AWAKENING: A Candid Look At the Last Few Weeks

Most Hollywood people probably aren't as candid and honest as I am about things.  I prefer to just be open about as much as possible.  I believe other people learn from my successes/mistakes and in turn relationships build. 

First off, let's be honest, AWAKENING has received around 2,200 hits on youtube to date.  The responses, though, have been great.  A ton of people have responded that they were impressed.  One of the local newspapers ran a really large story about the project with some pages in the entertainment section that were mostly full of very large pictures from the set.  Local people responded by coming up to me in public and thanking me for posting it online for them to see.  People were surprised that we were able to pull it off.

Last night the turnout for the AWAKENING Release/Networking Party was meager.  With all the chatter about coming to the party, very few came to the party that weren't part of the cast.  Many of the cast had already been committed to other obligations and couldn't attend. -That happens.  This party was for the cast/crew, I'm not upset that some weren't able to attend.

When I evaluated who attended and why I found that no one attended because of the newspaper stories.  Even though people talked about it, they didn't show up.  No one came from the radio interview I did that broadcasted 3 days straight.  Of the people who were personally invited (we passed out over 100 invite business cards), only 1 family attended.

What would I have done differently?  Just have a room that fits only 50, or dependent on the production, just don't do one at all.  I wanted to make sure I had enough room for all the people who had been involved (40 cast/crew) and for their guests.  That's why we made a point to have seating for 100+.  We then decided that we would open it up to the public.  At the end, I don't think the public responds well to this kind of event, even though it was a one-of-a-kind event for this area of Michigan.

There were other factors that played a part in the smaller than expected response.  The recession has kept a lot of people from wanting to get out and do things.  The tragedy in Japan has people glued to their TV screens (which makes perfect sense) and Governor Snyder's proposal to kill the tax incentive has created a lot of nervousness and negative feelings in the film community and about film production in general.  (to reiterate where I stand:  My productions have  never directly benefited from the tax incentive.)

There's something great that did develop out of the AWAKENING Release/Networking Party.  I was able to meet others on a more personable side.  When we did AWAKENING, I was just the commander-in-chief of the production.  It basically was, "do this", "do that", "cut", etc.  I didn't have time to really get to know anyone.  But I did perceive, by the way individuals held themselves, what different people were like.  So I made some much better connections with cast/crew people from AWAKENING, and met others who were interested in The House.  There was some great conversations. 

But to reiterate, this party would have been a much better experience had we gone with a smaller atmosphere.  It may have also help to bring people into conversations more.  The lack of numbers also had an influence on my enthusiasm/focus when speaking.

AWAKENING's response on the internet.   I think what has bugged me the most has been the hit counts on youtube.   It's not so much the hit counts themselves, but who the hit counts are.  When I look into "insights", I can find out who is watching it and where they found it.  Of the hits on youtube, almost exactly half come form a site called irove.com.  It's this site where this guy trolls through youtube to find odd and different video clips and posts them on his site.  I don't know much more about the site.  With Facebook it was about 300 hits, the Detroit craigslists (we posted the link with the ad we posted about cast/crew for our next project so people could see my most recent work) 284, and then it dwindles down.  With twitter.com it was just 92 hits.  (In 2009 I had over 3,000 people watch a clip of AMNESIA in a couple weeks with just a few posts per day.)

Basically, with my invites to people I know, with the people in the cast/crew who posted about it on the internet, there was only 300 views.  With the newspaper's sending people to our site to watch it, that number was low too.  I'm having a much harder time to be able to figure out the real number here and wonder if in fact some how the views from our site don't count for some reason.  If so, then our numbers may have been much higher.

My main point is that after all the promotion, my careful planning, it had very little effect on getting people to watch and share it.  The important emphasis is the word "share it".  If people really love it they share it.  It's the natural human thing to do.

The natural artist thing to do is respond with, "WOW, I must really suck!".  But, let's be more objective about this.  When I look at demographics, that's when I start to become concerned with the real problem with AWAKENING.  It shows that 67% of the people who have watched AWAKENING were males. Of the male population that watched it, over half are between the age of 44-64.  Completely the wrong population of people to watch AWAKENING.

Now, I do think that I'm ahead of the curve on this micro-pilot medium.  People keep calling it a short or a trailer.  That's because they are just relating it to something they are familiar with.

One of the side comments I'm going to make is that I beleive that social media, like we thought it was 2-3 years ago, isn't what it is today.  First off, Twitter has become a massive amount of link feeding.  People either autotweet links or their blogs, facebook pages, etc are feeding links (people are busy doing other stuff than chatting on twitter like they did back in 2008), and with Facebook a large amount of the people on there aren't "really" on Facebook.  They're on a Zenga game like Farmville and it feeds into Facebook, giving the impression that people are on when they really aren't.  The fact is people don't really want to talk to "everyone" for months, years on end.  The average person just wants a few close friends.  I had already been noticing this trend away from SM about a year ago.

Had AWAKENING been released in November 2008, it might have gone viral just by tweeting about it.  It may have gone viral on Facebook in 2009.  But now... less likely.  On those sites things are much more gradual.

My biggest concern is the issue of audience desire.  Do people really want to see the next thing I make?  I had mentioned before about finally creating the UTOPILAND micro-pilot that I had shelved.  I beleive I can find enough VFX artists to help me make it, but even if I found all the money to do it, would anyone really want to see it?  That's why I am seriously considering doing a crowdfunding campaign. I want to know whether this concept really has the demand to even make it into a micro-pilot, or if it would just be "shouting into the wind".

With the UTOPILAND micro-pilot I wouldn't publicize it with the local media outlets.  I probably would even hold off on much of any mention on Facebook, Twitter, emails.  My main focus would be sites like motiongrapher.com and Spyfilms, etc.  If they loved it, then would write a post about it.

With THE HOUSE, things are different because there is a much more in-depth plan with it because it's a feature film.  We would do a micro-pilot and other character "scenes" that would be posted a long time before the release, to build the demand.

Basically, with micro-pilots, the key is to just constantly make more.  The more you make, the higher chance that one of them gains enough attention with the right demographics, to make a real impact.

Guerrilla Filmmakers Didn't Need the Digital Revolution

As I was wrapping up post-production for "The Allan Carter Saga Part I: AMNESIA" I ended up on a phone conversation with my brother who had helped with the editing, compostiting and CGI special effects for the film.  In the conversation I blurted out, "if the digital revolution hadn't come along when it did I wouldn't have been able to make this movie".  My brother's response was a very interesting comment because for the last couple years I have found myself going back to it over and over again.  He replied, "you, me, we didn't need the digital revolution to make a movie...  We would have found a way even if the digital revolution hadn't happened."

Recently many filmmakers have commented that SM and the internet will be the answer to the marketing and distribution delemia that independent filmmakers are experiencing.  I disagree.  SM and the internet are tools, not the answer.  When we put our reliance on the tools the tools become the master and we are a slave to them.  If Thomas Edison couldn't find an answer...  he made one.

The thing about trailerblazers are that the blaze a new trail.  In their quest of cutting through the brush and creating a new path they risk having major pitfalls but also benefit by creating a path that others will take.  Anyone else that goes down that path isn't a leader but a follower of the path.  We all find points in our journey of filmmaking where everything that can go wrong does go wrong and you are pushed into a corner.  You can not proceed with the "business as usual" mode.  It is at this point, when everything logical will not fix the problem, that you have to "get creative" to beat the odds.  This is when you blaze a new trail, even if a small, minor one.  Too many filmmakers, I fear, when facing the impossible, instead of "getting creative"...  just back down.

Here's a great historical story to illustrate my point:

The year is 1776, the British army are held up in Boston while the rebels (Americans) lead by Washington are in the counrty.  They are basically waiting for the other side to make the next move.  It's a stalemate.  Winter is setting in, but Henry Knox went to Fort Ticonderoga, in up-state New York, to retrive some cannons.  Everyone thought it was impossible for him to bring all these canons across the mountains of Vermont, but he was able to inspire all the people of the countryside in Vermont to get involved. 

Another person named Alexander Hamilton inspired Washington to set up the canons at night, up on a hill, just across the bay from Boston.  The idea was to bring hay stack blocks, quietly at night, up the hill.  They were to make a wall with this blocks which would freeze in place.  They would also bring empty barrels up the hill as well.  These barrels were then filled with dirt and put on the outside of the wall.  When the British were to wake up in the morning, they would see the American's entrenched on the hill with the canons pointed at them.  The assumption would be that the British would then demand an assult on the hill.  The Americans, being low on gun powder, woud instead roll the barrels down the hill, knocking the British soldiers over like bowling pins, winning the battle... 

In the morning the British saw the Americans entrenched on the top of the hill and retreated to England for several months.  They knew they could not beat Washington at Boston.  The plan had worked.

My point isn't a leason in history but to show that creativity can beat the odds.  The internt, digital revolution or any other invention we come up with isn't the answer.  Our never ending determination mixed with our imaginations can do wonders.  A guerrilla filmmaker doesn't back down, they improvise.  Now is the time for a real filmmaking revolution.

The REAL problem with Indie Films.

For anyone following the news on the independent film business they can see that now, more than ever, that industry is struggling to survive. Almost every week there are blogs, newspapers or magazines that are writting some articles about a confrence, festival, or other event where people in the industry debate about how to fix the industry. I think before we try to fix the problem we should try to figure out what the problem really is.


Filmmaker's claim the problem is that many independent distributors (mini-majors, etc) have either gone bankrupt or are no longer acquiring films. The distributors would probably claim the fact that in prior years they were unable to make a profit off the films they did acquire is the problem. I believe both of these are "symptoms" of the problem.


What's the problem? Simple. No one knows, outside the indie festival circuit, what most of these films are or whether they are worth watching. Just because a film comes out on DVD or runs in a theater doesn't mean it's something you or I want to watch. It just means that it came out on video or had a theatrical release.

Some would say I'm talking about marketing. But I'm talking about more than just marketing, though. Real marketing is great. My definition would be "communicating a message about what you have to offer". I's not spin, spam, or manipulation... or atleast it shouldn't be.

But we need more than just marketing/advertising; we need to apply the simple principles of "Tested Advertsing" to reach the right niche market for each film and to build a fan base of support for it. Claude Hopkins (the father of the "coupon") created a simple concept using coupons to track what type of ads (on the coupon) drew the largest amount of customers. By doing this he was able to find out what was the best way to promote a product to the consumer.

If indies were able to have their potential audience, beyond the indie crowd that gathers at the fests, interact with their material and react to it, they would be able to gather info on how to best promote their film. This would help the filmmaker understand who would want it the most. There is an audience out there for every film, some are large audiences, some are small.


The problem that the distributors had was that they would see a film at a fest gain some huge attention, but then wouldn't see the same thing when it was distributed nation wide to the main stream audience. Why would that happen? Simple. The film probably catored better to a niche market amongst the indie crowd and less amongst the main stream crowd. The distributors needed to "test" the film more to see who to really reach out to and how to commicate the message of what the film offers best.


There are tons of distribution avenues that filmmakers can take. Some are considering the DIY approach, others are looking to ideas like openindie.com. My consern is that if your film ends up at a theater, but no one knows about it until it arrives, why would anyone be coming to see it?


Imagine a film like "Blair Witch" builds a huge amount buzz about the film and then was released it for people to watch PPV or with limited commerical interuptions from a site? With a large enough buzz around a film and making it available to everyone at the same time via the internet the filmmaker would potentially make more money than if they had gone through a distributor.



All of these ideas I have been personally wrestling with. Then the answer came to me: change the already existing Twitter-Based Film festival (RebFest.com) into something better that helps the indie filmmaker build a fan base. The new RebFest.com site is still under renovation. When it is complete we will post info about it.



-John W. Bosley

writer/director of "The Allan Carter Saga Part I: AMNESIA" and also the creator of RebFest.com

My Econimic Stimulus Plan for Indie Films

El Mariachi Meets Star Wars???

by: John W. Bosley

Why is indie filmmaking dying? Why is it that there are more festivals, more content, yet less successful new filmmakers? I have a simple answer: We're not bringing enough to the show.

There is better equipment, but independent filmmakers aren't making better films... They are just making more of them. Imagine a tourist attraction like Six Flags or Disney World. Instead of a bracelet to ride every ride, you have to pay for each one. Tons of people, when the economy is great, are coming to enjoy the rides and every ride is making money... But, when times are tough and if you have to pay for each one, then people are pickier... some of the smaller rides won't make any money.

The definition for independent film is a film done independently of Hollywood money, which can be a little fuzzy... George Clooney can make a film from his own bank account (made by working as an actor on Hollywood films) and it is called an indie film just as much as some kid scrapping together his tax refund to shoot something in his backyard.

What made indie filmmaking different was the so-called "digital revolution?" Cameras became more affordable, people were able to shoot more and risk less. What happened wasn't better content, just more of it.

So how do we change it? Anyone who follows me on Twitter and has read my bio knows that I don't describe myself as an "independent filmmaker," but instead a "revolutionary." This is my reasoning: Indie films have a reputation of being either "small personal films" or "cheap B movies." I hate to be so honestly blunt about it, but I will be. My concern is the audience's expectations. Most expect all independently produced films to look alike. With all the new technology available, "the sky is the limit" and yet we still see the same material.

If you have a great "small personal film" that you believe needs to be made, than please go ahead a make it. Just don't do what many filmmakers I've met via Twitter and elsewhere have done. If you want to make something that looks more like a blockbuster film, don't settle for making a "small personal film" just because you don't think an indie filmmaker can accomplish a blockbuster. --Just do it!

Back to what is killing indies: we can't compete with high concept film ideas with our small concept ideas. It's plain and simple. If an average audience member has only one movie that they can watch, the majority will choose the high concept film over the small personal film. Simple statistics.

It used to be that if you had a celeb in your film, you would attract a larger audience. Both Variety and LA Times have reported that it isn't that way any longer. The only thing drawing people is a really great idea... and I would add also something that looks "hard to make." Since anyone can pick up a DV or HD camera for a few thousand... why should they pay to watch something they "think" they can make?

When I was a kid we were told that books were like visiting another world. I will watch a TV show that looks like my regular life, but I won't pay top dollar at a theater for a film about a regular life. I want LARGER than life.

My point is that you need to make your film feel larger than life. You don't have to change the premis, just give it a grander feel. But that would be too difficult, right? I thought so too... than I decided to "push the envelope" with AMNESIA and realized that when I was done production I could have "pushed it" even more. Trying the impossible, isn't as impossible as you might think. The truth is, my greatest lesson from my project was that "we are only restricted by the limits of our imagination."

A great example of going big was the movie Snow White. In today's terms it wouldn't count for much, but in the 1920's it was unimaginable for someone to make a animated full length feature film. However, Disney figured out that by doing "keyframing" he could make something that large without having to hire all pro animators. [The concept of "Keyframing" came from Snow White. He would have the pro animators draw the "key frames" while having the apprentices do the frames that would be less noticeable within the scene.] By doing this he cut down his budget and created a piece of history.... he just found a way.

What we need right now is El Mariachi meets Star Wars: a low budget film with an grand high concept idea. [El Mariachi was Robert Rodriguez's 7k film that caught Hollywood's attention.] If that happened it would catch everyone's attention.

How can we call it a "digital revolution" if nothing much really changed?

(If you still want to pursue a "small personal film" then I would recommend building a fan base by connecting on sites like Fans of Film or rebfest.com)