24: the unaired 1994 Pilot

Justin brought this collegehumor.com short to the blog last month - a short about what the hit television series 24 would look like if it were made using the technology we had in 1994 instead of the technology we had in 2001, when the series began.

This short stands out to me for a variety of reasons, and Justin did a good job highlighting some. This short's distribution is only on the internet, and yet the production of the short is quite good. This doesn't surprise me because collegehumor.com is dedicated to maintaining a healthy level of satire, and in doing so is well funded for these videos that bring so much attention. Shorts like this one give legitimacy to the concept of the internet as a valid means to distribute short film.

What also represents itself well in this short is the role nostalgia plays in it. Technology that was cutting edge in 1994 is laughable only seven years later. With today's technology, a person can seem detached from society just by misplacing their cell phone or not changing their facebook status. The juxtaposition of technology that this short compares to today's technology expectations is a reality check, for a lack of better terms. Our lives are completely different. It is so much more convenient that is difficult to even imagine a time when the simple amenities like a cell phone or T1 didn't exist.

I want to highlight it again for the sake of this blog because this short represents a wide range of elements that come with short film. For example, this short is efficient with time, is funny in that it works with implicit notions of current technology, well produced, satirical, and self contained in its story. Lets not forget - it is entertaining! That is what this blog as a whole seems to suggest - that no matter what kind of bum wrap short films get for being short, they are addictive. We search for a spectacle, but more often than not we find something that makes an impression.

The Quintessentials: Brokeback to the Future

After reading Huw Roberts’ review of Brokeback to the Future, strange thoughts of the film’s purpose and appeal lingered in my mind. Being that the short trailer itself represented an extension of the preverbal “life of “ the films beyond their theatrical release I became fascinated by the possibilities such experimental spoofs have to offer. It comes as no surprise that one of the briefs in response to Huw’s review admits that an imagined feature-length version of Brokeback to the Future would be an interesting watch.

The trailer toys with genre expectations and form. It is perfectly reasonable to consider that if the trailer were designed as such when Back to the Future originally came out that the appeal of the film would not be half as broad. It might even still be the same film. But expectations are all about getting what you want out of a film.

In an industry where pilots and the filming of individual scenes determine whether or not a production continues, it seems necessary to consider the trailer (even as spoof) a legitimate means for attracting theatrical consumers. Today’s marketing is highly targeted to consumers in a particular niche. With tangible (i.e. theater, DVD) and intangible (i.e. YouTube) venues for showcasing films it is increasingly possible and affordable for successful projects to spawn newer projects which are in some way related. Supporting this notion buys into the methodology of successful television series which stem new seasons, characters, and even more challenging situations for the show’s protagonist.

In the film Tropic Thunder it seems there is this kind of curious experimentation with spoof trailers. Without explicitly mentioning that the preview trailers at the beginning of the film are indeed a part of the film itself, viewers are at first blindly fascinated with the prospect of seeing some of these preposterous trailers on the big screen as features. The titles include anything ranging from Scorcher VI: Global Meltdown to The Fatties: Fart 2. What’s most noteworthy is that some of these so-called "faux-trailers" are alluded to in the movie itself as the film portrays the lives of its characters who happen to be actors in these movies.

Don’t be surprised if this kind of ahead-of-time, conglomerate style of marketing for future projects becomes more common. It seems that it is increasingly impossible to sell an individual product without selling manifestations of the film’s inside jokes for future projects.

Austinpussy

I have to take a moment to acknowledge what I never thought I’d do before. When I was browsing through all the blog posts written this semester and came across “Austinpussy,” I plowed my way to blackboard, convinced that someone would have beaten me to this gem. Alas, I found that I did indeed have the chance to address it, and am eternally grateful to Drew for making it a part of the equation.

For now, I will skip over the complete absurdity of the sequence, as I think it was illustrated well in the original post. What I do want to talk about is a broader question about short films that I think this clip addresses in some ways, or at least serves as a catalyst for questioning.

I am wondering what to do with sequences within film. By this I mean, stretches of video that could stand on their own, which have a narrative structure within them and, most importantly, are somewhat isolated in the film. I will not go into an argument here that all features are composed of linked short films; however, I do not completely disagree with that idea either.

Where I feel we tend to see these types of sequences are during title/credit sequences. I chose Austinpussy because it has a very exaggerated opening sequence, which, while it happens to be a farce, is a good illustration of what we have become used to seeing. Especially in action films, there is this standard for extremely intense, action-packed opening sequences, which rarely ever have a direct connection to what will pursue in the film forward.

We have talked about short films as a means by which directors can take risks. The idea of the opening sequence being extremely ridiculous, as in “Austinpussy,” is interesting. Now while this entire movie is equally ridiculous, the opening sequence is a great avenue to be extra-creative without worrying too much about overall risk. It seems to work like short films here. In this case, just because the title sequence is bizarre, I have come to expect that this part of the film may not be completely representative of the whole. Again, because it may stand on its own, it need not fit into the narrative structure of the rest.

To take this concept a bit broader, what do we do with title sequences for television shows? Immediately I think of “Arrested Development,” where the opening credit sequence gives you the back-story of the family. The style is very different from the style that the show is shot in. The director here was able to take a risk in format, because it is in short format. While I wouldn’t want to necessarily watch an entire half hour or hour of a show in an opening sequence format (which tend to be fast-paced and non-formulaic), these pieces do seem to have a entirety to their format; that they are independent creatures from the film/television show that they are attached to.

Obviously, “Austinpussy” is playing with the action-film norm of the intense, action-packed opening sequence. However, in doing so, it brings up the question, are these unrelated beginnings short films within themselves? If they are, it explains why they can take so many risks here, and why the viewer forgives so easily. I’m still not sure if I can forgive anything about “Austinpussy,” but that’s a discussion for another day.

24: The Unaired 1994 Pilot

24: The Unaired 1994 Pilot
Directed by Sam Reich, USA, 2007, 4:19

This short is an original short by collegehumor.com. CollegeHumor used to be a typical website to find goofy videos, articles, and pictures that were on the amateur side, but it's success has allowed the site to invest in creating high budget short films as part of its CHTV online series. Their originals are a step up from the average viral-video. One particular favorite of mine is the 24 parody about what the show would have been like if it took place in 1994 using 1994's technology. The videos has Jack Bauer on a mission to diffuse a bomb, but his success continuously gets side-lined by technology such as pay-phones, dial-up internet, the lack of ability to use the phone while on the internet, paper printers, and more.

The professional aesthetic impressed first about the short. This isn't a bunch of college students in their dorm room. This short looks like a full-fledged production using real locations, hired actors, and expensive equipment. While these are all elements one would expect at a short film festival, in the age of YouTube, the expectations in the production quality of online shorts are lower. One can expect a shaky, crappy camera to be used, a lack of any real microphones, shot in someone's bedroom, etc. However, this short is as professional-looking as they get. The acting is well-done, and the Jack Bauer character actually looks like the real deal.

The video also happens to be very clever. It creates nostalgia for the viewer. I honestly forgot about those terrible printers where you had to tear off the edges of the paper or the fact that you can't use the phone while someone is on the internet. At the time, these were all coveted technologies, but they are laughable by today's standards when you can look at the internet ON your phone. Jack Bauer doesn't have a cell phone: to communicate with his boss; he gets a page on his beeper and has to leave the bomb to go find a pay-phone, and he even runs out of quarters. There are subtle references as well, such as when a character mentions they can't get on a Lycos page (remember Lycos?)

When one thinks of online-exclusive video, the perceptions of "no-budget" or "a teenager fooling with his friends after school" come to mind. Online-videos have no form of physical distribution. They aren't on TV. The expectations are usually low. One might think, "if it was actually so good, it probably would be seen elsewhere than the computer." However, this video shows that even some great great material can be isolated solely to the internet realm.

Brokeback to the Future: Spoof Trailers

Broke Back to the Future
chocolatecakecity.com
Director: Unknown
Running Time 2:11

The true definition of an internet sensation is one that is forwarded through emails, linked on facebook pages, sent through AOL instant messenger, but never see the likes of the big screen. What great about this short is it's been in both realms. These trailers remade are an internet sensation amongst themselves not only just this one (but Brokeback Mountain is a popular choice). I chose this particular trailer out of thousands of remakes because of the use of two films that were once very popular films on the big screen and now have faded into TBS and our DVD players.

This trailer spoof takes the Back to the Future trilogy and splices them in a way that shows the two main characters in the film in a homosexual relationship. All of the clips that are used have slight sexual connotation to them, whether it's the Fox and Lloyd hugging or gazing into each other eyes. Needless to say all of the clips that are used are taken completely out of context. But put hem all together and throw the in the song The Wings by Gustavo Santoalla from Brokeback Mountain and the typical trailer music and you got yourself a completely different film.

I watched a few dozen of these trailers, from the very creative Good Will Hunted to the lesser Fight Club. But this short stood out the most for me because it's resemblance to an actual trailer, I think it even had some of the viewers who commented on it excited to see the feature length version of the film. What I noticed watching all of these spoof trailers is that they all seem to revolve around one central theme, which is Brokeback Mountain. Sure, there are plenty of other trailers that used different ideas to run with. But I think why so many of these trailers use homosexuality as their focus point is because it's so easy to run with. Take any film with two main characters that are men and run a some clips where they are looking at each other, play those in slow motion and have the song playing in background and there you have it a brokeback spoof.