SKI SEASON IN CALIFORNIA

I tell you, even if the whole state of California goes to financial hell in a hand basket, I'm still going skiing this winter. One of the downsides of moving to Florida is that the entire state is completely flat. In fact, there is only 1 tunnel in the entire state, and that tunnel is in Fort Lauderdale. Otherwise the state is as flat as a pancake. Consequently, to get anywhere near to a ski slope from Miami usually meant a flight to Europe or New England. Not any more.

I intend to do many ski weekends this winter. I want to do day trips to Big Bear and weekend trips to Mammoth Mountain. And in January 2010 I definitley want to do gay ski weekend up at Whistler Mountain in Vancouver. I missed skiing more than once or twice a year. Well, that's 1 plus on moving back to Los Angeles.

POOR MICROSOFT - FALL DOWN, GO BOOM!

Like Wil E. Coyote, Microsoft just keeps running into the rock instead of passing through the painted tunnel like the Road Runner. Maybe that's not a good analgy. Let's try another. Microsoft is like a deaf, shouting Grandpa. He keeps making all sorts of noise, but no one's paying any attention. Grandpa Microsoft keeps shouting about 97% desktop penetration and being tethered to the desktop/laptop. But increasingly, Microsoft seems more and more irrelevant and will lose market share, rather than gaining it.

I remember when any desktop or software release from Microsoft was greated with great fanfare. Microsoft eventized their releases - Windows! Internet Explorer! The world eagerly awaited all the new features and upgrades that the software would bring. Which huge rock band's clasic song would serve as the theme for the launch commercials? The Rolling Stones "Start Me Up"?, Madonna?, The Eagles? Now, Microsoft is verging on the edge of irrelevancy. Most consumers now view Microsoft as a necessary evil. They're not, but Microsoft now has been out maneuvered in the very business they created.

The ease and use of Microsoft software allowed the laptop and desktop to become ubiquitous in every American (and often times worldwide) household. The hardware mattered, but it was the software that Microsoft created allowed for mass penetration for consumers. And it wasn't just consumers, Microsoft was the software of business that allowed for businesses to become much more productive. And that's were Microsoft got lost. They are staying in the business of writing software for business, but have not yet realized that people are using their computers for personal use more than for business. Of course, we still do large amounts of work on our computer, but we personalize our work experience for ourselves. We IM, answer personal emails, go shopping, Google, Facebook, watch short form video, all while answering emails, opening, reading & printing spreadsheet or powerpoints, editing documents, but there is probably a 60/40 intertwined spilt between work and personal use. Most of it simultaneous. And consumers have become much more accustomed to working through their personal lives.

Apple has all the flash and sex appeal of niche product. Apple tried to go mainstream and failed, but when they focused on their niche market, they exploded. Apple Stores are the new Starbucks of the 21st century. Apple's products are hip, cool, popular, easy to use, and very high end. Apple needs a new IPhone like product every 5 years or so. But Apple's not a threat to Microsoft, Google is.

Google's focus started with the consumer. How do we advertise to them while they're searching? Google's clean ease of use has become a lifestyle all it's own. And best of all, it's all free, which totally blows up Microsoft's profit model. Microsoft doesn't have the advertising revenue to make up for the license fees they charge for their software. And Microsoft faces an inherit financial modeling problem - how do you fight free? Google is the only company taking on Microsoft and is increasingly out Googleing Microsoft. This week, Google demoed a new software offering called Wave. Wave starts a thread that intertwines IM, email, photo viewing, social networking, and blogging. This is the new Holy Grail of software. How do you get consumers do all of the functions they love - IM, emailing, etc. all without switching to each program and doing all of these things in separate programs? Wave might not be it, but it's definitely a step in the right direction. The convergence of IM, email, photo viewing and blogging is where consumers are headed.

What did Microsoft release this week? Bing - yet another new search engine. YAWN! There has to be a compelling reason to switch my search engine from Google. And Bing isn't it. Granted it looks like it will have some bells and whistles, but Google can quickly adapt it's search algoithms if it needs to and POOF - problem solved, Microsoft's back to irrelevancy. Plus Microsoft is spending $100 million to advertise Bing. What a waste of money! Microsoft made a huge blunder in not buying Yahoo. Google classically played Yahoo & Microsoft off of each other. Microsoft just used Steve Ballmer's "We're Microsoft, we don't need anyone." (but they do need Yahoo to even begin to compete with Google in search). Combined that with Yahoo as the "wounded eagle," where Google threw cash at them and promised protection. Google gave Yahoo a false sense of security and played up Microsoft's ego. Google poisoned the merger and waved bye bye to any competition. Microsoft was so stupid. Steve Ballmer should be fired for f-ing that up.

Microsoft remains a player in the market they created, but they desperately need to do something to get back to focusing on the consumers. Even IE 8, which is good, is still not as good as Google's Chrome browser. I would like to see Microsoft succeed. Google is currently going through it's own corporate growing up phase, where it's no longer this rich upstart teenager of a company and is maturing into a full blown adult computer company. Google needs to continue to innovate even as it matures, but Microsoft needs to drink from the fountain of youth and age down or risk becoming a relic of the 21st century that never made it to the 22nd century.

How far the mighty have fallen.

TWINKLE, TWINKLE, LITTLE STAR

Something big is underway in Hollywood this summer. I'm not just talking about the explosion in the popularity of IMAX, where demand is outstripping supply. Or the increase in ticket prices for either 3D (which is largely being subsidized by the major Hollywood studios) or digital screenings, or the fact the Hollywood has proven to be Great Recession proof. All of this is true, but what no one is talking about is Hollywood's 2009 Summer of the New Stars.

Hollywood usually produces only 2 new stars a year: 1 male star and 1 female star. These are the Scarlett Johansson's and Robert Pattinson's of the Hollywood universe. Hollywood always needs new stars. The average starmaking of the last 5 years has been 2 new stars a year.

But this summer is different. Hollywood is grooming several new stars, most in their 30's and largely unknown, are looking to replace the stars that are rapidly aging into their upper 40's and 50's (Brad Pitt & Tom Cruise) are getting ready to replace legends like the dearly departed Paul Newman as films' elderstatemen. These new stars also come at the right price (inexpensive) for studios trimming expenses in the newly restrictive corporate belt tightening environment.

New stars in the making include Shia LeBouf. Already a star, but being cemented in this summer's Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Star Trek is making Chris Pine and Zachary Quito as well as the new James T. Kirk/Thor - Chris Hemsworth into stars. Taylor Lautner is looking to join 2008's new star Robert Pattinson at the end of 2009 with the Twilight Eclipse. Although his first major film release is Terminator Salvation, new star Sam Worthington (Marcus) first major film role is this Christmas' most anticipated release - James Cameron's Avatar. Fox can now focus on the filmmaker for the publicity and wisely left the star-building to Warner Bros. with T4.

Although he's been around for a while, and a star for several summer's, no summer means more to Christian Bale's career than 2009. How does Christian Bale follow-up to his role in the #2 highest grossing movie of all time, last summer's out of control smash hit The Dark Knight? With not 1, but 2 big summer film roles in 2009. Even though new star Worthington stole the movie out from under him, Mr. Bale still performed masterfully as the new John Connor in Terminator Salvation. So let's see, Mr. Bale now has Batman and John Connor both sewn up in multiple sequels for year's to come ($$$$$). But Mr Bale is not yet done with summer of 2009. He plays the good guy FBI agent opposite Johnny Depp's John Dillinger in Public Enemies. Not a bad career at all for the man who began his film acting career with Stephen Spielberg in 1987's Empire of the Sun. This also looks to be Channing Tatum's year to breakout in late summer's big GI Joe film.

And what about the ladies? Megan Fox is making a big push to be the next Angelina Jolie. There are not a lack of sexy Hollywood leading ladies. In fact, there's more supply than demand in this area.

And then there are the outliers. The next serious Academy Award winning actor who is currently in his 20's looks to me to be Emile Hirsh. Meryl Streep has summer movie hit #3 on her hands with Julia & Julia following Mamma Mia (see previous blog posting on how terrible of a film this was, despite it's incredible box office & DVD nostalgic success) and The Devil Wears Prada. Robert Downey Jr. meteoric and long overdue makeover into a bonfide star will be shown again in the highly amusing Sherlock Holmes and next summer's Iron Man 2. Katherine Heigl has taken over from Julia Roberts (who took it over from Meg Ryan) the role of #1 female romantic comedy star.

A DIFFERENT MEMORIAL DAY

Memorial Day is traditionally dedicated to remembering the brave men & women of the United States who have died in combat defending our great country. But for this Memorial Day, I wanted to remember 2 other people whom I dearly love and will never forget, my dearly departed grandparents, W. George and Marion Claire Pike. I loved my mother's parents.

My Grandpa Pike was a big man. I didn't know that much about him, other than I loved him. I think he was an architect who worked for the city of Malden. My fondest memory of my Grandpa was while I was playing on the carpet or sitting on the couch and he was watching a football game on TV on the weekends. He used to sit in his leather recliner, put the foot rest up, smoke his cigar and would yell in his booming, excited voice, "TOUCHDOWN! GREEN BAY!" when the Green Bay Packers scored a touchdown. I would run around yelling the same thing, imitating my Grandpa: "TOUCHDOWN! GREEN BAY!" All without having any idea who the Green Bay Packers were or even what a touchdown was. Sadly my Grandpa Pike died of a heart attack shortly after pulling my ATC out of a snowbank. The exertion must have been too much for his heart. I remember feeling so guilty and responsible for his death at the time. Both of my parents were devestated and it was my first real experience with death and losing someone I loved. I didn't know what a wake or a funeral was before then. It was very hard for our whole family and especially my grandmother. But he was a great man in time when that was actually true.

Nana Pike I knew quite well. I remember her sitting at our dining room table in Amesbury doing a puzzle, smoking a Tarynton cigarette with her glasses on a chain or around her neck. Nana Pike used to love to do puzzles. My brother and I used to get her puzzles for her birthday and for Christmas. We used to get her 1000, 2000, even 3000 piece puzzles. And sure enough in just 1 or 2 days, no matter how hard the puzzle was, it would be done. I don't know how she did it, but she always did those puzzles so quickly. And she was so smart, we used to joke in my family about how we were sitting on a million dollars with Nana Pike, if only we could get her to go on Jeopardy or Wheel Of Fortune.

I actually have my Nana Pike to thank for taking me on my first trip to New York City to see a Broadway show. I had to have been 13 or 14 years old. Neither one of us knew our way around the city. She would say the theatre was in one direction, and I would say it was in the other. I would convince her to go my way and we would start walking, and sure enough, she was right. We were walking in the exact opposite direction. We had to walk all the way back and then to the theater. Nana would get the tickets for the shows and we went to see Les Miserables together, Phantom of the Opera, and I'm sure a couple of other shows I don't recall. Every time I go to New York City I say a little prayer for my Nana.

I have such fond memories of my two dearly departed grandparents. I wish I had them in my life longer. I know they are looking down and watching out for me from heaven. And it makes me even more thankful for the grandparents that I have had my entire adult life.

NOW CUTTING COSTS MEANS CUTTING CAST

You know it struck me a few weeks back when I was reading an Entertainment Weekly article about the show SUPERNATURAL starring Jensen Ackles and Jared Padalecki.  It was your standard publicity article about how hot the stars were, how rapid and loyal the small, but dedicated audience was, and how the show is actually bucking the trend of a 4th year series and growing its audience.  Both the ratings and viewership are going up.  Let's not get too excited, this is still a series on the CW network, but it is a Warner Bros. produced show and I am glad to see it doing well.  But the real thrust of the article was a threat.  

Both the producer and the 2 stars were literally quoted saying:  "Ostroff should be prepared to open her checkbook at those Season 6 negotiations: According to Ackles, ''They'd have to back up a Brinks truck.''  Now at first it struck me as incredibly insensitive of these 2 actors, living out a dream that every young actor would dream of:  working on a hit TV show and getting paid very well for it, would even say such a thing.  This quote is nothing new from actors in magazines threatening to walk off a show unless they are well compensated.  And I have seen this tactic work countless times.  Hell, the cast of FRIENDS made a yearly ritual of demanding more money and getting it.  (And worth every penny of it in my opinion).

First of all these boys personal publicist should have told them that it's out of touch to complain in a magazine about making more money when some of the people reading the magazine are unemployed, worried about their job situation, whatever....just a little bite of human sensitive is called for.  But then to demand more money!  Talk about a failed negotiating tactic.

I have news for every actor out there.  For the first time ever, you're all expendable and you can all be replaced with someone else much less expensive than you.  And that is especially true for TV actors.  In my opinion, right now, the only living U.S. TV actor that can command more money and get it, is Simon Cowell.  People don't watch American Idol for the singers, everyone secretly watches it hear what outrageous statement is going to come out Simon Cowell's mouth next.  And believe me, Simon will get every penny he's asking for to reup on AI.

It has been haircutting season on above the line costs with many TV shows this year.  Jeanne Garafolo just got cut from the next season of 24.  Chad Michael Murray and Hilaire Burton were both cut from the cast of One Tree Hill next season.  Michaela McManus is leaving the cast of Law & Order SVU next season.  Nicollette Sheridan was killed off for cost reasons on Desperate Housewives.  Dustin Milligan is leaving the cast of 90210.  I have never seen such a high rate of cast turnover from season to season.

I think studios are asking producers for big cuts, and 1 big cut is to cut 1 star from your show and no other department will be effeected and the quality of your show is maintained.  It may be painful to cut cast, but you can certainly write around it.

I have always thought that actors were way overpaid.  I think actors should be paid fairly.  If you're show or movie is a hit, you should share in the profits.  If you show or movie is a failure, you shouldn't make anything other than SAG industry scale.  Take Tom Cruise for example.  The reason Tom Cruise was let go from Paramount was his participations deal.  When Paramount would hire Tom Cruise to do a film, you hire him as an actor, you pay him a producing fee for his production company (the former Cruise/Wagner), and you pay Tom Cruise the private incorporated industry with 1 employee, Tom Cruise.  And he got a cut of every revenue stream - merchandising, soundtrack, toy tie in, DVD sale, TV sale.  Paramount would cut Tom Cruise at least a $1 million check a month just on his participations deal for the 3 Mission Impossibles.  Sumner fired him for that reason alone, since he can just hire him for only $20 million a film and SAVE money on all the backend stuff.

But by my reckoning, Tom Cruise or not, Tom gets scale for the shoot, whether it's a little indie film or a big action adventure picture and then he gets 1% of the NET (not gross) profit after the studio recoups it's total initial investment.  That's how you pay an actor.  None of this, "Here's $2o million - go make Cable Guy."

Those days are over.  Studios are pulling the plug on every type of movie if the costs run too high or and they're asking all talent, and that means everyone, to lower their asking price to get the movie made.  It's got to be a terrible time to be an agent and watch that 10% shink lower and lower.

Beware actors.  Don't make salary demands or you could end up in the California unemployment office with the other 10% of the state.

The EW article:  http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20270843,00.html

NOW THAT'S HOW YOU RELAUNCH A FRANCHISE

Paramount's billion dollar plus franchise has just had its life extended well into the 21st century thanks to J.J. Abrams and his creative team.  STAR TREK was a good movie.  Not a great movie, but a good one.  Action packed, perfectly cast, great effects, very true to the spirit of the original, a plausable role for Leonard Nimoy as Spock to "pass the batton to the next cast", but with enough new flourishes to make it their own and continue the franchise.  Again, like Wolverine (see previous blog post below), this was the origin story, and therefore a weaker story, since you have to reintroduce 7 characters.  But the movie worked brilliantly in that even if you have no idea of who these characters are, you will enjoy the film.  Where does it rank among the other Trek films?  I would say right behind the best Star Trek film, which was Wrath of Kahn (ST2).

What's interesting, and I only know this because I also watch J.J. Abrams TV show FRINGE, is how they explained the parallel universe in both the TV show and the movie and did it in a believable way.

My friend Tom had a funny comment, because the villian is always the toughest role to in any ST film:  "You mean to tell me that the villian was a disgruntled blue collar miner roaming the universe in a giant avocado?"  Hilarious.  Unfortunately, Tom did like the movie as much as he wanted to.

GOOD THINGS DO NOT COME TO THOSE WHO WAIT

After literally waiting over 20 years for the origin story of the Marvel Comics second most popular character (the first being Spider Man), the title of this blog post says it all.  X-Men Origins Wolverine was a good movie, but not the great origin story that the character deserves.  It lacked in almost every way, the effects were a noticeable when they should have been undectable, the story had holes, and unfortunately, I think Wolverine suffered the same fate as Watchmen earlier this year - it's too much of an insider story.  Unlike Iron Man (which opened the same weekend last summer), the movie was perfect if you were a comic book fan and knew the history of the characters, but a poor film if you have no idea who Wolverine is.

In order for these comic book franchises to pop, they need to follow the Iron Man/Batman/Spider Man franchise movie path.  The first film is the origin story, which is always a little weak, the second film is the exciting film and the third film ruins the build upof  popular support for the other 2 films, the characters are retired for 5 years and then relaunched with a 4th film and new vision.

If you're a fan of Wolverine, the movie was a bit dissappointing, but the promise of the sequel set in Japan and going into Logan's samurai history looks rife for a great second film.  We shall see in a few years.

I did like aspects of the movie.  I like how they used the Three Mile Island meltdown in the film, and some of the mutants were cool.  The film also allowed FOX to launch the first class of mutants into an whole new film.

As an even sadder footnote, again, after waiting 20 years to find out Wolverine's real name, I order a Papa John's pizza three weeks before the movie opens, and due to a promotional tie in, Wolverine's real name is on the outside of the pizza box!  So that's how I found out his real name.  Sad, isn't it?  But then I remembered, one of the last comics I ever bought was the 6 issue Wolverine Origins story.  I read it, and the movie was much better than the comic origins story.  The comic should have been 2 or max. 3 issues, not 6.  Talk about streching out a story longer than it needed to be.