Still Good Seven Chapters Later?

The first installment of “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,” the film based on the last book in J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series, premiered early this morning at 12:01 in thousands of theatres across the world. Voted the second most anticipated film of 2010 according to an audience poll by Box Office Mojo, the film had a lot of pressure riding on it, and unlike the supposed #1 most anticipated film of the year “Iron Man 2”, “Hallows” is looking like it isn’t set up to disappoint.

Many film buffs argue that series like this, whose sequels have sequels, are destroying Hollywood and eliminating the challenge of thought in classically quality films. To a large extent, Hollywood filmmakers do appeal to the lowest common denominator in audiences in order to gross as much as humanly possible, and often times these universally loved films include abstract fantasy—enter the beloved wizard, Harry Potter. But many argue that the “Harry Potter” films go beyond a moneymaking enterprise to something deeper. Harry Potter books have certainly established themselves as classics, and if anything, the film series is in compliment to them. Sure, Warner Brothers could single-handedly remain afloat on the sheer revenue from the film saga, but many esteemed and educated film critics aren’t so quick to reduce them to simply a blockbuster enterprise.

“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” is receiving fairly glowing reviews for a 7^th installment in a film series. Even die-hard fans are applauding the film for its accuracy to the book, and they aren’t the easiest crowd to please. While some worried that the splitting the film into 2 parts is done sheerly to drag out the finale and make more money, reviews have been surprisingly good. Film critic A.O. Scott says, “’Deathly Hallows: Part 1’ finds notes of anxious suspense and grave emotion to send its fans, into the last round.”

Now my question regarding the Potter films is whether they maintain a sense of thought-provoking challenge into their 7^th installment, for whether they’re just generic entertainment. True, quirky independent films are much more likely to take chances and explore complex topics, but can an abstract movie about witches and wizards do the same? Often placed in the same category, the “Twilight” films are pure garbage if you ask me. But there is something about the Potter series that, cinematically, appeals to me. By no means are these films artistic risks, but I do like that they serve as acceptions to the general rule that blockbuster movies are dumbed-down nonsense. Surely it doesn’t take a scholar or a heart surgeon to understand the films, but they do something more than most moneymaking film series do.

Of course, a film based on one of the bestselling books of the decade is far from an artistic risk. This does nothing to disprove the notion that mainstream entertainment is all too safe and simple. But I do like the fact that a movie can make it to its 7^th installment without losing the motivation to be great. All things considered, 95% of big-budget films are reincarnations of themselves. But these Harry Potter movies – like their literary counterparts – are one thing we’re luck to have.

Google TV Disappoints

While the new “Google TV” is making a big push for holiday sales, many doubt its potential for success. And while Google is usually smart and innovative in its technological endeavors, I must admit, I agree that their attempt at TV is flawed. As The New York Times’ David Pouge asserts, many technological big-wigs seem confident that the combination of TV and Web is the next big money-maker, but the masses are not cooperating with this theory. Pouge identifies our issue with web-based TV as a resistance to its innate requirement of active participation; i.e. the fact that you have to search around and actively browse the web to create your “playlists” and can no longer revel in the simplicity of aimless channel surfing up and down.

Besides being an active medium for a pastime that most people enjoy for its mindlessness, Google TV also lacks solid innovation, leaving even the most hardcore tech junkies with much to be desired. Google TV is little more than a hard-drive hooked up to a big-screen monitor. Sure, they refine the interfaces and aggregate content in their own way, but it’s little more than a revamped Netflix or iTunes on-demand. People- mostly the younger generations- consume content online because it is convenient and usually at no cost to the user. Google and others’ attempt at web-based TV is trying to monetize a practice that is enjoyed mainly because it is free. If TV and movies were free on an actual cable TV, people wouldn’t be using their personal computers.

I think what Google is underestimating is the intelligence of their users. My Mom and step-Dad disconnected their cable services years ago and have been using a laptop connected to a plasma-screen TV for their home entertainment ever since. This is essentially that—with added fees and a shinier remote control. Moreover, the interface is reportedly very confusing and frustrating, even for the savviest of nerds. Google of all people should get that people like things streamlined and user-friendly, yet their TV solution seems extremely hectic and over-stimulating. The tech-savvy people who would even attempt to try this are smart enough to know that they can get the same content (and much more) online themselves for cheaper, and I think Google should know better.

Clearly obtaining entertainment media online is a huge trend that’s here to stay, but I think it’s a little foolish for Apple or Google to think they can capitalize on it in clever new ways. There is no invention necessary; the Internet in and of itself is this “web TV” that they’re trying so hard to create. Wirelessly connected laptops offer the same content as the cable TV, but with the added convenience of portability and, often, financial freedom. The people that would most benefit from a TV operating system like Google’s are those older generations who want cheap on-demand entertainment that is much more easily accessibly and navigated than the vast worldwide web, but Google’s TV design clearly illustrates that they overlooked said demographic. 

 The grander scheme of things, this expensive trend among the big tech. companies does little to effectively combat piracy. 3D TV is also a little ridiculous, but at least it attempts to add something to the game. Google TV and the like simply take an existing consumption trend and make it look and sound fancy. I think this will prove to be little more than a fad that falls short, and illegal file-sharing and entertainment viewing will continue to prevail as the leading web-based TV use.