April 19, 2024

‘Annoying Orange’ Tries for a TV Career

Sprint and Dole have paid to use his wisecracking cartoon creation in marketing campaigns, and Toys “R” Us, Radio Shack and J. C. Penney are rolling out related merchandise for the Christmas season.

But TV channels and movie studios have yet to bite on Mr. Boedigheimer’s videos, which feature the kitchen adventures of an animated orange with a sinister smile and his buddies from the fruit and vegetable bins. And Mr. Boedigheimer, 31, isn’t waiting for their courtship. After receiving lukewarm responses to his informal overtures for an “Annoying Orange” television show, he opted for an alternative route: he made his own pilot, financed not by a studio or network, but by the management company representing him.

“The reaction is always, ‘I see why it resonates in a bite-sized way on the Web, but how is this a full-blown TV show?’ ” said Dan Weinstein, one of Mr. Boedigheimer’s managers.

Maybe it isn’t. There is certainly no guarantee that a cartoon orange can become the next SpongeBob SquarePants.

But Web video was supposed to be Hollywood’s greatest laboratory ever, a place to incubate ideas cheaply and take some of the stomach-churning guesswork out of selecting concepts for shows and movies — instead of spending millions to develop entertainment that more often than not flops straight out of the gate.

Six years after the proliferation of Web video, the number of entertainment concepts that have moved from Internet shorts to successful television shows are few. Hollywood still largely relies on its time-tested methods of finding hits: scripts funneled through agencies, young comedians, books and magazine articles. “The industry needs to continue to take risks on fresh ideas and people and, to that end, figure out how to better mine the Web,” said Jeff Gaspin, former chairman of NBC Universal Television. There are instances when it has worked. One home run was Nickelodeon’s “Fred: The Movie,” based on a Web series created by a Nebraska teenager, Lucas Cruikshank; its premiere attracted more than eight million viewers, according to Nielsen, making it one of the year’s top children’s telecasts. A sequel arrives Oct. 22.

But the result has more typically been a thud. “$#*! My Dad Says,” a CBS comedy based on a blog, was canceled after one season because of low ratings; “Quarterlife,” an NBC show that sprang from a Web drama, was dropped after one episode. As it turns out, what pops on the Web — short, unpolished bursts — is extremely hard to refine into the kind of longer-form content that flows through Hollywood’s traditional piping.

Part of the problem, at least in the eyes of Mr. Boedigheimer and his managers, involves that systemized development process. When network or studio teams do find something online with potential, they push it through the same creaky mill — focus groups, executive scrutiny — that they have relied on for decades to refine raw ideas into great entertainment (or at least commercially viable entertainment).

It is a process that can take two years, during which the online spark could easily die out. A new YouTube sensation could steal your thunder. “You get pushed around for months on end and so many voices get involved that the original voice — what was special — gets diluted or ruined,” said Gary Binkow, a partner at the Collective, the management company that represents Mr. Boedigheimer.

So Mr. Boedigheimer and the Collective are making the pilot themselves, with the managers picking up the bill. Aside from speed, the costs are lower. Making a 30-minute animated pilot through Hollywood channels (the route that “SpongeBob” took) costs about $1 million. The “Annoying Orange” pilot will cost a few hundred thousand dollars.

Conrad Vernon, one of the directors of “Shrek 2” and other DreamWorks Animation movies, is producing the pilot, which was co-written by Tom Sheppard, an Emmy winner for “Pinky and the Brain.” The Collective plans to shop it to networks starting next week. The target audience is children 6 to 12.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=529f0a42a07ea31b68353287b263b216

Condé Nast Will Be Anchor of 1 World Trade Center

The company signaled its interest in moving to 1 World Trade Center several months ago. But that was just the beginning of a marathon courtship befitting one of the country’s most influential buildings and one of its trend-setting media empires, which went far beyond the typical landlord-tenant transaction.

Besides matters of costs, terms and incentives, the negotiations involved reams of traffic studies and security discussions, to ensure that its black cars (more than 100), its racks of designer dresses and its well-shod executives would be able to pass swiftly each day through the police-imposed security zone that is to surround the complex.

To attract Condé Nast, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the site, had to take on some risk, notably by agreeing to assume the last four or five years of the company’s current lease in Times Square. But the deal, worth an estimated $2 billion over 25 years, still represents a victory for the Port Authority, which has suffered criticism for years of missteps, delays and political squabbling over the rebuilding of the trade center. Critics doubted whether the lead tower would attract tenants other than government agencies, making it little more than an expensive 1,776-foot-tall monument.

“We built a new reality at the World Trade Center, and this transaction will be the exclamation point on that turnaround,” said Christopher O. Ward, executive director of the Port Authority.

The talk that Condé Nast was interested in ground zero was enough to entice other large companies to begin eyeing the neighborhood, which is steadily diversifying as financial firms have shrunk or moved away. Sirius Satellite Radio, J. Crew and the law firm Chadbourne Parke are also considering moves downtown, and the owners of the nearby World Financial Center have even debated whether to rename the complex to reflect the growing number of nonfinancial firms downtown and the young people who live and work there.

Next month, The Daily News and American Media Inc., which publishes The National Enquirer, Playboy and Men’s Fitness, are moving into 4 New York Plaza on Broad Street.

“For 20 years we have been talking about diversifying the economy in Lower Manhattan,” said Robert Yaro, president of the Regional Plan Association. “This is an extraordinary breakthrough. It’s a blue-chip tenant from a creative sector and quite a departure from financial services.”

  Condé Nast, whose 18 titles include The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, Vogue, Bon Appétit and Architectural Digest, confirmed that it was concluding its negotiations at the trade center. “Condé Nast would be proud to take part in the ongoing renaissance of Lower Manhattan,” John Bellando, the company’s chief financial officer, said in a statement Tuesday afternoon.

The lease is to go before the Port Authority’s board on May 26 for final approval. On that day, the board is also expected to formalize its partnership with the Durst Organization, which will pay $100 million for an estimated 10 percent stake in the building and be in charge of leasing the tower.

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo said Tuesday that the Condé Nast lease “sends a message to the global business community that Lower Manhattan is alive, growing and open for business.”

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said: “This is a smart media company voting with its feet to relocate at the World Trade Center. Even just a few short years ago, few would have believed it possible.”

By all accounts, the lease is good news for downtown, but it is also a great deal for Condé Nast, which will consolidate offices now spread among six buildings. Plans call for test kitchens, private dining rooms and an auditorium.

By agreeing to become the tower’s anchor, it had leverage in the bargaining. The publisher is expected to move about 5,000 employees to Floors 20 through 41 at 1 World Trade Center sometime in 2014, when its annual rent will start at a little more than $60 per square foot, or roughly the same amount it is paying today at 4 Times Square, in a skyscraper built in 1999 by the Durst Organization.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=eee4e0588161c45ed6013bef62a7d0f4