It's too bad that CBC doesn't see the ramifications of its inaction.
Recently the contract that CBC's Hockey Night in Canada had with the composer of its iconic theme song had run out. We as Canadian hockey fans have associated that song with Hockey, and in turn the CBC, for 40 years. The song has been known in Canada as the unofficial 2nd national anthem. It's as important here as the theme to Monday Night Football is in the U.S., probably more so. I can remember hearing that song and I'd know that I was going to be in for a great Saturday night.
After CBC negotiated with the song's composer, Dolores Claman, no agreement could be reached. The song however will not be sitting on the shelf collecting dust, CTV, the owner of TSN, the Canadian ESPN, swooped into the mix and bought the rights to the song "in perpetuity". This means that TSN's hockey broadcasts will now be lead into by the famous song. In my opinion, this is a great move for TSN, they've now put themselves in a position where they have the premiere broadcast rights to almost all the major sports, including the NHL, NFL and NBA, as well as the heart of the nation. And what does CBC have? Well, they still have Hockey Night in Canada, but will it be the same?
The CBC is going to be banking on the fact that the H.N.I.C. brand will be enough to keep viewers and sponsers linked to their network for the upcoming NHL seasons. And in an attempt to keep brand loyalty, the CBC is having a contest where people can create the new H.N.I.C. theme song. A good idea in theory, but it makes me wonder how many songs will be submitted that have that same rythm and cadance as the original.
I believe that many people will be making moves toward TSN for their tv hockey viewing. The song is seen as a symbol for all hockey in Canada and CBC just lost the right to have it. It's easy enough to say that they should have payed any price to keep the song on their network, but their tax-payer funded budget is nowhere near the private budget of CTV, if the negotiating came down to money than CBC never had a chance. That being said, they still should've done more. Generations of people have watched the CBC for their hockey coverage, and from now on that broadcast has lost something special, and I don't think that Don Cherry and Ron MacLean will be able to hold it together on their own.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Hollywood's lack of creativity
Do you remember the time when Hollywood was a place where ideas were shapped and nurtured? Where the films that were produced were some of the most original pieces of art that were around?
I know that I don't. This is partly because I was born after all of that was the case. I get it though, I really do. Why chance a new idea on people when one has a proven track record already.
Recently, we were given a glimpse of what can be done to a fan favourite of times gone by. Transformers. As a kid in the 1980's I watched the show a considerable amount, begged my parents for the toys and destroyed the ones they were willing to buy me. I'd accepted the death of Optimus Prime in the 1986 animated feature, and had moved on with my life feeling safe in the knowledge that my childhood wasn't marred by "re envisioning" or "reinventing".
Thanks Michael Bay. We all saw the marketing potential. The kids of the 80's now have the money to spend and are looking for a bit of nostalgia to brighten there work filled days. And I understand that with CG as good as it is, you could make the Autobots crush the Decepticons in the most brutal ways imaginable. Now without me going into a full-out movie review here, let me just say for the record that the movie had several problems thereby deserving no more than 2 out of 5 stars. I'm just lost looking for the benefit in all this. Many industry types would probably point to their swollen wallets as benefit enough, and from their perspective who can blame them. But for me, the consumer, I find it difficult to understand why they couldn't just make a robot movie that had nothing to do with the Transformers.
In making this movie you'd called on your fans to remember the source material, much of which you then ignored. Aside from the obviousness of bringing in Peter Cullen to reprise his role as Optimus prime, almost everything else of value had been altered. Bumblebee was no longer a VW Beetle; Optimus Prime wasn't a flat-front truck; Megatron was no longer a gun; far too much time was spent on human characters rather than on the Transformers themselves.
I know that I'm focusing on Transformers right now, but this same dialog could be over any number of movies. To list them would a daunting task I'm not willing to undertake, but I will mention some "highlights". The current run of Comic books that are now movies: Batman, Spider-man, X-Men, Superman, Daredevil, The Punisher, The Hulk, etc. Books: Memoirs of a Geisha, Sideways, Fight Club, Harry Potter, etc. Video games: Resident Evil, Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, etc. All of these and many more have had the "Hollywood treatment", all with great boxoffice/finacial success but most with little artistic success.
There is a reason that these characters, settings, and what not are successful. They all tap into some quality in a person that touches their heart, mind or both. So why not turn it into something else? Well, that's all well-and-good if the film version has the integrity and spirit of the original. But, and I would think that most people would agree with me, the ORIGINAL source material was done perfectly well in the first place so there should be no need to redo it just for the sake of making a quick buck.
I know that I don't. This is partly because I was born after all of that was the case. I get it though, I really do. Why chance a new idea on people when one has a proven track record already.
Recently, we were given a glimpse of what can be done to a fan favourite of times gone by. Transformers. As a kid in the 1980's I watched the show a considerable amount, begged my parents for the toys and destroyed the ones they were willing to buy me. I'd accepted the death of Optimus Prime in the 1986 animated feature, and had moved on with my life feeling safe in the knowledge that my childhood wasn't marred by "re envisioning" or "reinventing".
Thanks Michael Bay. We all saw the marketing potential. The kids of the 80's now have the money to spend and are looking for a bit of nostalgia to brighten there work filled days. And I understand that with CG as good as it is, you could make the Autobots crush the Decepticons in the most brutal ways imaginable. Now without me going into a full-out movie review here, let me just say for the record that the movie had several problems thereby deserving no more than 2 out of 5 stars. I'm just lost looking for the benefit in all this. Many industry types would probably point to their swollen wallets as benefit enough, and from their perspective who can blame them. But for me, the consumer, I find it difficult to understand why they couldn't just make a robot movie that had nothing to do with the Transformers.
In making this movie you'd called on your fans to remember the source material, much of which you then ignored. Aside from the obviousness of bringing in Peter Cullen to reprise his role as Optimus prime, almost everything else of value had been altered. Bumblebee was no longer a VW Beetle; Optimus Prime wasn't a flat-front truck; Megatron was no longer a gun; far too much time was spent on human characters rather than on the Transformers themselves.
I know that I'm focusing on Transformers right now, but this same dialog could be over any number of movies. To list them would a daunting task I'm not willing to undertake, but I will mention some "highlights". The current run of Comic books that are now movies: Batman, Spider-man, X-Men, Superman, Daredevil, The Punisher, The Hulk, etc. Books: Memoirs of a Geisha, Sideways, Fight Club, Harry Potter, etc. Video games: Resident Evil, Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, etc. All of these and many more have had the "Hollywood treatment", all with great boxoffice/finacial success but most with little artistic success.
There is a reason that these characters, settings, and what not are successful. They all tap into some quality in a person that touches their heart, mind or both. So why not turn it into something else? Well, that's all well-and-good if the film version has the integrity and spirit of the original. But, and I would think that most people would agree with me, the ORIGINAL source material was done perfectly well in the first place so there should be no need to redo it just for the sake of making a quick buck.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
