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.

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)