Sony U.S. to Join Streaming Movie Foray?

According to the Financial Times, Sony will soon be offering movies from its own movie studio as streaming video files online. There are, however, a few catches.

First, the movies will reportedly only be available for download by people who own a Sony BRAVIA LCD TV along with the company's new Internet Video Link accessory. Second, although not really a catch, is that you'll have to pay for the streaming version, which will be available in standard definition format (given current bandwidth restrictions). And third, from the sounds of it, the price you pay for that streaming version will also include a price for the actual DVD. On the bright side, there is one plus: you'll get the streaming version before the physical DVD of the movie is released.

While innovative, I'm a bit skeptical about this arrangement. First, the Financial Times report implies that you can't actually buy a streaming version of the movie instead of the physical DVD, but rather purchase the streaming option as a secondary method of viewing the film along with the actual DVD when it becomes available. Many people choose to stream a movie online because they don't want to have to buy and store a physical DVD, they just want to watch it one time on-the-go, or they want to pay a lesser price. Although no pricing information for the streaming movies was revealed, I'd bet they'll be slightly higher than a standard physical DVD, especially if you're forced to buy that DVD as well.

The second downfall is obvious: you can only stream movies from Sony Pictures. This isn't surprising given other Sony initiatives, like the Sony-specific Memory Stick flash memory cards, proprietary connectors for Sony Ericsson mobile phones, and dare I point out beta? (It's worth pointing out that there are other formats that gain other manufacturer support, like Blu-ray). This system has worked for Sony for some time now, so why not in this new, innovative way to obtain online content? On a positive note, some fantastic movies hail from Sony Pictures. Hancock, starring box office golden boy Will Smith will be the first movie to launch in the new streaming format.

It's important to note that Sony U.S. has not yet made an official announcement about this service, so take this information with a grain of salt. Even so, no such service has been announced for the Canadian market (no surprise there), so it's really a moot point for us Canucks at this time. (Note that the Internet Video Link itself, however, is already available in Canada for $300).

Speaking of Music...What's with the Grammys?

The Grammys are yet another "hot" topic that I have refrained from discussing on here until now. John Thomson's blog title yesterday was fitting when it comes to this topic: he asked "where has all the music gone?" and I'm sort of asking the same thing.

I actually watched a good portion of the Grammys last weekend, and, although I was happy to see some very talented artists perform (Josh Groban, Alicia Keys, for two), the most-talked about portion of the evening was Amy Winehouse's performance and acceptance speech for one of her five, yes FIVE, awards.

What have we come to when a burgeoning artist can not only perform on the biggest music event of the year via satellite while taking a "break" from rehabilitation for drug abuse, but is also rewarded for such behaviour not once, but FIVE times! To add the cherry on top of this equation, she also gives a "shout out" to her hubby in jail. Don't get me wrong: I think Amy Winehouse is a talented musical artist; much more talented than many of the over-processed pop princesses out there recording albums today. But when someone has been video-taped smoking heavy drugs one week, and then receives five prestigious Grammy awards the next, does a red flag not go up in someone's head?

Supposedly the Grammy wins have helped motivate Winehouse toward her recovery, and that's great. Maybe I'm wrong, and showing her what she could accomplish should she stay on the right path was in fact a good way to go, rather than punishing her for bad behaviour by not nominating her until she cleaned up her act. After all, drug and alcohol abuse is nothing new within the music industry: it has been around for decades. But I can't fathom how allowing her to participate in the show and awarding her for a year's worth of botched performanced and drug-infested nights can make a good impression on her fans, many of whom are young and impressionable. It sends the message that you can do what you want, and you'll still be rewarded as long as you make money for someone down the line.

Nevertheless, the award show also seemed to be confused about who its audience was. We saw collaborative performances that were in an obvious attempt to entertain viewers of all ages, while, at the same time, promoting the show's 50th anniversary. Alicia Keys and Frank Sinatra; Josh Groban and Andrew Bocelli; and Beyonce and Tina Turner (who was surprisingly agile for her age!) were a few of the most motable ones. I definitely think it was a great idea to bring together the new and older generations: it showed how far music has come, and celebrated 50 years of the awards. But when it came to award recipients, the lines begun to blur.

The most shocking of these was Herbie Hancock's win for Album of the Year. Not to say that he wasn't deserving: I'm sure he was. But what sort of judging panel awards an old school jazz artist and new school troubled starlet on the same night?

Reportedly, this year's event was one of the least-watched Grammys. Next year, the Grammys really need to take on a clear direction if it wants to achieve a solid viewer base. If half the people watching don't even know who the album of the year recipient even is, as I'm sure was the case with the majority of the teen and tween viewers that tuned in to see artists like Kanye West and Rihanna perform, then you've got a problem.