John August

fixed

Show your work, pt. 2

Follow Up, Geek Alert, Rant

geek alertFollowing up on last night’s post, it occurs to me that designing and programming for the web also has an aspect of showing your work. Nearly every browser lets you “View Source,” showing how the page was constructed…up to a point.

For example, if you View Source on the new Answer Finder I built, you can see the JavaScript (and jQuery) that drives the menu and shows/hides the various sections.

What you can’t see is the PHP on the server that generated those sections. In my case, this is a good thing, because the PHP is so awful and kludgy that I can’t explain or defend why it works.

So to make that one page, I’m relying on a bunch of technologies with vastly different levels of transparency.

transparencyThe “transparent” technologies are available for anyone interested in looking. And that’s mostly good: Peeking beneath the hood is a great way to learn how a technology works. I often find myself opening the CSS for sites I like to see how they’re constructed. ((Keep in mind that you can learn bad habits this way.))

I’m classifying HTML as semi-transparent because so much of the HTML you see when you “View Source” for a site is generated by scripts running on the server, and it’s not automatically clear how or why. WordPress, for example, mixes in at least four parts (Header, Content, Footer and Sidebar) to make any given page. Someone familiar with WordPress might be able to deduce a basic structure, and figure out which parts were generated by The Loop. But in some cases it’s arbitrary. For example, the category links at the bottom of most pages on this site could be hard-coded or generated on the fly, and you wouldn’t be able to tell.

While you can find a lot of information about the images used on a site, including where they’re stored, you don’t necessarily know how they were generated. The chart above, for example, is a .png made from a snapshot of a Numbers document.

In the fully-opaque category are PHP and MySQL, who do most of the heavy lifting for the site but are completely insulated from the user.

Traditionally, programmers have been able to disappear behind the opacity of a compiler. Designers could hide behind the printing or manufacturing process. With the web, the process behind the product is much more visible.

(End of Geek Alert)

The same thing is happening to movies. Not too long ago, a movie came into existence in popular culture just shortly before its release, when the first ads and trailers started running. I didn’t know anything about Die Hard before I saw a trailer. I saw The Blair Witch Project without any idea who made it or how.

Now, long before the marketing begins — before production even begins — details of projects spill across the internet for consumption and criticism. Scripts leak. Photographers sneak pictures of the set, or the costumes. The omission of a giant squid becomes the focal point of conversation for a movie that doesn’t yet exist.

For movies and television, I’m not sure we’re better off “showing the work” in advance.

I appreciate reading American Cinematographer to see how Robert Elswit lights There Will Be Blood, but I don’t read those articles before seeing the movie, lest I get too distracted by those details when I watch it. Likewise, I wish I didn’t know what I know about Terminator: Salvation or Dollhouse. It’s not insider knowledge, but rather the media reporting on the media.

This isn’t transparency, an invitation to come look inside. It’s forced exposure. It’s uncomfortable, and by nature we try to avoid uncomfortable things.

Script to greenlight panel

Film Industry, WGA

The WGA is hosting a panel discussion on studio feature development that should be worth checking out:

Panelists include:

  • screenwriter Jonathan Hensleigh (Armageddon, The Punisher, The Rock)
  • JC Spink from BenderSpink management
  • development executive Navid McIlhargey (Sr. VP of Production at New Regency; previously of Silver Pictures)
  • producer Derek Dauchy (President of Davis Entertainment)
  • studio executive David Beaubaire (VP of Production at Paramount; previously studio executive of DreamWorks and Warner Brothers – he knows how each works)
  • and a Surprise Guest.

(No, I’m not the surprise guest.)

It’s hosted by the WGA Writers Education Committee, and open to WGA members in good standing (plus a guest).

Thursday, February 26, 7:30 p.m.
WGA Theater
135 S. Doheny Dr., Beverly Hills

You need to RSVP: (323) 782-4602.

Preacher

Adaptation, Preacher, Projects

Other places are suddenly reporting it, so I might as well confirm the news: I’m writing a big-screen version of Preacher,
an adaptation of the acclaimed graphic novel series by Garth Ennis and Steve Dillon. Sam Mendes is attached to direct. Neal Moritz is producing for Sony Pictures.

To answer your first four questions: there’s no release date, no cast, no locations, no nothing. I’m writing a script which could become a movie if everything lines up correctly. So here’s hoping. It’s a terrific project that I’m excited to be writing.

Cablevision and the infinite TiVo

Film Industry, Television, WGA

This morning, the Supreme Court asked the Justice Department to weigh in on a service Cablevision hopes to introduce. It’s an issue every screenwriter (or TV viewer) should be watching closely, because it could have a huge impact on the entertainment industry.

The case is called Cable News Network vs. CSC Holdings. The case made it to the Supreme Court after a U.S. Appeals court reversed a lower court’s decision. The case will probably end up back at the Supreme Court this fall.

The issue is deceptively straightforward: Cablevision wants to offer its customers a “remote storage digital video recorder.”

At first blush, this seems pretty unobjectionable. Under current U.S. law, it’s legal for a consumer to record television programs for later viewing. This is considered time-shifting, and was first made possible by the VCR. Conventional DVRs are high-tech cousins to VCRs, with a hard drive replacing the videotape. In the U.S., many cable and satellite companies provide boxes that include DVR functionality, generally for an additionally monthly fee.

Cablevision wants to offer DVR as a service instead of a device. Rather than recording 30 Rock on the box attached to your TV, the show will be recorded at Cablevision’s headquarters. Then, when you want to watch it, Cablevision will send the show to your television. If it works right, it should feel just like a normal DVR. Only without the cost of the DVR.

If Cablevision offers this service, I think it will be very successful. Less hardware means less things to break, and the service could presumably send a show to any TV in the house. (Some conventional DVRs can do that, but it’s often a hassle.) Plus, storage scales very well. Cablevision could offer a user much more recording space than a conventional DVR.

In fact, Cablevision could offer unlimited storage. And that’s where it gets dangerous.

Say Mary Jones sets her Cablevision RS-DVR to record 30 Rock. So does Bob Smith. Cablevision only needs to record it once. They can send the bits to Mary or Bob whenever one of them asks for it. ((Alternately, Cablevision could partition drives so that every customer has a certain number of gigabtytes (terabytes? petabytes?) of storage, and record each show in that partition just like a conventional DVR. But this is tremendously inefficient, and nearly impossible to audit.))

Given that Cablevision has more than four million customers, it’s a fair bet that at least one of their customers would be interested in any given show, so it makes sense for Cablevision to record and catalog every channel it distributes, 24/7/365.

Conventional DVRs only record what you ask them to record, with some modifiers, such as “new episodes of The Simpsons,” or “movies with Steven Seagal.” So for Cablevision’s service to work like a conventional DVR, it should only offer you programs you specifically chose to record. No fair waking up Friday and asking for last night’s The Office.

But wait. Cablevision is already recording every show. Why don’t they just offer a “Record Everything” option?

Once they offer you the choice to record everything, you suddenly have the ability to watch any show broadcast since you signed on to the service. This is transformative, a Wayback Machine for television.

It would also destroy television as we know it.

Here’s where I put in my obligatory, “I’m no Luddite” disclaimer. I was the first person I know to have a DVR (the original ReplayTV), and consider myself highly familiar with the legal and less-legal options for watching video on computers and TV. As a consumer and geek, I would love to have a service like Cablevision’s. But I don’t think Cablevision should be allowed to do it their way.

Cablevision’s RS-DVR is back-door video-on-demand. They’re trying to offer the networks’ output to their customers on their own temrs, without paying any additional fees.

But it’s worse than that.

A service like Cablevision’s makes reruns absurd. Why would anyone watch a rerun of Desperate Housewives when it’s always been available for free on the RS-DVR? And it’s not just television shows that are affected. In a Cablevision universe, a feature film loses all its television value the first time it’s shown. Why would HBO want to show Slumdog Millionaire more than once, considering everyone who could ever want to see it would have it available for free in perpetuity via Cablevision?

For that matter, why buy a DVD, or spend $9.99 to buy a movie through iTunes when that same film is sitting on your (virtual) DVR?

Without reruns and ancillary markets (like DVDs and iTunes), there are no residuals, so that’s obviously a concern for writers.

But it’s worse than that.

Without reruns and ancillary markets, there are no feature films and no scripted television. Outside of lower-cost reality programming, it is simply not profitable to make a movie or TV show that can only be shown theatrically, or once on television. Very, very few movies are profitable in their theatrical release. Most make their money on video and television, which would largely be irrelevant with services like Cablevision’s. A movie studio could decide to never permit their films be shown on any station carried by Cablevision. For television, that’s not an option.

So what should happen?

The Supreme Court should rule that copyright holders (the studios, in this case) retain the right to profit from the distribution of their work for a given period of time. Yes, copyright law is frustrating, and corporations routinely abuse their authority through DMCA and endless extensions. Generally, the studios are the bad guys, so it’s hard to be on their side. But if they’re not getting paid, nobody’s getting paid. And if nobody’s getting paid, there is no industry.

The studios should then negotiate with Cablevision and all the other cable and satellite providers to roll out a system that calls this service what it really is: video-on-demand. A consumer should be able to watch (or record in their home) an episode when it’s first broadcast, or get it through VOD for a fee. That fee should be low, cheap enough to make it an appealing alternative to piracy.

And studios should continue to support Hulu, iTunes and all the other competing services. Television will change, and it will probably resemble something like what Cablevision is trying to do. But it needs to keep paying the people who make the shows, both corporations and individuals. Or there’s no television left.