Gauging the Technology Landscape: Are We Overlooking Content?

While much of the movie blogosphere seems to be filled with amateur movie reviews and secret spy photos of the latest "it"celebrity, I feel a film blog is much more effective when it probes into current events, looking ahead to the shaping of the industry in the future. One popular topic for this type of writing is technology, and with the advent of computers and the way they have revolutionized cinema, conflicting opinions inevitably arise on where we have come from and where we are going. For this week, I have found two blog posts that deal with technology involving 3D film and animation and commented on the topics at hand. 3D has slowly moved to forefront of new film techniques, and this schedule of upcoming 3D films show that more films are on the horizon. The first post deals with one of those films, AVATAR, and its filmmaker James Cameron's future plans with three dimensional film. In my comment of the post, written by Hunter Stevenson, correspondent at SlashFilm, I discuss how Cameron's plans to expand 3D into conventional genres may not be the best idea. The second post, from Alex Billington of FirstShowing.net, looks ahead to Disney and Pixar's upcoming schedule. While the films on tap all appear ground breaking, I question in my post the potential damages that tech-focused film making can have on content.

"James Cameron Announces Next Project After AVATAR...and Yeah, It's in 3D But It's Not Battle Angel"
Comment:
I found this post really interesting, and a good recap and perspective on the Variety interview with Cameron. With the recent Hannah Montana 3-D concert film release, it seems to be that everyone is discussing the next best way to utilize this new technology on screen. I've followed along with the production of Avatar and can say that its truly exciting to see what such a visionary director like Cameron could do with this new technology, especially due to Cameron's history making large, yet personal films.

However, I can say that talk of Cameron's aspirations of making a drama in 3-D worry me about the oversaturation of this new twist on the medium. While I do believe 3-D has been effective in animated films like Beowulf and event or concert films like U2-3D, and it has potential to change cinema with Avatar, I worry that if it enters every genre it will become bland and overused. If a normal genre such as drama starts to utilize 3-d, I'm afraid films will begin to rely on these effects, and before long audiences will simply be waiting for the character to reach for the mail and have their hand bursting through the screen. I think animation and event films rely on moments that allow 3-d to shine, but I doubt its ability to become the new platform for film. I feel the adjustment process would be simply too drastic and obvious, that would, in turn, dilute the content.

"Disney and Pixar's Full Animated Line-Up Through 2012!"
Comment:
This post is a very informative look at the upcoming Disney and Pixar schedule, and it caused me to reconsider the landscape of animation today. While it seems like every is looking for the next film to turn into a 3-D masterpiece, I feel what is really being lost in the shuffle is traditional 2-D animation. Now that nearly every film being announced is being upgraded from computer generated images to 3-dimensional computer generated images, the idea of 2-D films of any type is not even spoken about.

While I feel like this advent of 3-D technology can potential push the boundaries of film, it seems to me the technology is moving too fast and without consideration of the artistic consequences. It seems like since the release of Shrek, studios have forgotten that a animated film cannot be successful if presented in the hand drawn style of classics like Beauty and the Beast and Lion King. The animated landscape must remain diverse, or else it is bound to become stagnant and bland. While films like Shrek, the Toy Story films and Finding Nemo have made tremendous marks in both the box office and in cinema canon, I'm sure that are few film fans who have seen The Wild, Happily N'ever After and Open Season, let alone heard of them. This new lush animation style has made every film visually stunning, complete with goofy animal characters and exotic locales, but simply place three random animals with celebrity voices and wacky adventure do not make a film. While the release of The Princess and the Frog is promising for traditional animation, it is the first of its type from Disney's 2004 Home on the Range. The films continue to get flashier, but I fail to believe that they are getting better written, and I feel that while this schedule is promising, its ultimately more of the same.

Trailers Sell Popcorn: Marketing 2008's Summer Blockbuster

It is undeniable that the summer blockbuster, for better or for worse, has become a staple of modern Hollywood cinema. Every summer without fail audiences pack the theaters in anticipation of the next action flick or mega-sequel to help quell the summer heat. The impact of big budget action films like Independence Day, released Fourth of July weekend in 1996, has reverberated throughout the industry, impacting the way studios market their films. While over time these films may have faded in quality and originality, the box office numbers have not. Since 1995, ten of the thirteen top grossing films each year came out between May and July, according to data from box office site The Numbers. As the season approaches, 2008 appears to be no different. The release schedule is littered with blockbusters and already trailers have been released to build buzz among film fans. One common thread in some of the most anticipated films of this upcoming summer is the presence of sequels and adaptations, specifically comic book films. Ever since Spiderman made spandex cool again in the summer of 2002, studios have been racing to find the next hit comic franchise, and this summer is no different. While it may seem easier to advertise a character that audiences are more familiar with, these films demonstrate some of the more creative and unique tactics used to repackage their story to obtain the widest audience possible. This is demonstrated quite clearly in the film's first trailers, one of the most important aspect of a films marketing campaign.

The phrase "highly anticipated" has perhaps never been truer than for the first film, Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. The fourth film in Steven Spielberg and George Lucas' legendary series is finally set for release May 22nd, just over 19 years since the series' third installment. In a recent poll by online movie ticket service Fandango, Crystal Skull crushed the competition to be named Most Anticipated Summer 2008 Movie. Being such a familiar character, it is no surprise that the trailer plays heavily on what the audience already knows about the titular hero. The trailer opens with brief recaps of Indy's previous feats, and it is not long before the familiar theme hits and the action is on. The trailer's "guess who's back" theme mirrors the return of Harrison Ford to the character. This is just a part of what SlashFilm writer Peter Sciretta describes as a classic feeling. Though it is clear that this film's rich history will insure a huge audience regardless, the trailer does a great job of playing heavily on the past, with just a hint of what is to come.

Coming in second in that Fandango poll, The Dark Knight is this summer's sequel to 2005's Batman reboot Batman Begins. Here is a strong example of a film with an established fanbase and legend, through both its comic origins, multiple previous movie incarnations, and the hit film that directly spawned it. While these facts may make selling the film seem easier, marketers are still met with the challenge of creating a new and unique story for its beloved character, allowing it to stand out in an era of countless forgettable sequels. As the trailer shows, director Christopher Nolan has painted a darker picture of its hero, and reflected it in his nemesis. Complete with dark images and haunting voice over, it is made very clear that Batman's struggle in this film will be both with the Joker, as well as within. The trailer is strong because it recognizes that there is no need to explain the character of Batman. Instead, the trailer creates a cacophony of destruction by Heath Ledger's Joker character, which serves to both show off the films scope, as well as show the inclusion of a character that the audience is familiar with from Jack Nicholson's portrayal in the 1989 version.

The next film is a unique and enigmatic one, because rather than a new story or a sequel it serves as a reboot for a franchise. The Incredible Hulk marks a new start for the classic Marvel character, and comes on the heels of Hulk, the first attempt that ultimately failed to reach audiences in 2003. Because of this, much more weight must be placed on promoting the film in a new and interesting way that remains true to the tale, while creating a fresh enough take to gain viewers. The trailer begins, fittingly, with Edward Norton, who wrote the film's screenplay, and is many ways has become the face of this new version. His extensive film career has earned him much praise, and by using his face first and foremost, he provides the production with credibility. It is also interesting to note the manner in which the trailer holds back The Hulk, not revealing him fully until the final moments. This serves as a slow dramatic reveal, as well as to tell audiences that this film does feature human character elements as well, something some reviewers found lacking from Ang Lee's 2003 version.

These three examples demonstrate just a few of the strategies used to repackage and remarket familiar characters to snag audiences. It would be very easy for any of these films to simply release their films on name and previous incarnations alone, but as the three trailers demonstrate, the marketing is much more complex. In this modern film era with dozens of films jockeying for the top spot not only weekly but across the entire summer, advertisers have learned that they need to create intricate and original campaigns to keep audiences coming back for more popcorn, time after time.

Links to Explore: More Entertainment Internet Resources

For this week, I have once again decided to explore the internet for valuable and informative resources related to my blog subject of film and television. Located on the LinkRoll to the right, these ten new sites represent some of the best the internet has to offer in terms of blogs, news, and coverage of the entertainment industry. I have used the evaluation criteria outlined by the Webby Awards and IMSA in order to better guide my readers to the best the internet has to offer.

The first site, Rotten Tomatoes, is a very popular site that offers aggregate review scores for recent films, utilizing as many different reviewers as possible (an example of some scores can be seen in the graphic to the left). The site is very easy to use, and makes it easy to connect with other review sites through links on each review. Metacritic is a similar review based site. While it offers reviews for anything from movies and DVDs to books, it fails to equal Rotten Tomatoes due to dull visuals. Moving to television, TV.Com is a massive site dedicated to information regarding any show ever to hit the air. While its resources are vast, I found the site to be difficult to navigate at times, mostly due to visual clutter on the homepage. A part of the Underground Online network of entertainment sites, The UGO TV Blog presents daily news in casual, blog form. One of the sites strengths is its interactivity, giving users the ability to comment on stories, or submit ones of their own.

Joblo's Movie Emporium is a very diverse site, featuring blog-format news along with reviews, videos and a massive message board community. While the site is fan friendly, it's hardly a scholarly source. In a similar vein is I Watch Stuff, a blog that takes humorous jabs at movie news. While the site is far from serious, it does provide an extensive amount of content, especially images and videos. On the other end of the movie blog spectrum is Cinematical. This very professional looking blog provides smart and fresh perspectives on the most up to date news in the industry. The Movie Blog is a particularly strong site because it goes beyond just the daily post blog-style, including video blog entries, most recently featuring an interview with Heroes' Milo Ventimiglia. The next site, The Hollywood Reporter, focuses its news more on the industry side than the gossip and review side, but unfortunately suffers from a dull layout. Finally, Showbiz Data is a bit different than the sites previously featured. This site takes a very technical view of box office numbers, presenting them daily, as well as featuring sections with job opportunities and market shares of each major studio. I feel these sites provide a diverse look at what the internet has to offer, and well compliments the sites previously on the LinkRoll.

Spoiler Alert: Implications on Entertainment in a World Sans Surprises

I have a very serious problem. A crippling addiction in fact. One that takes up hours of my time and has begun to strain my relationships with loved ones. The affliction I am speaking of is my need for spoilers regarding my favorite television shows. I jump at any opportunity to be the first to know "who dies next?" or "what's his big secret?" I scour the web for any set reports or insider tidbits that can reveal more about what is to come. I am not alone in this matter, far from it in fact. The trend of spoilers is one that currently has an immense affect on television viewing. While some champion the amount of information available and its potential benefits to viewing, others feel that this influx of insider information is ruining the essence and "liveness" of television. Facing my addiction head on, here is a closer look at this phenomena and its affect on the television experience.

First, let's step back to analyze just what is considered a spoiler in today's media. This is not an easy question to answer however, as the term is multifaceted both in what it is and what it is not. Evident of the scope this term has in our times, "spoiler" has entered the lexicon of Merriam Webster Dictionary, a highly regarded publication. The entry reads: "information about the plot of a motion picture or TV program that can spoil a viewer's sense of surprise or suspense." While this definition shows that the term has clearly reached a certain official status, it fails to give a glimpse into usages and types. Spoiler information can come in many different shapes in sizes, from officially released promotional videos to fan set reports to facts leaked from those involved in the production. Many issues regarding what a spoiler is are caused by this broad range of types. Most would agree that any information not provided on air during the program is a spoiler, but everyone views and experiences their favorite programs differently, which is why the ongoing discussion is so engaging.

The expansion of the internet has made spoilers universal and available to all, but is this a good thing? There are many benefits, first and foremost the increased attention and ratings that a network can generate. As Isabelle Carreau, a contributor for TVSquad.com writes, "Networks know the power of spoilers. They attract viewers. They create a buzz. They sell." This is true, and an issue that did not immediately stand out to me when approaching the topic. While it might seem like a studio would want to avoid having their shows secrets spread on the web, it is possible that this leads to more viewers. If a casual viewer of a program hears that a big character is dying soon, it may compel them to focus more or catch up on episodes they have missed, as Carreau discusses with the season 2 example of ABC's Lost. The power of spoilers is apparent to anyone who reads about television on the internet. The sheer number of sites available to those interested, from SpoilersNews.com and StillSpoiled.com, to Spoiler TV and SpoilerFix.com, is a testament to the demand for this type of information. These sites cater to a large number of popular shows, and feature many of the previously mentioned features, such as information from casting sheets or set reports and fan-taken photographs. Clearly something so popular cannot possibly be negative, right?

There are still many, however, who feel that information being released prior to broadcast can be damaging to the viewing experience. For some, like those who share my addiction to spoilers, extra knowledge can enhance the show. Others however, disagree, believing that too much information can take away from a viewing. This issue is perhaps best exemplified by the "Lostfan108" incident that occurred before Lost's season three finale. Just weeks before the finale aired, a synopsis of the final two episodes of the season was placed on AintItCoolNews.com. The poster responsible, known only as Lostfan108, provided not only hints as to what was to come, but rather every major plot twist and reveal. As the blog TV-Spoilers follows: "Within hours, the culmination of a Herculean production and creative effort was being judged by thousands of fans on the basis of a few paragraphs of sloppy exposition." The blogger goes on to explain how much of the issues that arose were based on personal "conduct." The issue was that people who read this information, felt the need to spread it and make it public. I personally, despite my spoiler addiction, attempted to avoid the information at all cost, only to accidentally come across it on a message board. In this case, spoilers clearly had a negative effect because people lacked a choice as to whether or not to avoid them. It is within this sense of connection between fans that I believe the answer to spoiler issue lies.

Watching a favorite show is a very personal experience. People like to be entertained by their favorite characters at particular times, in particular settings and with particular circumstances. I believe the issue of spoilers is really no different. Viewing spoilers should be the decision of the viewer, and this should not be compromised simply because the information is available. In the case of Lostfan108, information became publicly known, and in many cases, was not marked as "SPOILER" to warn those who did not want to be spoiled. However this is not the norm. In most cases, spoilers are available on select, well marked websites. For example, the aforementioned SpoilersNews.com's home page is accompanied by a warning that states: "Do not click on any of these links if you do not want to find TV show spoilers containing hints, rumors, speculation or clues concerning upcoming TV series episodes or seasons." In a perfect internet world, every site and every bit of information would be as well delineated as this. If this were the case, the onus of being spoiled would lie solely in the hands of the viewer.

This issue is far from black and white; spoilers are not inherently "good" or "bad." Rather I believe spoilers provide a viewer the ability to create their own experience while watching their favorite shows. Some like to go in completely blind, knowing only what they have seen from previous episodes. I, on the other hand, like so many, enjoy receiving hints or peeks as to what may lie ahead for a particular show. Knowing how an episode might play out does not ruin the experience for me. Rather, it enhances it, allowing me to focus on what some may see as secondary aspects of the program. Ultimately, it does not seem like there is any real answer or cure to my addiction to all things spoiler related. Instead it seems I am on my own to self-medicate, seeking out only the spoilers I think will enhance my viewing, while avoiding viruses like the one released by Lostfan108.

Sites of Interest: Exploring Entertainment Coverage on the 'Net

The purpose of this blog is to present more than simply my opinions on news and topics throughout the entertainment industry. I intend for it to work as a resource for others as well. This week, I spent time gathering pertinent websites on the topic and evaluated these sites using Webby and IMSA criteria. The sites can be found in the link roll at the right.

The first site I highlighted in my link roll is one that may be rather familiar for any fan of film and the internet, The Internet Movie Database, IMDB.com. The site is a virtual encyclopedia of film information, and is a great starting point for any type of film research. Recently the site expanded beyond just facts, adding features for daily industry news, making it much more versatile. The next site, TotalFilm.com, rather than an encyclopedia like IMDB, is the official electronic site of the movie magazine of the same title. The site's primary strength is its immense, well-structured content, which is well complemented by its rich layout, complete with full color images, interactive features and links to further resources. Similar to Total Film, the next site is part of an electronic version of the print magazine Empire. The Empire Blog is unique because it provides Empire's writers a space to provide new and interesting perspectives on happenings in the film world. Though not intended to be purely fact based, the writing is top notch and the insights are fresh. The next site is one of the widest read movie blogs, Slash Film. Because the posts range from box office numbers, to gossip and spoilers, the site presents an engaging read for anyone from the common "fan boy" to the filmmaker's themselves. ComingSoon.net focuses on exactly what its name says, soon-to-be-released films. Though rich with media content including trailers and interviews, the site tends to look cluttered and visually unappealing. Ain't It Cool News is a site largely built through fan contribution, whether it be reviews, set reports or article responses. While this makes it more interactive than the other sites, it lacks a authoritative feel. TV Week is a well organized look at industry news specifically affecting television. The site's mix of official news and sponsored blog links makes its content well rounded, and is its primary strength. TV Squad, on the other hand, provides a different approach, focusing on fan-friendly, rather than industry-friendly, content. The interface is blog-based and very easy to navigate, making it ideal for fan usage. The print version of Variety has long been lauded as a top source and on the web this is no different. Its main strength goes beyond its news however, in the form of special feature sections like Award Central and Festival Central, which provide additional coverage of specific events. Finally, and perhaps the most official site listed, is the Motion Picture Association of America. Unlike the other sites, the focus here is more on piracy and its prevention. While this information is crucial in a time where piracy is a serious issue, it is hardly required reading for the common fan, and this coupled with the site's drab look weaken the page's overall effect.

Exploring the Blogosphere: Post Strike Implications

Now that the writer's strike has finally come to a close, the topic of where television goes next is on many peoples mind. Clearly, the strike led to many unhappy viewers, so many have speculated as to the long term impact, as well as what changes studio executives might make to prevent the issue from reoccurring later on. The issue was wide spread and effected thousands both in the industry and around it, so I decided to take a look at a few different entertainment blogs discussing the strike's aftermath. The first post that intrigued me was "Getting Ready for 'The Endless Season,'" written by The New York Times' media and advertising blog TV Decoder contributors Brian Stelter and Stuart Elliott. This post specifically highlighted NBC and the changes being made to the process in which the network decides on what shows to produce and when to produce them. The second post I decided to comment on was "Hollywood Punches Back in As Strike Ends," from the entertainment blog Eyez on Hollywood. This post provided a more personal look into the strike, utilizing quotes from writers themselves on their return to the office. Both entries provide unique insights to television's future in the wake of the writer's strike.

"Getting Ready for 'The Endless Season,'"
Comment:
Brian and Stuart,
I appreciated reading this interesting blog entry about just one of the potential industry implications of the end of the writer's strike. As a general TV fan, any thought that this long drought of new shows could eventually lead to a more continuous stream of new content is definitely encouraging. What is most interesting to me is the overall excitement put forth by the marketing people regarding this new arrangement. While its understandable that a fan would be excited by the proposition of more shows, its intriguing to see so many business people so on board with the schedule overhaul. It seems like there are numerous reasons why this change is beneficial for most involved, so I can only question why this didn't occur earlier. It seems that a constant flow a new programming would keep audiences happy, the studio rich and producers with new content. I fear that the only answer to this is the unfortunate fact that the industry is ultimately run by money. Its understandable that a set schedule focusing on the fall season may be over time more profitable for executives, but it would be nice to see many higher ups realizing that the recent strike may have been caused by this unfortunate greed epidemic throughout entertainment today. Perhaps the money lost during the strike will help to show that the fan has just as much impact as the advertisers. Its encouraging to see NBC make this move, which is hopefully just the first of many changes that will prevent a strike from returning.

"Hollywood Punches Back in As Strike Ends"
Comment:
This is a very fresh and fascinating look at the end of the writer strike. Searching through other industry blogs, few had the personal look into the writer's reactions to finally returning to work after so long. Clearly from many of the comments, the transition back to full time work won't be easy, but its encouraging to hear the many efforts to force shows back into production. The excitement of the writers is palpable and what I was perhaps most excited about was one of the last comments from writer Phil Johnston where he said, "The dirty little secret is, I suspect, people have been working much of this time." While its no huge surprise that the strike did not simply lead to all writer's going on vacation, the idea that many were still working brings up many questions concerning the potential future of television. If so many talented writers have been writing for months without deadlines or industry executives over their shoulder, one might assume that quality of the content might be greatly improved upon return. In a time where too many shows look, sound and act like the next, it is refreshing to imagine a television landscape littered with new and previously unharvested ideas. While there is no way to tell which way television will grow in the aftermath of this momentous event, your insight into the personal reactions of those most directly involved intrigued me regarding the promise of the future.

Why So Serious: Questioning Marketing in the Face of Real Tragedy

It is no stretch to say that the movie business today is controlled by the almighty dollar. In an industry where films can be sold and produced before a script is even written, the question has become "is it profitable?" rather than "is it good?" The way a film is marketed and sold to audiences is now just as important as the film's plot and performances. Although this has become the status quo, what happens when a studio's ability to market a film is hampered by unthinkable tragedy? This is exactly the dilemma that one major studios faces with their upcoming summer blockbuster.

Actor Heath Ledger passed away on January 22nd, 2008. At first thought to be a suicide, it was later ruled an accidental overdose as reported by Guardian Unlimited Film. The Dark Knight, the final film Ledger completed before his untimely death, is a sequel to 2005's re-imagining of the classic Batman tale, Batman Begins. The Dark Knight is slated for a July 2008 release and was shaping up to be one of the most anticipated film of the summer. But what impact does the tragic event have on selling this big-budget Hollywood action film? In the wake of Ledger's death, issues have arisen on the proper way to continue marketing the film, and this reveals and exposes many aspects of the cash-first, taste-later industry that has continued to grow over the past few years.

In order to better analyze the current situation, one must first explore the campaign as it has evolved so far. One of the newest trends in Hollywood is viral marketing. These campaigns utilize alternate mediums, specifically the internet, to provide additional components to the viewer's film experience. Most recently this proved successful with Cloverfield, the latest J.J. Abrams film, that utilized months of viral marketing such as hints and clues hidden on the internet and became number one at the box office in its opening weekend. The campaign for The Dark Knight began over a year before the film's release last May. Utilizing fake internet sites such a IBelieveinHarveyDent.com, a faux political campaign for one character, and Thegothamtimes.com, a fictional newspaper, buzz across the internet started very early for the film. While these sites stirred up interest, it became clear the campaign would be focused on what fan's really wanted to see, Ledger's portrayal of the legendary character The Joker, once portrayed by Jack Nicholson in the 1989 version of the film. Questions regarding the casting of Ledger arose, most of which came from comic book fanboys who refused to see Brokeback Mountain, but excitement grew as the campaign developed. The sites previously mentioned now featured defaced versions, suggesting that the Joker had destroyed them, as Thehahahatimes.com demonstrates. The popularity of the character as well as the buzz over Ledger's performance, explored here in The O.C. Register, made it evident early on that it would be the focus of the campaign, but this was ultimately brought to a halt with his death last month. The issue that arose was based not so much on Ledger's involvement, but rather the content of the marketing.

It only made sense that director Christopher Nolan's dark retelling of the Batman saga would feature a dark characterization of the Joker. The image at the top of the post is one of the first poster's released for the film. Featuring an ominous, and strangely recognizable, character behind a pane of glass, the words "why so serious?" are messily scribbled in red. The image is haunting and alarming at first, and becomes even more disturbing after Ledger's overdose. It was reported in many outlets, including the entertainment website Monsters and Critics, that the role was very taxing, both emotionally and physically, for Ledger. Clearly the role is twisted and dark, but did it force Ledger into a downward spiral that ultimately caused his death? Unfortunately, the audience and his fans will never know, and I think it is ultimately inappropriate for anyone to speculate.

The question arises just how Warner Brothers is to proceed from this unfortunate point. They have created a brilliant campaign, however, it happens to be feature an psychotic villain, portrayed by a beloved actor who just died due to usage of controlled substances. In a January 24th Wall Street Journal article, "a spokeswoman for Warner Bros., a unit of Time Warner Inc., said the marketing campaign was continuing but declined to comment further." The issue of business versus personal becomes an interesting one, and reveals what I think to be an intriguing social construct. Of course Warner Brothers wants their film to be successful, sell movie tickets, toys, lunchboxes and all kinds of other merchandising, but at what point does this become exploitation of a man's untimely death. While some "trade papers speculate[s] that the marketing campaign will be changed abruptly," I believe that changing the campaign at this point would be damaging both to the film as well as Ledger's legacy. While many will hypothesize as to how much the role led to Ledger's personal issues, the truth is no one will ever know for sure. The filming and initial marketing was completed before his death, and this is clearly the original intentions of the producers and director. To change their vision, as well as Ledger's vision in the role, is like going back and attempting to erase pen with a pencil eraser. What is done is done, and while unfortunate, is something no one could have anticipated. While continuing the market the film is this manner could be seen as cashing in on tragedy, I agree rather with a Warner representative quoted in a Slate Magazine article by Kim Masters: "'You don't want people to think you're exploiting his death," the source explains. "But his character is part of the movie, and he was on board with wanting to do this with his character."'

Ledger's tragic and untimely death marked a real loss for the entire movie industry. The promising young actor was still on the rise, creating new and interesting characters for his audience. His involvement in The Dark Knight is rumored to some of his best, and though the issue is delicate, his overdose should not lead to a complete marketing overhaul. Although I personally believe the best way to honor the actor would be to keep the images and campaign as they were originally intended, do not be surprised to see a few more Batman-focused posters to appear, such as the one at the right.