I've have planned for a long time to get the film to audiences in Maine. The film is set in Maine and the people there would love to see the film. But I found myself faced with a major demographic issue. Maine has a population of about 1.3 Million spread out over 35,385 sq mi. Basically the bulk of the residents are spread out all over the place. Movie theaters won't allow me to screen on Fri-Sun because of contracts with the big studios so accessibility just went out the window. Going to a movie theater on a Monday through Thursday is a major ordeal The reality is that if you took a poll most of them watch very few films in the movie theaters, but instead on a source that is much more accessible.
Technology has changed everything
You want to watch something you can watch it with just typing a few buttons on key board and the click of a mouse. In the matter of hours a short film on youtube can go from unknown to superstar because of accessibility and viral ability of the Internet.
The value of The House That Jack Broke is the story. If someone loves the story they'll share their excitement with their friends. If I show the film in Michigan on a Thursday people can post their excitement on Facebook, but their FB friends can't share in the experience because there isn't easy accessibility to the film. The online conversations basically die because people aren't able to have a mutual experience with the film. One person watches and comments, the other just basically waits to see if comes to their area. And the fact is people get really bored waiting for your film and move on to something else.
What's a Festival?
Go back to the original meaning. It means to "celebrate something". Back in the day people used to have harvest festivals when they celebrated a good crop and the fact that they weren't going to starve in the winter. In reality that is what filmmakers are doing when they do a premiere. They are celebrating the accomplishments of the cast and crew and allowing the audience to experience that celebration with them. It has a very communal experience. People aren't just watching a movie, their part of something bigger. Why can't we have our own "celebration" online?
May 3-5th Our Online Exhibition of THTJB
We have decided as producers that it's time to take the film to a much broader audience. It's not just about taking it to just one more state anymore, it's about taking it everywhere at once. People want to see it in states across the U.S. and Canada and overseas? Then let's get it to them!
For a limited time period: May 3-5th, a 3 day weekend, we're going to be showing The House That Jack Broke on Vimeo for a small fee. It's like renting a movie online. Then we're going to ask the audience to post their comments on our Facebook fan page and share the link with their friends. The film will be a slightly improved version of the one showed at our Michigan Premiere (will continue
showing Awakening right before the feature).
People want to see the film?- give it to them! Time to screen "out of the box".
Reading the book "The Guerrilla Filmmakers Handbook" several years ago I stumbled upon an interview by a head of a major film festival. In the interview he claimed that if you submit your film to enough film festivals that eventually "the cream will rise to the top". I'm going to state very boldly that is wrong!That is absolutely, 100% wrong!
I'm not writing as an expert. I would never claim the title of "expert". But I do take the title of "observer". I like looking at things and noticing trends. That is a lot of what science is. If you continue to do something over and over again and you don't like the results, that the science of what you are trying to achieve would state, than you need a different approach.
My angst is not against film festivals. They provide their service. My angst is against a mindset within the industry. People who have been successful look to those who have not broken in and respond with comments like "it's not that hard to get access" or "your material must not be Good Enough". These statements fly in the face of common sense. So if the new critically acclaimed film Cloud Atlas isn't a blockbuster hit, does that mean the Matrix duo suck at telling stories? Since War Horse wasn't the hit of the year, does that mean Spielberg is a bad director?
Imagine this: you go to an auto mechanic and have him fix your engine. After fixing it you drive down the road on an empty gas tank. The car automatically ends up shutting off. Is it the mechanics fault the car won't drive?
Several experts and guru's blogs I follow have recently stated that if you want to get into the business it's not access but quality of script that matters. I find those types of statements to be offensive! 1.) it assumes that we the writers/directors don't know how to write a good script and 2.) it comes across with at least a hint of arrogance. Most of these people didn't rise out of obscurity into the business off a great script. So I'm going to state a few things I've learned as an observer.
These are trends and I'd recommend not to take my word on it but to do your research.
Want to Break in and either pitch your script or sell your film?
It is All About Who you Knows You or more importantly "Who Knows You".
This is one of the great lessons I learned from my father. He told me once that he hated the statement growing up, but in his adult life he realized how important that is. It doesn't undervalue the value of quality. Actually the "who knows you" importance underscores the huge value of quality. People only pay attention to material that matters.
An example are two contractors building houses. One of them spends more time talking up their achievement while the other makes something that creates a buzz. The one who created buzz gains the respect of the people vs. the one who talks too much. You can talk a big game but make sure your work backs it up.
But, If you want to get into this business, just making great films isn't good enough. And writing great scripts isn't good enough either! Even though value matters, knowing Key influencers matters more than perfect script.
Actually many mediocre films made by filmmakers that people like have a greater chance of response than great films made by shy, reclusive people. I've even seen it in local responses. A son of a popular business person makes a mediocre film and shows it in a local theater. There's almost no marketing, but since everyone knows that filmmaker's father they all show up and watch the film. They pack the house, praise the film. On the other hand another filmmaker spends twice as many years, knows few people in town, markets the crap out of the film... and few show.
It's not fair, but it is reality.
Networking Matters!
Networking doesn't mean having thousands of friends on Facebook or followers on Twitter. It means cultivating relationships with those filmmakers you respect. For instance one of the filmmakers I have followed since 2009 and respect is Angelo Bell. He sets an example of how to truly use online networking. You can follow his blog and see the progress he is making. One of the things I like about Angelo is that he isn't trying to be popular, he's trying to create value. The value he creates isn't just his own work but investing time in other people. He continues to have value able conversations with different people he respects. He doesn't have to show off, he just talks about what he is learning in his own process and then learning from what others have experience too. This type of conversation creates great relationships that will build into long term career bridge building. He is just one of many filmmakers I have connected with.
The Tom Sawyer Approach.
Another great lessons I learned from my father is the Tom Sawyer White Washing the Fence idea. Tom is told he has to white wash the fence for his aunt. Instead of grumbling about it he decides to make it look fun. His friends come over ask if they can give it a try. He says it's too much fun for him to let them do it as well and keeps "painting the fence with a smile". His friends one by one pay him with toys or candy so they can have a try at white washing the fence.
As aspiring artists, or artists in general, we focus on trying to get other people into our project, instead of giving them a reason to demand to be involved in the project. Find ways to create excitement about what you do. Find ways to make it "infectious" as Angelo Bell stated in his recent blog post. If other people are excited about what you are doing or about to do they'll tell others and it will spread. Eventually the people you want to work with will respect your work as well and more doors will open up for you.
Build Your Brand
Most experts minimize brand to genre. Spielberg and Ridley Scott do action movies, but their brands look completely different. As a filmmaker or even just as a script writer you need to find a way to show your unique brand. The beauty of technology today is that you can show of your brand in a very small "taste testing" kind of way without having to have a huge budget. Most filmmakers think this means shooting features or short films. I would advocate smaller. Create a micro-pilot: a short, 5 minute or less, "my concept in a nutshell" film. It has a beginning, middle and ends with a cliff hanger. Keep the budgets low. Drop them on youtube and see what response you get.
When I did Awakening I used whatever money I had on me ($100) and borrowed goods. The more people who got involved in the project, the more others wanted to be. We ended up with actors who drove over 2 hrs to be involved. We shot it on a road made for an industrial park, with borrowed "smashed up" cars. I didn't expect I huge break through response, just another project to show my brand. The risk: $100 and a few months time doing post production. The return on investment: doors opened to make The House That Jack Broke.
Think Local.
When people think about networking in the film business they think of L.A.. If you don't live in L.A. you are then restricted. Every state has other people interested in your industry. Maybe there isn't as many as there is in Hollywood, but if there was at least 1 or 2 other people you now have a network. Connect, find things you can do together, make your value.
When it comes to promoting your film you are the most popular filmmaker in your small local town. It is cost effective to show off you material in a local setting and the best chance of turn out. The director of "Paranormal Activity" built the buzz he needed to get Paramount's attention because of a local screening in which the participants were requested to post their comments online on Twitter with a hashtag related to the film. The faith-based film "Facing the Giants" gained the attention of Twentieth Century Fox because the local community spread the word around.
Hate to say this, but it's the reality. Popularity Matters. It matters A Lot! But you don't have to have the charisma of a Hollywood actor to utilize popularity. How you treat others is the greatest catalyst to create value albe relationships. If you treat others as you would want to be treated they remember you. When you go out to promote your film they will show up because they "like you". But don't be nice to gain something. Be nice to others to give something. Be Bold. Be Desperate!
I'm a shy guy. In front of people I shine, put me in the middle of a crowd and I shrink back. It's just the way I am. But there have been times when I finally just said, "I won't be a reclusive person". Those were times when this desperate passion push me forward to be an extrovert. It was in those times I connected with everyone around me. They had a ton of conversations with me, things moved forward.
When trying to connect with others those thoughts of doubt kick in.- "I can't talk to that person", "what if they blow me off'", etc, etc. That's when that desperation needs to kick in. I'm not talking desperate like doing crazy stuff and looking like a nervous person who rambles on or is doing irrational things. But that desperate mode that says, "this might be my only chance!" and you jump on it.
An episode of 666 Park Avenue the lawyer character who wants to get into politics is having dinner with Terry O'Quinn's character. Terry's character tells the lawyer that the politician the lawyer wants to work for is sitting across the room. He instructs him that the club they're in the lawyer will never be able to come back to again unless invited. What's the chance that he can introduce himself to the politician again? Yes he sent in his resume, but the guy is just across the room. Terry's character instructs him, "make you move or lose it". The lawyer stands up and approaches. The politician blows him off. What happens next is the important part. The lawyer goes to walk away when the desperate mode kicks in. This is it, this is his one shot. Say Something that Matters!... And the lawyer says the most important line, and simple one sentence that lets the politician know that he has an edge that can save the politicians career. The door opens up, he is going to be hired. BAM!
It is All About Who You Know and Showing Your Potential or the Potential of your Brand!
Don't believe me? Do some research on these people. You'll see that key relationships were the key to their careers, yet they also had to show their potential.
Spielberg: Met and became a friend with the President at Universal before making his short film "Amblin". It was actually some of the executives at Universal that funded the short film. He showed the short to the President of Universal and was offered a directing deal.
Robert Rodriguez: Yes he did make a film for $7,000 called El Mariachi. But he was rejected by the people who run the Spanish TV/Video distribution companies the film was intended for. He met a man who was a friend of an agent at CAA. The agent saw the film and new how to pitch it to the studios. It was HOW the film was pitched and HOW they pitched the director that mattered, not just the material. Without those key relationships the film made never have been seen.
George Lucas: Meets Coppola and shows him the short THX 1138. Coppola producers the feature version of it with Lucas directing. The film is not a financial success. But when Lucas goes to pitch Star Wars it opens doors. Every studio he pitched Star Wars to rejected it. Even the executive at Fox said he didn't get the script. But he had seen THX and liked it. Star Wars was then funded.
Sam Raimi: The Michigan native filmmaker had several friends whom he had worked on small projects with. He utilized already existed relationships to raise the budget, bring together the key cast/crew, and find the distribution for The Evil Dead.
The list goes on and on. The key to ever single successful filmmaker was Key Relationships Cultivated over a long period of time while Building their Brand and Showing Value in their Work.
So the experts... what advice Should They Be Giving? If someone says, "how do I get in the decision room to pitch to executives?" or "how do I get my film in front of the right people to sell my film?" the answer should be well researched articles on the right respectable events that create the environment to meet those people. Then advise those people on how to interact and cultivate long term relationships with those people while also creating and building their brand so they eventually pitch that material to those key influencers...
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.
I'm going to make a disclaimer first: I'm not a zombie flick fan. That said, I wanted to give a review on the pilot episode of Season 1 of The Walking Dead.
First, I missed The Walking Dead when it first aired. I also missed the marathon that AMC had about a week ago. But my composer friend, Hans Karl, mentioned that I should check out the show because he saw some similarities between it and AWAKENING. (No there's no zombies in AWAKENING, all my dead people stay dead). But there are a few similiarities.
The pilot episode titled, "Days Gone By" clocks at about 1hr 7 mins. Compare that to the pilot episode of LOST that was 42 mins for Part I and 42 mins for Part II. The opening of both LOST and The Walking Dead pilot episodes both start off with the great concept of throwing the audience and main character into the middle of a big concept by having them wake up. With The Walking Dead he doesn't wake up on the first shot, but eventually that's what happens.
The Good. One of the things that drew me to see the pilot episode of The Walking Dead was the epic scale of this concept. Like LOST, the pilot teasers and screen shots didn't look like the "traditional" TV show but more like an large scale movie-like TV show. I liked this as a concept. This was the high point of the TV show... But....
The bad part of the pilot was the fact that even though there is this large scale epic feel to the TV show, we don't get to Atlanta until the end. The beginning started pretty big with the character waking up in the hospital and discovering that he woke up to something unbelievable. But that middle section is where things drag. This is also the part that makes the pilot go from the 42 minute long episode length that it should have had to the 107 minutes that it is. I feel that they could have kept the dad and son that find the main character to just simply characters that push the story plot forward. My thought as a storyteller was, "get the main character to Atlanta ASAP!". Give me the big stuff. The reason I'm watching is to see where he's suppose to be going.
They could have really developed the entering of Atlanta. That shot of him on the highway going into Atlanta was cool. I wanted to see that. But it was basically just a couple shots. They didn't really develop that part. There wasn't really much of a development of the urgency to warn him not to enter from the group outside that heard him on the CB.
My favorite part was the when he entered the city. The ending was great. It was intense. I wondered if he was going to surivive, even though I knew that he would. The whole thing with the tank was a great and even the last piece with the voice.
But my concern goes back to the length of the middle section between when he woke up and getting to Atlanta. There was also the opening scene with the child zombie that I debated whether that was necessary either. I wonder if the producers were concerned that it would be compared too much to a LOST opening if they started right off with him waking up. But my feeling was that the child zombie scene was either in the wrong spot or was unnecessary. I know the it would have been seen as a "shocker moment" for television. But the problem was that by the time I saw the pilot episode that specific scene had been shown so much on youtube by fans that it lost it's shocker effect on me.
The Ugly. My serious gripe is not with the show. I thought over all the shown was spectacular. I would never had watched a zombie TV show if they hadn't done something unique with this story. But it's what they did with the show after it aired that bothers me. The producers of LOST and ABC did an brilliant move with their episodes. Right after airing they would be available online, for FREE, with limited commercial interuptions. This service is provided by Move Networks. By doing this LOST continued to build a larger and larger fan base online for each season. Even now people in other parts of the world are finding episodes and watching them.
But AMC made a serious mistake. If you want to watch any of Season 1's episodes you have to go to Amazon or itunes or Cinmea Now's site. It cost about 1.99 per episode. First I tried Cinema Now, I paid the 1.99 download fee. Then went through the pain-in-the-butt process of trying to watch the thing. At the end I got frustrated and sent them an email about my frustation. Then I went to Amazon and finally watched on their streaming service.
Here's my beef with this process. First, by creating a pay wall you seperate an potential fan of season 2 from getting addicted to the show. Second, I already get cable. I'm paying about $25 for my cable, which includes AMC. Why do I have to pay another 1.99 per episode, to download, so I can see what I missed? Why can't they offer a streaming service option like ABC does by working with Move Networks. I'm pretty sure Move Networks advertising would equal the 1.99 per episode fee that I had to pay to Amazon or the other options. I didn't want to own a copy, I just wanted to see if the show was worth all the hype. AMC should have made a sizeable profit of the advertising from the original airing that any money after that is just extra. Wouldn't it be of greater value to the show to multiply their fan base by offering a FREE, with limited commerical interuption, option, then "nickle-and-dime'ing" customers over a 1.99 per episode charge? I would think fans for the next season were of a greater value. Maybe I'm wrong.
This is my review of the pilot to The Walking Dead., Season 1.
AWAKENING was one of the best experiences I ever had. It was ambitious, yet not overwhelming. After I finished my feature film , took it on tour, and saw very little results… I was not just disappointed, but had a hard time visualizing a reasonable outcome for pretty muchanyfilm. AWAKENING reopened my eyes to not just the possibility of making something great but being able to reach out to my audience.
Originally I was going to back off a bit after releasing AWAKENING. But I started to get excited about one of the projects I had pushed aside. I saw some of the actors in AWAKENING and thought, “what better talent pool of actors to work with than the ones right here.”
As I was set to release AWAKENING on Feb. 28th, I made sure to try to dodge as many important events as possible. I didn’t want to release in January because of Sundance. Everything seemed perfect. Then Gov. Rick Snyder (Michigan ) made his big proposal. In it he was basically is killing the Michigan Film Tax Incentive and many, many other serious cuts to other programs. Even though I didn't benefit from the Film Tax Incentive, a thought came to me, “If you’re going to make something happen, make it happen NOW!”
So… Here it goes:
UTOPILAND: It was the first micro-pilot I was planning on making It has a AVATAR-sized feel to it (not blue people, I mean the scale of the story). Utopiland is the story of a world that lives in skyscrappers. The rich living on top, the poor on the bottom. It starts with a body that falls from the top of Utopiland. Who this person is and what happens to him will change his world forever.
Because of the scale of UTOPILAND, after many discussions with some CG artists, it just seemed like something way too big to tackle without a sizeable amount of money. If it was made it would probably redefine what Indie filmmakers could do, but it was just so big. Finally, after seeing MODERN TIMES, I was inspired. I figured out how to pull off this micro-pilot and make it look epic without making the work itself epic. To pull this off I am going to take another shot at the crowd funding world, but do everything different. I’m not going to just have a crowd funding campaign, but make it into something that is a real social experience where the supporters become part of the movie. Sound different? If you like this idea, let me know.
The House: This is the feature film I had struggled to make since Fall 2008. First I tried the traditional investor route, then I met a great actress/friend named Christy. We were going to have Christy play the leading lady part of Anne Peterson. But the investor money just wasn’t coming. Then I came to simple conclusion. There are tons of talented actors right here in Michigan. I had some incredible talent on AWAKENING, and that was just a small amount of the talent that is here. So, even though it would have been great to work with Christy, I finally came to a conclusion, for the sake of economics, I wouldn’t be able to work with her on this project. I would use all local actors. I am going to shoot the vast majority of the film in Michigan and make it look like Maine. Then I will shoot select scenes that have to be shot in Maine, in Greenville, Maine. I'm not well connected or rich but, like many other Indie filmmakers I know, I get really creative in what it takes to make a film look great.
If there is anything I have learned growing up it’s simply:“When things get tough, push harder”.
Below is AWAKENING for everyone who wanted to see it:
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".
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.
I've have planned for a long time to get the film to audiences in Maine. The film is set in Maine and the people there would love to see the film. But I found myself faced with a major demographic issue. Maine has a population of about 1.3 Million spread out over 35,385 sq mi. Basically the bulk of the residents are spread out all over the place. Movie theaters won't allow me to screen on Fri-Sun because of contracts with the big studios so accessibility just went out the window. Going to a movie theater on a Monday through Thursday is a major ordeal The reality is that if you took a poll most of them watch very few films in the movie theaters, but instead on a source that is much more accessible.
