Words to Remember.

Words to Remember
(This blog post is for you Phil!!!)

A year ago from this month (December) a friend of mine named Phil Cronin died.  I had met him while touring with Amnesia.  He heard about the film in the summer of 2008 from a newspaper.  When the tour ended, he contacted me and watched the film.  He was impressed with the film and was inspired to help me find the funding to shoot my next project The House.  We pursued every idea we could come up with, but to this date we couldn't make things work out with that project. 

I kept pushing to get Amnesia out there so that people would notice what I had done.  I wanted people see the work I, and others, had put into the project.  I worked every marketing idea I could come up with.  Wore myself out ragged.  I had turned my focus from the reason I had started this crazy thing called filmmaking.  I remember one day having a very long conversation with Phil about pursuing the funding for The House, where he kept saying, "don't forget the story".

On the internet the one thing filmmakers keep talking about is marketing and distribution.  Usually it is in a negative light.  I know things became very rough for filmmakers in 2008.  I know that the Indie Filmmakers got a bad deal in the mess related to the fact that few people got any good distribution deals.  But in the middle of the pursuit for the best marketing and distribution plan on the planet is there a possibility that the filmmakers "forgot the story".

You can make a pile of money, receive dozens of awards, but if we "forget the story" we still fail as filmmakers.

I want to go back to my first filmmaking love.  If I'm going to be pouring hours of my time into this thing called filmmaking than I want to make sure it's about the story.

Many people will ask "what movie inspired you to get into this business?".  My answer is simple: none.  I got into film because the stories that came to me since I was seven.  I didn't know it at the time, when I was a kid, but what I was seeing in my mind were scene segments.  It wasn't until I was twelve that I tackled my first screenplay.  This was why I got into filmmaking... the stories.

Looking into next year I want to spend my time focusing on storytelling.  If I end up in conversations with people on the internet about the film business I want to spend most of my time talking about story telling and telling the best story possible.  If filmmaking isn't about storytelling... then why even do it?

Thank you Phil for your many words of wisdom.  And reminding me, even a year later, to not "forget the story".

Forget Osama... It's Pirated Movies That We Should Fear!!!

Yesterday, I woke up and checked out my Facebook account to see something odd and distrubing.  Someone had posted a link to an article about the Department of Homeland Security shutting down 77 sites.  At first I thought, "wow, they found 77 sites involved in terrorism and they shut them down".  Then I read the article.  The Department of Homeland Security shut down, not terrorist sites, but sites that allowed the file sharing of copyrighted material.  http://mashable.com/2010/11/27/homeland-security-website-seized/ Now I understand the concern over pirated movies is seriously impacting the major studios and independent filmmakers... but we need to seriously take a step back an examine what happened.  The Department of Homeland Security, set up by former president George W. Bush, to protect America from terrorists, takes time away from focusing on people who could hurt and kill Americans, to instead track down sites that people use to share copyrighted material.  This would be like the IRS deciding to put federal taxes off their prioritiy list and instead chase down people with speeding violations.  Yes, the IRS has authority... with taxes!  In the same way, the Department of Homeland Security has authority when it comes to terror attacks and concerns about the implimentation of those evil plans.... not pirated movies!

Now with that crazy paragraph out of the way, let's take a realistic view of pirating and the unrealistic realities that the big studios don't want to come to terms with.  Back in 2004 (I think that was the year) I happened to stumble upon a NPR broadcast about the music and movie industry.  The only person I remember in particular that spoke at this broadcast was Justin Timberlake.  Not sure why I can't remember any other names.  It was a discussion on how the music, movie and print industries need to adapt to the changing world.  One of the speakers pointed out to an interesting story about the executives at Disney when the first VCR was introduced to them.

The representative for the company that made the VCR prototype came in, plugged it into a TV and popped in a VCR tape of a film.  The executive responded with, "but how do we control how many people get to see it at a time?"

And that statement "how do we control how many people get to see it at a time?" is exactly what is wrong with the mentality of the film industry.  That word "control" is a very scarry word....  Stalin used that word.  Hitler did to.  So did the robber barons of the end of the 19th going into the 20th century.  We need to use caution when using that word.

The problem isn't with the pirates.  They're are thieves in every industry.  Just because someone steals gas at the pump doesn't mean that the entire oil industry is going to collapse.  You use some restraining power to keep the amount of thieving down, but if you hopped in your car and went chasing them down like some enraged vigilante, then all you'd end up with is someone in a car accident over a few bucks of gas.

My point is this:  If the film industry, especially the major studios in Hollywood, spend all their time chasing the "bad guys" then they'll take their focus off doing their real job which is making "great" movies.  The reason why they are loosing money is that their budgets are over budget while their actual stories are second rate to what they use to be a decade or so ago.

When my wife and I go out on a date, we first go by the local cinema to see what is playing.  In the last few years we've found ourselves looking at all the posters on the cinema wall, outside the building, and then saying, "well... not much of a choice to pick from".  And then we drive over to a local restaurant and eat out instead of watching a film.

The other major mistake in the film industry is that we haven't applied the simple concept of supply and demand to our films.  Why should anyone want to watch my movie when it is done if no one even knew I was making it?

The major studios put all this money out on their films, keep a tight lid on what is going on during production to "keep the magic in the film making" as they say it.  Then when the film is ready for release they create a  trailer that basically show a bunch of flashy shots that fit that genre without really giving us a good reason to even watch the film.

Great example:  The Hurt Locker.  The film industry was enraged when the Oscar award winning film ended up being pirated to death after it came out on DVD.  But the problem wasn't the pirates.  It was the marketing.  You didn't give me (the audience) a good enough reason to get up off my butt to see that particular film.

Another major issue is the price of tickets vs. the average yearly wage of most Americans.  Back in the Great Depression, people went to the movie theaters because they weren't expensive.  The cost of living wasn't blown out of proportion.  Yes, people we struggling worse than we are now, but the cost of a movie ticket wasn't outrageous.  If the movie industry gave deals on tickets, more people would show up, which means more money for the film studios.

To recap, the film industry needs to take a hard look at what it's doing before becoming the police of the world but utilizing the Department of Homeland Security which should be focusing its attention of the real evils of the world.

Michigan Tax Incentive "gimmick"? Really?

I usually hold off on voicing my political thoughts on issues on the internet.  But recent news articles and reponses people have been making on the Michigan Film Tax Incentives have finally pushed me to speak my mind.

Anyone who knew me several years back, knows that I didn't support the tax incentives.  Recently, in the last few months I have changed my mind.  I was wrong.  Rick Snyder is too.

Rick Snyder, who's running for Michigan Governor,  made a very blunt and aragant statement of calling the tax incentives "dumb" and a "gimmick".  That statement is itself a gimmick.

First, to make that statement is to insinuate that all the Democrats and Republicans who voted for it (which was everyone in the state senate, except some woman from Novi) are dumb.  Nice going there Rick.  Just tell your fellow Republicans they're dumb.... especially Rep. Huizenga.

Second, anyone who understands politics of the last couple decades figures out that what candidates do is create easily quotable "sound bytes".  That statement is a sound byte.  And an extremely opinionated one designed to stir up his supporters (A.K.A. - The Teaparty).  It's no different than John Kerry dropping the "F-word" dozens of times.  No real substance, just a lot of hype and reaction.

For me, as an independent voter, when I see someone dropping blatantly arrogant and opinionated sound bytes like this what they're dong is a slight-of-hand.  They are distracting you from the main focus by making you pay attention to something else.  Truth is, he doesn't have a plan on how to replace what the tax incentive was creating.  $300-$500 million dollars was spent in the private sector per year in the two years that it has existed.  (The reason I know he doesn't have a plan is, that if he did, he'd be focusing on that, not saying it's "dumb".)

Michigan citizens had been complaining to the present governor that she needed to create jobs and diversifying the economy.  Manufacturing is going the way of the Dodo Bird in this country.  Why?  Because the Asian countries have cheaper labor.  There will always be cheaper labor some where else.  Give all the tax incentives you want, the manufacturing companies won't be running our way.  There might be a few hundred jobs added,  but not a huge amount.

Plus, not everyone wants to work in an assembly line.  Many of us want to use our talents and brains to do something creative with ourselves.

The entertainment business, specially film, is the number one export out of America... besides jobs.  Avatar made $1 billion in the box office, Inception made $800 million.  No matter how hard the film business was hit by the recession they are doing much better than most industries around the world.  They are adjusting and adapting to the new economy... and one of those ways is to pursue states that offer tax incentives. 

A young lady by the name of Evangeline Lilly, started out as a extra in British Columbia.  Then she was noticed by an agent and eventually auditioned for a role in a new show that was named LOST... remember the character "Kate"?

Remember, she was in British Columbia... not L.A.  Why would she have gotten discovered there?  Because British Columbia had a tax incentive that drew in studios from L.A.  After a while they built sound stages and other facilities there related to the film business.  Then B.C. lowered the amount of the incentive but continued to draw in film business because of the original tax incentives and facilities.

My major issue is the private sector.  The number #1 thing on voters minds is simply 3 things: jobs, jobs, jobs.  Michigan has the highest unemployment numbers in the country.  People wanted results.  A tax incentive for film production gets money into the private sector the fastest.

Now people can debate whether  seeing $300-$500 in the private sector is worth rebating 42% back from the state budget, but they shouldn't debate there are jobs.  (Honestly, if the 42% was there the politicans would just spend it anyways).  There are tons of Republicans that claim that "no one is getting hired, it's all out-of-staters".  Then, as I saw in a freep.com article, someone commented that they made $50,000 working on Red Dawn as a crew person from within Michigan...

You know what response that commenter got?  Republicans telling him, "nice you got a job, but I don't want to have to subsidize your income".  Wait a second, so it would be better if this person was on extended unemployment.... or even better, if they ended up getting assistance from the state?   You forget, he was working his tale off on a film production, building his resume, and pursuing a career!  A career, may I point out, where you can be in a crew union and make around $27 per hour.  Yes, $27, per hour, with time and a half and double time as standard operating procedures.  They pay better in the film unions that the UAW does right now.

First they said that it's not creating real jobs, then when people come forward and state they made a great income on it, then the same people say, "I don't care".  It's like you can't win with those people.

My point is this:  GM and Chrysler both laid of a ton of people over the decade.  Many other major corporations did the same thing in Michigan.  So when $300-$500 million was spent in the private sector in the last year, and the vendors paid more tax money at the end of the year, the Michigan government had more tax money.  There's a very good chance that the money paid in taxes by individuals and corporations involved in the film business help to make up for what was lacking from GM and Chrysler.  I wonder what the state budget would lack  if the incentives are pulled?  What would Snyder do to make up for the people who won't be working?  Does he have a plan for that?

What the tax incentives creates is opportunities and hope.

Making arrogant statements like "dumb" and "gimmick" is insulting to all of us in the film business, the people at the film office, and all the people in the State Senate that voted for it. 

I'm not supporting one candidate or another, I'm simply stating my position on the tax incentives.  The film tax incentives was the best thing that has happened to Michigan since the Big 3 Auto companies started decades ago.  To change it would be the worst mistake in decades!  Diversify or die... that's the choice the Michigan economy can't risk.

Audtions for Actors... and Why I Don't Think They Are Effective

Whenever you hear an interview from an actor or a casting director describing the audition process for a film you usually hear, "so and so did a read".  You'll hear about cold readings of a "side" (segment of a script).  Typically that's it.  I have a problem with this.

What does someone dramatically reading lines tell a director or anyone for that matter?  That the person is a good orator.  For that fact, I think lawyers and many politicians, including President Obama, should give acting a try.  If we're going to grade someone on a their expressive diction, correct annunciation of their words, etc than we are limiting both the performer and the potential of the film as a whole.

I remember once reading that many of Hollywood's A-list actors deal with stuttering problems.  And yet they perform such great performances?...  How can that be?  Because a performance is about more than verbal words but the raw, believable performance of an actor "becoming the character".

Many times, some of the "so-called great reads" appear more like performances of a soap opera (apology to all those who like watching soap operas, I had to relate it to performances in which actors are forced into creating some sort of believability out of something written and performed in haste).  What happens, in my opinion, is that two, maybe three or more actors read a scene together (sometimes it's also just a monologue) and the actors are trying to make the conversation sound "real".  What you get are performers trying to quickly "conjure up" emotions on the fly, that may or may not fit the character or circumstance at all.  But they try to appear professional and not stumble over the words.

Why do this?  Because it's the way it's always been done.


So, what do I do differently.  I try to find ways of seeing both how the actor speaks and how they react in the circumstance.  For  instance, in Awakening, I asked all the actors to act out four different scenarios in front of a camera and send me the audition tape via an online site like yousendit.com or upload it to youtube and send me the link.  I gave each performer breathing room to bring the character to life in each circumstance.  I also had them audition for things that we're in contrast with each other.

For The House, I had a few actresses I was interested in.  I requested that all of them audition for each part.  So they did do a reading.  But added to that I wanted them to speak certain one liners with different emotions and also had them write and perform a monologue of that character.  Forcing the actresses to speak for parts that they didn't even want helped me to see a different part of them that I wouldn't have seen otherwise.

In the past, when I did theater, I would do auditions like I was taught by a teacher in Pueblo, Colorado.  One of the things she would do would be something called, "in scene, out of scene".  Basically, she has you turn your back to her (or camera).  Then the actor would turn around, in character, of whatever they were told to be.  And they had to do this without any speaking or noises.  She wanted to see you facial expressions.  Your way of creatively showing your character without using your mouth as a crutch.

With the camera your eyes, the subtities of facial expressions can and usually are the most powerful tools an actor has.  Yet, auditions rely too much on your ability to read out loud.  Imagine the difficulty that someone with dyslexia would have doing an audition the "usual way".  Yet, there are problem some A-listers out there with dyslexia, amazing the audience with their performance.

What are your thoughts?


(At left is the obvious picture of Charlie Chaplin, the best actor of the silent era.  His ability to convey emotions with no words is a testament to the potential of human expression)

The Film Business Makes No Business Sense

In the last two years there has been a lot of talk in the media and on social media about the dramatic changes going on in the film business.  For anyone following the discussions it is obvious that there are serious problems in the business.  From the small independent to the big studio, everyone is effected by the same problem.

Some people blame the recession, but that seems like an easy excuse to toss out there (I thought the film business was suppose to be recession proof?).  Some people blame too many platforms that don't pay enough for content (others say so many platforms are the actual answer).  The problem with the film business is that it was always based on sensationalism and assumptions.

The film business started out with people from vaudeville adopting the new camera as a way to entertain.  Vaudeville in many ways is a lot like the old concept of the circus.  "Come see the bearded lady!" or "watch alligator-boy swim" or some other shocker to draw in a crowd. Then as films grew from short films to feature lengths they adapted the format.

In the early years of the film business the film studios owned the theaters.  This way they controled what the audience would see.  If every film shown in a cinema is owned by the same studio then it doesn't matter which one you want to watch because they make the money anyways.  But then the anti-trust laws were applied in the '50's which meant the studios couldn't own the cinemas.  TV also started to come into exisestence which now competed with what the cinema's charged.  Why go to the theater if you can watch something for free at home?  Then VHS came into existence and then DVD's, Bluray, and a ton of other platforms.  More and more content was being made.  And that is when the flaw caught up to the business.

Every business is based on the simple concept of supply and demand.... except the film business.  When a business, like the big three American(?) auto companies fail to follow this principle, then it pushes the businesses to bankruptcy (or asking for a bailout).  Making more of something with no proven demand for the rise in numbers is like gambling.  Either adapt to what the demand is and make more of that or cut back on what you are making if the demand is less.

The film business is not based on supply and demand it's based on assumption.  A-list actor + script that fits a selling genre +  previously successful director = financial success.  A good example are all the superhero movies that came out.  Since Spiderman did so well in the early part of the decade than the studios should all make more.  Who cares who the superhero is, just make it into a movie.  Or convert a popular TV show, like Transformers, into a movie and then make tons of sequels.  3D is another great one.  Since Avatar did so well and it had 3D lets make every movie with action into a 3D spectacle and we'll be a success... Remember Clash of the Titans?

The problem isn't with these movies it's the business model they're based on: assumption.  We all know what happens when we assume...

People say there is no way you can apply the business concept of supply and demand to the entertainment business.  Oh really?  They do it in television and music all the time.  In music it is called a "single" and in the television world it's called a "pilot".  With a single being played on a radio station they are able to create the demand for the entire album.  I would argue that they should just make the single before the money is spent on making the entire album and then releasing it on youtube and the radio stations.  This way they can gage if there is a demand for the entire album.  This risk prevention idea would save record companies millions of dollars each year and build a bigger following for their artists.

My first film, AMNESIA, I made the mistake of doing what everyone else was doing.  I learned the hard way that making a film on the assumption that others would want to watch my film is the most ridiculous business model.  Obviously I was not alone, it's how everyone in the business does it too.  I needed to run my film productions on the principle of supply and demand.  Nobody cares about your movie! (unless you give them a reason too!).

I've spent that last 2 years studying how to apply the principle of supply and demand and how to utilize it according to the changes in how the audience hears about and views their content.  This is why I have not gone into production on any feature films yet.

(My next post I will talk about Awakening and why it might be one of the most important things I ever make)

Are you Unforgettable? A Question for all those in the Entertainment Biz

This is a short blog post, but simply a question that all of us in the entertainment/are business should be asking ourselves.  I see so many faces on social media.  Actors, filmmakers, writers, directors, musicians, etc, etc.  So many faces, how do you expect me to remember them all?  Now obviously, if you spend time chatting with someone on Twitter or Facebook or even better meeting in person you'll remember them.  But just stop for a second and ask yourself: Just by glancing through people's profiles on SM sites, do people remember you, if they haven't met you or chatted with you?

I'll meet someone once, in person, and they'll have something unique about their personality or the way they look or point-of-view, and it will stay with me.  It should be the same way with social media.  You only get one chance to establish some form of memory recognition... then they move on.

Two main things I learned a few years ago about marketing that apply to the entertainment business:  Meme and identity.

First identity: you need to find out who you are, what makes you special and unique and to monopolize on that fact.  If you don't establish your identity then others will do it for you, and it won't be what you want to be remembered for. 

Second, meme:  a phrase or an image that cause memory recognition that people will identify you or a brand with.  For instance, the golden arches or McDonald's or the Lion for MGM.  Meme can only be discovered after you have figured out your identity. 

The real issue here is to spend some time doing some serious soul searching.  People work, work, work, work their entire life... then they hit like 45 or some other age where they stop and ask: "Who am I?" .  No matter what your age is, or even your occupation spend some time thinking.  Asking the hard questions about who you really are.  Then focus on that.  Everyone is unique.  You don't want to blend into the crowd.

Game Changer?

GAME CHANGER-

- That’s how James Cameron described his newest film, “Avatar.”  He wasn’t referencing the script, acting, or music; but the way people literally saw film, especially big-box office CGI (3D) driven film. 

In the same way, I believe that THE HOUSE, and the other projects I am currently working on (Utopiland and a project I will call "Untitled")  will be “game changers.”  No, I’m not trying to compete with Cameron and his latest mega-budget film, but I am trying to change the way people perceive independently produced movies with budgets under $1 million dollars.

Typically, people see independent films as “small personal films”…  and nothing more.  Yes, there are many cheap independent horror/slasher films and various shoot’em-up action flicks, but to come up with something that is original, story driven… and has an element of “epic” in it as well?  That’s usually unheard of.  Why can’t an independently produced film be epic-looking in its shots?  Why can’t Indie films compete on the scale and scope of ideas that big studio films do?  Are we really that “small?”  NO WAY! 

When you see my SM profiles on places like Twitter, Facebook, Myspace, etc. I always describe myself not as independent filmmaker but a “revolutionary” filmmaker.  There’s a reason for that: I want to change things!  A Game changer?  Watch the opening scene of THE HOUSE below, and comment on our YouTube video.  We want your opinion!






ps. This isn't just about THE HOUSE, it's about a completely different way of doing things.  I'll go into this more later.  But for me it includes Utopiland and the "Untitled" project (the reaction to the "Untitled" project may possibly change my course of direction on certain films).  This new way of doing things has already radically altered my way of thinking.

Man in the Mirror: Taking a Hard Look at Life as a Micro-budget Filmmaker

There comes a time as a filmmaker that you take a good hard look at your accomplishments and evaluate what you have acheived.  I posted on Facebook the fact that I was no longer going to be making microbudget films anymore.  It was time for me to grow up and only make a film if investors got behind them.  Several people commented on it and asked me to state the factors that went into this.

One of the major difficulties to micro-budget filmmaking is the issue of sustainability.  This is the talk that goes on and on with filmmakers on Social Media sites.  Everyone is trying to figure out how to survive doing what they love.  Sadly, if you break down the concept of micro-budget filmmaker it doesn't add up.  The only random way a filmmaker on a microbudget film is able to sustain themselves is if a key influencer, someone with clout with the masses, is able to help get the world out.  I estimate that about 90% of most of the microbudget filmmakers won't make a profit on their film.   Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it's a fact.  Sustainability in filmmaking, in my book, means that you're full time job is filmmaking and it pays the bills.  There's no way a microbudget film will sustain you long term without needing a full time job doing something else, which means:  microbudget filmmaking is non-sustainable!

I respect microbudget filmmakers more than any other filmmakers out there.  I appreciate their work more too.  Most of the great filmmakers out there that are famous made atleast one mircrobudget or really low budget film: Lucas, Speilberg, Hitchcock, Rodriguez, Tarintino and others.  You learn how to make a lot out of little and something great out of poor conditions.  But there is a negative side to this: it puts a serious strain on you mentally, emotionally and physically,  more than working on a low budget film or big budget film.

Time isn't money.  Time is time, it is more valueable than money.  You can save, spend, borrow money, but not time.  Once you spend time, it's gone for good.  I have to prioritize my time to make sure I am fulfilling my objectives best.  Even just 1 month or  1 year of wasted time in pursuit of a project that ends up being a dud can be costly to the growth of your career.

If you want a nice dose of reality, go to YouTube, type in the words: Official Rejection and be inspired by the teaser trailer.  BTW, you won't be.  The fact is, most microbudget films don't make it into many, if any, film festivals.  The ones they typically do get into won't give them much exposure.  Every single one of them is fighting tooth and nail for attention.  It's like a screaming match, yet we haven't realized that the low budget films that are in the high 6 figure or more budget levels are leaving the microbudget filmmakers in the dust.  We think we are in the main fighting areana, trying to gain attention, but in fact we're not really being noticed.  It's like in the guest blog post I did on Film Courage when I wrote about satelites.  A film is like someone trying to shoot a satelite into space.  Microbudget films, in general, never go high enough to break the stratosphere... they just fall back down, disapear out of sight.

Think of it like this: there are fish way down in the deep sea, down where you have to use a special sub to even see them.  Imagine that microbudget filmmakers are those deep sea fish.  Someone actually has to go searching for us to find us.  That's not a good situation to be in.


I'm not a "small personal film" guy.  Just a fact.  I make high concept stuff.  Original, unique but also grand.  The closes thing I have to "small personal film" is The House, but even then I create compexity and some epic within it.  Fact is that I can't do this stuff on a microbudget.  I practically killed myself trying to push the limits with AMNESIA.  To do that again, spend 3-4 years on a microbudget film of epic concepts, in hopes that some one likes it and I make enough money to support my family...  seems like a re-run... a really bad re-run.

I made a promise to my wife while working on AMNESIA. She asked me if I was going to be working two jobs the rest of my life: one to support us and the other the films.  I said, "no, this is it with amnesia".  I meant it.  I'm now at the point where, over the past year, I have been pursuing investors.  This is the point where you accept that part of the business is repeatedly hearing the word "no" from people who could financially put enough money into your budget to make things happen.  Things are slowly moving in the right directions and I am getting better leads.

The simple fact is this:  I'm not some twenty year old kid any more.  I'm 30.  And more than that, my kids are growing up.  If I attempted something the size of AMNESIA with a microbudget, even if I cut down on time, I'm looking at atleast another 3 years of no pay, no proof of getting paid in the future.  I evaluated what was working, and the simple truth is that microbudget films, as a whole, aren't working as a viable concept.  I have pursued finding much more cost effective ways of promoting each one of my film ideas, or a few of them, and I am finding more resourceful ways of doing it than fighting the up hill battle of microbudget feature filmmaking.

Does this mean I am quitting? No.  Does this mean I am just sitting here hoping that something miraculous happens? no.  What it means is that instead of trying to collect up enough money to get another camera, grab a bunch of cast and crew and shoot something microbudget I am instead making different uses with my time and money.  I fine tune my scripts.  I have a ton of them.  I have been and will continue to promote my brand.  I will create concept art,  pre-viz of some of these film projects.  I am doing something else with my time and money: networking with those people who can move me forward.  I spend a ton of time working on business plans, looking into viable distrubuiton options and researching marketing options. 

Why have I decided to say goodbye, forever, to microbudget feature filmmaking?  Because you have to prioritize with what works better.  I've already made AMNESIA. I have proof that I can do it.  It's my calling card, now it's time to take everything up the next step.  I had made this decision about a year ago, but now, more than ever, is became even clearer that this is it, it's time to move beyond.

Thoughts.

Blair Witch 2010: What Is Actually Possible

No other indepndent film, prior to Paranormal Activity, had gained as much attention and sucess as the film known as The Blair Witch Project.  When the film hit the festival circuit in 1999 things were different.  All distribution was in theaters, renting from places like Blockbuster or buying the DVD after the theatrical was done.  Everything has changed now.  Sundance premiered a few of it's film this year on YouTube.  People watch TV shows on the internet the day after they have aired on TV.  People watch movies on Netflix and Indieflix.  Everything has changed in the world of distribution.  But human beings haven't really changed.  Human beings watch a film because of marketing.  If they don't know, they don't go!

All of the talk of new distribution formats and the fact that the major studios had pulled back from the Indies a year ago have drawn in the attention of filmmakers and filmmaking news sites.  Yet, what filmmakers haven't realized, is that because so many formats are now available it is time to understood that what they really needed wasn't distribution platforms but a focus on marketing.

Let's take a look at The Blair Witch Project to see what was done right to get the word out about their film.  The information I am paraphrasing from Chris Gore's book "The Ultimate Film Festival Survival Guide, 2nd Edition". 

March/April 1995 the original concept for The Blair Witch Project is conceived.

Summer of 1996 they meet with a producer to create "investor trailer".  Something that can be used to pitch what the film is about.

Sept 1996 they pitch the idea to investors.  They don't end up getting anyone to come on board.

June 1997 Dan, one of the filmmakers goes to work on John Pierson's TV show Split Screen.  He shows him the footage. 

Late June 1997 John Pierson loves it and purchases the rights to air the segment on Split Screen. 

June-July 1997 the filmmakers use the money to cast the three actors to be in the film.

August 1997 They shoot some footage in the woods.

Mid-August 1997 the "trailer" runs on Split Screen as the season finale of the show.  But no mention of where the footage came from.

October 1997 The bulk of the filming commnces.

Jan-Feb 1998 The second segment is cut together.

Feb 1998 the filmmakers register haxan.com and blairwitch.com  They start working on the website.

April 1998  Very important thing happens... The second segment of The Blair Witch Project airs on Split Screen.  This time Pierson directs the viewers to go to the filmmakers site.  The filmmaker's message board on their site explodes with tons of responses.

May 1998 People who go to Split Screen's site are directed to go to haxan.com to find out more about the project.    The Blair Witch site shows a time line, creates interaction with their audience, keeps people coming back for more.  They have people subscribe to their email newsletter.

Late Sep 1998 The final cut of the film is made.  125 people have signed up for their email newsletter.

October 1998 they have sent the film into all the big festivals in the USA.  Shortly after bootleg copies spread around from some of those tapes that went to the festivals.

Oct 31, 1998 The Mark and Brian radio show in Los Angeles had a discussion on the scariest websites.  One of the earliest fans of the Blair Witch site calls in.  So many people go over to the site that the site temporarily shuts down.  All the big agencies start to contact them.

Novemember 1998 They are now at 200 subscribers and 7,000 visitors to their site. Sundance calls them and tells them their in.

January 1999, before the Sundance premiere, Filmmaker Magazine interviews the filmmakers.  The filmmakers meet all the prospective distributors at Sundance,. The film is screened.  The audience loves it.  Artisan signs a deal with the filmmakers.

July  16, 1999 Artisan releases the film in only 27 theaters.  It grosses 1.5 million dollars.

July 30, 1999 the release is expanded to 1,101 screens in North America.  It grosses 28.5 million in it's first wide release weekend.  The film is #2 for the weekend. 

By December 1999 The Blair Witch Project had a box office total of $140.5 million. 

When I ask people what the key to a financially sucessful film is the typical answer is: a unique, creative story that is executed into a great film.  But that's wrong.  The key to making a film that people enjoy watching is that definition.  But the key to financial sucess is what you do with that film.  One tool used by a certain person brings different results than another person.  Hand over to an "average Joe" the tools to perform surgery and you have a mess on your hands and a dead person on the table.  Hand the same tools over to an accomplished surgen who understands what it takes to get the job done and you should have a surgery that is sucessful and a patient who should have a complete recovery.

My point is that if you read this time line (mine is abreviated, you should just buy Chris Gore's book to get the whole story), you see a great story of a well executed marketing plan that positioned what was best about the film to those that would be the most excited.  The main key I saw was that one of the filmmakers worked for Split Screen, which gave him the opputunity to show John Pierson the footage.  The segments that aired on Split Screen gave the filmmakers the greatest free (and they were actually paid by Split Screen!) advertising.

What's my main point?

Imagine that Blair Witch wasn't made in the 1990's but in the early 2000's.  They gain attention, not on Split Screen but something as simple as YouTube or Vimeo.  They gain tons of attention, drawing traffic to their site on a daily, weekly manner.  Then, instead of taking it to fests or pursuing a major distributor they do something radical... something revolutionary...  They use something like Maxcast to stream the film for anyone across the globe to see.  Suddenly all that traffic, all that attention becomes an aggregator for the filmmakers.  They don't need a distributor.

Fact is, Artisan, when they took over the film, just kept the blairwitchproject.com site going.  The filmmakers had done all the work for them.  What else do you need to come up with besides some extra cash for TV advertising.  All the marketing design, what made the film stand out, was created by the filmmakers.

Is this possible?  Yes.  So to go back to my first paragraph, things have changed.  Filmmakers need to take their eyes off from "but how will I distribute my film" and to a much bigger question, "How will people know about my film?".  A world of possibilities are now in your hands, filmmaker, go for it!

"Don't Mess with my Script!!" Misconceptions on having script optioned or sold

Remember the movie The Majestic? The main character is a screenwriter and the studio is butchering his script. It ends up not looking like anything he wrote, except The Concept remains. You can see he's trying to hold back his anger. I saw a recent interview with Quintin Tarrintino where he talked about his reaction when the director of his script, Natural Born Killers, was changing the script. That's when this thing popped in my head today: screenwriters who sell or have their script optioned have the wrong point-of-view. They think it's about their writing. It's not.


When someone reads your script to option it they're interested in The Concept. They're not nit-picking on the dialogue, the action. They're looking at The Concept from a producer's point-of-view on whether the "Idea" is something they want to make. You writing the script is fleshing out The Concept so they can see how it could possibly be played out. The emphasis is on "possible". Chances are that the script will change. Not a little, but a lot. When you write a script to sell or be optioned by a studio or producer you should think of yourself as a "pitch-maker" not a screenwriter. When you take it from that perspective than you won't get angry because someone changed something. Thinking of the script as a "demo" and not as a final means that you have freed yourself from attachment to the script and more interested in just seeing The Concept made into a reality.

If you are interested in making sure the script stays the way it is then make the movie yourself!

These are just my thought, you may totally disagree with me. Go ahead and tell me what you think.

Cart Before the Horse

As I was rewriting my business plan for The House, back in August, I came to a conclussion: independent film production is the only business that is backwards. We "put the cart before the horse". Just think of this, the founder of General Electric, Thomas Edison, may have started with one invention, but the company isn't and was never about an invention. It was about a long-term business model of inventing and improving upon those inventions until it was ranked by Forbes Magazine, in 2009, as the largest company in the world. As an investor buying stock in the company are you investing in a lightbulb? No, you're investing in the entire company. The company could stop making lightbulbs and it woud still be in business.


What do filmmakers do? We focus on getting investors to invest in a "project" not a long-term career. Now I know it's a commonly known practice, and I agree with it, to have investors physically invest in just a LLC for the project and not in your business. The purpose of doing this is many reasons, one of them being that if someone sued you over one project it should protect you from it effecting another. Another reason is that the investors might agree with the purpose or story of your new project but not in the previous one or later projects. There are numbers of reasons, but the physical investment isn't what I'm talking about, but a mental perspective.

Filmmakers seem to focus all their attention on "the now". What does it take to make this specific project. We throw all our energy into these projects, then have very little to show for it. For instance, I think it is ludicrous that filmmakers "rent", not "buy" their equipment. Are we hoping to get rich quick; and land some great deal with a major studio. If you were a dentist who their had their own business they'd rent office space, they'd own equipment. If you were a carpenter you'd own your tools, your truck, your ladders. But filmmakers think short term.

A filmmaker needs to think of the promotion of each film being an exstension of their last. Each time you're promoting your film on the internet, people should be connected to your main website, not just the site for the film. You're building a library of content. Each film gains the attention of more people, which means that you're more marketable than you use to be.

Part of my new strategy with my filmmaking has been to spend time establishing my brand. Making simple statements about the types of projects I create. I have a unique storytelling style and brand that can't be explained just in words. I need to show my audience and the world with visual statements. To produce another feature film to make this statement would be costly in time and money. I am planning on making another feature, but I have decided to establish what you should expect first before spending that time or money. One of the things that I am doing is working with my brother to create "mirco-shorts". These "micro-shorts" are basically what have been termed as Scene Selects. They are either scenes from the films or scenes that could have been in the films. This gives the audience a chance to interact with the material and give me feedback. This also helps me in connecting with the audience members who would be the biggest fan base.

Here's the reaction I get from some other filmmakers: "shorts are not good choices econimically to make..." I used to be of that opinion. "Why make a short that you can't sell when you should make a feature that you could". But here lies the problem. We think of each film in terms of instant financial gradification. And we translate this in how we talk to investors and fans of our projects. We're all about "The Now". Focus on establishing your brand, whether you make money now or not, so that long-term you'll be a cinematic storyteller to be reckoned with.

3D: Just a Gimmick… My Review on AVATAR

One of the critiques I read recently about AVATAR, before I went to see it, stated that it was a “game changer.” And, never mind the story, the CGI and the 3D is so revolutionary that it will change cinema forever. I just recently went to watch AVATAR in 3D and…

My initial reaction right after leaving the cinema was simply: 3D is a gimmick, but I liked the movie…

Then, over several hours of pondering over the film, I found myself coming to more conclusions:

First, my reason for calling it a gimmick: The definition of a gimmick is:

1) a : a mechanical device for secretly and dishonestly controlling gambling apparatus b : an ingenious or novel mechanical device : gadget

2) a : an important feature that is not immediately apparent : catch b : an ingenious and usually new scheme or angle c : a trick or device used to attract business or attention.- A marketing gimmick http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/GIMMICK

I’m going to use it in the terms of “an ingenious and usually new scheme or angle” and/or “a trick or device used to attract business or attention” to define the usage of the 3D technique. AVATAR showed up in the middle of a recession, when ticket sales were low and risks were high. If he intentionally used 3D because of this fact, than he was brilliant. If not, he had some great luck deciding to do it now.

The reason I point this out is because the $300 million to produce the film had little-to-nothing to do with the 3D. Considering the fact that most of the film is in a CG world with CG characters, all they had to do was to add another camera side-by-side with the original in the software program. Ask a CG artist about it. They create the effect of 3D by having one camera for your left eye and the other for your right eye.

It cost so much because of the amount of previz, motion-capturing, and CG modeling work that went into the film. The $300 million dollar investment looks life-like, or close to it, but the average film-going audience member wouldn’t have noticed. People are not “wowed” by the realism of CG and compositing, but by fancy effects. I can put CG into a scene and make it seamless, but another person can have an explosion and make it less seamless and get a better reaction. Cameron needed a sales gimmick to get enough people into the theater to re-coop the cost of the film and justify the size of the budget. That’s where the 3D came in to play. -And it worked. But, a game changer? I’m not so sure.

To describe it to someone who has never seen it, the 3D felt like holograms pulled out of the screen and shoved into the foreground. I found it distracting. Objects, like tree branches, floating ashes and such, which should have been subtle elements for creating mood, distracted me from being able to see what was going on behind them. I felt distant from the action and drama because of that. As I watched it, I wished that I could see it in 2D instead.

Cameron wrote the screenplay to Avatar in ‘93 or ‘94, and like Lucas and the prequels back in the ‘80’s, he realized that his vision was too large to be able to be made at that specific period in cinema history. But, when Cameron saw the creation of Gollum in LOTR, he decided to use the same technology of motion-capture to create his characters. So, basically what he did was an upgrade of the quality, with an emphasis on the eyes, and multiplied it by 100 by make many “Gollums” (the Na'vi, the natives of the planet).

Some critics stated, “forget the story” and focus on the CG. Forget the story? They forget that story is the foundation of film. -A bad foundation means a bad film.

Let’s look at the story: Original? Not really. New planet, but the story followed the very similar plot lines of DANCES WITH WOLVES and Disney’s POCAHONTAS. The ending also felt similar to the conclusions of LOTR and NARNIA: THE LION WITCH AND THE WARDROBE.

Three things that stuck out as storyline flaws were:

1. 
   
   
   
   The fact that the Na’vi arrows can not penetrate the windshields of the enemy aircraft when the humans destroy the gigantic tree, but later on they can pierce not just the windshields, but also go all the way through to kill the people inside. I know we can say that the Na’vi just needed to be a little closer to the aircraft in order to penetrate the windshields and that they weren’t close enough earlier in the film. But, there needed to be a line sometime before the last battle that acknowledged the necessity of close proximity for the arrows to work on the aircraft.
   
2. 
   
   
   
   Another stand-out was that some of the lines just felt “odd” and out of place. Especially a lot of the profanity. Now, I’ve seen films with military figures that utilized a multitude of profanity, and it felt real and natural. But, somehow, the profanity in this film felt like a priest or a nun swearing. Cameron had an obsession with “female dogs” and had many of the human characters say it. It felt unnatural and shoved into the script to make the characters sound tough. The film’s beautiful world may have helped make the “odd” feeling as it seemed almost too beautiful to be desecrated with any bad language.
   
3. 
   
   
   
   At times there was too much explaining and other times where there should have been more. At least 10-15 minutes of the beginning could have been cut and I wish that they replaced that time with a scene about Jake Sully (the handicapped ex-Marine) losing his legs. I had a hard time connecting with Jake Sully’s character and would have connected more, on an emotional level, with his excitement about the possibility of walking again. The middle of the film could have been tightened down with quicker series of montages to push the story forward. The biggest dilemma of trying to solve the problems between the military humans and the native aliens seemed to become a side issue while the expansive development of Jake Sully’s initiated into the tribe and reminded me of what fell flat on Pearl Harbor.
   
   
   

My concern is this: On the trailer for the film they list all of Cameron’s films except for one: THE ABYSS. Why? Because it was considered a failure by many. And, an expensive failure at that. At the time, it was the most expensive film ever, then TITANIC topped it. AVATAR has beaten TITANIC as the most expensive, but… unfortunately, only 2 out of 3 of these films were a success. All three also have another common denominator - they’re long. The ABYSS was so long that Cameron was forced to cut necessary things out and the worry is that this length issue will become a trend. CG only “wow’s” people so much. Then, you have to up the quality or add 3D. 3D will only impress audiences until that novelty wears off. If we continue down this treacherous path then our films will end up like the Titanic, with a captain that yells, “Full steam ahead!” straight into iceberg territory. -We all know how that ended.

If I were to grade the film, I would give it a C+ for story and A+ for the CGI. The story didn’t warrant the budget. They needed more time on the script and they wouldn’t have needed the 3D.