Game Changer?

GAME CHANGER-

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

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

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

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






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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts.

Blair Witch 2010: What Is Actually Possible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 1997 They shoot some footage in the woods.

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

October 1997 The bulk of the filming commnces.

Jan-Feb 1998 The second segment is cut together.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's my main point?

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Cart Before the Horse

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


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

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

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

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

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

3D: Just a Gimmick… My Review on AVATAR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three things that stuck out as storyline flaws were:

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

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

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

People Matter

One of the sayings that my kids say is, "I don't matter".  It's in referrence to the fact that we ask them if a certain person gave them permission to do something and they respond, "I don't matter".  What they are really saying is, "the person says it doesn't matter if I do it or not".  We have to keep correcting this slight miscommunication.  But each time we find ourselves emphasizing, "you do matter".  I found this simple statement, "I don't matter" to be a very profound and thought provoking statement.

In the last year or so we have seen bank bailouts, recession, unemployment, war, controversy and more and more bad news.  People have talked since I was a kid that they feel like they are a number.  Governments get bigger, corporations get bigger and people keep feeling... smaller.

The fact is that even if a large corporation or a goverment leader doesn't know your name... somebody does.  You do matter... to that person.

REM had a song with a simple message, "Everybody hurts... sometime".  It's a simple message but cuts to the heart of every human being.  Everybody does hurt... sometime.  Maybe not today...  Maybe not tomorrow...  But sometime...

There was a story of a very sucessful wrestling coach who was admired by many.  He had a great young family and great job.  But one day, just before Christmas, something happened.  I don't know the particulars.  Maybe an argument.  Maybe not.  But something sparked something inside him and he killed his family, lit his house on fire, and killed himself.  It was a shocking story of sadness.  It didn't have to happen that way.

Many people in this holiday season are struggling with loss, pain and frustration.  It has been a difficult year for many.  Some it's a job situation, or lack of one.  Some it's seeing their hopes and dreams desimated by the recession.  Like sandcastles being washed away by the sea these dreams seemed to just erode over time.  Others it could be a personal loss, like a loved one that died.  But the simple truth is that there are a lot of people hurting...  A lot of pain.

It's easy to paint on a smile...  We, as humans, can sometimes go about normal life like actors on a stage... We put on a good show... Sometimes its just enough to get through another day...  But one of the points to this blog is to simply state to those dealing with pain, loss and frustration: You do matter.

Even if you only touched one life in this world... you brought joy... you brought something special to that person...  You do matter!

When you go about the hustle and bustle of the holiday season try to give someone a smile.  Maybe wish them a Merry Christmas or Happy Holiday or just to have a great day... or anything else that you like to tell people in this time of year.  A smile is like a rainbow after a stormy day.  You can't imagine what a kind word can do for someone aching inside.  Try to give a listening ear to someone who is crying out for some attention.  There have been many times that I have found that people just wanted sometime to listen.  You can be that someone.  This time of year should be less about us and more about others.  And remember:

People Matter... I matter.. you matter... we're not numbers... or faces... or just names on lists... We matter.  People Matter.

J.W.B.