Tag: experiment

Categories
Entertainment

Simu Liu Slams Disney CEO For Shang-Chi “Experiment” Remark

SHANG-CHI AND THE LEGEND OF THE TEN RINGS, Simu Liu, as Shang-Chi, 2021. ph: Jasin Boland / Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures / Marvel Studios / courtesy Everett Collection

Simu Liu doesn’t want to Shang-Chi and the legend of the ten rings Considered an “interesting experiment” in light of recent comments from Disney CEO Bob Chapek. During a conference call Thursday, Chapek used the phrase to describe the upcoming 45-day theatrical release of the Marvel film for Wall Street investors. Liu vehemently contradicts the opinion.

“On Shang-Chi“We think it’s actually going to be an interesting experiment for us because it only has a 45-day window for us,” Chapek said aloud diversity. “So the prospect of a Marvel title in that [streaming] Post-theatrical service after 45 days will be another data point to inform about our future promotions on our titles. “

On Saturday, Liu apparently reacted on Instagram and Twitter. “We’re not an ‘interesting experiment,'” he captioned a series of BTS photos from the shoot. “We’re the underdog; the underrated. We’re the ceiling breakers. We’re the celebration of the culture and joy that persists after a competitive year. We’re the surprise. I’m fireproof to making history on September 3rd; YOU WILL MEMBER.”

Chapek’s comments were made to address several of Disney’s recent releases, such as Free guy, which was premiered exclusively in cinemas based on a contractual agreement. He admitted that Shang-Chi “Was planned to be in a much healthier theater environment,” but COVID-19 restrictions have changed the theater experience, as through Black widow, Jungle cruise, and Cruella. But that doesn’t excuse the message behind Chapek’s words. His belief that Shang-Chi‘s release will simply be a “data point” reduced to the film and fans, especially APIA viewers eager to see their community on screen.

Categories
Entertainment

Is ‘Loki’ a True Marvel Variant? Or Only a Enjoyable Experiment?

Is ‘Loki’ a True Marvel Variant? Or Just a Fun Experiment?

One thing Marvel knows how to do is expand a story. Think back to the nascent days of the Marvel Cinematic Universe in the early ’00s. The so-called Phase 1 was about building out the superhero roster with individual film narratives that would dovetail into a big crossover movie: “The Avengers.” A decade and a half later, the crossovers are old hat, the Easter eggs are expected, and a spate of new movies and TV shows continue to provide an influx of stories and characters that branch off into their own universes.

You could even say the M.C.U. resembles a branching timeline — that’s what a member of the Time Variant Authority, or T.V.A., the bureaucracy at the center of the Disney+ series “Loki,” would say. Because for all the interdimensional fun the series has, “Loki,” which wrapped up last week, is a philosophical dialogue that also functions as a metacommentary on Marvel’s storytelling. The show’s central theme about the value of order versus chaos reflects how the M.C.U., as it expands across Disney+ and beyond, alternatively presents and breaks from contained, linear narratives and rote character types.

Although Loki (Tom Hiddleston), the sometime nemesis and sometime ally of the Avengers, was killed by Thanos in “Avengers: Infinity War,” the Asgardian now appears — resurrected! — in his own series. But it’s only a resurrection in a branding sense: The series centers on an earlier version of Loki, one who escapes the Battle of New York, from the first “Avengers” film, with the all-powerful glow-box (known as the Tesseract). His escape with the Tesseract causes a branch in the timeline, an offense that gets him first arrested by the T.V.A. and then recruited by one of the group’s agents, Mobius (Owen Wilson), to help catch a female “variant” Loki (Sophia Di Martino) who has been disregarding the rules of other timelines. In an inspired, if awkward, Freudian twist, the two Lokis fall for each other and team up to dismantle the T.V.A. before eventually finding themselves at odds.

From the beginning, “Loki” was an odd addition to the M.C.U. because it, like the recent “Black Widow” film, tried retroactively to give a back story and growth to a character who was already dead in the central M.C.U. timeline. More intriguing, it repositioned a character who had been an antagonist and a foil to Avengers like his adopted brother, the Norse golden boy Thor, as the hero of his own story, one that undermined what we had already seen happen in the franchise.

By making another version of Loki a hero, the series itself is acting as a variant. In general, Marvel has been using its latest Disney+ shows to deviate from the often wearying, even oppressive, timeline that the films have established. These side stories open up the world to more subtle, interesting narratives: “WandaVision” and “The Falcon and the Winter Soldier” allowed their heroes to develop in terms of both superhero abilities and emotional depth.

But whatever their divergences, these stories always end up leashed to the main M.C.U. narrative — Marvel’s own inviolable timeline, which often yields an awkward result. “WandaVision” used its classic TV parodies to cleverly explore the contours of grief and emotional escapism until its “Avengers” adjacency apparently demanded a requisite explosive ending. Sam Wilson (Falcon) and Bucky Barnes (the Winter Soldier) wrestled with trauma and its consequences, but the specter of Captain America, and the question of whether Sam would ultimately take up the shield, took over the story in the end.

In “Loki,” the Asgardian discovers that everything is predestined, even his identity. Loki is supposed to be a villain, and he is supposed to lose. There are no other options. What the series asks is, how does a character whose purpose is simply to accentuate, by way of contrast, the strengths and flaws of others, lead his own story?

The series certainly struggles to answer that question at first; Loki seems out of place in his own show. When the show allows him to be less of a reactionary character — he gets his own foils in the form of his many variants — he finally feels like the focus of the narrative. He evolves, proving that Loki can win and be honest and loving and compassionate. And just as “Loki” challenges how its title character is defined, so does the series break him out of the sole function he has served in the M.C.U. thus far.

As a loyal T.V.A. agent, Mobius, as he tells Loki, believes that his job is to maintain an ultimate sense of order — even if that order appears to rob the universe of free will. What happens when the timeline is all sorted out, without branches? “Just order, and we meet in peace at the end of time,” Mobius says.

“Only order? No chaos?” Loki responds. “That sounds boring.”

Marvel risks undercutting itself with “Loki” and with each bit of narrative chaos introduced by its latest shows. How can anything have emotional stakes when there is always a loophole or deus ex machina around the corner? (Indeed, “Loki” takes place in a closed loop, which by the series’s end has reset.) And at what point does narrative consistency fall apart and give us an indecipherable jumble of contradicting events?

The franchise wants to subscribe to both a traditional mode of storytelling and a bit of narrative chaos in the form of time travel, multiple universes and nonlinear shifts in time and space — all of which allow for deviations from the main story line. But the more variant stories we get, the more unstable and convoluted the whole structure becomes.

“Loki” is a fun touch of chaos for Loki fans, myself included, but it makes me wonder how much longer the relative order of the M.C.U. franchise’s central chronology can sustain the backpedaling and jumps and reversals, even within their own pockets of time. The vast megaverse that is Marvel already hosts countless characters and stories, and yet having one in which Loki is still alive is infinitely more fun.

But as delightful as “Loki” is conceptually, to me it felt like simply a fun, diverting experiment. What Marvel will do with the results of this experiment is another story. This season’s cliffhanger ending means that the full measure of the series’s success and impact is still to come, whether in the second season promised in the finale or in the broader M.C.U.

Is “Loki” truly a variant within the M.C.U.? Will it introduce reverberations throughout the films and TV shows going forward, or will it be essentially isolated in its own playful thought bubble? If the former, I suspect the Marvel won’t be able to sustain the full heft of the master narrative, with all of those branches, forever — that is, unless Marvel fully embraces chaos and lets the M.C.U. fracture into separate multiverses without such a restrictive overarching timeline. After all, if the god of mischief has taught us anything, it’s that a little bit of chaos can go a long way.

Categories
Entertainment

Bo Burnham’s ‘Inside’: A Comedy Particular and an Impressed Experiment

Bo Burnham’s ‘Inside’: A Comedy Special and an Inspired Experiment

The incentives of the internet that reward outrage, excess, and sentimentality are the villains of this show. In a dizzying homage to “Cabaret,” Burnham plays the MC of the internet in sunglasses, greeting everyone with a decadent selection of options as the disco lights swirl. It is a lyrically dense song with camera work that gets faster with its rhythm. Burnham’s shot sequencing plays just as often against the meaning of a song, for example when he triggers a glamorous split screen to complement a comic song with his mother via FaceTiming.

“Inside” is the work of a comic with artistic means that most of its colleagues ignore or overlook. Burnham, who once published a volume of poetry, has not only become just as meticulous and creative with his visual vocabulary as he is with his language.

Some of the show’s narrative can indulgently overheat and play with clichés about the brooding artist’s process, but Burnham anticipated these and other criticisms and incorporated them into the special, including the idea that paying attention to potential bugs fixes them. “Self-knowledge does not release anyone from anything,” he says.

True, but it can deepen and clarify art. “Inside” is a tricky work that, despite all the overstepping of boundaries, in the end remains a comedy in the spirit of neurotic, self-hating stand-ups. Burnham impales himself as a virtuous ally with a white savior complex, a tyrant, and an egoist who draws a Venn diagram and locates himself at the intersection between Weird Al and Malcolm X, an artist whose career was born and flourished there the ultimate joke.

Burnham lingers behind the scenes with his technical tinkering – handling lights, editing, line exercises. He is neglected, increasingly unshaven and has a Rasputin-like beard. The aesthetics telegraph authenticity and vulnerability, but the breathtaking final shots of the special reveal the misdirection at work and encourage skepticism about the performativity of such realism.

Towards the end he appears completely naked behind his keyboard. It’s an image that suggests a man is baring himself until you realize he’s in the spotlight.

Categories
Health

$100 as Incentive to Get a Shot? Experiment Suggests It Can Pay Off.

$100 as Incentive to Get a Shot? Experiment Suggests It Can Pay Off.

What’s the best way to convince the millions of Americans who are not yet vaccinated against Covid-19 to get their shots?

The reassuring public service announcements about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine have increased. But more and more people are realizing that it takes more than information to influence those who hesitate.

In recent randomized survey experiments by the UCLA Covid-19 Health and Politics Project, two seemingly strong incentives emerged.

About a third of the unvaccinated population said paying cash would make them more likely to get a shot. This suggests that some governors are on the right track. For example, West Virginia Governor Jim Justice recently announced that the state would give young people $ 100 bonds if they were vaccinated.

Similarly, willingness to take vaccines increased for those asked about a vaccine if it meant they did not have to wear a mask or social distance in public, compared to a group who were told they still did Do these things.

The UCLA project, which is still ongoing, has surveyed more than 75,000 people in the past 10 months. This collaboration between doctors and social scientists at UCLA and Harvard measures people’s pandemic experiences and attitudes in political and economic terms, while also demonstrating their physical and mental health and wellbeing.

In order to assess the effectiveness of different messages in vaccine intake, the project randomly assigns non-vaccinated respondents to groups who see different information about the benefits of vaccination. Random assignment makes the composition of each group similar. This is important because researchers can conclude that differences between groups in people’s intentions to get vaccinated are due to the messages each group saw, rather than other underlying attributes.

Last October, one group saw messages framing the benefits of vaccination in a selfish way – “It will protect you” – while others saw messages framing the benefits in a more social way: “It will protect you and those around you. “The subtle change did little; About two-thirds of the people in both groups said they intend to take the pictures.

Another experiment examined the persuasiveness of certain endorsements. Proponents included prominent figures such as then President Donald J. Trump and Dr. Anthony Fauci, but also more personal medical sources like “Your Doctor”.

Most of the effects were minor. The statement by their doctor, pharmacist, or insurer that the vaccine was safe and effective had no discernible impact on vaccination intentions, although confirmation from Dr. Fauci increased the likelihood of admission by about six percentage points.

Endorsement by political figures sparked strong reactions from the partisans, with Mr Trump’s endorsement decreasing acceptance among Democrats in 2020 and increasing acceptance for Republicans to a lesser extent. President Biden’s approval reduced Republican acceptance in 2021. There was evidence in 2021 that Trump approval could increase Republican acceptance, but the impact was much less than when he was in office.

Updated

May 4, 2021, 3:12 p.m. ET

Last month, researchers randomly selected unvaccinated respondents to see news about financial incentives. Some people have been asked about the chances of getting a vaccine if it came with a cash payment of $ 25. other people were asked if they wanted to get $ 50 or $ 100.

About a third of the unvaccinated population said paying cash would make them more likely to get a shot. The benefits were greatest for those in the group who received $ 100, which increased willingness (34 percent said they would get vaccinated) by six points over the $ 25 group.

The effect was greatest for unvaccinated Democrats, 48 ​​percent of whom said they were more likely to be vaccinated if provided with a $ 100 payment.

Some previous research shows that paying for vaccines can backfire, and in the UCLA study, about 15 percent of people who were not vaccinated report a decline in vaccination due to payments. But at this later stage in a vaccination campaign – when attention is now on hesitation – the net benefits seem to be leaning towards payment.

The incentive to stop wearing a mask and to distance oneself socially in public also had a strong result. On average, mask loosening and social distancing guidelines increased the likelihood of vaccine intake by 13 points. The Republicans saw the biggest gains, with an 18-point increase in vaccination readiness.

These results show both the difficulty of getting the remaining unvaccinated people to clinics and the promise of efforts aimed at that. While most of the messaging effects have been minor, cash payments seem to motivate the Democrats, and the relaxation of the warning guidelines seems to be working for the Republicans. (The CDC recently relaxed guidelines for wearing masks outdoors for vaccinated individuals.)

The movement towards vaccinations among the reluctant may increase over time and as people observe the effects of vaccination on those who were vaccinated first. When we asked unvaccinated people why they didn’t try to get a shot, 38 percent said they were concerned about the side effects and 34 percent said they didn’t think the vaccine was safe. Persuasion that shows the brevity or absence of side effects and the safety of the vaccination can allay these fears. Still, a quarter of those unvaccinated say they just don’t trust the government’s motives, and 14 percent say Covid-19 does not pose a threat to them. These people will be harder to convince.

Data from the project shows how eager Americans are to get back to normal activities. Among people who work outside of their home, 76 percent of respondents said they want to go back to the way they did before the pandemic, and 66 percent said it would be safe to do so by April. These numbers are similar regardless of vaccination status.

The April survey also asked people what social activities they had done in the past two weeks. About 30 percent said they eat in a restaurant. 17 percent said they had attended a personal religious meeting. and 11 percent met with a group of more than 10 non-family members. Almost everything took place inside.

The vaccination rates for people doing these activities largely reflect the rates in the general population, which means that not everyone who is on the go has received the vaccine.

32 percent of restaurants said they were fully vaccinated (53 percent said they weren’t vaccinated at all). The balance between people attending face-to-face religious gatherings was roughly the same – 41 percent said they were fully vaccinated and 41 percent said they were not vaccinated at all.

Most people at social events with more than 10 non-family members were not fully vaccinated, although the proportion of people vaccinated was higher at indoor gatherings (40 percent) than at outdoor events (27 percent).

People venture into social spaces, but around them unvaccinated people are still more numerous than those vaccinated in many places – and vaccination rates are slowing down. Reversing this trend takes more than passionate pleas from politicians, friends, or medical professionals. There may be a need to deliver real rewards beyond the health benefits of the vaccine.

Lynn Vavreck, Marvin Hoffenberg Professor of American Politics and Public Order at UCLA, is a co-author of “Identity Crisis: The 2016 Presidential Campaign and the Controversy for America”. Follow her on Twitter at @vavreck. She is also the Principal Researcher on the UCLA Covid-19 Health and Policy Project, with Arash Naeim, Neil Wenger and Annette Stanton of the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and Karen Sepucha of the Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School.

Categories
Business

Studios experiment with launch fashions what meaning for movie piracy

Studios experiment with release models what that means for film piracy

A photographic illustration of pirated copies being illegally downloaded with the legal music service iTunes in the background in London, England.

Matthew Lloyd | Getty Images

2021 will be a completely different year for the cinema business. Hoping to find ways to make a profit from big budget blockbusters, new methods of film publishing have turned.

For Warner Bros., the pandemic led parent company AT&T to decide to release all films in theaters and on HBO Max on the same day. Universal, owned by Comcast, has chosen to sign contracts with individual theaters to reduce the time their films have to stay in theaters before they switch to premium video-on-demand.

Then there are those like Disney, who have largely postponed the majority of their films to 2021 and put a handful on their own streaming service.

But box office analysts won’t be the only ones watching closely how these films perform over the next year. Piracy experts are excited to see how these new publishing methods will affect illegal streaming.

“As a data science researcher, this is a dream,” said Brett Danaher, professor of entertainment analysis and data science at Chapman University. “It’s such a great experiment.”

Heading into 2021, piracy experts told CNBC that they have theories about how pirates will react to these different models, but aren’t entirely sure what will happen.

What we know about piracy

For one thing, piracy is difficult to track. Experts can track some downloads from major piracy websites, but once this file is downloaded it can be privately distributed and streamed to thousands of other viewers.

It’s also why experts make a range of claims that piracy could cost the US economy, rather than a fixed number. Last year, the Global Innovation Policy Center estimated that global online piracy cost the US economy between $ 29.9 billion and $ 71 billion in lost revenue each year.

But you can learn a lot from people who are pirates. Looking at the data, experts like Andy Chatterley, CEO and co-founder of MUSO, a global authority on digital piracy, can provide insights to media companies around the world.

For one thing, Chatterley noted that the bigger the buzz around a blockbuster, the more piracy it will see. Films with large marketing campaigns, pent-up inquiries from enthusiastic fans and a lot of media exposure lead to more illegal online downloads.

MUSO’s data also suggests that piracy will increase as higher quality versions of films become available on piracy sites. For example, “Bad Boys for Life” came out in theaters in January and saw a “pretty mild” amount of piracy, Chatterley said. However, when it became available on video-on-demand in mid-March, there was a huge surge in online piracy.

Conversely, Disney’s “Mulan,” which immediately went streaming, saw a massive spike and then a fall in overtime on its release day.

“The piracy was front loaded,” Chatterley said. “But the piracy wasn’t necessarily bigger or smaller.”

How to prevent illegal downloads

For companies like AT&T that release high quality versions of films on day one, there are a few ways to prevent piracy. For example, the film was released in theaters and on HBO Max internationally two weeks before the North American debut of “Wonder Woman 1984”.

This allowed audiences to see the film in theaters first before a high quality copy was released on piracy websites. This is especially important as HBO Max is currently only a domestic product.

“Of course there are people who always become pirates,” said Michael Smith, professor of information technology and marketing at Carnegie Mellon University. “The people you worry about are the people who would have legally bought your content but found it [piracy] is more convenient. “

People wearing masks walk past a billboard for the film ‘Wonder Woman 1984’. Photo taken on December 26th, 2020.

Simon Shin | SOPA pictures | LightRocket via Getty Images

Smith said the majority of pirates do this because they have no other legal way to consume a product. Had these viewers been given an easier legal route, they would have paid to watch the film.

While online piracy can have a negative financial impact on media companies, the data experts gathered can also help those companies determine what their audiences want to see. Data from groups like MUSO can tell companies which films or TV shows to buy or license domestically or in international locations.

For example, the European Union Intellectual Property Office found that “The Mummy” was disproportionately pirated in Spain and the TV show “South Park” was a popular illegal download in Finland.

This information tells Universal that “The Mummy” may be made more widely available in Spain and Viacom in order to sign a contract with a Finnish streaming service.

What could happen in 2021

As Danaher said, 2021 will be a big experiment for the industry when it comes to piracy. It is the first time that several different release strategies are carried out simultaneously and over a longer period of time.

While some titles are more popular than others, the data should include trends that show how people are consuming their entertainment.

As in the previous year, it will be difficult for experts to pinpoint a clear financial impact, especially since the pandemic is likely to have an impact on how people watch certain films. Those who cannot go to the theaters may opt for legal streaming when available, but choose illegal methods for big movies instead.

With premium video-on-demand becoming an option to buy sooner than usual, it may not be immediately clear whether on-demand buying or piracy is cannibalizing theater revenue.

“Unfortunately, I can’t tell you who will win the horse race,” said Danaher.

Disclosure: Comcast is the parent company of NBCUniversal and CNBC.