ("Doubt") as Julia Child, and Amy Adams ("Enchanted") as Julie Powell will be on hand has me believing i'll want to look into this one.


October
Where the Wild Things Are - This children's classic will be retold once again, but this time on the silver screen. Co-written and directed by Spike Jonze ("Being John Malkovich"), this film will tell the tale of Max, a young boy who is sent to bed without supper. Once in his room, his imagination takes flight as he travels to a great forest inhabited by wild creatures who crown him their king.


November
Disney's A Christmas Carol - The retelling of this Christmas classic has been adapted to the screen by Robert Zemeckis, who will also take on directorial duties for this film. Jim Carrey ("Yes Man") will play the role of Ebenezer Scrooge, as well as all 3 of the ghosts. Gary Oldman ("The Dark Knight") stars as Bob Cratchit. Let's hope this plays out better than the last adapted to the screen Christmas classic that Jim Carrey was a part of. If not, i'll be in a very Grinch-like mood.


December
James Cameron's Avatar - see information in 3D technology section below



Highest Grossing Films of 2009 (I'll probably be way off and the Jonas Brothers movie will shatter all box-office records - it's all a guessing game, but i'll still play)

1. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
2. Angels and Demons
3. Public Enemies
4. Star Trek
   
5. Watchmen
6. Terminator: Salvation
7. James Cameron's Avatar

Advances in 3D Technology
This also marks the year that the new digital 3-D technology will be truly unleashed. There will be several films released in this way just waiting to capitalize by giving you something you cannot experience with your home entertainment setup. A couple of horror flicks will be released in digital 3-D, and pretty much all of the animated features, including a re-release of the original "Toy Story" in October.

The year's most anticipated 3D feature by yours truly, James Cameron's Avatar, is a 3-D sci-fi film which has a very confusing sounding plot that appears to have something to do with aliens and an interplanetary war. It should be a huge blockbuster if there's actually a good story. Whatever it is, i'm sure it will at least look fantastic with Cameron at the helm and a budget reported at close to $200 million. This movie alone should be enough to decide in my mind if advances in 3-D will truly be the wave of the future that most cineplexes are hoping.

Television Series Term Limits

With so much garbage television continuing on for season after gut-wrenching season (yes, i'm looking at you, "According to Jim" and "One Tree Hill"), I'm proposing a new way of determining how long a television program is allowed to remain on the air.

Television Series Term Limits

• 2 Seasons - guaranteed to every "original programming" television series placed on the air
  
• 3rd Season - granted if the series is either popular or critically acclaimed
• 4th Season - granted if the series is both popular and critically acclaimed
• The End - no more seasons
  

Now obviously i realize that there will have to be some type of absolute measurement for the terms "popular" and "critically acclaimed".

It stands to reason that "popular" would be measured in pretty much the same way that it is now - how well a program does in the ratings (Although there would have to be a cutoff point, and I'm currently unsure of what that would be).

Would "critically acclaimed" be measured by Emmy nominations, Golden Globe nominations, or possibly from the result of a vote cast by the leading magazines and websites specializing in critiquing television programs? Perhaps a combination of these three. What constitutes a "leading" magazine or website?

By the way, I'm not including "reality television" in any portion of this post. Luckily, in the fantasy world that allows me to place term limits on television shows, reality programming does not exist.

Now let's weigh the pros and cons of this sweeping reform that could change the way television shows are produced...


Everybody gets a Fair Shake
Two seasons are guaranteed, which would enable every show the chance to find and keep an audience. Also, this could be the incentive necessary to prevent a network (Hi Fox!) from placing a total crap show on-screen as they would have to keep airing it for two seasons - sucky show, sucky ad revenue.


Increased Quality Per Episode
The way i see it, the creators of a television series have to believe that their series has a chance to be well received by both critics and viewers alike. I think it's safe to work under the premise that no one creates a series with the hopes of it failing. So now the creator of any given series can start a show with the assumption of a four season story arc. This concept would also help to eliminate "filler" episodes within a series. Each episode would now have with it a greater sense of urgency as the series draws closer to its conclusion at the end of season 4.


Closure
If by the middle of season 2 it has become apparent that the series is not going to fall within either the "popular" or "critically acclaimed" categories, half a season is available for tying up loose ends and saying goodbye to the audience your series has garnered in its two seasons on the air.


Fond Memories
Shows no longer have to outstay their welcome. If they were good for the first few seasons, they can be remembered that way and not have their loyal viewers watching the garbage their show has become in season 5 and reminiscing about how great it once was (Hi "Grey's Anatomy"!).

I'm sure several Grey's fans are pissed at me right now, but when you're a television show in its fifth season and one of the main characters is boning the ghost of a former patient she fell in love with during the show's glory years, you've jumped the shark .


The only drawback I believe to be apparent in my term limit proposal, is that a series does occasionally come along that deserves at least a fifth season, maybe even 6 or 7. However, this is rare, and far outweighed by the fact that shows like "According to Jim" and "One Tree Hill" would only be left on the air for 3 seasons ("popular", but not "critically acclaimed").

Correlation Between Television and Unhappiness

What Happy People Don't Do

A friend showed me an article from the link above and I was intrigued. It attests to the fact that happy people, in general, do not watch as much television as their unhappy counterparts. Initially, i thought that this article, and the scientific study on which it was based, reaches such a logical conclusion that it is difficult to understand why one would go to the trouble of trying to prove it with a study.

However, there was no causation implicated in this article, only correlation. This was when I arrived at a "which came first?-chicken or egg" debate with myself on the topic. Do people decide to watch more television because they are unhappy?...or...Are people unhappy because they watch too much television?

Personally, i'm inclined to believe that people watch more television when they are already unhappy and that television is not the cause of someone's unhappiness. However, i could certainly see an argument being made the other way.


Watching boatloads of television because you are a sadsack:


I have to believe that one of the key causes of being unhappy is isolation/loneliness. At least that's my theory and i'm sticking with it. If you have several, or at least a few close friends, it's safe to assume that you will be engaged in more social activity (shopping, throwing the frisbee, or just chatting with each other) and less tube watching.

Side question: Is watching TV with friends a meaningful social experience or shared unhappiness?

In addition, being in a committed relationship with someone you love would likely lead to activities other than television viewing (going to the museum, to the park, taking a walk, or just enjoying each other's company over a long dinner/conversation, etc.). My point being that if you're involved in social activities with others, you're likely to spend less time sitting in front of your plasma. It's also likely to make you happier, as it stands to reason that sharing time with a friend or companion is a more fulfilling experience than a half hour of "Everybody Loves Raymond".


Boob Tube content is the reason you want to tie a noose around your neck:


Need to feel unhappy about the way you look....just check out the leading man or lady of your favorite show (unless that show is "Ugly Betty", you're probably not as traditionally pretty as him or her). Need to feel unhappy about love...why doesn't your boyfriend speak as sweetly to you as "The Bachelor" does to the 20-some women vying for his affections on a weekly basis. Need to feel unhappy about your life...any number of television shows have people living much more extraordinary or interesting lives than yours (Heroes, Dirty Sexy Money, Chuck, etc.).

Bottom line: There's enough bummer content on your cable lineup to make even the most chipper individual reach for a Prozac.

There can be little doubt that television gives people unrealistic perceptions of beauty, love, power, life, ..the list is endless. This is probably true of all or most media, but these perceptions are amplified when displayed on the medium of television, given that it is still the most popular form in our culture. Not only is it the most popular, but many children are watching television before they can read. Perhaps because we are so accustomed to it, its depiction of things (beauty, love, power, life) may seem, whether we consciously realize it or not, the most "real".

We have people for "Black Hawk Down"...

So while i was trying to think of a name for my blog, a number of movie titles ran through my head as I was pondering how i could insert my name in some form (Mark, MAC, Chandler) to make a masterpiece of a blog title. I realize i failed, but that's neither here nor there.

For some reason, the title 'Black Hawk Down' entered my thoughts...i really have no idea why...can't think of a single combination with my name that would make this a halfway interesting title. Regardless, thinking of the movie title made me laugh as it reminded me of the time I saw this particular movie at the theatre.

Some background information: In January of 2002, i was living back home with my parents. Sadly, my dream job (or any job for that matter) did not present itself after graduation, so my folks were kind enough to allow me to live with them for awhile. I made the journey from the booming college life at Mizzou to the metropolis of 9,000 people that is my hometown of Nevada, MO.

'Black Hawk Down' was released at this time, and I decided to go see it on a Monday afternoon (i was off that day from the horrible call center job i had picked up). Not unexpectedly, my hometown's 4 or 5-plex was basically a ghost town as i got to the ticket counter and asked for one ticket to "Black Hawk Down". The woman at the counter hooked me up with a ticket and then immediately proceeded to speak the following phrase into a walkie talkie..."We have people for 'Black Hawk Down'"

Walking into the theatre, I was the only person there as the flicker of the film started up. By that point I realized that the person on the other end of the walkie talkie conversation was likely the only other soul in the entire building...the projectionist. I was "people".