Is the 'Trilogy' a thing of the past?

Source: http://www.filmofilia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/dark-knight-rises1.jpg

I wrote a post yesterday about how Pixar has announced sequels to some of their hottest properties and in the post I talked about how Toy Story was probably the most perfect trilogy. The films all work as standalone stories but there is something about the overall arc of the trilogy and the story it tells that makes it work as a whole piece. The Toy Story trilogy is one of those that when you sit down and try to pick your favourite it's actually quite hard to do. For me it's probably the first one, simply for reasons of nostalgia, but they are all fantastic films.

So why would Pixar feel the need to add any more films to the franchise? The three films told a nice a story and whilst Toy Story 3 did leave the ending somewhat open ended (the toys being left with a new owner) it didn't really call out for a new film to finish the story, because it was already finished. It's not just Pixar that have decided that adding on a fourth film is a wise idea; Lionsgate really announced that the last book in The Hunger Games trilogy will be adapted into two films rather than just one, in the same vein as Harry Potter and Twilight.

I've read The Hunger Games books and, like most people who've read them, I can't see any logical reason for the last book to be adapted into two films because there simply isn't enough material to warrant spreading it across two films.

Think back to the good ol' days of Star Wars, Indiana Jones and more recently, The Lord of the Rings. These are three of the most critically acclaimed trilogies of all time and there's a reason for that. If you think about the basic rules of storytelling all good stories must have a beginning, a middle and an end and this serves well to be spread across three films. Now George Lucas did decide to be a twat and add three more films to his roster that, although weren't completely necessary (or good), did add something to the universe he had created and did work well as trilogy following the classic storytelling outline.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy probably followed this structure best and, in terms of narrative, is probably the best trilogy ever put out to the world. Peter Jackson is currently working on adapting The Hobbit for the big screen and for some reason that is being split into two films. Well I say "some reason", the reason they've put forward is that the second film will offer to bridge the gap between the years of The Hobbit and the start of The Lord of the Rings. I don't think a second film is warranted at all in this situation because LOTR is the only film to ever feature a hobbit character called Bilbo, who also appears in The Lord of the Rings, so it's not likely that people will get confused. It just seems like an opportunity to get more money out of our pockets.

The annoying thing about this is that if Peter Jackson wanted to add in more material to fill out the story wouldn't it have been better, and probably a lot more rewarding for fans, to release an extended edition which would include all the extra content rather than having to pay for two tickets at the cinema (which these days is a fucking rip off).

There is a film coming out tomorrow (20/07/2012) that stands a chance of showing that a good trilogy can still exist. I am talking, of course, about Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises. This highly anticipated film will round off a story that started in 2005 (Batman Begins), continued in 2008 (The Dark Knight) and this latest, and apparently last in the franchise, will hopefully conclude that story. But alas, these days we never really know whether or not there's any truth in a director saying it's the last one (just look up Michael Bay and Transformers 4) so I remain doubtful. Any fans out there will know that a famous comic book storyline sees Bane break Batman's back and the trailer seems to confirm that this is going to happen, and with Joseph Gordon-Levitt being brought it a good cop in this "trilogy closer" it doesn't take much of a stretch of the imagination to see the franchise continuing with a new man beneath the mask. With this being my last glinting ray of hope in world full of extended franchises, going way beyond their sell by date, I guess we'll find out tomorrow whether or not the "Trilogy" is really a thing of the past.

Is Nothing Sacred Anymore?

We're all completely sick of sequels and reboots by now aren't we? Well I hope you are because I know I am. There isn't really anything left that can be considered truly original. When was the last time you went to the cinema and saw a film you had absolutely no idea about before seeing it? I think for me it must have been The Hangover. I didn't really know any of the stars in it and I didn't know it was directed by Todd Philips before I saw it. I just saw it because I thought it looked funny.

Nearly every film that gets a major summer release these days has a 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 attached to the end of it. Is there not really a general rule that once a franchise gets past number 3 they turn really crap? I mean the obvious exception to this rule would probably be Harry Potter, but that was a series of books first that has always been planned across seven installments (8 in the films) so it makes sense.

Even if a film doesn't have a number attached to the end of it it's normally marketed as 'The New (Insert Star/Director name) Film". We have all become so attached to some form of brand identity that people are no longer willing to put their faith into truly original movies.

The one company these days that seems to be producing what we could consider "Modern Classics" is Pixar; Toy Story, Wall-E, Up, Finding Nemo, Monster's Inc, The Incredibles and more. Now one of those has already become a trilogy and two more of those are on their way to getting the franchise treatment. Pixar has very recently announced they will be releasing Finding Nemo 2, Monsters Inc 2 and Toy Story 4. I'm sorry, the Toy Story sequels I could on board with because it made sense seeing the transformation of the relationship between toys and their child transform over the three films as Andy grew up.

Toy Story 3 had a great ending. It was probably the only threequel in history that actually managed to better the two that came before it. But the point is that it ended. I understand that the toys were left with Bonnie and some people want to see that story but is it not better to just leave it open for people to make up their own minds.

Monsters Inc, was a beautiful film. It was a lovely emotional piece that worked completely well as a standalone film. I have a feeling that showing us what happened before that film (because it's actually a prequel about Mike and Sully in College) will take away from the emotional depth of the first and just ruin it.

And Finding Nemo 2. Seriously Pixar? I mean, you'd think that after the events of the first film then Nemo would have learnt his fucking lesson. And to be honest we all know exactly how the plot is going to go; the same as the first one. Nemo gets lost, Dad Tries to find him, get in to shenanigans, finds nemo at the 11th hour. And not to be a buzz kill but surely he should be dead by now.

Pixar have tried turning one of their previous properties into a franchise; Cars. Let's be honest here as well because Cars was basically the first Pixar film that kind of sucked balls. I've not even bothered to see the second one because it looked crap and the reviews seemed to back that up.

They do have some interesting projects lined up such as Brave, coming out later this year, and a film called 1952, a scifi written by Damon Lindelof but that's all we know at this point. Up until the release of Cars, Pixar films had review pretty much unanimous critical acclaim. And then Cars 2 was the only Pixar film to receive a 'Rotten' rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

John Lasseter, the man who runs Pixar, said before the release of Cars 2 that Pixar would only make films if they thought the story was worth telling. Really? Because I don't there was much demand or interest in a sequel to the talking cars story. What is interesting is that Pixar made a lot more money from merchandise and toys on Cars than they did in box office receipts. And what did the sequel happen to introduce; a lot more characters. Therefore a lot more toys and then a lot more money.

So what can we expect from Finding Nemo 2, Monsters Inc 2 and Toy Story 4? I wish I could say I had absolute faith in Pixar and they were only making these films because the story was well worth telling. I can tell you one thing we're guaranteed to see; a lot more characters, toys and merchandise. Pixar used to stand for world class film making, but now all I can see them standing for is a large pay cheque.

What does it mean for humanity when a robot can beat us at Rock, Paper, Scissors?

Okay, first of all watch the video below and then carry on.

The video itself isn't that exciting but the actual technology that has gone into building this robot and the possibilities something like this has now opened for mankind could change everything. Well not everything, but a lot of things.

If you didn't see in the video I'll just give a quick explanation of how it works. Basically the robot has a tiny camera that can detect the tiniest movement on the hand in a millisecond. So by the time you've started moving your hand into the position this robot already knows what you have chosen because it has detected a tiny movement in your hand.

The technology, at the moment, is at quite a basic level in terms of what it can actually do. Yes, it is impressive that it can beat you at a game of rock, paper, scissors but then that is only a choice of three different hand movements and even then it's only really two because you don't have to move your hand from it's original position if you are playing Rock.

But what it does represent is a robot being able to tell what a human being is going to do before they have the chance to complete the action, and create some way of stopping it. So, in the case of this video all we see is that the robot is able to beat the man at a game of rock, paper, scissors, but what if we start to think about where else this could be applied?

If you've seen the film Robocop then you'll have probably jumped to the same first idea I had which is robot police able to tell when someone is about to pull a weapon and they are able to react first and prevent it from happening. Up until now all the stuff like that just seemed like make believe but something like this shows that we are making real strides and it isn't long before T-800s are travelling back to the 80's to assassinate ladies, with really bad hair, whose offspring will one day destroy Skynet.

It could be used in for lots of different uses. With every knew technology it's not long before someone finds a way of selling it as a sex object. I mean is it really that far off engineers being able to build full size robots that can react to even more things? Say a full size robot is able to see when someone is about to trip and they are able to reach and catch them. That would be the first step, right? Well it wouldn't take long for someone to make the leap into the sexual. For example a robot you could have sex with and it would able to tell when ou are about to come and get off so you could... deposit somewhere else. Apologies if I got a bit graphic there but I really couldn't think of a better example. It does get you thinking though, with this leap how long will it be before we are able to build robots with complete personalities of their own and able to act of their own free will?

I'm not saying we should all be investing in as many tinned goods as we can and digging ourselves a bomb shelter in the back garden, all I'm saying is we need to be careful because before we know it we COULD be spelling our own destruction. If you're going to work on some form of sci-fi movie technology from the 80's instead of looking at the The Terminator and Robocop and building robots look at Star Wars and build us a lightsabre please. I'm only suggesting lightsabre's next because I assume they've already figured out and started production on hover-boards so that they're available by October 21st, 2015 (also my 24 Birthday *HINT*)

One final thought; what if two of these robots played each other?

Is My Life About to Become a Sitcom?

Source: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVu8gnG9iA5r3x8GC6u6Gvu2u6YQG6_3M19i-r2Y9sWfjEmwhyphenhyphenEfZbx-bA3gTggg9HVwaXSryIlDmy-fwNVlhHBjLaIO1MOF8IxOmCb77Gj6oHm7Lpj1ldYMsWQk3dee77_kWbtdSXdCg/s640/friends1.jpg

Sitcoms (or situation comedy) are an extremely important and popular part of television programming. They constantly top viewing figures and are one of those things people are talking about and referencing for years. Think about the famous American sitcom Friends, even if you haven't seen it you'll probably be able to name one of the characters and maybe quote one of the famous lines or tell me a storyline from the show because it has become such a staple of viewing that nearly anyone who has ever been near a television will know about it.

The reason sitcoms are so funny and popular is because most people viewing are able to relate to it in some way. I may not be able to relate to sitcoms at the age I'm at (20) but I still find them funny. On top of that I have now realised that I am getting dangerously close to the age of the character in these shows.

This has honestly started to worry me because I am now thinking of all the problems that the characters face in these shows and I realise that most of these problems will be happening to me soon. Think about it right now, think of all the sitcoms you know about; Friends, How I Met Your Mother, Coupling, The Big Bang Theory, Gavin and Stacy and countless others that have come and gone.

Right, now think of the average plot synopsis of a sitcom. 'A group of twenty-somethings struggle through relationship, jobs and all the problems that come between.' Yeah sounds like a right fucking laugh  The average TV viewer (ie someone over 30) will look at something like this and fondly remember the days when that was their life and they had the rest of their lives ahead of them. But if you're my age, then you should be shitting yourself; I know I am.

If you think about all the problems that the characters traditionally go through it's normally about finding a partner, getting married, finding somewhere to live and then starting a family and then after that theres all the money worries and problems with in-laws and it's all a giant fucking laugh for everyone involved.

Well it doesn't sound like fucking fun to me. I am genuinely terrified of getting older. At the moment I'm kind of in a state of limbo whereby I'm too old to have my parents take complete care of me by feeding me, clothing me and housing me, but I'm also too young to kind of take care of all those things myself and become a completely individual person. Maybe if I hadn't gone to Uni I could be financially independent by now, but then I wouldn't doing something I loved.

But I now know that in the next few years I am going to have to take care of myself. Most people think of their lives in 5-Year Plans. That's always the question you seem to hear at important job interviews (I mean like in films and TV, I've never been to a proper job interview) "What's your five year plan?" or "Where do you see yourself in 5 years?"

I have no idea where I'm going to be in 5 years, when I will be 25 and halfway to 30. When my mum was 25 she was married, had had me in Glasgow and moved down to Cambridge (like 600 miles) for a job and was planning to have my younger brother. I can't really imagine anything like that when I'm 25. I could maybe see myself being married when I'm 25, I've had a girlfriend for almost 4 years now so I guess it would make sense. But I don't want to ask her to marry me until I can afford a proper wedding and for us to be financially stable and ready to start a family or something. Average engagements last around 1-2 years which would mean if I'm going to married by 25 then I have to propose when I'm 23 or 24. I'll finish Uni when I'm 22 so I don't think there's anyway that I will have enough money for any of that.

I mean parts of me are so looking forward to getting older and married and having children and proper job doing something I love and a house and everything. But I can't imagine that happening in the next 5 years. I can barely see it happening in the next 10 years. On top of that, I've seen how much the characters in these shows struggle but it's all fine by the next episode. Is life going to be like that? Or has TV lied to me?

So I'll give a 5 year plan, seems like a good time, I'll live my life in blocks of 5 years. In 5 years I want to have a degree and be working my way up the Television Industry, I'll still be with Olivia (My Girlfriend) and we'll be thinking about future stuff. Oh, and I'll have somewhere nice to live. Now does anyone know Matt LeBlanc's phone number? I'm going to need him to say something funny whenever something fucks up.

I'm a little bit useless...

... well, I'm not exactly a bit useless. I am actually a lot useless. I'm sat here waiting on my mum to pick me up from my flat. Which doesn't actually sound that bad unless you know that I'm only getting picked up by my mum because the car in my battery is dead. The car in my battery is only daed because I left my fucking lights on last night and that drained the battery.

But seriously, it's so annoying. I don't understand what's been happening to me recently but my brain is just crap. It's absolutely atrocious. I just keep forgetting everything, not just big things or little things, I'm forgetting everything.

Earlier on Liv asked me for some Weetos, I replied that I would get them, and then before I knew what was happening she asked me where her Weetos were and I had absolutely no idea what she was talking about.

I wasn't kidding when I wrote in my first post when I said that I needed activity for my brain. I just need to find some sort of activity that is going to make me think more. I've been working everyday this week and now I feel a lot better, but it hasn't been anything mentally stimulating, just lots of physical labour.

So here we go, I'm setting myself a first deadline: Between now and this point next week I will post 2 new long blog posts about something. And they will be good. And as a special bonus I will be putting up a post about the first episode of my television series.

There we have it, we can now measure how useless I am; if I do the posts then I'm getting better, if not then I'm getting worse. I'll re-evaluate myself in a weeks time.

Will The Internet Destroy TV As We Know It?

This was one of the questions posed to me as part of my final coursework at Uni. It was a subject I had covered in a class debate earlier in the year so I already knew quite a lot about it. It's a really interesting question because as I came to think about it I realised that for the past couple of years I've been watching TV in a very different way to traditional broadcasting.

Even before the internet was anywhere near capable of allowing us to watch videos, advancements in technology were already changing the way we were watching TV. Home video recorders were around long before and they allowed us to record whatever was being shown on TV and keep it to watch at our leisure. And with home videos being fairly expensive people didn't mind fast forwarding through adverts, from a home recorded version, if it meant they could save some money.

When digital television came along we were able to access a lot more channels than regular terrestrial television could offer. A lot of these channels were dedicated to showing reruns of classic British programming from the BBC and ITV. Sky were the first company to really sell digital television equipment on a mass scale, and it wasn't long before they completely changed the way we watched TV in this country. When they released Sky+ it was the first time that people were able to record a television show and have instant access to it without having to use a video recorder. Of course the box only had limited space on the hard drive so it wasn't long before people were popping up offering to switch the hard drive to a bigger one, allowing people to store more content they'd recorded.

It's always been about money and people want to feel like they are getting the most for their money. When 4oD launched it was the first time one of the major British networks had offered consumers their television shows to download on their computers to watch. Of course when 4oD originally launched it was a very different service to what we get today. It was originally a software that had to be downloaded similar to iTunes, but full of archived Channel 4 shows. But with time it has evolved to work inside a web browser and allow people to stream their content easily. Of course to make some money off of this they have attached small adverts in the shows, but as I've already said people will sit through adverts if it means they can save some money on buying the DVD.

When BBC iPlayer launched it was all through the browser but it was, again, very different to the service we see today. It launched with selected content such as Top Gear and Doctor Who for viewers to stream instantly. Similar to their channel, these videos ran without adverts interrupting. But as technology has evolved they are able to host more content for viewers to stream with nearly all programming on BBC 1 and BBC 2 being able to view immediately after it's aired on live broadcast.

It wasn't long before ITV also launched a service and soon after Sky launched a streaming service for their entertainment channel Sky 1 with some other content being available. But with the advancement of technology there's always money to be made and it wasn't long before subscription streaming services became available. The first available was LoveFilm which had previously been operating as a postal DVD rental service. They started offering the streaming service to existing customers before allowing streaming only subscription packages.

A pretty much identical company had done the same thing a few years previously. That company was Netflix and they have, fairly recently, launched in this country as a subscription streaming service. These companies then branched out further into other technologies and made deals with Sony and Microsoft to launch their streaming services on the Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 respectively. These services don't cost a lot either, Netflix costs £5.99 a month and that gives you unlimited access to the 1000s of films and TV shows they have ready to stream.

Of course it's not even internet companies that are supplying us directly and instantly with the content. One of the major ways the internet changed how we watch television was through the website Amazon. Amazon was the first major website that allowed people to go online and shop for their favourite TV show boxsets. Before consumers would have to rely on their local DVD shop being in stock of the show they wanted to buy. Even then Amazon were able to offer the DVDs at a much lower price.

It's not just legal ways that the internet offers us for viewing programmes. There are 100s of sites hosting copyrighted content that anyone can stream instantly. And unlike services offered by the network these aren't locked by any sort of region copyright laws. This means that we in the UK are able to stream an American show a few hours after it's aired.

And if you were to used Torrents then you are able to download copyrighted content to your hard drive. This means you don't have to rely on the internet connection cutting out in the middle of your viewing and you have the video there ready to watch whenever you want.

In no way am I endorsing using illegal sites to view copyrighted content but these networks need to see what's going and rather than fighting all these stupid copyright lawsuits against teenagers who downloaded a film once they should be updating their servies. The simple truth of the matter is people don't really want to pay for things, especially DVDs which nowadays seem to contain nothing else than 3 different copies of watching the film. If you want a consumer to buy the DVD then you have to offer them something more than what they got from watching it the first time round on television because they are able to access that online for free.

Sky have been the first to catch on in this country and have started to make some deals with American networks to broadcast their shows sooner after that US broadcast than previous. What was happening before that was that we were getting to see American shows months after they had aired in the US. With the internet allowing people to connect better with other fans they don't want to be left behind so will use these illegal websites to stay caught up so they don't get the story ruined for them.

When Heroes was first broadcast in this country on the BBC the entire first season had already been shown in the US. By the time it finished airing over here the second season was about to begin in the US; it wouldn't air for several months on the BBC. This led to people in the UK viewing it online illegally and downloading it and sharing it with their friends.

The show that really changed everything, in my opinion, was Lost. The show originally aired on Channel 4 a few weeks after broadcast in America. The show itself gained a huge cult following so people didn't want to have to wait to find out what was going to happen next. After the first two seasons the show switched to Sky who aired it a few days after the American broadcast. When it came to the finale of the show it was so anticipated and kept so secret that Sky simulcast it with the US. This meant that for the first time fans could watch the show at the exact same time as their American counterparts and there would be no chance of anything being ruined.

The technology and services being offered are definitely moving in the right direction but at the moment it's not enough. This question can be looked at in two different ways. A more negative view you'd think that the internet is allowing people to watch illegal versions and ruining TV as networks aren't making as much money. But I prefer to think that the internet is destroying the way we watch our shows. I can't remember the last time I watched a show live, I mean I don't have a TV license, I just watch them all at my convenience on catch up services. If only the networks truly embraced everything they could offer their viewers then they wouldn't have to worry about people stealing their content because no one will bother with an illegal copy if they can watch it legally and free.

Post 0001

Hello, and welcome to my blog. I would invite you to have a look around but there isn't really anything much to look at at the moment. It's like I've moved into a house that everyone can come into but I haven't had a chance to decorate yet.

I've just finished my first year at Uni, well it's been over a month now. I have enjoyed spending the past month relaxing but I've gotten to the stage where I can actually feel my brain not working as well as it used to so I think I need something to keep my brain occupied.

Over my first year at Uni I've come up with a few ideas for things that I would like to work on so I'm going to be using this as a record of everything I've done because it will hopefully encourage me to do more. I have an idea for a TV series that I'm going to be spending the majority of my time working on and when there is something to share about it, I will. I'm also going to be writing articles about all kinds of things; sometimes it might be about a TV show or film, other's will probably be about something that pisses me off or something that I think is stupid.

So, for now, enjoy this post because it's all you're going to get for now, but check back soon and you might find something you enjoy.

Bye.