First thing I wanted to announce that Julie Kendall has been attached to play the character of Anne Steavens in the TV show. Julie has so much passion and talent that every director out there should be looking at her resume. Now back to the main topic...
Naturally when people think TV show verses webseries the assumption is that the main difference between the two is broadcasting medium. It is assumed that a TV show is something you see on your TV with either cable, satellite or, back in the day, they had those antiques called "bunny ears" that hook in the back of your TV when things were analog.
But there's a problem with assuming the difference is "how it is delivered". If the deciding factor was that you had to watch it through those options then House of Cards, produced exclusively to be viewed on Netflix, shouldn't be nominated for an Emmy as a TV show. Netflix streaming is online.
So what is the major difference? The format of the script.
Webseries are shorter. A traditional TV show script is broken down as Teaser followed by 5 Acts. The act break downs were as such because of advertising, but I also find that it helps with pacing. A TV show moves faster than a movie. A TV show is traditionally 45 pages long/45 minutes long. A film traditionally goes 90-120 minutes (or if your making a tent pole movie it could go onto until eternity).
The break down of the script is the key factor on how myself, the writer/director, tells the story and how you, the audience, responds to it. Most webseries are 5-10 minutes long and really have to get to the point quickly. With a TV show script I focus on how to get to the beginning and end of an Act with a sense of mystery and urgency so that by the end of the act you're driven to go to the next one.
With AMNESIA it is a series of twists and turns. Just when you think you've figured out what's going on or who to trust then something is thrown into the mix and you become concerned with the outcome. If I had attempted to tell this as a webseries it would be novel and interesting, but it couldn't be developed the way the TV show format is set up.
In many ways I think it can be easier to do a webseries. And don't get me wrong I think there are some great webseries out there. But if I was going to go big enough and emotionally compelling enough to give this story what it deserves than I had to "go big" and it had to be written as a TV show.
By the way, my style of TV show scripts was inspired by two famous TV shows which had the same writer/director on both shows. The writer/director is now directing some of the biggest movies right now. Take a guess which two TV show scripts inspired my style for AMNESIA?
The story structure of the Amnesia TV show is designed where there are three timelines going on. The flashback to the main character's past (that tells him in pieces what happened to him and his love interest), the "Event" timeline t(hat comes in pieces telling us what led to the world) and finally the present day apocalyptic timeline of some time in the near future.
Writing that was hard, trying to figure out how to pull that off without ballooning the budget was even harder. I kept wrestling with how to do it. One part is shot on mostly a city/college campus location, another is one is a road full of smashed up cars near a major city and the third is in the forests near the mountains. Racing back and forth to the different locations per episode would just be too time consuming and expensive plus it would run the mistake of forgetting things or making small mistakes that would end up turning into bigger ones. The more I looked at the concept it seemed like a nightmare. How could I pull this off?
I had another issue. Andrew Roth, who is playing the lead Allan Carter, has to go through 3 major hair changes. These changes would be much easier done naturally than faking it. In one timeline he is a clean cut college student another one he's older with a gottee and then another he has long hair and a beard. All I could think was "continuity nightmare". A TV episode is about 45 minutes long when you take away the 15 minutes of commercial. In a 45 minute episode he's going to go through 3 hair changes and be in 3 different "worlds". If the studios did this on a per episode basis each episode would be expensive.
That's when it hit me. Don't shoot per episode. Shoot per timeline. Shoot the "Event" timeline first to draw in more interest. Then shoot the "flashback" timeline second and then third the present day "apocalyptic" timeline. By shooting it this way I would save huge on transporation, time, money and the massive headache of trying to make it work.
The other catch, spread the production schedule out so that there are months between each timeline shoot. This gives ample time to just focus on finding the locations and lining up all other necessary components per timeline. This also means that each actor just focuses on where there character is at this moment in their character's lives.
With this in mind the execution really comes down to 2 major forms of organization: the script and the storyboard. If I know exactly how the story is told per scene via the storyboard than I don't have to worry if things will flow between the timelines when they are edited together per episode because I would have already played out how the match up on paper in the drawings.
Having a TV show told in three timelines isn't easy. It's probably the reason why no one does it. The first challenge is in the writing. Many times I think that I need to put a certain amount of flashback in per episode or a certain amount of the "event" timeline into each episode. I started to realize that the decision on how much or if a certain timeline even makes it into that episode had to be something that wasn't forced but was organic. If it didn't feel natural then don't do it. There were some episodes where I said to myself, "I can't do a flashback in this one" because it just didn't feel right.
Flashbacks that just reveal info but doesn't effect the characters in the present day most audiences don't really like. They can deal with it to a certain degree, but if it's episode after episode that audience starts to get bored with the usage of it and see it as more of a gimmick designed to drag out the story with endless subplots. With Amnesia the flashbacks are the main character's thoughts, dreams, etc. Either he sees them in his dreams or he sees them when something creates a memory recognition moment. - The character sees a certain object like a special flower or a knife or a piece of clothing and he remembers a key clue about his past life.
The writing is one big challenge, but the other one is on how you produce it without blowing your
budget out of proportion?
The Amnesia TV show has been something I have both contemplated and developed since 2009. When people decide to produce a TV show they create a TV pilot (first episode) and then pitch that to the networks (if they're lucky to pitch it). They probably have a 1% chance that the pilot will ever go into pilot season and after that if it will ever get made into a season.
After debating that issue and finishing The House That Jack Broke, I realized that not only could I make the entire first season (6 episodes) but I should make the entire first season (six episodes).
AMNESIA is the story of a man who wakes up in a post-apocalyptic future with amnesia and is looking for his family despite being pursued by a ruthless army. As you'd expect there are some strange sci-fi elements that occur throughout the show.
The story is told within 3 timelines: his flashbacks of the past, "the accident" and the future. Unlike other shows that have flashbacks, like LOST, the flashbacks of this show are different. In a show like LOST the flashbacks revealed to the audience important information about a character, but those revelations about the characters didn't influence the characters own decisions in the present day. In AMNESIA the flashbacks are the main characters dreams/revelations. What he knows we know. When he realizes something about his girlfriend Jamie it influences the next decisions he makes in the present day situation. Sometimes his emotional reaction to what he remembers has dire consequences that could spell a fatal doom to one of the characters or put him in harms way.
To make sure the story comes to life the best we are pursuing actors who can perform very diverse characters. The lead character of Allan Carter will be played by Andrew Roth who has had one of the most diverse list of characters in movies that I've seen. In one character he can play tough, strong, confident and then in the next character he can play weak and fragile.
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.
