http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-makielab-disney-3d-printing-20151127-story.html
Friday November 27, 2015 the Walt Disney Co. started meeting up with the 3D printing industry where they partnered up with the MakieLab a 3D doll designer, to begin selling doll outfits that feature iconic character's like Minnie Mouse and Maleficent.
How it works is that kids can go online to the MakieLab website and pick out a basic doll design. They can then begin to customize the dolls hair, eye color, skin tone, pick out some clothes and the design gets send to the actual " lab" itself. This is where the company prints out a physical copy of the doll on a six-foot-by-eight-foot industrial 3-D printer. They then dress it up and send it back to whoever ordered it.
The MakieLab is based in London and it's said that they will most likely start a new Disney Brand. The Disney Chief Strategy Officer Kevin Mayer called 3-D printing, " a future technology that's going to be important to us as a company". And I think this is very true because they are known to produced things for children and they mention that the new 3-D printing will really help out the Disney theme parks and in Disney stores. 3-D printing also allows there to be more detail in what they make as well as them being able to be personalized from the comfort of your own home.
I personally love anything disney and I find it really cool how our technology is really advancing to the point where we can do this and I really wonder how big this might be? As well as how much it would actually cost to get these dolls.
Thursday, December 3, 2015
Thursday, November 19, 2015
Virtual Reality. . .
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-vr-film-theater-lion-king-hamilton-20151118-story.html
Virtual Reality? Something I've basically always wondered about. The whole how it works and well basically why do we even use it, but now an even more important question. Can it revolutionize live theater? Well, people over at the Disney live-theater decided to start taking that question into consideration on Wednesday, November 17. It was then noted that the Disney Theatrical Production stated that they were going to release a short VR ( virtual reality) of the famous " Circle of Life" opening number from The Lion King.
Not going to life as I was reading this I kind of screamed because The Lion King is my absolute favorite Disney movie ever, and I can't wait hoe they are going to present this and how it's all going to look once it's done.
This pretty much caused me to kind of wonder how the whole live plays are going to react to this VR, and how about the money they are going to be losing when people start to watch these new VR rather than going to see the live action version. Or will this not even have and impact on what the live plays make since I'm sure people will still want to watch things live than just seeing some images on a screen.
Virtual Reality? Something I've basically always wondered about. The whole how it works and well basically why do we even use it, but now an even more important question. Can it revolutionize live theater? Well, people over at the Disney live-theater decided to start taking that question into consideration on Wednesday, November 17. It was then noted that the Disney Theatrical Production stated that they were going to release a short VR ( virtual reality) of the famous " Circle of Life" opening number from The Lion King.
Not going to life as I was reading this I kind of screamed because The Lion King is my absolute favorite Disney movie ever, and I can't wait hoe they are going to present this and how it's all going to look once it's done.
This pretty much caused me to kind of wonder how the whole live plays are going to react to this VR, and how about the money they are going to be losing when people start to watch these new VR rather than going to see the live action version. Or will this not even have and impact on what the live plays make since I'm sure people will still want to watch things live than just seeing some images on a screen.
Thursday, November 5, 2015
Home Helped DreamWorks Animation Growth
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/et-ct-la-dreamworks-earnings-20151105-story.html
During it's third quarter DreamWorks Animation experienced a $3.5 million loss, however when its latest animation movie came out, "Home", there was a sharp increase in revenues. The Glendale- based studio says that the loss was due to many layoffs that happened earlier this year since there was also several box office flops.
Dream Works was able to generate a whooping $50.7 million in its third quarter, because of the boost it got from the home video sales of "Home". This was a big jump from their $14.3 million last year. Personally its pretty great to hear how one movie can have such an impact on a company.
I found this interesting possibly due to the fact that I absolutely love this movie so when I read it helped increase revenues I was pretty happy. Plus animated movies are my favorite so i'm excited to see what else DreamWorks has in store for the future. But I wonder how this one movie had such a big impact on this company.
During it's third quarter DreamWorks Animation experienced a $3.5 million loss, however when its latest animation movie came out, "Home", there was a sharp increase in revenues. The Glendale- based studio says that the loss was due to many layoffs that happened earlier this year since there was also several box office flops.
Dream Works was able to generate a whooping $50.7 million in its third quarter, because of the boost it got from the home video sales of "Home". This was a big jump from their $14.3 million last year. Personally its pretty great to hear how one movie can have such an impact on a company.
I found this interesting possibly due to the fact that I absolutely love this movie so when I read it helped increase revenues I was pretty happy. Plus animated movies are my favorite so i'm excited to see what else DreamWorks has in store for the future. But I wonder how this one movie had such a big impact on this company.
Thursday, October 29, 2015
Youtube=$9.99. . .
http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-youtube-red-subscription-20151022-story.html
Youtube has pretty much been around for a good while, but this past Wednesday Youtube began selling a $9.99-a-month subscription, that allows U.S consumers to view videos with out ads, download videos for viewing offline and even keeps videos playing while on another app. This new and improved Youtube Red will also include original shows and movies that can't be found anywhere else. They will also stream Google Play music.
If only about 5% of U.S users sign up to use the new Youtube Red, they can make roughly around $950 million annually. That alone is a lot, now imagine if the percentage goes up, the incoming money they will be receiving will be off the charts. Joey Graceffa, a highly watched Youtube star says, " Youtube Red is an opportunity where we as creators get to make higher quality content for our audience." Since there will be no ads in the new subscription, this will allow Youtube stars to present more to the audience and even gain more money.
The one thing that I think will be an issue is, What if people don't want to pay? Like ads themselves are only about a good minute long and plus they usually have " skip ad" button any way so. . . Will people really want to pay for an ad free service? I mean I guess this would be pretty cool, but honestly I think it'll be a waste of money.
Youtube has pretty much been around for a good while, but this past Wednesday Youtube began selling a $9.99-a-month subscription, that allows U.S consumers to view videos with out ads, download videos for viewing offline and even keeps videos playing while on another app. This new and improved Youtube Red will also include original shows and movies that can't be found anywhere else. They will also stream Google Play music.
If only about 5% of U.S users sign up to use the new Youtube Red, they can make roughly around $950 million annually. That alone is a lot, now imagine if the percentage goes up, the incoming money they will be receiving will be off the charts. Joey Graceffa, a highly watched Youtube star says, " Youtube Red is an opportunity where we as creators get to make higher quality content for our audience." Since there will be no ads in the new subscription, this will allow Youtube stars to present more to the audience and even gain more money.
The one thing that I think will be an issue is, What if people don't want to pay? Like ads themselves are only about a good minute long and plus they usually have " skip ad" button any way so. . . Will people really want to pay for an ad free service? I mean I guess this would be pretty cool, but honestly I think it'll be a waste of money.
Thursday, October 15, 2015
Furious 7 VFX team. . .
http://variety.com/2015/film/awards/furious-7-visual-effects-paul-walker-1201618224/
The Fast and the Furious movies have always been my favorites, so when I saw this article on how the visual effects team for the movie was able to, I guess you can say "re-create" Paul Walkers character I was extremely curious to see as to how they were able to do this. Joe Letteri, Weta Digital senior VFX supervisor, says, " We had to complete a performance- what Paul Walker would have done if he'd been able to continue. And it had to be his performance." Letteri also mentioned that this would not be possible with out close ups. James Wan, the director " Furious 7" , wanted to stay faithful to what they had started and also wanted to include as much of Walker as possible. In order to do this Weta ended up doing a good 350 shots, most of them including Walker's character.
Paul Walker's character was accomplished by filmmakers scanning Walker's brothers Cody and Caleb, as well as John Brotherton, an actor whose similar in build and coloring as Walker. Wan, the director, want precise timing and direction, so all three were attempting to capture what the director had in mind. Martin Hill, the visual effects supervisor, said his first goal was to create a photo-real image that could potentially move and act on screen. They were also working on invincibility, Hill pretty much said they could have placed his face on someone else's body, but he knew people would have known. They ended up going with his first idea , and well in the end people loved it.
It's pretty fascinating on how technology has advanced, like wow they were able to basically re-create a person? That's pretty freakin cool if you ask me!Just to know that this is possible is interesting and helpful if anything like this (heaven forbid) were to happen again. Reading this has brought me to think about: What would they have done if, well our technology wasn't so advanced as it is today?
The Fast and the Furious movies have always been my favorites, so when I saw this article on how the visual effects team for the movie was able to, I guess you can say "re-create" Paul Walkers character I was extremely curious to see as to how they were able to do this. Joe Letteri, Weta Digital senior VFX supervisor, says, " We had to complete a performance- what Paul Walker would have done if he'd been able to continue. And it had to be his performance." Letteri also mentioned that this would not be possible with out close ups. James Wan, the director " Furious 7" , wanted to stay faithful to what they had started and also wanted to include as much of Walker as possible. In order to do this Weta ended up doing a good 350 shots, most of them including Walker's character.
Paul Walker's character was accomplished by filmmakers scanning Walker's brothers Cody and Caleb, as well as John Brotherton, an actor whose similar in build and coloring as Walker. Wan, the director, want precise timing and direction, so all three were attempting to capture what the director had in mind. Martin Hill, the visual effects supervisor, said his first goal was to create a photo-real image that could potentially move and act on screen. They were also working on invincibility, Hill pretty much said they could have placed his face on someone else's body, but he knew people would have known. They ended up going with his first idea , and well in the end people loved it.
It's pretty fascinating on how technology has advanced, like wow they were able to basically re-create a person? That's pretty freakin cool if you ask me!Just to know that this is possible is interesting and helpful if anything like this (heaven forbid) were to happen again. Reading this has brought me to think about: What would they have done if, well our technology wasn't so advanced as it is today?
Thursday, October 8, 2015
#Freeform
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-abc-family-changing-name-20151006-story.html
Family Channel, now known as ABC Family, has been around since 1977 when it was first founded by evangelist Pat Robertson. This channel was first used for religious programming, but was then bought out by Fox Kids in 1998, and was later renamed Fox Family Channel. In 2001, when Disney bought out the network. . . yes again, executives were told to keep the word "family" in it's title, hence why it's now known as ABC Family. Well now guess what ? It's undergoing yet another name change. Starting January or 2016, Abc Family will now be known as wait for it . . . FREEFORM! As someone who enjoys watching a lot of there shows, I'm not so fond of this new name change. I was quite sad to hear they were going to change their name, like WHY??!! I have a feeling they might lose some ratings because I'm going to be quite honest, I think the new name is pretty dumb. . .like really Freeform? WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN .-. ? I'm actually wondering who out there is going to like the new change and I wonder if their ratings will go down? I don't know, but I for one will miss the old name.
Family Channel, now known as ABC Family, has been around since 1977 when it was first founded by evangelist Pat Robertson. This channel was first used for religious programming, but was then bought out by Fox Kids in 1998, and was later renamed Fox Family Channel. In 2001, when Disney bought out the network. . . yes again, executives were told to keep the word "family" in it's title, hence why it's now known as ABC Family. Well now guess what ? It's undergoing yet another name change. Starting January or 2016, Abc Family will now be known as wait for it . . . FREEFORM! As someone who enjoys watching a lot of there shows, I'm not so fond of this new name change. I was quite sad to hear they were going to change their name, like WHY??!! I have a feeling they might lose some ratings because I'm going to be quite honest, I think the new name is pretty dumb. . .like really Freeform? WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN .-. ? I'm actually wondering who out there is going to like the new change and I wonder if their ratings will go down? I don't know, but I for one will miss the old name.
Thursday, October 1, 2015
Pacific Rim 2. . . . ?
http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=45533
Hmmm. . . . " As far as i'm concerned, Pacific Rim 2 is not cancelled, just postponed," Del Toro tells Variety. Pacific Rim 2 , said to be coming out August 4, 2017, has been officially hiked from it's release schedule, and certainly wont be coming out anytime soon. Del Toro also mentions that they will be setting a budget and a screenplay together, and then will be presenting it to Universal and Legendary and they will have the final saying in it.
When I came across this article I , to be quite honest, found it a bit sad, because the first one was pretty great and when they said there would be another I got really excited. But now that they basically back-tracked in the making of this film, I don't know if I'm even that excited anymore?
This pretty much shows how sometimes the making of films don't necessarily always go as planned. Sometimes things just happen and the production of a film has to be delayed due to reasons that aren't really expected. Which causes me to think about how many films have been delayed and what causes can lead to a film being delayed? And well how much longer must we wait for this movie to come out because I really want to see how they are able to top the first one.
Hmmm. . . . " As far as i'm concerned, Pacific Rim 2 is not cancelled, just postponed," Del Toro tells Variety. Pacific Rim 2 , said to be coming out August 4, 2017, has been officially hiked from it's release schedule, and certainly wont be coming out anytime soon. Del Toro also mentions that they will be setting a budget and a screenplay together, and then will be presenting it to Universal and Legendary and they will have the final saying in it.
When I came across this article I , to be quite honest, found it a bit sad, because the first one was pretty great and when they said there would be another I got really excited. But now that they basically back-tracked in the making of this film, I don't know if I'm even that excited anymore?
This pretty much shows how sometimes the making of films don't necessarily always go as planned. Sometimes things just happen and the production of a film has to be delayed due to reasons that aren't really expected. Which causes me to think about how many films have been delayed and what causes can lead to a film being delayed? And well how much longer must we wait for this movie to come out because I really want to see how they are able to top the first one.
Thursday, September 17, 2015
HoloLens?
http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/consumers-microsofts-hololens-still-about-5-years-away-166994
Microsoft has found a way to blend real life with holographic virtual reality, and is now calling it HoloLens, which is said to be coming out in the year 2020. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella says, "We had digitalized the real world", and also proclaims that " This is a place where digital output is mixed with the real world- that's why we call it the mixed reality." What really caught my eye in this article is that it got me thinking? Hmm you mix reality and holographs? Like that's pretty damn cool, well at least in my opinion. I'm actually really curious as to how this will all turn out, like this is a pretty cool advancement in our technology and it makes me wonder what else can we come up with. Now that they have this pretty interesting idea how are they going to manage to pull it off? How much is it actually going to cost to make something of that sort?
Thursday, September 10, 2015
Apple Tv?
.hhttp://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-apple-tv-20150911-story.html
The main idea in this article is Apple TV taking over the future of television. Apple Inc.'s digital streaming device has pretty much been successful since it came out, but now that they revamped it Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook is declaring it the "future of television". The new Apple TV takes on what other competitors do, brings it all together and adds more functionality. Angelo Zino, an analyst at S&P Capital IQ says, "What they're doing now is great in the form of them making greater penetration into living rooms. I think they nailed it". Not only does the new Apple TV come with an improved remote, but you are now also able to use Siri. I for one found this very interesting since I own Apple TV, and I LOVE IT. Right when I heard about Apple coming out with a new Apple TV I had to do some research, and that was when I came across this article. This has a pretty big impact on me or anyone who enjoys watching T.V. , because this will possibly change how we view our T.V. I to be honest don't watch anything on cable T.V. I'm always on Apple TV, so I'm pretty excited to see how it all turns out. Even though I enjoy Apple TV Im still left wondering how those big cable companies are going to react when they hear about Apple TV becoming the "future of television"? Will they do anything to make sure people don't completely pull the plug on them? I mean I have a feeling people will still watch T.V, but will these cable companies feel threatened at all?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)