5 Films Hollywood Needs to Get to Work On

Back in 1990, my friend Steve and I were riding down the New Jersey Turnpike in a rented truck, delivering furniture to his parents' new home in Pennsylvania. The experience was memorable for two reasons. First, an 18-wheeler traveling right next to us blew a tire and scared the crap out of us. And second, we spent a good portion of the two hour drive reminiscing about one of our favorite childhood animated series, Speed Racer. Steve and I then proceeded to discuss how the show was a cult favorite, how the protagonist and premise (a young race car driver with a unique, high tech automobile) were ideal for the big screen, and the chances of us ever seeing a live-action Speed Racer movie. We then shared ideas about casting, including Johnny Depp as Speed (remember, this was 1990), Depp's former real-life girlfriend Winona Ryder as Trixie, Alec Baldwin as Racer X,  Fred Savage (The Wonder Years) as Spritle, Wilford Brimley as Pops and Michael Jackson's pet chimpanzee "Bubbles" as Chim-Chim.

Keep in mind, this was more than a decade before an ACTUAL Speed Racer movie would even take its first steps into production. Which is why, as ridiculous as we know it is, Steve and I still consider the Speed Racer movie OUR baby. So when the the Wachowskis gave us that hot mess of a picture back in May of 2008, we were both sorely disappointed and extremely bitter. A movie that we had wished and waited so long for, had been ruined. 

So there's nothing left for me to do now but move on and as I do, consider the other fantastic properties we need to see made. It's baffling to me how the Hollywood studios can't seem to get out of their own way and ink the deals needed to get these films into production. If they ever do, each of the following is a potential blockbuster that could earn huge dollars at the box office.

The Six Million Dollar Man

  

The premise of the 1970's series starring Lee Majors sees a test pilot/astronaut critically injured in a crash, fitted with bionic implants and turned into a government operative. I'm thinking Ryan Gosling -- who coincidentally recently starred in the movie adaptation of another Lee Majors series (The Fall Guy) -- for the role of Colonel Steve Austin.

Status Update: Several years ago, there were rumors of a Six Billion Dollar Man (Inflation's a bitch -- ain't it?!) being developed by the Weinstein Company, directed by Bryan (X-Men) Singer and starring Leonardo DiCaprio. More recently, there have been ongoing efforts to create a movie version with Mark Wahlberg attached to star. That project has been in development for almost a dozen years. Despite various delays and changes in filmmakers, Wahlberg remains committed to the project, stating that he's "still grinding every day to get it made."

The Warriors remake

The 1979 original was a low-cost surprising moneymaker for Paramount. Though the idea of New York City gangs dressed as mimes, wearing Yankee uniforms and Kiss-like makeup, and sporting silk purple vests and fedoras is light years beyond hokey, subsequent to its initial theatrical release, the film garnered huge cult status via cable and home video. In 2005, we even got a Warriors video game. As we near its 50th anniversary, a proper, more modern big-budget remake would be spectacular in the hands of a master of gritty violence like Breaking Bad writer/producer/director Vince Gilligan.

Status Update: Plans for a remake go at least as far back as 2005, when the Scott brothers (Ridley and Tony) were reportedly set to produce and direct. In 2016, the Russo brothers (The Avengers) were reportedly developing a TV adaption for Hulu but that project seems to no longer be on the radar.

The Donner Party

The Donner Party was a group of American pioneers in the 1840's who set out to California from Missouri. Through an incredible series of circumstances and misfortunes, the group was trapped by snow and forced to winter in Sierra Nevada, where members of the party succumbed to starvation, exposure, disease, and trauma before resorting to cannibalism. It's an absolutely riveting story and although the disaster movie genre that gave us classics like The Poseidon Adventure, Towering Inferno and Airport, has largely died out, here's a perfect opportunity to bring it back. I'm thinking an all-star cast featuring Kit Harrington, Emma Stone, Tom Holland and Tobey Maguire in key roles.

Status Update: In 1978, there was a TV movie titled Donner Pass that recounted the story and in 2009, Crispin Glover starred in The Donner Party, a straight-to-DVD thriller in the vein of Alive, that takes certain liberties in retelling the actual events. Then in 2011, a feature film also titled Donner Pass was released. Billed as "a twisted take on the legend of the Donner Party", it was a historically inaccurate and pedestrian slasher pic about teens stranded in one of the Donner Party's old cabins who (rather predictably) get mysteriously killed and eaten one by one. There have also been multiple documentaries and made for TV movies about the Donner Party, such as Dead of Winter: The Donner Party (2015). 

The last real attempt to tell this story onscreen seems to be an adaptation of the novel The Hunger which purportedly incorporated the story of the Donner Party with a "Walking Dead-style twist." That project was being developed by 20th Century Fox, with Luke Scott (son of Ridley) set to write and direct -- but that was nine years ago and since then, nothing.

Logan's Run 

The 1976 thriller Logan's Run is set in a future dystopian society where people live a care-free, hedonistic lifestyle... until they're ceremoniously death-rayed at the age of thirty in order to control the population. As science fiction, the film has a cheesy, 1950's-type perspective of life in the future. But at the same time, it offers sobering Orwellian perspectives on totalitarian rule, how much humans should entrust to technology, and the dangers that come with blindly accepting the status quo.

Status Update: A proposed Logan's Run remake has bounced around Hollywood for years with various above the line talent attached, including screenwriter Will Beall (Justice League) and directors Gore Verbinski (Pirates of the Caribbean) and Joseph Kosinski (Top Gun: Maverick). Ryan Gosling was once rumored to star but he's far past 30 now. I'm thinking Timothy Chalamet, with directorial duties handled by Christopher Nolan, if you want to go big screen, but I can also picture Logan's Run as a multi-year Max or Netflix series that takes its time revealing the backstory of how exactly our culture and society went so far off the rails.

The Go-Go's 

The fact that a Runaways biopic was produced and released and we're still waiting for a Go-Go's movie is bizarre. Yes, when it comes to girl bands, the Runaways were trailblazing female rockers but the Go-Go's sold more records, were the first to have a number one album, had more hit singles, are members of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, are still performing together forty-seven years after they formed, and quite simply, are more iconic.

I had the idea for a Go-Go's film no later than 2001, and even started work on an extended treatment. For casting, I suggested the following (at the time) young, up and coming actresses: Christina Ricci as Jane Weidlin, Eliza Dusku as Kathy Valentine, Leelee Sobieski as Charlotte Caffey, Tara Reid as Gina Schock, and Charlize Theron or Kate Hudson as Belinda Carlisle.

Status Update: Over the years, the band has kicked around the idea of commissioning a script, but it's never happened largely because members of the band are hesitant about relinquishing rights, giving up creative control and airing their dirty laundry. Additionally, on multiple occasions, disagreements over compensation and royalties owed have created issues within the group. None of this seems to matter anymore though, as the poor performance of The Runaways all but killed any chance of a Go-Go's film ever seeing the light of day. Still, it's fun to imagine Lily-Rose Depp as Carlisle and Jenna Ortega as co-founding member Weidlin.

Belinda Carlisle and Lily-Rose Depp

Related Posts:

Beauty and the Beat Turns 40

Go-Go's Rock the Sunset Strip

Belinda Carlisle on Arsenio Hall

More Belinda

Great Album Covers: The Score, Head Games & Vacation

Go-Go's Inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (About F**king Time!)

Happy New Year (from Belinda Carlisle!)

Comeonahyeehaaaa!... It's Official: Saving Silverman Just Reached Cult Status!

Streaming Wars: Episode 6

 

In this latest episode of my ongoing audio blog on the Streaming Wars I examine:

• Dealing with churn
• A shift toward programmed content on streaming channels 
• Streamers' plans to push into sports, gaming and betting
• The upfronts: WBD shines, NBCUniversal underwhelms
• Netflix's rationale for no longer reporting subscriber numbers

Listen to this episode on YouTube.

Related Posts:

Streaming Wars in Full Effect!

Streaming Wars Update: Part 2

Streaming Wars Update: Part 3

Return of the Streaming Wars! (Episode 4)

Streaming Wars: Episode 5

FX's Capote vs. The Swans & How Iconic 80's Actresses Diane Lane, Molly Ringwald & Demi Moore Make it Great

 

One of the most enjoyable things about Murphy's series: seeing the three most iconic actresses of the 1980's sharing the screen for the very first time... we have Diane Lane, Molly Ringwald and Demi Moore who, forty-plus years after their initial fame, crush their roles and once again show us why they became stars. 

 

We are barely halfway through Ryan Murphy's latest offering, Feud: Capote vs. the Swans but we've already been treated to a once in a decade type performance by Tom Hollander who positively disappears into his (title) character role. Hollander perfectly captures Capote's dual nature -- amusing and endearing but also pompous and infuriating --- and also replicates his speech and mannerisms so precisely it's practically spooky. (To be honest, they should just skip the ceremony and give him the Emmy right now.)

That said, the "Swans" referred to in this series are a group of elite socialites (most of them New York-based) who befriended and patronized Capote after he reached fame with his sensationalistic novel In Cold Blood. After years of trusting some of their most guarded secrets to the author, he reveals them in a Esquire article that included excerpts from a new book titled Answered Prayers. The group then proceeded to ostracize Capote, forever banishing him from the high society circle he relished so much. Capote supposedly coined the term "Swans" to describe these women that were, by all appearances, perfectly composed but in reality were carrying tremendous weight and beneath the surface were always paddling furiously to keep themselves afloat.  

Often, elements of this story and the reaction of the Swans to Capote's betrayal are difficult to understand. Why would these women -- wealthy, refined and entrenched in the upper crust of society, care so much about Truman? Why are they so devasted when he exposes them this way? And why do they second guess themselves for even a minute about cutting them out of their lives?

It's because Capote's assessment of them was correct. Beneath their veneers of perfection, these women are struggling mightily. They've lost their identities after marrying bankers, European royalty, and other rich and powerful men and now deep down perhaps they're realizing that most of what they've accomplished was only made possible through their family and social connections. Maybe they're awakening to the thought that although they're the envy of many, their lives are largely empty, short of pruning the perfect garden, earning "best dressed" honors, or planning Truman's famous Black and White Ball. Or maybe the betrayal thrust these women into turmoil due to simple embarrassment. For the Swans, appearances (we quickly learn) are paramount. Confronting Truman and making a scene in a swank restaurant they frequent is deemed just as much a sin as the betrayal itself. Likewise, husbands' infidelities are tolerable but the thought of others knowing is not.

It speaks to why Capote was able to fall in with the Swans in the first place. He ingratiates himself with flattery, preying on their superficiality and appearance consciousness, even going so far as to toy with them (and send them into a competitive tizzy) by suggesting he'll be choosing one of them as guest of honor at his ball. In spite of his not so subtle pandering and social climbing, the Swans adopted Truman, introduced him to power brokers, brought him along on lavish vacations, all while sharing their personal doubts and fears. So yes they are clearly victims but not entirely sympathetic due to their own snobbery and pretentiousness. All of this makes them rich, multi-layered characters that any actress (particularly those of a certain age) would love to play.

Which brings me to one of the most enjoyable things about Murphy's series: seeing the three most iconic actresses of the 1980's sharing the screen for the very first time. In addition to Naomi Watts as Babe Paley, wife of CBS head William Paley; Calista Flockhart, as Lee Radziwill, younger sister of Jackie Kennedy, and Chloe Sevigny as fashion icon and author C.Z. Guest, we have Diane Lane, Molly Ringwald and Demi Moore who -- forty-plus years after their initial fame -- crush their roles and once again show us why they became stars.

Diane Lane first grabbed headlines at age fourteen when she starred opposite Sir Laurence Olivier in the 1979 feature A Little Romance. Olivier called her "the next Grace Kelly" and Time magazine put Lane on the cover, proclaiming her one of Hollywood's "whiz kids." This was at a time  when print was still a dominant form of media, so for a respected world news magazine like Time to dedicate a cover story to a Hollywood actress (especially one still in her early teens) was practically unprecedented. 

Lane next made waves in the cult classic Ladies and Gentlemen, the Fabulous Stains and the more mainstream family pic Six Pack. At the famous casting sessions for Francis Ford Coppola's adaptation of The Outsiders, she beat out a who's who of other young ingenues for the role of the beautiful and conflicted Cherry Valance. The performance earned Lane a Young Artist Award nomination. Coppola was so taken with Lane that he cast her in his next film, Rumble Fish (also based on an S.E. Hinton novel.) 

In 1984, Lane took on the role of Ellen Aim, a kidnapped rock star in Walter Hill's vastly underrated Streets of Fire and later that year she scored her first "adult" role as singer/gun moll Vera Cicero in Coppola's brilliant The Cotton Club. Lane was just eighteen during shooting (her co-star Richard Gere was thirty-four) but brought a sultriness to her performance that helped establish her as one of Hollywood's leading screen sirens. (She would go on to star in two other films opposite Gere, the acclaimed Unfaithful -- for which she earned a Best Actress Academy Award nomination -- and Nights of Rodante, adapted from the Nicholas Sparks novel.)

Diane Lane's other 1980's film roles included stripper/femme fatale Lorry in The Cincinnati Kid-esque The Big Town, and lead in the erotic thriller Lady Beware. She closed out the decade with an Emmy nominated performance in 1989's Lonesome Dove miniseries. 

Lane has one of the meatiest roles in Feud, portraying Nancy "Slim" Keith, who wed filmmaker Howard Hawks and Broadway producer Leland Hayward before marrying into British royalty. According to some accounts, Slim helped Capote land high powered agent Swifty Lazar and a million dollar book deal. Lane's Slim is resolute in her disdain and quest for revenge after Capote's backstab and Lane's strong performance portrays her as the icy ringleader of Capote's ostracization. As she did with her character in The Cotton Club, Lane plays Slim as calculating, direct and in charge. When it comes to the Swans, she is "the center of the center" -- as Slim describes herself in episode 3. Lane is also fantastic at replicating the high-born accent and affectations of New York's upper crust.

Though she's three years Lane's junior, Molly Ringwald's career path was eerily similar -- from starting out as a child actress, to having a cover story crowning her the new face of young Hollywood, to having her career propelled forward by a genius director. She first gained attention for her lead role in the west coast production of the stage play Annie. In 1979, at just eleven years old, she played Molly in the The Facts of Life but the show was retooled after its first season and the cast drastically reduced. It was a lucky break for Ringwald; she quickly found success in feature films, beginning with 1982's Tempest, for which she earned a Golden Globe nomination. But it would be 1984's Sixteen Candles that would rocket the young actress to fame. Writer-director John Hughes cast Ringwald as the film's protagonist Samantha Baker, a high school sophomore whose sixteenth birthday is forgotten in the chaos surrounding her older sister's wedding. Ringwald was praised for her tender and authentic portrayal and the film helped propel the teen movie genre into its High Renaissance. 

Like Coppola did with Diane Lane, Hughes was inspired by Ringwald and cast her in his next project -- the film that would come to define Gen X, The Breakfast Club. Ringwald would become something of a muse for Hughes and she next took on the lead role in the director's follow up, Pretty in Pink. A few weeks after the film's release, Ringwald was on the cover of Life magazine in a special issue that christened her as "Hollywood's Teen Queen". Two months later, her own Time magazine cover story cemented this status.

At this point, Molly was eighteen and ready to take on more mature roles. She turned down Hughes' Some Kind of Wonderful and starred as Cordelia in Jean Luc Godard's avant garde exploration of King Lear; played opposite Robert Downey Jr. in the Warren Beatty-produced The Pick-Up Artist; and finished her 80's run with the comedy For Keeps and the drama Fresh Horses, adapted from the stage play.

In Feud, Ringwald plays Joanna Carson, ex-wife of Johnny, who (like the New York Swans) is taken with Capote's charm, wit and intellect. Carson adopts the discarded Capote and brings him into her circle of elite (this time Hollywood) friends. Ringwald's signature red tresses are colored brunette for this role and at fifty-five years old she naturally no longer possesses her waif-like figure, so it's easy to forget who you're watching. As Carson, Ringwald brings the same effusiveness she did with her Pretty in Pink character Andie and her compassion for Truman is on display in several pathos-rich scenes that portray the man at his lowest.

Demi Moore's road to 1980's stardom was far different than Lane's and Moore's. She wasn't an accomplished child actor and in 1983 -- at the exact same time Lane was shooting scenes with the Academy Award-winning Coppola and Ringwald was about to become the face of the American teenager -- Moore was earning her bones as a recurring character on General Hospital. But in 1984, she starred opposite Michael Caine in the charming but overlooked romantic comedy Blame it On Rio. Though newcomer Michelle Johnson was the breakout star, it was Moore's first major film and she soon began a slow climb to success that would culminate with a run of critical and commercial successes through the 1990's. Ghost, A Few Good Men, Indecemt Proposal, Disclosure and Striptease (the film that made Moore the highest paid actress in Hollywood) were all in her future, along with her own iconic magazine cover, but her rise to fame largely began with the sweet and quirky 1984 teen comedy No Small Affair. The role of Jules in the seminal Gen X coming-of-age drama St. Elmo's Fire followed, as did a relationship with co-star Emilio Estevez and membership in the famous "Brat Pack". Moore then played John Cusack's love interest in One Crazy Summer and re-teamed with her St. Elmo's co-star Rob Lowe in the beloved About Last Night, both released in the summer of 1986. 

Her next film, The Seventh Sign (despite being highly anticipated) was a box office flop. Moore then closed her 80's career with the role of Molly -- a prostitute who befriends two escape convicts (Robert DeNiro and Sean Penn) masquerading as priests -- in the much-hyped Christmastime release We're No Angels.

Interestingly, though her box office hit rate was spotty, Moore's career never stalled during the eighties. She married Bruce Willis, who at the time was starring in the ABC hit Moonlighting but with the release of 1988's Die Hard would soon become a full on movie star. He and Moore became Hollywood's "it" couple which helped Demi move solidly onto Hollywood's A-list -- where she basically remained until the 2000's.

In Feud, Moore plays Ann Woodward, a former radio star and showgirl who was married to wealthy  banker William Woodward Jr. In what would become one of the biggest stories of its day, Ann killed William after mistaking him for a burglar. Speculation that it was murder ignited after Capote's book preview, which included a character based on Ann who was painted as a gold digger and murderess. In real life, Capote seemed to have personal disdain for Ann and publicly accused her of killing her husband.

Moore gives us a picture of Ann battling depression and straining to maintain her dignity amid the public stares. She displays venomous anger in certain scenes and intense vulnerability in others. At the ball, we see Moore at her best, portraying calm and elegance -- but when Truman calls security to have her ejected we see her shaken, pleading, humiliated. It's a scene where Moore demonstrates swan-like comportment as she calls Truman out for his misdeeds and it's reminiscent of another emotional scene in which Moore displayed similar range -- the break up scene in About Last Night.

For Lane, Ringwald and Moore, streaming shows and other high end television like Murphy's Feud offer strong, female lead roles that come few and far between in feature films. Past the age where they can star in rom-coms, take on "lethal lady" action roles (e..g., Black Widow, Atomic Blonde) or other parts written for younger actresses, fifty-something actresses are these days too often relegated to lesser fare -- guest shots on network shows or if they're lucky perhaps a starring role in their own series (think Tea Leoni in Madame Secretary or Julia Louis-Dreyfus in Veep.) Thankfully, Capote and the Swans shines a spotlight on three of the most talented and beloved mature actresses who by chance came up at almost the exact same time. You literally could not have chosen three women more representative of young Hollywood during the 1980's than these three. In fact, you almost wish Murphy would have made it an all-80's party and given the Watts, Sevigny and Flockhart roles to Elisabeth Shue, Lea Thompson and Winona Ryder instead.

Maybe next time : )

Related Posts:
Shout Out to... The Sorels

Streaming Wars: Episode 5

In this latest episode of the Streaming Wars audio blog I discuss: 

• Price increases and regression to ad-supported tiers. 
  
  
• Max successfully rebrands, cuts costs and wins big at the Emmys. 
  
  
• Formation of the Streaming Innovative Alliance.
  
  
• Is Apple acquiring Disney? 

Related Posts:

Streaming Wars in Full Effect!

Streaming Wars Update: Part 2

Streaming Wars Update: Part 3

Return of the Streaming Wars (Episode 4)

Streaming Wars: Episode 6

Matthew Perry was Beloved by All -- but his Untimely Death Hits Gen X-ers the Hardest

Matthew Perry's recent, sudden death sparked an outpouring of grief and fond remembrances within the Hollywood community. It also brought a great deal of sadness to fans of the actor and just about anyone who's ever watched and loved him on television. Perry's talent extended far beyond a single TV show (I first noticed him in a guest shot he did on Just the Ten of Us in 1989 and also thoroughly enjoyed him opposite Salma Hayek in 1997's Fools Rush In.) Still, the actor will always be most remembered most as hilarious smart-aleck Chandler Bing on Friends. And therein lies the reason why Perry's death is especially painful for those of us in Generation X. It's because Friends is undeniably a Gen X show. 

In Friends first season (1994) we learn that Monica (and her high school classmate Rachel) are twenty-six years old. The rest of the gang is also right around this same age, with Ross (and possibly Phoebe) only slightly older. So when you do the math, Monica was born in 1968, placing her and the rest of the Friends squarely in Generation X. Numerous storylines and references throughout the series back this up. From Ross's fixation on Princess Leia in Return of the Jedi, to Chandler's Flock of Seagulls haircut and admission of rushing the stage at a Wham concert, clearly these characters grew up in the 80's and thus are unquestionably part of Generation X. That clarified, it's no wonder that Perry's death hits us the hardest. We've lost one of our own. 

My high school class recently had a well-attended reunion and though I wasn't able to make it, I took time to pour over the gallery of photos that were posted online in the days after. While clicking through, I smiled and laughed seeing faces from my past for the first time in literally decades. The funny thing was I wasn't even friends with most of these people. I made all of my lifelong friendships during college and to this day remain in touch with only a single high school pal. Nevertheless it warmed my heart to see people I spent four of my most formative years with and know, despite the abundance of receding hairlines and expanding waistlines, they were alive and doing well. Somehow, we all tend to have very strong sentiments towards our peers and those with whom we've shared a common, significant experience. But the flipside of that feel-good sentiment is the gut-punch and sense of loss we suffer when we learn that one of our comrades is now gone.

That's what many of us are feeling with Matthew Perry's death. Friends was the ongoing story of six Gen X-ers trying to make it in the world as they laughed with, leaned on and loved each other. As we did with the abundance of teen movies in the 1980's (e.g., The Breakfast Club, Fast Times, Risky Business) Gen X-ers saw authentic versions of themselves and their lives in the Friends characters -- whether it was Ross (smart and sensitive and carrying unrequited love) or Phoebe (so unapologetically authentic in her flakiness) or Chandler, with his rapier wit and brandishing sarcasm hiding underlying insecurities.

Many will say that Friends is a show that belongs to far more that just a single generation and that it appeals to Millennials and Zoomers as much as any other age group. This is certainly true. Enough time has gone by now that we can safely say that Friends, and many of it's themes, storylines and characters are classic. Nevertheless, the show provided a different experience for us Gen X-ers who tuned in during its original run. We were watching ourselves -- young adults in their mid-20's, living post-college life in the 90's, going through the same things we were at that same moment in time. For example, when Friends debuted, many Gen-X women (my girlfriend included) had just moved out of their parents' house, started their first real job and were realizing independence for the very first time -- just like Rachel in the pilot episode. Like Joey, many of us were pursuing a career in acting or the arts and working odd jobs to pay rent while we pursued our dream. And while young people watching the show for the first time even today can definitely relate to universal themes like this, at the time it originally aired Friends meant the most to Gen-Xers who got to come home, click on the TV and see Ross, Rachel, Monica, Phoebe, Joey and Chandler living their same lives -- or perhaps the lives we wished we had. These were our peers... our contemporaries... our cohorts. And losing one of those is often the hardest blow to take... 

R.I.P. Matthew. 

Family Guy's Funniest Pop Culture References, Vol. 2

The Pink Panther experiences the downside of corporate shilling.

   

Peter meets the "Dons" of pop culture.

 

The Game of Thrones walk of shame (Aretha Franklin style!)

   

Peter gets a little lost was traveling on the Great Space Coaster.

Now we know what happened to the other three Friends cast members.

   

It's true -- you never realized how disturbing the Lost in Space plots actually were.

   

Popeye is having health problems.

   

Peter falls in love with Kathy Ireland (sort of) and croons a Billy Ocean tune.

   

Related Posts:

Family Guy's Funniest Pop Culture References

Hollywood Writers' Stance on AI is Short Sighted, Reveals Disingenuousness and Fear of Technology

When considering the Hollywood writer’s strike and what the WGA is asking for in its negotiations with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP), one issue resonates above all others -- the writers’ motivations and questionable stance regarding artificial intelligence and the role it could come to play in TV and film writing. Artificial intelligence (AI) and language models have arguably been the single hottest topic in the world of technology since ChatGPT was introduced by research laboratory OpenAI last November. This new iteration of ChatGPT is far more advanced, sophisticated and human-like than any AI or chatbot ever deployed to this point. Wired magazine, for its part, can’t seem to cover this topic enough and for the past 2-3 months it's seemed like every other article the tech pub spits out is about ChatGPT. But as far as the Hollywood writers go, it seems they're showing concern that AI is becoming so sophisticated and powerful that it could theoretically replace and do part (or perhaps one day soon, all) of the job of a guild writer. The WGA is thus calling for studios to “regulate” or otherwise severely limit the use of AI in the writing process, as well as abstain from asking writers to edit or rewrite material written by AI.

Part of the rationale behind the writers' hard stance is their belief that AI-generated work could never approach the prowess and richness that a human writer brings. Currently, this seems largely true. As of this writing, artificial intelligence can compose everything from haikus, to term papers, to sketches, and even more -- but the general belief is that the results lack “spark”, “humanity” and “flair” and, though serviceable, are not remarkable enough to move forward without considerable rewriting... At least that’s as of now.

One of the most valuable traits of AI and ChatGPT in particular, is that it’s constantly learning and improving, as it culls from innumerable sources to hone it’s responses and better fulfill the conversational, research, authorship or other task it's been assigned. ChatGPT is also great at mimicking. So, for instance, you can ask it to write song lyrics in a distinctive style — say, that of Prince… or The Ramones… or Morrissey —- and it could do so. Similarly, when it comes to TV and film writing, ChatGPT could potentially be asked to imitate an Aaron Sorkin or a young Woody Allen. The quality of the result, as of now, may be questionable but as soon as six months, a year, two years from now, imagine how much better they'll be. Indeed, ChatGPT has already been estimated to have a verbal IQ of 155 and has passed both medical boards and the bar exam, so just think what it could be accomplishing in the near future.

This is where the WGA has shown the most concern. Similar to how it negotiated during the 2007-08 writer’s strike to install guardrails protecting against diminished perceived value of the writer as a result of industry changes brought about by the internet and streaming, so too are the writers now looking to negotiate to keep their value strong as AI makes its way into the writing industry. However, on this specific issue, despite its stated intentions, there’s a good deal of false nobility and short-sightedness  operating within the WGA.

The guild justifies the strike in general (and the demand for negotiation regarding AI specifically) by claiming that it's seeking to secure fair consideration and compensation for current industry writers, while also ensuring opportunity for the next generation… It’s a half truth. In reality, what the writers are really worried about is their own jobs. The entirety of the pushback against AI is not for the benefit of the next generation of writers, but for the financial security of the current one. They’re worried about a day when a production exec fires up their laptop, starts a conversation with ChatGPT, throws out a premise, a few character descriptions and plot points and then lets AI go to work cranking out a complete pilot. In the WGA's eyes that’s a worst-case scenario. There’s also one where AI does all the heavy lifting (e.g., developing the plot, the characters, and perhaps an initial treatment) and then a human writer is brought in to work with the result by developing, punching up, and polishing it into something more usable. Revisions like this earn fees much lower than commissioned first drafts or even spec scripts. The writers are worried that if AI proves up to it, we could be looking at a world where (for instance) an entire season of an hour long drama could be outlined in an afternoon — and at a cost of zero dollars. That possibility scares the pants off every single writer in the WGA, as evidenced by the words of C. Robert Cargill (writer of Dr. Strange, Sinister, and The Black Phone) who weeks ago tweeted, "The immediate fear of AI isn’t that us writers will have our work replaced by artificially generated content. It’s that we will be underpaid to rewrite that trash into something we could have done better from the start."

There are two things wrong with this way of thinking. First, it pre-supposes that anything AI produces is in fact vastly inferior (i.e., "trash".) How does Cargill (or anyone else) know that AI won't soon be entirely capable of cranking out a perfectly acceptable first draft?... It's emblematic of the type of arrogance that exists among paid, high-level Hollywood writers. Is it crazy to think that any intelligence capable of scoring 710/800 on SAT verbal, has enough mastery of the English language to handle a creative writing assignment?... The rub would be how much imagination, creativity, and personal style would be applied. But this is true of work created by humans as well. After all, it's already been posited that when it comes to storytelling, there are only 4 types of conflict and 7 basic plots -- everything else is just variations on a formula. Cargill makes it sound like he and his guild brethren alone are capable of gold standard work. On the contrary, the WGA is full of mediocre and pedestrian writers and the creative output of these and every other writer is, and always will be, judged with a good deal of subjectivity. For example, one decision-maker may deem a script a funny, imaginative take on a standard theme, while the next might dismiss it as too derivative and only mildly amusing. So it's the same with AI as it is with human writers. Whether it's a line of dialogue, premise, story arc, full screenplay, etc., the final result is always subject to criticism and being dismissed as "trash".

Also consider that not every Hollywood writer is working on  Succession, Breaking Bad, Everything Everywhere All at Once, or other top-notch entertainment. Less ambitious productions -- children's shows like Paw Patrol and Blues Clues have writers. So does Syfy channel schlock like the Sharktopus movies and dopey theatrical features like Cocaine Bear. Game and quiz shows like Jeopardy and The Wall employ writers to create the contestant questions, and tons of entertainment and other segmented shows have writers penning "wraparounds" and RPG video game makers need storylines for the campaigns of their games. Is the WGA so haughty it thinks AI can't handle writing things of this far less demanding ilk?... 

Also at the root of the WGA's objection to AI is a fear of competition. When the guild loudly protests against AI and declares it's protecting the futures of up and coming writers, it’s just posturing and PR. The WGA is in fact a select (fewer than 13,000 members) elitist group that has always sought to keep its numbers small — if for no other reason than to ensure more opportunity (i.e., writing gigs) for their own. Think about it, if the WGA is so concerned about paving the way and ensuring opportunity for new writers, why does it direct its members never to accept or read unsolicited material from aspiring writers who might be seeking advice or mentorship? (Hint: it's not solely to guard against potential claims of stolen IP...) Why does it restrict membership only to writers who have been paid or sold something?… Why doesn't it offer meaningful mentorship or internship programs to unknowns?… It's because the WGA is designed to keep wannabes out, not help them break in. They don’t want expansion of their club; they want it exclusive, with power consolidated and jobs and paychecks reserved for them, the few. Though the political leanings of their individual members may lean left, when it comes to the nuts and bolts of how the guild operates, it’s decidedly under the worst type of conservative principles — protect what you’ve worked for; no assistance for outsiders. Knowing their reluctance to include, aid or even compete with other human writers makes it even easier to see why the guild is so threatened by machine intelligence. This type of defensive, resistant stance arises every time a disrupting technology comes along. The WGA are candlemakers cursing Edison's invention. Streetcar makers railing against Henry Ford's Model T. 

Other technologies feared as job/business-killers when they were first introduced include radio, computers, robotics and television, which many claimed would ruin the movie industry. The VCR was accused of being a copyright-infringing invention and Sony (developers of Betamax video tape recording) was sued by the movie industry, resulting in the landmark Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. decision that ultimately allowed home video recording to proceed and proliferate. Ironically, the movie industry benefited because by the very next year, home video sales were about the same as box office revenue -- and by 1995 more than half of Hollywood's American revenue came from home video, compared to less than a quarter from movie theaters. 

In nearly every instance, "offending" technologies simply cannot be held back and doom-predictors are forced to watch as the world simply adapts. For example, during the 1980's robotics (as many feared) did replace a large volume of factory workers. But this was offset to some degree by new jobs that were created for people to build, program and maintain robotic systems and equipment. But the larger point is that technological advancement always moves forward. Today, every major factory and manufacturing facility in the world uses robotics simply because it's a faster, more efficient, and more affordable way to do things

Here's perhaps the best example of fear of technology and the futility of it. When the MP3 was introduced back in 1990’s (and soon after peer-to-peer file sharing via the internet) what was the response of the music industry?… Panic, resistance, and litigation. Music companies took both purveyors of peer-to-peer technology to court. At the same time, they bullied (via injunctions, subpoenas and other court orders) ISPs into turning over the names of people who had downloaded copyrighted music, cherry picked handfuls and sued them. In some instances, it was unknowing parents of offending teenagers who were slapped with lawsuits. Meanwhile, heavy metal group Metallica also sued and then loudly raged against its own fans, labeling them criminals for "stealing music." Facing months, if not years, of costly litigation, Napster, which at the time stood at the forefront of peer-to-peer file sharing technology, was forced to shutter its operations. 

But once again attempts to suppress technology through lawsuits and other means failed. When Napster shut down, dozens of similar peer-to peer-companies and apps sprung up to take its place, including Grokster, Bearshare, LimeWire and Kazaa. At the same time, Demonoid, Pirate Bay and other torrent sites saw heavy user increase. Most of these companies were similarly targeted, sued and shut down — but not before ducking and dodging the music companies’ cease and desist orders long enough to contribute to the massive proliferation of music sharing worldwide. Looking back, a whirlwind of wrath, acrimony and confusion was born of the simple fact that music companies believed a new technology lessened their power and threatened their livelihood. And yes, it was true; thanks to peer-to-peer, music lovers suddenly had the power to listen before they bought -- or circumvent buying altogether and download a song (or an entire an album) in just a few seconds. Instead of sharing an album by burning CDs for their friends, they could (in seconds) instantly send a copy of that same album to literally anyone in the world. It was the power the new technology provided. It now existed -- and there was no going back.

Now what the Hollywood writers need to understand is that the impasse between the music industry and peer-to-peer tech didn't begin to get resolved until music companies focused less on protesting, resisting and hiring lawyers, and instead got down to the hard work of establishing new business models that figured out ways to exist alongside peer-to-peer and provide alternatives that gave consumers some of the same benefits the technology provided -- while still protecting artists, their copyrights and intellectual property. In other words, things were resolved only when the establishment, instead of working to limit the use of technology, acknowledged and built new strategies to remain relevant, necessary and preferable in the face of it. The result was iTunes, which gave music companies a distribution service that consumers could use to legally purchase music so artists and labels could be properly compensated. Did this solve the issue entirely?…  Of course not. “Pirating” music remains a problem even to this day -- but iTunes (which evolved into Apple Music) and the rapid development of music streaming services like Spotify and Pandora only cane about with the acceptance, support and investment of the music industry. 

The same thing needs to happen with AI and the WGA. Instead of asking for promises that have zero chance of being kept -- like AI-produced work never being used as source material (how could anyone ever be sure if something was written by AI or not?) -- the guild should accept AI and look to leverage it in ways that enhance but in no way replace the human writer. Is anyone at this point entirely sure what those ways are?... No. AI applied to writing and the creative world is still much too new. But once fear is put aside things tend to get figured out. 

The Hollywood writers have to understand that AI is a lot like Cliff Notes. When it comes to literature, Cliff Notes are in no way the equal of reading the book itself but, as millions of high school and college students can attest, they are still extremely helpful as a guide or aid. Similarly, AI is not the equal of a human writer -- but it can research, brainstorm, spark ideas, and augment. In this way, AI can today perform many of tasks of a "writer's assistant." A good example is a way I myself used AI recently. I have a screenplay that includes a character named Marcus Washington who longs to be a hip-hop artist. He's a supporting character and his musical aspirations are really only relevant in one scene. Still, I needed a stage name for him. Instead of wracking my brain and slowing down my process of creating the plot points, action and dialogue that actually drives the story forward, I had ChatGPT spitball some rap names. The results ("MC Dubz", "Wash Money", etc.) were perfectly usable placeholders. So even though at the time I chose to press forward onto more important things, whenever I do come back and decide on Marcus's stage name, the AI suggestions have helped by getting my brain going. 

AI though has far more writing capability than simply tossing out prospective character names. It can create storylines, inciting incidents, dialogue, parentheticals, and more -- all within the parameters set forth by a detailed, well thought out, well articulated prompt. And this may be where the Hollywood writers' biggest fears lie. Not that AI will be used to perform research or (as with my example above) to brainstorm things of minimal consequence. Rather, that in the very near future, it will be executing at such a level that its work will be indistinguishable from that of human writer. But just as teachers and professors can't stop students from taking short cuts by using Cliff Notes, there's essentially nothing that can be done to ensure the elimination of AI in the writing process. Like with Cliff Notes and peer-to-peer, the light bulb, Model T, and practically every other technological innovation, there's simply too much convenience and time and cost savings to be had. Putting limits on the use of AI would be like asking someone to research a paper without using the internet.. catch a bus instead of driving... or stitch by hand instead of using a sewing machine.

Yet these kinds of limitations are exactly what the WGA is insisting upon. Their worry about artificial intelligence in their profession is so great in fact, that they are making demands that their work never to be used to train AI. In other words, if the WGA gets their way, Open AI, as well as all other AI developers, would not be able to use the writers' screenplays, teleplays, transcripts and the like for AI to subsume in order to improve its performance. 

The idea of the WGA asking for this is laughable on so many levels. First, because there's no actual way to prevent it from happening. Let's face it, the writers' work is out there and (though it remains copyrighted) available for public consumption to such a large degree that it cannot be realistically withheld from AI -- or any other person, machine, webcrawler, etc. The final shooting script (or at the very least a transcription) of practically every popular film from the last several decades is available and relatively easy to find online. Many other screenplays have been officially published in book form. (Bugsy and Pulp Fiction are just two that are sitting on my bookshelf right now.) Plus, as of today no one outside of Open AI is even sure of how exactly ChatGPT is trained anyway, nor all of the sources it draws from for learning, which essentially eliminates any possibility of removing WGA-created content from the training mix.

But the other reason withholding WGA work from AI is ludicrous is because it simply defies the nature of human creativity, learning and improvement. It would be like Maya Angelou insisting that other poets not be allowed to read or study her work. Or Paul McCartney attempting to prevent other musicians from studying the chord progressions of his Beatles' songs. Or Rembrandt prohibiting other artists from viewing his paintings up close for fear of them replicating his brushstrokes. It simply sounds dumb right of the gate. With little effort, anyone at all can find (and study) all of the examples cited above (Maya Angelou's words, Lennon/McCartney's chord progressions, Rembrandt's paintings) via hundreds of websites, YouTube videos, the public library, and countless other sources. More importantly, creative artists would never attempt to exclude a human being from accessing, analyzing and studying what they've published/produced -- so clearly the WGA's objection to their output being used to train AI stems from the possibility that Chat GPT's ever-growing intelligence could emulate and rival the writers' work to the point where it becomes preferable to studios and production execs.

Fears abound of where AI is headed and how quickly it will advance. We've all seen The Matrix and Terminator movies that imagine dystopian futures where machines or computer systems grow so intelligent they become sentient and ultimately replace, enslave or eradicate their human creators. It could be that it's not just science fiction. Experts in the field, including Open AI CEO Sam Altman, are already warning that AI could pose an existential threat to humanity. Leading AI expert and ethicist Professor Simon Goldstein even went so far as to say that "AI researchers don't understand the machines they've created very well, so there is a chance we will not be able to completely control their goals. If their goals conflict with our own and they are more intelligent than us, then it is possible that over time they will ultimately replace us as the dominant form of life on this planet.

The risk of this type of future (one straight out of science fiction) may be unavoidable. But human history repeatedly shows us that technology always moves forward and progress can’t be stopped. The much more likely scenario is that the sky is NOT falling and AI technology will have far less of a disastrous impact on both human existence and the entertainment writing industry than many may think. In the future, if we all embrace and learn the right ways to leverage it, ultimately AI will simply do what technology does -- fulfill its fundamental purpose of making humans and our society more efficient and more productive... The sooner the WGA realizes all this, the better.

In Redefining the Erotic Thriller Basic Instinct Also Changed the Face of Home Video

Basic Instinct, which hit theaters in March of 1992, was one of the most noteworthy and influential film releases of the decade. For starters the screenplay, written by Joe Eszterhas, touched off a Hollywood bidding war before finally being sold for an eye-popping $3 million. The early 90's was a unique time in the filmmaking industry when writers like Shane Black (The Last Boy Scout, The Long Kiss Goodnight), Tom Schulman (Medicine Man), and  Eszterhas (Jade) were inexplicably paid exorbitant amounts of money by studios for scripts that were far more run-of-the-mill than they were novel, unique or high concept. Nevertheless, the Basic Instinct sale broke records and the film's success sparked yet another career resurgence for star Michael Douglas. Topping that, co-lead Sharon Stone owes her entire career to Basic Instinct. The actress had been languishing around Hollywood for close to a decade, unable to make a mark beyond starring in feeble offerings like King Solomon's Mines, Police Academy 4 and Blood and Sand. But Stone found a champion in Basic Instinct director Paul Verhoeven, who had previously worked with her in the 1990 big budget sci-fi effort Total Recall. As femme fatale Lori, wife of Arnold Schwarzenegger's character, Stone crushed in what was her first meaty Hollywood role. Additionally, Total Recall and Basic Instinct had the same production company (Carolco) and distributor (Tri-Star Pictures) so those relationships and Stone's previous work with Verhoeven almost certainly helped her land the part of Catherine Tramell in Basic Instinct. Afterwards, Stone's career took off. Her next two roles were another erotic thriller, Sliver (for which she received top billing and a hefty paycheck) and the Sly Stallone vehicle The Specialist, where she appears in steamy (no pun intended) shower and love scenes. By mid-decade Stone was wearing the crown as the sexiest actress in Hollywood and had earned a Golden Globe Award and Oscar nomination for Casino -- all resulting from the springboard Basic Instinct provided.

But of course what Basic Instinct is best known for is its highly sexualized plot and subject matter. Catherine Tramell, we discover, is bisexual and though the film took criticism at the time from the gay community for portraying her as a heartless killer, Basic Instinct deserves praise for having the guts to include a powerful and unashamedly LGB antagonist. 

Beyond Tramell's sexual preferences, Basic Instinct's focus on sexuality, violence and general sordidness went to levels reminiscent of film noir -- a particular style of American filmmaking (generally considered to have originated in the 1940's) that features a cinematic focus on cynicism, crime, moral corruption and other "dark", unseemly sides of society.  Basic Instinct's story is rife with drug use, stalking, deceit, manipulation, murder and psychological torture, And of course no punches are pulled when it comes to sexual content. In addition to sex scenes as graphic as anything found to that point in an A-list Hollywood feature, there's bondage, sexual assault, and of course Stone's infamous leg-crossing, vagina-revealing interrogation scene.

Moviegoers loved every bit of it and Basic Instinct became a rare spring hit and the fourth highest grossing film of the year. Producers, writers and studio execs noted the film's success and (in the typical fashion of what we know is a copycat industry) began cranking out Basic Instinct clones. In no time at all, Hollywood had fully embraced this new iteration of the movie sub-genre known as "erotic thrillers." Body of Evidence, Consenting Adults, Whispers in the Dark, Sliver and Malice were all released within the year and a half following Basic Instinct but these films certainly can't be considered the first in the genre. Tattoo, Dressed to Kill, Body Heat, Sea of Love, Body Double and Jagged Edge (also written by Eszterhas) from the 1980's, as well as Love Crimes, Under Suspicion and Final Analysis (all released just prior to Basic Instinct) all certainly qualify as erotic thrillers. But what Basic Instinct achieved was to take the core elements of the genre -- danger, suspense, morally ambiguous or outright sociopathic characters, storylines full of plot twists, shadowy cinematography -- and inject it with ultra-heightened levels of sensuality and sexual content. In this way, Basic Instinct raised the bar for the erotic thriller and filmmakers working in the genre began engaging in battles of "can you top this?" as they scripted and shot their films. S&M, group sex, voyeurism and other areas of sexual exploration where Hollywood films had previously only treaded lightly, were now on full display in major productions. From Body of Evidence's infamous Madonna/Willem Dafoe candle wax scene, to Bound, with its focus on the lesbian relationship between the two protagonists, the envelope of explicit sexual content found in erotic thrillers was being pushed further and further.

But of course there's only so far theatrical releases can go in terms of graphic nudity, sex scenes and the like, and only so much A-list talent will agree to. Studios and distributors still had MPAA ratings to consider (Basic Instinct, in fact, had barely dodged the dreaded NC-17.) These factors and the ever-increasing prurient appeal of erotic thrillers led to an explosion of titles made by smaller production companies and then released by independent distributors (or subdivisions of major ones) directly into the home video markets. VHS rentals, cable channels in need of content and (later) the brand new DVD format (first introduced in 1996) gave film distributors viable alternatives for any erotic thrillers that pushed the envelope too far or otherwise weren't suitable for theaters. What's more, erotic thrillers quickly proved to be among the most-watched and most-rented titles. For example, Color of Night (with Bruce Willis and Jane March) flopped upon its release in 1995 but was one of the most rented movies of the year thanks to word of mouth about its explicit sex scenes. Soon a new paradigm was established: script and produce an erotic thriller on the cheap using B- and C-list talent; make it as sexually explicit as you can; combine a titillating adjective (“Indecent”, “Animal”, “Carnal”) with a provocative noun (“Sins”, “Desire”, “Instinct”) for the film's title, then skip theaters entirely and find distribution on late night cable and/or go straight to DVD.

Indeed, this strategy worked so well that for the entirety of the 1990's, home video and cable were glutted with racy films like Sins of Desire, Animal Instincts, Scorned, Night Eyes, Illicit Dreams and Indecent Behavior. These and dozens of other low budget erotic thrillers heavy on sexual intrigue and nudity would soon become go-to after-10PM programming on Showtime, Cinemax (or “Skin-e-max”, as it came to be known) and other cable channels. Truth be told, features like these kept a lot of folks in the movie industry employed for close to a decade and what's more, many of the actresses who starred in these films gained measures of fame for their sexy portrayals and softcore sex scenes. Even today, close to thirty years later, Shannon Tweed, Tane McClure, Maria Ford, Joan Severance and others are recognized and celebrated for their contributions to the erotic thriller sub-genre.

Early 2000's releases like Original Sin, In the Cut and the well-reviewed Mulholland Drive and Unfaithful were some of Hollywood's final entries as the golden age of the erotic thriller wound down. Nevertheless, today you can still find scores of erotic thrillers on the various streaming platforms. Most still adhere to the rules of old paradigm (low budget, B-list talent, no theatrical release, etc.) and only occasionally do you see movies' biggest names revisiting the genre. Still, it's important to remember that in the 1990's many of the decade's most successful actors, actresses and directors (Demi Moore, Kim Basinger, Bruce Willis, Richard Gere, Julianne Moore, Gwyneth Paltrow, Wolfgang Peterson, Phillip Noyce, Barry Levinson and many more) all took swings at the plate with erotic thrillers – and all were looking to duplicate the grand slam home run that was Basic Instinct.

Related Posts:
The Greatest Softcore Actresses of the Home Video Era

Super Bowl Ads Lean Heavily into Pop Culture... Here's the Reason Why.

If there is any skepticism regarding either the importance or financial impact of leveraging prevailing pop culture to influence consumerism then look no further than this year's Super Bowl commercials which incorporated a parade of pop culture nods, references, and recollections. These included:

• Parodies of Clueless and Caddyshack promoting Rakuten and Michelob respectively

• Comedian Wil Ferrell, in a co-branded spot for GM and Netflix, cruising in one of the automaker's EVs through the worlds of Stranger Things, Squid Game and other Netflix hits

• Another co-branded spot featuring Marvel's Ant-Man (Paul Rudd) enjoying a Heineken.

• Mega producer Diddy bringing one-hit wonders like Haddaway (“What is Love”) and Kelis (“Milkshake”) into a recording studio to shil for Uber Eats

• Ben Affleck (as himself) working the drive-thru at Dunkin'

 

So why did these and so many other advertisers (some of the biggest brands in the world) continue the trend of leaning so heavily into pop culture, both past and present, and use it as the foundation of TV ads that cost an average of $7 million to produce and air?... The answer can be found at the intersection of psychology and one of the fundamental tenets of sales and marketing.

Salespeople in any industry will tell you that the following axiom is true:

“A customer may not remember everything you said during your pitch but they will definitely remember the way you made them feel.”

As a result, good salespeople go to great lengths in their interactions to make customers feel “heard”… “respected”… “satisfied”… and “understood.” Positive feelings like this lead to positive results, e.g. orders, referrals, recommendations and glowing Yelp reviews. And equally important, positive feelings create and perpetuate a positive brand identity.

That, in essence, is how and why pop-culture was leveraged on Super Bowl Sunday. Michelob's Caddyshack spot tapped into our shared experience of laughing at Bill Murray and company and enjoying one of the funniest comedies ever made. The makers of that commercial recognized that Caddyshack brings back fond memories, makes viewers look up from checking their phone, and pauses their planned trip to the bathroom during the commercial break. But more than that, it makes them feel something – amused, nostalgic, giggly. Psychologically, those individual sentiments coalesce into a general overall positive feeling that is then tied to the brand being advertised. It’s something that's working on both a conscious and subconscious level. 

Referencing pop culture (a popular movie, song, TV show, celebrity, etc.) offers one of the most effective ways to tap into something (a shared experience) that has (or had) mass appeal in order to generate recognition and stir up those positive feelings. In this way, pop culture is the gateway into the hearts and minds of, in this instance, 113 million Super Bowl viewers/consumers. You see and hear Travolta doing the number from Grease; you recall and feel something positive, and that positivity is now associated with the brand. And no, most people are not going to see the spot and run right out and switch from their current carrier to T-Mobile. But it is a way to boost the company's Q rating, which serves as a measurement of the familiarity and appeal of a brand, company, movie, etc. Studies show a clear parallel between high Q ratings and bigger market shares, so the formula is simple:

A pleasing pop culture reference in the commercial creates positive feelings. Positive feelings lead to a higher Q rating, which translates into increased consumer demand.

With regard to this year’s Super Bowl ads, the formula proved quite valid. Behavioral research company Veylinx analyzed the behavior of U.S. consumers pre- and post-Super Bowl LVII and measured the change in demand for the products of several large Super Bowl advertisers. The data revealed that the aforementioned Michelob Caddyshack spot helped the brand realize the single highest in demand increase post-Super Bowl at 19%. Frito-Lay also scored high with a commercial that included Breaking Bad's Walter White (Bryan Cranston) and Jesse Pinkman (Aaron Paul) cooking up PopCorners. That spot saw a 12% demand growth, while Heineken realized 11% growth after its Ant-Man ad.

In terms of strongly influencing purchasing decisions, “online buzz” – measured by statistics like impressions, likes, comments and shares – is also a good indicator. According to social listening and data analytics expert Engagement Labs, brands that were highly successful at driving online buzz through their Super Bowl ads included the aforementioned T-Mobile, Rakuten and Dunkin', as well as Crown Royal with its commercial featuring Dave Grohl from the Foo Fighters. Engagement Labs also posits that greater online buzz about a brand can result in more offline conversations which (though they are far trickier to measure) also greatly impact purchasing.

To be sure, pop culture was not the one and only path to creating a great Super Bowl ad, creating buzz, or spurring customer engagement. E-Trade, as well as pet food company The Farmer's Dog, delivered memorable spots that created conversation and raised brand awareness. But the overall winner in the latter department had to be Tubi. The AVOD streaming service debuted in 2014 but has since gotten lost in the wash of both premier streamers like HBO Max, Hulu and Netflix, as well as other AVODs like Crackle and Pluto TV. What Tubi needed first and foremost was to make people aware of its existence. Once again the strategy for the ad leaned into pop culture, in this case not so much a specific property, but a shared experience growing out of current pop culture. Don't we all from time to time, in the middle of enjoying a show, accidentally hit the wrong button on the remote and bring up the streaming service's homescreen? Tubi cleverly gave us their own take on this common mishap by producing a commercial that looked like the Fox broadcast, complete with commentators Kevin Burkhardt and Greg Olsen welcoming viewers back to the game. Suddenly, the screen changed to the Tubi menu with someone apparently browsing programming selections. The gag fooled practically everyone and had viewers screaming and accusing each other of sitting on the remote. But more than that, it brought Tubi into the consciousness of millions of Americans who previously had no idea what Tubi even is. The ad gained the streamer tons of “earned media” and fresh downloads of the Tubi app. Those downloads translate into new viewers for the streamer to report, which ultimately allows Tubi to charge more for advertising on its platform.

In the end, the Super Bowl advertising reaffirms that popular culture has moved beyond trendiness and beyond the realm of the short-lived, and is something far more than just simply entertaining. It provides cohesion for us as Americans as we’re able to find common ground in our shared appreciation of a popular TV show, song, movie scene, celebrity, etc. Indeed, popular culture has ingrained itself in our society and now influences the way we communicate, how we act, and with regard to advertising specifically, what we value and choose to purchase.

Related Posts:
The 80's Will Never Die #6 (Hellman's Mayonaisse/When Harry Met Sally)