Green Screen Cinema

Bargain Basement HD

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:20:39 -0400

Here at GreenScreenCinema we are continually seeking out new, afforable ways to shoot in HD. Until recently the Canon HV-20 was our camera of choice. With its HDV format (1440x1080 pixles) you could produce a faux 1920x1080 image that looked almost as good as the real thing. And with its $700 price point you could simply not find a cheaper way to shoot HD. Then the Flip camera came along. Then Flip HD. Then Creative Labs' Vado HD. Now you can shoot a low-end HD image (1280x720) for $122 dollars. The mind, as they say, boggles at the thought. But are the cameras any good? We shot a test video with the Vado HD to find out. The result, 'Squirrel Cemetery', can be found at the top of this article. Take a look for yourself and decide if the world as we know it has completely changed (I think it has).

The Vado HD was a real find. The camera captures a 1280x720 image, yet the image is so crisp that it actually looks better when blown up to 1920x1080. I strongly recommend turning off any post-production filtering of the image, as well. The individual frames are very distinct, with little to no image blur. I found that the standard frame interpolation provided by Abode Premiere actually degraded the image. The reason for this is the real world camera motion (jitter) that occurs in-between frames is much greater than Adobe's blur algorithm can compensate for. As a result the frame interpolation left a difficult-to-encode blur on the otherwise crystal clear image. When I turned off Adobe's frame interpolation I ended up with a much cleaner looking encode.

The camera jitter largely resulted from the weight of the camera. At only 100 grams you'll have a bit of an issue stabilizing the thing. This results in the kind of motion in between frames that was previously associated with a lower frame rate (i.e. 24 fps). While this does frustrate interpolation filters, it results in an image that looks like film. Its a very specific look that could only previously be achieved by shooting with a larger time interval between exposures (allowing real world actions to progress further in-between frames). But now you can have both a full frame rate and some nice, distinct motion in-between frames (due to the fact that you can't hold the thing straight).

You can, of course, lock the camera down and work around the weight issue (the Vado HD comes with a tripod screw-mount). But this would remove an interesting effect that is a result of the technology itself. It's wonderful when a new invention imposes something upon the medium. In the same way that consumer VHS opened up audiences to a different color range (and resolution) the current generation of lighter-than-air cameras bring something new to the medium as well. The motion in-between frames requires the viewer to spend additional cycles processing the image when it hits the retina. For some viewers this will cause them to be more engaged; for others it may be a complete turn off. Either way it's a new effect that all palm cameras will share (until image stabilization makes it way down to the bargain basement).

I hope filmmakers give this new technology a chance. The medium is changing and audiences are already becoming accustomed to the new language of web video. By shooting a high quality image with a light camera one can produce an authentic jitter that will resonate with audiences. The Vado HD does all this for less than the day rate of a single SAG extra. Why not send one background actor home and give it a shot instead? Those guys never eat at the right craft services table anyway.

Animation with Adobe Premiere Pro

Sat, 19 Sep 2009 11:46:16 -0400

This article describes the trials and tribulations associated with animating a short film using Adobe Premiere Pro. Ah frame animation, how I love thee so! One can easily get lost in the process of slowly, carefully assembling 15 individual frames to yield one second of screen time. I think Studio Ghibli must have at least one psychologist on staff to keep the interns from leaping out the windows. But the motion you end up with makes all the effort worthwhile. Take a look at this clip from Ponyo and you'll see what I mean. The water moves like it has a purpose, not like some particle simulation.

Long ago I took on a project that required I hand draw every single frame. When it came time to commit the frames to film I had a stack of cells that was over five feet high. The monumental hassle of dealing with physical cells pretty much convinced me to stick with computer-based animation from that day forward. In the ensuing years a number of 2-D animation programs came and went, but none had the power or control of my favorite program, Adobe Photoshop. Then Adobe came out with Creative Suite 3, a release in which Adobe Photoshop files could finally be integrated into Adobe Premiere Pro projects. Had I finally entered Nirvana?

The integration of Adobe Photoshop into Adobe Premiere is extraordinarily tight. Once a Photoshop image is placed in a Premiere timeline, that image can be clicked on and the Photoshop user-interface will launch. You can then edit the image in Photoshop and see the effects of your work on the movie in real time. So it's kind of a dream come true.

The only drawback to animating in this fashion is that the developers at Adobe never, ever considered that a filmmaker would have thousands of elements in a project. Well, to be fair, there probably were a few developers sitting around saying,"You know if you ship this it will totally blow up at around 10,000 elements." And then some program manager said to the developers,"Get back in your cave! What? You guys talk? I thought we only hired deaf-mutes around here."

In my sample project I have a new element every 2 frames, so the total element count is pretty high. After a few thousand elements Premiere simply will not start up. I literally have to go get coffee and come back 15 minutes later to see if the program has finally opened. There are some ways to work around this. Adobe allows for timelines inside of timelines, so to get around the element limitation you can actually work on a few smaller projects and then assemble them together at the end. The only problem with this is knowing when you've reached the end. Once all the scenes come together you'll want to keep tweaking the animation, but the beast you have stitched together cannot be easily tamed.

There are some tricks for taming the beast. Adobe employ a caching algorithm that allows you to easily work with the elements you have recently seen. So you'll need to watch the section of animation you want to work with a couple of times first, in order to get it loaded into memory. At that point you can make changes and see the results, but only in that section. The rest of the project will still playback in a jittery manner.

If programming key frames is like a soft summer wind then frame by frame animation is a tornado that rips up a trailer park. The sheer scale of the challenge can level whatever resources you throw at it. While Adobe has not created the world's greatest frame animation package, they are certainly getting close. Hopefully in Creative Suite 4 they can start to work some of these kinks out.

Josh Olson is not going to read your script

Sun, 13 Sep 2009 15:05:33 -0400

Here at Free Film School we try to give you the best possible advice without a hint of derision or sarcasm. We do this because we know that once you get on set you'll probably face nothing but derision. Not because you're doing a poor job. But because that's the nature of the business. There are simply too many applicants for the limited number of jobs that exist. And there is literally nothing to differentiate one applicant from another. So those in power can say and do whatever they want. They'll simply replace you if you ask for more than your daily allotment of gruel. Which brings us to the curious case of Josh Olson ("A History of Violence"), a successful screenwriter that absolutely will not read your script. How do I know that Josh will not read your script? Because he published a lengthy article in the Village Voice this week titled I Will Not Read Your F*cking Script. So I'm pretty sure he will not read your script. Here are some excerpts from his diatribe:

OK, so clearly Josh has some personal problems to work out. The first of which is to not call every reader of the Village Voice a dick. But personal problems aside, this tirade should give you a good preview of what the industry has in store for you. You can easily find rejection at all levels of the business. You can get yelled at for grabbing candy from the wrong craft services table (union productions have two!). The only solution to this mess is to find a skill that you are good at, that you are happy to perform even while people are yelling at you.

You have to read your own script. Because Josh Olson certainly won't.

Sony Takes Custody of "Kids"

Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:52:56 -0400

You know times are tough when a major multi-national corporation tries to gain custody of your viral video. But that's what I discovered when I logged into YouTube the other day. Sony had claimed full rights to a video I made last year and was running ads over the video. Why is Sony pursuing "Kids"? I think it has something to do with scale. YouTube is a site that is manned by just a few developers and yet contains the output of millions of independent video producers. The challenge of managing that much data is daunting, to say the least. It also turns out to be not very profitable. As a result YouTube has come to the conclusion that they need studio content in order to monetize the site. Their desire for commercial content is so strong, in fact, that it has caused them to hand a huge amount of power over to the studios. Witness the loss of my video, "If Kids Ruled the World".

I produced "If Kids Ruled the World" for a local film festival that celebrates Earth Day, called the Greenlight Film Festival. Prior to shooting I obtained: permission for the location, signed releases from all the actors and sync rights for the classical music featured in the video (from ProductionTrax.com). I made the day, as they say, and got all the shots I wanted. The film came together nicely and won 2nd place at the festival. It has played on YouTube for a year and racked up 5,724 views. Not a hit by any means, but at least it delivered its message about the problems associated with single-use plastic bags out to a few thousand people.

Then, about a week ago, YouTube allowed Sony, Universal and other major studios to start "claiming" videos on the site that featured music from their respective labels (this process had existed previously but was not employed en masse). The "claim" is different from a take-down request. In a take-down request the video disappears from the site and the YouTube user is then given options for replacing the soundtrack. YouTube provides an excellent tool for dealing with take-down requests; it features a library of music that the accused can select a similar song from and then allows that person to replace the disputed music. All at no cost to the user. This process favors the YouTube user, since it allows the disputed video to be "cleaned" of any possible copyright claim and immediately placed back on the site.

My video was not taken down. The monetary use of my video was taken away from me and given to Sony. This is the first step in the "claim" process. Now when I go to view the video I see a huge ad for Sony's version of "Figaro" plastered all over the screen.

There is a page on the YouTube site that explains to users that if they want their videos back they should probably consult a lawyer. The page literally says "you should seek legal counsel before submitting a dispute".

YouTube has given the power to "claim" videos to the studios, and the studios are using that power to take control of the site's videos. Because the site's users generally do not keep legal counsel on retainer they stand at a huge disadvantage. They immediately lose monetary control of their creation and they have to shell out money to an attorney (per the site recommendation) to get it back. The process favors the studios, to say the least.

The funny thing is, I don't blame Sony in the least bit. The studios have every right to assert the copyright of their content. I've actually spent a considerable amount of time helping Sony get into the online video space. But my work involved the digital rights management of content that was clearly owned by Sony. The problem that YouTube is struggling with involves re-purposed content with a dubious ownership chain.

Solving the ownership issue by handing the content over to the studios is not the answer, however. In my case the ProductionTrax.com license I purchased covers my use of "Figaro". But even the unlicensed use of content may be fair if there is limited "effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work". It's an exciting field of law that I literally cannot get anyone else interested in. Maybe it needs snappier dance numbers.

I say let Sony keep my "Kids". I'm certain that after spending some time with my kids, Sony will want to return them.

G.I. Joe Grips Theaters

Mon, 10 Aug 2009 12:19:16 -0400

This review is going to date me a bit, but when I was growing up the country was under the control of hardcore conservatives that wanted nothing more than to go to war with Nicaragua. During that time, also known as the Reagan years, the idea of a toy that was associated with the military was repugnant. Since that time the nation's morals have changed, so much so that a movie about a child's military toy just raked in $56.2 million at the box office. Let's try to figure out what ingredients Paramount put into the genius stew they served up this weekend. The first key ingredient in "G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra" appears to be hundreds of well-executed special effects. In the film's 107 minute running time there were only a few minutes that did not feature some kind of effect. And every frame went through heavy color correction. The film is a triumph of science.

Next, the film includes that time-honored, teen staple: the objectification of women! Throughout the film the female characters, who are in ever-present danger of catching a chest cold, are treated like conquests. Duke's partner, Ripcord, is "going in" and "just has to take a shot" with co-worker Scarlett (pictured above). The fact that Scarlett is busy working out (in another pneumonia-inducing outfit) doesn't really matter, since she's a target. She's there to be targeted.

In a disturbing twist on cinema's normally benign misogyny, "G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra" posits that once a woman becomes truly educated, she loses all ability to feel emotion. The film doesn't get into the details of this philosophy, all we know is that Scarlett graduated from college at the age of 12 and as a result of all those smarts she is completely lacking in emotion. The film actually portrays Scarlett as highly dysfunctional (when it comes to human interaction). The subtext is that a smart woman is not a complete woman: that a woman should not be educated. Luckily Ripcord teaches her to love by continually hitting on her and objectifying her throughout the film. So there's kind of a happy ending there, as long as you're not a woman. Or have any concept of justice. Or humanity.

Friends, let me tell you that I do not come to bury G.I. Joe, but to praise him. This work of art demonstrates that a studio without artistic guidance, adrift on the currents of despair, is able to cling on to a scrap of driftwood and ride it all the way to box office glory. Once Spielberg left the Paramount lot a number of insiders were saying the studios' days were numbered. And then, after Paramount chieftain Sumner Redstone had to sell off the family jewels, it seemed like nothing was holding the empire up but the revenue stream from Dora re-runs. But those few remaining employees on the lot held on to the family recipe and used it well. They sprinkled one part buxom female co-stars into a stew of technical excellence, to produce something that will generate returns for years to come.

The lesson here, I think, is that story doesn't matter, but story structure does. G.I. Joe sets up and pays off scenes like an old lady at a slot machine. It keeps the action moving and the budget on the screen. For all of its misogynistic, pro-war leanings it still is a pretty film to watch.

Solid State 3D

Fri, 31 Jul 2009 19:46:06 -0400

Plus Productions talks with One Creation Limited front man John Stanhope about plans for a solid state stereoscopic camera.

Plus Productions: so, tell us a bit about yourself.

Stanhope: Well, I'm from Boston,Mass, I
have a company called One Creation Limited,
We deal in Graphic Design, Web Development, and
Media Design, we also work on Hardware
solutions, as far as my film background i directed
an AFA award winning film, titled "The Truth" in 2006,
and spent some time with NYFA in New york city.
I have experience working in both
16mm and 35mm formats, as well as DV and RED.

PP:For those out there that don't know,
What is a Stereoscopic Camera?

Stanhope: A "Stereoscopic Camera" is the
technical term for a 3D camera,
standard 3D cameras work by recording side
by side images ofthe same subject, although
sometimes other forms are available in which a
single camera is set up on a rig that turns it
vertically against a 45 degree mirror.

PP: Solid state?

Stanhope: Well, Solid State just refers to the
fact that the camera uses no tapes, they operate
by storing directly into a memory chip, or
SDRAM (Synchronous Dynamic Random
Access Memory) that works somewhat like that in
a computer. there are already of plenty of consumer
grade HD and SD video cameras that are
optimizing solid state technology, referring to them
as "hard drive" cameras, such as the
Sony DCR and the JVC Verio series.

PP: what makes your design idea unique?

Stanhope: when I started thinking about
it, I honestly thought our design options were
limited, but as I dug further down, I noticed
that we could modernize the design by separating
the machine into two, the two imaging heads
are bracketed up front while the storage device
can be mounted underneath, or behind the
optics, with a much more flexible system, we are
ultimately making it more feasible to use the OptiMax
Camera in tight operating space, or on very
careful and particular situations where a larger
camera may not fit into the equation.

PP: Is there anything [hardware wise]
that sets the Optimax aside from other rigs?

Stanhope: Well one feature about the camera,
is that it runs off of a TOF measurement principle,
(TOF is based on the Finite Speed of light which
is c ≅ 3�10 ms-1ϕ: Phase delay arising
from the object�s distance, and then a Hemodyne
Shift occurs) another is the use of an extremely
accurate 2D phase and RF phase meter.
As far as the Censors themselves the camera
unit itself will optimize 3- 2048x2048 CMOS
sensors x 2 operating at 3.5μm.

PP: are there plans for distribution of this camera yet?

Stanhope: well the camera is still in the design
phase, but if everything works smoothly
we may be looking at a prototype
in 6-8 months. ■

Free Film School: How to Distribute Your Film Over the Internet

Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:43:21 -0400

Wondering how you are going to get your film out into the wild? Victor Zimet and Stephanie Silber had the same thought on their minds after winning the Best Documentary prize at the Westchester International Film Festival (back in 2007). Though they had a film festival win under their belts they couldn't land a distribution deal. The filmmakers told Studio Daily,"We went to the usual suspects, including HBO and Sundance Channel, and met with the same result as 99 percent of filmmakers, which is �thanks, but we�re not interested,�" says Zimet. Rather than throw in the towel, Zimet and Silber decided to fight their way in with whatever techniques they could pick up along the way. "It has been an adventure, a struggle and a lot of effort with some positive results along a rocky road of rejection," he says.

"We came out with a film each year for three years in a row," explains Zimet. "We realized we had to pull back from making films and instead figure out the distribution part of it. If we didn�t do it, no one else was going to. We�ve made peace with that. I�ve actually gotten into it, though it�s a real challenge to be successful."

Studio Daily went on to describe how much of their effort centered around getting their film "Random Lunacy" into film festivals, building up favorable reviews and attracting people to the filmmakers' web site. These three things helped drive DVD sales. And that put the filmmakers on the verge of signing a distribution deal to sell their DVDs online through Amazon, Barnes & Noble and Best Buy.

In the Studio Daily article the filmmakers insisted that the first thing you have to do is overcome your fear of rejection. "For every film festival we get into, we�re probably rejected by four," says Zimet. "For every critic we write to try and get a review, most don�t write us back." At first the rejections can be overwhelming, but the more you do it, the more you take it in stride. "Today we wrote to a sailing magazine because our main character sailed the Atlantic on a raft made of junk," he says. "Another film site has had our film for a while, and I was wondering when the review is going to show up. Every day, it�s what baby steps can we take to keep moving this along."

Zimet recommends two Web sites for independents looking to promote their films or videos. The first is Film Specific. "It�s run by Stacey Parks, who has a lot of experience on the distribution and marketing side of the business, but is totally accessible to people trying to fight their way into the marketplace," he explains. The second is Brave New Theaters. "Through that, we got an art house in Indiana to play the film for a night," he says. "Through word of mouth, the film played a night at another art house in Phoenix."

The downside to one-night stands is getting press coverage. "The newspapers aren�t interested if it�s a one night thing," he says. In that situation, Zimet and Silber will often work directly with the theater owner, who might publicize the screening through an e-mail list.

Don�t assume a traditional theatrical run is the ultimate goal for a successful independent production. "Having done a lot of research over the past year or two, I found out that theatrical runs exist basically to sink money into advertising to help support your eventual DVD release," he explains. "Very few independents actually make money that way."

Zimet and Silber are using Film Baby for fulfillment. "We ship the DVDs to Film Baby, and people order the film through our Web site," he says. "Film Baby collects the money, ships the DVD and takes out four bucks for the sale." Zimet and Silber had artists design the cover, and they order 500 or 1,000 discs at a time from Disc Makers. "The DVD looks exactly like a studio release," he adds. The Random Lunacy DVD sells for $19.99.

How are the sales going? "We�re not selling a ton of DVDs," says Zimet. "On the other hand, we�re selling them worldwide. Every day, we go online and check the store to see where people have bought from."

Another method for DVD distribution involves disc-on-demand manufacturing. CustomFlix, co-founded by Dana LoPiccolo-Giles back in 2002, was created to introduce just-in-time manufacturing to the indie film business. Amazon purchased the company in 2005 and relaunched it as CreateSpace, though the mission has remained essentially the same. "We felt that there weren�t a lot of options for filmmakers trying to monetize their work," explains LoPiccolo-Giles. "Traditional distribution works great for certain applications, but it�s not a great solution for the independent filmmaker."

With CreateSpace, your video is uploaded to Amazon.com and listed as a regular title. "We store everything on servers, and it�s produced just-in-time for each customer order," says LoPiccolo-Giles. "No inventory is involved, so there are no upfront costs for the filmmaker. There�s no risk. If the thing doesn�t sell, you�re not stuck with thousands of them sitting in your garage."

(Editor's note: There is one drawback you should be aware of when employing Amazon as your distribution agent. Amazon takes a majority of the revenue. The CreateSpace royalty schedule (below) shows that each Amazon sale will cost you 45% of revenue + an additional $4.95. On a $19.99 title that results in 70% of the revenue going to Amazon.)

At least the relationship is non-exclusive. You retain all rights and can leave the program at any time. "Historically, the creative community has been taken advantage of by traditional distribution and publication models," says LoPiccolo-Giles. "It was important to us that our members expand their reach, maintain control and keep their options open." Every time a unit is sold, you pay Amazon a manufacturing fee. "There�s also a percentage of the sales price, depending on the sales channel you�ve chosen to sell through. Importantly, the members set their own list price."

While your DVD will be available to millions of Amazon customers, you�ll still have to get the word out. "There�s a common misconception in the filmmaking community that if you make it, they will come," says LoPiccolo-Giles. "That happens to some degree, but the people who are most successful using this service will go out and promote it. They might use Google AdWords or form strategic partnerships. Some of our filmmakers have gotten really creative in how they drive up awareness."

One of the success stories is the 2006 hockey documentary, In the Crease. It has grossed more than $500,000, with most of the revenue passing through CreateSpace. "For a while, it was Amazon�s bestselling sports DVD," says LoPiccolo-Giles. The filmmakers Matt Gannon and Michael Sarner swapped a promo on the DVD for access to the National Hockey League�s e-mail list. They also ran an ad in USA Hockey Magazine and reached out to newspapers, equipment suppliers and even small, independent sports shops.

YouTube is another viable distribution channel, especially now that it has added the option, like Vimeo before it and most recently Facebook, to stream in 720p HD. With YouTube, however, you�re limited by length (10 minutes max) and you�ll still have to compete with millions of other clips.

(Editor's note: Another major drawback to YouTube as a distribution channel is that filmmakers only see a small cut of ad revenue (and only after reaching Partner status). In the case of "Random Lunacy" the filmmakers simply used YouTube to raise awareness of their film.)

A better option may be to stream the video from your own Web site, but pay a specialized company to host the video. Fliqz charges a monthly fee for its services. Its customers include independent filmmakers, the Mill Valley Film Festival and The Film Arts Foundation.

"Everything that we do is package- priced," says Benjamin Wayne, CEO for Fliqz. "It starts at $99 a month, and it can go up to several thousand dollars a month for things we do for Major League Baseball or VH1." Most customers pay less than $200 a month for an end-to-end solution. "Many filmmakers don�t care about things like having the player branded in a particular look-and-feel, or having community features such as sharing or reposting, although for filmmakers who are interested in viral distribution, we do offer features that allow for the film to be reposted by others, shared by e-mail or offer rating capabilities."

What advice does Wayne give filmmakers who want to put their video online, hoping for it to go viral? "Make sure that in editing and distributing a film online, you�ve done the things that make it appropriate for an online experience," he says. "Long shots are hard. Pans are hard. The frame size is much smaller, so take that into account."

Also expect your audience to have a short attention span. "The typical consumption length is about 90 seconds," explains Wayne. "You tend to have significant drop off in viewership after that, so 90 seconds is the magic length for people who want to do clips from a feature film." Otherwise only a minority of viewers will make it to the end of your clip. Fliqz tracks each online viewing experience and issues reports on when viewers abandon a clip. "We can help filmmakers figure out how to tune their clips based on viewer behavior."

Whether these techniques will work for you may depend on whether you see the glass as half full or half empty. "Everything we do brings a little bit of success," says Home Team Productions� Zimet. "If we try this, and it�s not as great a success as we thought it was going to be, I still think there�s something in it that did succeed. I�ll take it for that in my most positive moments, and just say, OK, let�s move on."

(Editor's analysis: So how do you convince an audience that's become accustomed to free video to nonetheless pay for your video? That's the question that keeps studio execs up at night. The approach championed by Zimet and Silber in the Studio Daily article (using internet exposure to drive DVD sales) is a good short-term solution. It works because consumers are still willing to pay for a physical disc, however online video is quickly putting an end to that notion. This year alone DVD sales are down 13.5%; it's only a matter of time before the DVD business evaporates altogether.

But the dark days are not yet upon us, and there are at least two promising revenue models on the horizon. Both ad-supported content (the YouTube model) and subscription content (the Fancast model) look promising. One of these revenue models should grow to maturity before the DVD becomes a thing of the past. Keep a close eye on what Comcast does with Fancast. Comcast's strong relationship with content providers could take internet video to a whole new level.

With so many new opportunities opening up it's imperative that filmmakers learn how to pull the levers that the internet offers to drive demand. Below are some of the resources you should be familiar with to survive in this brave new world.)

Random Lunacy Resources

Festivals that will help out indie filmmakers

Reviewers that will help out indie filmmakers

Distribution Resources

Hosting Resources

Marketing Resources

CopyFight! YouTube Takes on Disney

Sat, 11 Jul 2009 15:51:27 -0400

It appears that YouTube is headed for a new copyright fight with Disney as a result of the actions of a small, Canada-based YouTube Partner. The question at the heart of this fight is whether a website in Canada can charge consumers for access to Disney videos (for which the site has no licensing rights). The site, Totlol.com, seems to think the answer is yes. The site gained access to the Disney content by joining the YouTube Partner program and now charges members a monthly fee for access to the content. Though the fees do not flow back to YouTube, the videos are streamed by YouTube, embroiling YouTube in the dispute. The description of the Totlol.com service states that it is, in fact, a YouTube proxy. From the Totlol.com About page:

Registered users can link their Totlol account to their YouTube account and establish an authenticated and secured connection between Totlol's' web server and YouTube's' web server. The two servers can then communicate on their behalf. Has YouTube crossed the line from aggregator to profiteer? Since the money that Totlol.com makes does not pass back to YouTube the chances of this are slim. YouTube doesn't seem to get anything out of the deal, but by allowing a partner in Canada to charge for U.S. content it certainly raises some interesting legal questions. Could this be a test case?

If it's a test case then it's a rather poor one. The site in question claims to only offer content for children, but it also happens to sell access to videos by Bruce Springsteen...

and Michael Jackson...

Ironically, one of the Michael Jackson videos on the site is owned by the Walt Disney Company (the video third from the left). Maybe this site is specifically going after Disney. If that's the case I doubt the YouTube legal team has been informed. The site's owner, only known as Ron, put up the following terms of service in which he attempts to explain that the site is powered by YouTube but that consumers are not buying the videos directly (with their fees). However nothing else of significance can be done on the site (other than watch videos) so I think the guy is on shaky legal ground.

Is Ron a rogue agent, pushing the limits of the YouTube Partner program, or is this all a part of the plan? This week YouTube scored a victory in its long running copyright case when a judge ruled that content owners couldn't request damages for videos with non-U.S. copyrights. Is YouTube trying to leverage the non-U.S. angle by violating copyright in Canada now? The answer is almost certainly no, but if YouTube continues to allow Totlol.com to charge for content for which it has no licensing rights the content community will continue to wonder if the answer is yes.

YouTube Shows Debut To Empty House

Fri, 05 Jun 2009 20:26:00 -0400

You might have heard that YouTube is moving into long-form content. They've been acquiring low-budget episodics and back-catalog film titles and have created a new page on their site to highlight the buys called the Shows page. While I am excited to see YouTube try new things, the mix of titles is truly baffling. On the one hand they feature Funimation titles like Full Metal Panic and Fullmetal Alchemist (which were huge hits in Japan) right next to the worst web series ever produced by man, Gemini Division. And then there's the obligatory National Geographic content, which is so overexposed that they will soon be giving away the online distribution rights as a prize at the bottom of cereal boxes.

The reviews of the Shows page have not been kind. "It was," one viewer commented, "like watching the Lusitania go down." When dissecting a failure of this magnitude a good starting place is the question of motivation. Why does YouTube need to tweak the 5.9 billion streams they serve up each month toward longer-form content? Don't they already own a pretty good space? Haven't they figured out some way to profit from that monster-sized audience?

It turns out that even after all this time YouTube still does not generate anything close to the revenue they need to operate. Bloomberg reported the other day that YouTube only sells ads against 3% of all videos on the site. Which means that 97% of their operating costs are walking out the door and never coming back.

The reason advertisers are staying away in droves is that YouTube doesn't offer what they want: a well-known entity, with guaranteed output and a clear-cut demographic. The closest thing the site has to a known entity is Michael Buckley, a man who produces titles like "VIRGIN JONAS BROTHERS! Miley Cyrus - YOU TUBE SKANK" (which was a huge hit, by the way). Though I really like Michael's work I don't think YouTube is going to win the Disney account with that kind of output.

And thus, YouTube came to understand that although they had been making fun of (and illegally distributing) studio content since day one, they actually could not live without it. With the hot breath of the market on their necks, YouTube sought out the same producers they had scorned. The results of their labors are telling. In an industry built on relationships, you can't get anything accomplished once you've shown bad faith. The paucity of content on the Shows page suggests that there's been some very bad faith indeed.

Can technology dig YouTube out of this hole? I've always believed that with the right interface (which includes a social component) and advanced targeting you could take a paltry sum of content and make it appear to be a king's ransom. In the early days that's just what YouTube did. Though you might not have liked the content on YouTube's home page, it was easy to find members that thought the way you did, and find content that appealed to you. It was a wonderful experience, nothing like the dated, linear TV experience. So now that YouTube has set its sight on broad content have they been able to take the enjoyable elements of narrowcasting (which they essentially invented) and apply it to the broadcasting experience? Can they overcome their leper status in the industry and turn coal into diamonds?

Here is a screenshot of the landing page for one of YouTube's best long-form offerings:

Its perhaps the worst entertainment-related UI I have ever seen. And I've seen some bad UI. I've built some too, and as an expert in this field (bad UI, that is) let me say that the cardinal rule of displaying content is that you do not cut off the description in mid-sentence. In the Shows UI, not only do they cut off the description in mid-sentence but there is no way to continue reading the description that's been cut off! Let me explain why this is so important.

Fullmetal Alchemist is a gem, a jewel, a brilliant series that has grabbed the hearts and minds of Japan's youth. It is also one of the most complicated anime series out there. Not just in terms of plot, but also in terms of the physics of the Fullmetal Alchemist universe. The series (which has seen many installments) jumps back and forth between Earth, Earth's past and the Fullmetal world using a technology called transmutation. It's a hard sell, to say the least. The only information that YouTube gives you about this sleeper hit is "(the characters) hoped to resurrect their mother's corpse when they attempted human transmutation but their reckless defiance of alchemy's Law of Equi..."

I think YouTube has created the perfect example of how not to sell anime. After reading this description I think most viewers will conclude the series is about gravediggers, and move on. If a viewer did stick around he or she would then notice that there is no additional information regarding the series, all of the episode titles are cut off and there is no social element to the page whatsoever. It's not like this is rocket science. For example, here is a landing page at one my favorite long-form sites, Strike.TV:

Notice the high quality graphics used to sell the series, the easy access to synopsis information and the social element. All of these things make the viewer want to stay on the page, which ultimately leads to more engagement with the site. Now imagine what would happen if YouTube tried to sell the exact same content:

Sadly, this is not a doctored image. The exact same web property, Imaginary Bs, has a home on both Strike.TV and YouTube. The Strike.TV presence is engaging and high quality, while the YouTube presence is littered with porn ads. It appears that the drive to profitability is degrading the YouTube experience. In the case of Imaginary Bs the social element is being turned against YouTube, and in the case of the Shows page it's been turned off altogether (with only an empty shell of a page remaining).

Will YouTube ever get the monetization of web video right? If even a smidgeon of the 753,976 viewers that visited the Imaginary Bs' YouTube page clicked on the Wicked ad then someone did make a pile of money. But clearly the experience is lacking. The exact same video is much more enjoyable when sold properly, as Strike.TV manages to do. Once YouTube tries to move out of its comfort zone and into long-form content they will find that the selling of the content is almost as important as the delivery of it.

Terminator Salvation's Theory of Time Travel

Sun, 31 May 2009 22:21:45 -0400

This is supposed to be a blog about filmmaking, but the films being made this year are so bad that I just can't keep quiet. Take for example Terminator Salvation and it's theory of time travel. In the movie John Connor lives in a world in which Judgement Day took place (contrary to the plot of Terminator 2, which averted Judgement Day). John's father (Kyle Reese) lives in this world as well, so John's father has not yet jumped back in time to 1984 (an event which kicks off the first Terminator movie). John is aware that Kyle is his father and is about to jump back in time, but hasn't bothered to look him up. But John is worried that if Kyle doesn't jump back in time he might not be born. Are you with me so far? Because I'm already lost, and I've seen every film in the franchise. It's pretty bad when the faithful can't even follow your plot. The most problematic element is the film's theory of time travel. The film seems to suggest that if Kyle is killed in the present (2018) he will not be able to jump back in time and create his son, who is also alive in the present, and so his son will disappear. It's a ridiculous plot. And, furthermore, I believe the law of conservation of mass states that a Hollywood A-lister cannot disappear from a $200 million picture regardless of the jeopardy the writers come up with.

Well, OK, maybe that's not exactly what the law of conservation of mass states. But it does state that a living, breathing human is not going to simply disappear, because the universe has to account for the matter. In the first Terminator film the son (John Connor) has not yet been born, and so the Terminator's attempt to kill the woman who will give birth to him seems to make some sense. In Terminator Salvation the son is just sitting there, safe in some bunker, wondering if he is going to disappear. Ridiculous and not entertaining in the least.

But this small lapse in judgement is not what drove me to sit down tonight and type out this blog post. What comes next truly boggles the mind. In the film, the evil Skynet system is aware that Kyle is going to jump back in time and launches an all-out offensive to find him. This impossible notion is what drives the rest of the film. I literally could not believe that I had paid to watch this thing. The film suggests that events that had not yet happened, that only one man could possibly be aware of (i.e. John Connor, who's mother told him about the first Terminator) were the core motivation of the villian. How in the world could Skynet know that Kyle would eventually be John Connor's father? He hadn't jumped back in time yet. How could Skynet know about something that hadn't happened yet? And in the lore of the Terminator franchise, Kyle is only able to jump back in time using Skynet's time machine. If Skynet is totally omniscient maybe they could just skip that time machine project altogether (if they're so worried about Kyle).

I think Terminator Salvation has helped to create the first law of Hollywood Time Travel: a jeopardy in the past makes sense, because the future is at risk. A jeopardy in the future makes no sense whatsoever.

P.S. For a great example of time travel mechanics make sure to see the Star Trek reboot that is in theaters now. The plot is based on a time traveling miner that wants revenge. The plot is so intelligent that as soon as the miner has an impact on the timeline (by killing a key character) the entire anthology of the series is thrown out and new territory is charted. The plot understands that characters affected by a timeline alteration would not have knowledge of the future they are missing out on. The film even makes fun of the notion that an encounter between a future self and a present-day self might cause a timeline catastrophy (characters literally laugh at this notion).

Terminator Salvation, I think they are laughing at you.

Compositing a Green Screen with Adobe Ultra CS3

Fri, 22 May 2009 23:20:06 -0400

I finally got my hands on the new Adobe Creative Studio 3 and spent a couple evenings with the Studio's green screen product, which for some reason is called Ultra CS3. (Isn't that a detergent?) After producing a number of green screen clips I can confirm that Ultra CS3 delivers crisp, attractive composites with a sound element mangled so badly you'll think the Siegfried & Roy tigers got to it.

The highlight of this package is the gorgeous interface that Ultra provides. The keyer controls (shown above) are quite impressive. There are sliders that control the alpha curve and sensitivity of your matte, so you can easily wrangle your matte into shape. There are highlight and shadow sliders that allow you to control whether or not the shadows falling on the green screen will appear in the final composite. All told there are 14 controls that allow you to tweak the way your content blends in with the background. Which makes it really simple to produce great looking composites that (for some reason) end up being totally out of sync with the audio track.

It appears that Adobe has made a green screen product for people that can read lips. It's really inexcusable and makes the end product very hard to work with (you'll need to re-sync your audio outside of Ultra). I should also note that there appears to be some degree of shrinkage in your top layer element after the composite, but Adobe allows you to compensate for this with a scale control (so you can blow that layer back up, but you end up with a pixelated top layer as a result). The end result is a loss of fidelity in both the audio and the visual elements of the original source. The audio issue is repairable, but the image size problem is a one way trip. Trying to fix this with the scale control will result in a clearly degraded source.

There is one advanced feature that involves tracking shots. In Ultra CS3 tracking shots are possible with static video elements. Ultra can manipulate your top layer element (i.e. the subject) so that it properly travels with your background. Here's an example of this feature (called the Trak feature) with a Virtual Set that ships with the Ultra product. This is also a great example of the sync problem, as you'll hear the soundtrack fall further and further behind. By the end of the 26 second clip the audio is already about a second late.

Adobe Ultra CS3 sample output

It's easy to fall in love with this product while going through the compositing process and then fall completely out of love when you see the results (Adobe, I want my CDs back). If Adobe ever resolves the audio sync issues Ultra could mature into a great product, but for now I think the relationship is over.

Gabriel Snyder: The most powerful man in online media

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 23:06:47 -0400

You know that little section in Variety that details the weekend's box office numbers? Apparently some guy's entire job is to enter that data into the Variety publishing system. And the guy that had that job back in 2007 is now the most powerful man in online media. I know, funny story, right? There's more. On occasion I post links to my blog at Valleywag.com, a gossip rag that covers the film business. For a while they had some of the best new media coverage out there. Then the recession hit and Valleywag let all the writers go (except for one very, very good writer named Owen Thomas). Owen tried to keep the ship afloat, but one man can only do so much. The final nail in the coffin was the day they hired the data entry guy at Variety (Gabriel Snyder) to run the entire publication. Most people gave the site a week, two tops, before it closed shop.

Then a funny thing happened. It turned out that you can run an entire site with only one blogger. Now keep in mind, Owen�s a very, very good blogger. But his boss (Gabriel Snyder) appears to be a nitwit. And now with the page views that Owen Thomas is turning out Gabriel Snyder has grown to be the most powerful man in online media. Or I should say, Gabriel Snyder thinks he's the most powerful man in online media. What else would explain this run in I had with him?

Last Thursday the Wall Street Journal had a fun little story about the decline of gross point deals (called �first dollar gross deals� by the article�s author Lauren A. E. Schuker). You�ve probably heard the old joke �Why should you negotiate for gross points?� Because Hollywood is like the circus: there�s no net.

I slay me. Anyway, Valleywag is known for living off of republished Wall Street Journal stories, and last Thursday was no exception. Gabriel wrote up a scathing review of Lauren's story, hoping to get some easy page views. And it worked: to date he�s earned 35,466 views by misquoting the story�s author and throwing around some industry buzz phrases. Some of his data regarding the standard gross revenue split came off of a cereal box (or at least it sounds that way), and so I decided to call him on it. The very next day my account was banned. I think Gabriel also wanted to send me email that read, �You�ll never blog in this town again� but he couldn�t find the send button.

Side note: I am using humor to make a point. My attorney wants me to point out that there is ample evidence that Gabriel knows where the send button is located.

Anyway, I was told that to get my account back I should have �pointed out precisely how Gabriel's math was wrong�. So, now that Gabriel has appointed himself the Valleywag.com gatekeeper, I am left with no choice but to use the rest of this blog post to meet his request and hope for reinstatement to his site.

This brings us to Gabriel�s article. Here is Gabriel�s analysis of Lauren�s WSJ report:

"Lauren A.E. Schuker starts out with a way-past-his-prime Eddie Murphy. But even there, she makes a muddled mess of things:"Gabriel�s article then swipes the first paragraph of the Lauren�s story:

"For years, top movie stars often landed deals paying them a percentage � sometimes as much as 20% � of a studio's take of box-office revenues from the first dollar the movie makes, even if it turned out to be a flop that cost the studio millions. As a result, the biggest celebrities broke the $20 million mark. Eddie Murphy got that kind of payday for the flop "Meet Dave," which cost Twentieth Century Fox about $70 million and took in only $11.8 million at the domestic box office."Gabriel then goes on to wildly misstate Lauren�s paragraph:

"Simple math will tell you that 20% of $11.8 million does not equal $20 million."Here is where Gabriel wandered off the farm. Gabriel is correct in that 20% of 11.8 million does not equal $20 million; however that is not what Lauren Schuker was trying to say. If we read Lauren's paragraph closely (since we are not trying to score points at her expense) we'll see that she makes perfect sense (and in no way constitutes a �muddled mess�).

Lauren's lead sentence describes "first dollar" gross deals which can reach 20%, "sometimes". OK, fair enough, Lauren is not saying that all first dollar gross deals hit 20 points; just some of them. Her next sentence then defines $20 million as the highwater mark for stars' salaries ($20 million is a pretty high mark, so I think Lauren is on safe footing there as well). Finally, Lauren suggests that Eddie Murphy hit the highwater mark for "Meet Dave". The key object in her sentence, "that kind of payday", refers to the highwater mark defined in the previous sentence ($20 million, not 20%).

Gabriel contorts Lauren's words to make her sound ridiculous (i.e. that Eddie Murphy got nothing more than 20% of domestic gross for his work on "Meet Dave"). But Lauren never mentioned a 20% fee for Mr. Murphy, that percentage was a throw-away number in her introductory sentence. For Lauren "that kind of payday" refers to $20 million. Lauren's point is that Eddie Murphy made a lot of money even though "Meet Dave" was a flop. Simple grammar tells us that Gabriel has no idea what he's blogging about.

Furthermore, for Gabriel to suggest that the math should be based on the notion that Eddie Murphy's agent can only get Eddie a cut of gross domestic dollars ("20% of $11.8 million") shows little or no understanding of the film business. Gabriel, bubi, they have this thing called ancillary markets. "Meet Dave" picked up $38,846,272 in foreign territories, for a total theatrical gross of $50,649,526. If I completely disregard everything I was taught in English 101 and go with your theory that Lauren thinks Eddie Murphy had 20 gross points on "Meet Dave" and ended up with a $20 million payday, I think I can actually get close to your imaginary number. Let's do the math:

When the film was released on video, Videobusiness.com said it would overperform [it's] theatrical numbers, given the cast and genre. Let's be conservative and assume that its video revenue eventually matches its theatrical revenue. Then the total take will be:

Total theatrical revenue $50,649,526
+
Estimated DVD revenue $50,649,526
=
Total gross revenue $101,299,052

By my calculation 20 gross points on "Meet Dave" should, in fact, yield Eddie Murphy about $20,259,810.

So, Gabriel, that�s what I meant when I commented that �I think your [math] is kinda off the charts�. Feel free to comment on my story. I promise I won�t ban you.

New Website Focuses on HD Cameras

Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:29:35 -0400

Broadcasters and professional HD camera buyers who need a camera for studio, ENG, Documentary, High-Speed, Digital Cinematography, Reality TV, or Sports and Events can find it from among the major brands including, Sony, Ikegami, Grass Valley, Panasonic, Hitachi, Red, and others at www.HDCameraGuide.com. The site, which has quickly become the premier online marketing site for high-end video cameras and accessories, since its launch in November 2008, has added this new camera application selector feature above the main video window on the home page.

�We listen to our visitors,� states Michael Grotticelli, Editor-in-Chief of HD Camera Guide.com. �While we list cameras by manufacturers, many were also asking for a listing by application, so they could quickly find the HD Camera that met their shooting requirements.�

In March, www.HDCameraGuide.com added a record number of unique visitors, many of whom came through Google, where www.HDCameraGuide.com continues to generate page 1 results for a wide range of industry specific keywords including �hd camera�, �best HD camera� and many others brand/model-specific searches.

HD Camera Guide also features a wide range of product and Learning Center video, an interactive HD Lens Selector, and a wide range of information. A new feature, �Free Estimate� lets visitors find the best pricing for their upcoming purchase by filling in the information on the home page. That data is forwarded to our network of authorized dealers for a no-obligation price quote and/or puts visitors in touch with a company representative for more information.

HD Camera Guide free classifieds put visitors in front of thousands of professionals every day. The site offers no-cost listings for job opportunities, employer postings, as well as used equipment sales. Visitors can even connect with fellow professionals on issues that matter most to you. For more information on HDCameraGuide.com, contact me at adagostino@marcommgroup.com.

Betrayal of the Watchmen

Sun, 08 Mar 2009 13:06:56 -0400

Watchmen, the ironic, counter-culture comic book series from the 80's has been turned into a non-ironic, spandex-and-tights superhero movie that in every way betrays the heart of the original work. There, that being said, I wanted to also provide you with some objective film commentary regarding the movie. Which I hated.

If you compare the above panel from the comic, in which the Comedian faces off with a disgruntled group of peace activists (notice the hippie symbol on the girl to the left) and little old ladies, with the following montage from the film (which can be found at the movie's promo site) you'll see that the normal, peace loving citizens have been replaced with a bunch of really big thugs.

The filmmakers completely changed the thrust of the scene, which in the comic book highlights the tension between vigilantism and peace. In the comic book the scene plays out like this: a crowd gathers due to the police going on strike, the crowd throws a tomato and a small tin can at the Comedian, the Comedian threatens them with a grenade from atop the Owl's ship, and the crowd disperses. The fact that the crowd is composed of normal looking people with a valid issue makes the Comedian seem completely out of touch. The comic book depicts the Comedian as borderline psychotic and attempts to place the reader's sympathy with the crowd.

In the movie version the crowd hurls a firebomb at the Comedian, which sets fire to the Owl's ship and in response the Comedian heroically jumps down into the middle of the unruly mob. You might notice in the final movie still that once the Comedian jumps down into the middle of the crowd, they still hold their ground! They've firebombed him and they are looking for a fight. The whole thing is set up like a traditional fight scene; throughout the scene the audience is rooting for the Comedian to beat back the thugs. What was meant to be a commentary on vigilantism has been turned into a sad version of Kung Fu Panda. Here you can see that in the original comic panel the Comedian tells the crowd to run away (which they do).

But in the movie he actually goes chasing after the crowd!

I think that his maniacal glee, which you might be able to make out in the 2nd and 3rd montage images, was meant to take some sympathy away from him. But it absolutely works in reverse. He seems happy, and as a result the audience is happy that he's happy. The film's version of this scene delivers a real feeling of satisfaction, and it was never meant to. It was meant to show that the Comedian would throw a grenade into the middle of a union action (i.e. that social unrest cannot be solved with heroics).

I think the people that acquired the rights to Watchmen saw an action picture, in the same way that people project their own desires when they view a Rorschach image. But the filmmakers view is about as far as you can get from the heart of the comics. As Rorschach, one of the conflicted characters in the comics, would say "Never compromise". Not even in the face of armageddon.

Free Film School: How to Get Along With Actors

Tue, 03 Feb 2009 16:45:03 -0500

Imagine if Christian Bale said to you on the first day of shooting,"I ain�t walking on the set if you�re still hired. I�m serious." Well, cinematographer Shane Hurlbut doesn't have to imagine. In fact, each time he gets passed over for a job in the future he gets to wonder if Christian had anything to do with it. And what was Shane's crime? He wandered into Christian's line of sight while Christian was acting.

Actors are like the tent-pole in the big top: they create the space in which the production can exist. But like all sticks they have a pointy end. Here is some advice for not getting poked in the eye while you're on set. 1. Everything's great. If a professional actor sat around on your set waiting for his call, then waited some more as you adjusted lights and scrims, then finally was able to recite his lines on cue, it's frickin' fantabulous. If you're the director you should tell him so after the take. If you're giving off a vibe that his performance was any less legendary than John Barrymore in Hamlet you should probably be locked in a room with Christian Bale and a poorly stocked craft services table.

2. Don't move while the camera is rolling. Believe me, Shane Hurlbut will never make that mistake again.

3. Light before the actor arrives on set. It goes without saying that you should light the set with a stand-in or crew member standing on the actor's mark.

4. Don't chat up the actors between takes. OK, so here's a fun story from my time at Warner Bros. For some moronic reason I decided to talk to an older actor between takes on an episodic. And the guy just started to ramble. And on and on he goes, past first call, past second call. When the 2nd A.D. finally tracked him down I was the bad guy for keeping him from the set. And I hadn't said a thing!

5. Don't take drink orders. This may sound counter-intuitive, since I've basically said you need to throw petals wherever these guys walk. But if an actor asks you for something, don't take the order. Nothing good will come of it. Instead you need to drop what you're doing and find the person that is supposed to fulfill the request. Tell the actor that you are going to find that person. Don't let him think you are actually going to get the thing that he's asking for. When you return with the lackey that is supposed to get things for the actor you will have met your obligation, and the lackey can now suffer the travails of getting a half-calf Mochachino at 2 A.M. in the morning. If you are that lackey all I can say is, I take one lump, not two.

6. Do run lines with them, if they ask. This is one of those cases where your acting is so bad, it will make them feel better.

7. Do give them the day's gossip, if they ask. Again, they are not monsters. In weak moments they'll want to feel like they are part of the crew. You should feel free to respond to a direct question. Just keep in mind that whatever you tell them will be attributed back to you. Also make sure to watch for that moment when the wall goes back up. They may see another actor, or want to get ready for the take, or simply have come back to their senses: whatever the reason, eventually they will be done with you and at that point you need to stop making eye contact and move on.

8. Focus on the production. Having a private laugh in between takes is a great way to draw the attention of an insecure actor (who thinks you're laughing at him). If you draw his attention you're going to either 1) get yelled at 2) be given a drink order or 3) be asked a direct question that you need to answer. None of these outcomes have anything to do with making a better movie.

9. Never, ever, ever date an actor. Dude, there's plenty of crew members to date. Don't even think about it. Don't even make that kind of eye contact. I want you to have a nice long career and so you should know that 1) it's never going to happen 2) if by some wild chance it did happen you would have to go to work with the person the next morning.

10. Take any material issue you have to the DGA staff. If something material comes up that you don't know how to deal with, you want a director to be involved. A material issue is one that will impact the production of the film. If you don't have a material issue you need to keep the issue to yourself. No one wants to be gossiped about or ratted out. I don't know how specific I can be in a public forum like this, but I hope you get my drift. Actors come with baggage, and they leave with baggage. You are not the baggage inspector.

Hopefully this advice will help you focus on making a great movie. If you find that you've slipped up and Christian Bale is in fact yelling at you in front of all of your peers, just remember that you pay those union dues for a reason. If he actually had the power to fire you he wouldn't be yelling.

How I Gave in to Disney Spam

Mon, 02 Feb 2009 00:24:00 -0500

As much as I bemoan the technological disaster that is Disney Digital 3D (apparently 'Bolt 3-D' was about a dog, but all I could see were huge 3-D palm trees) there are still some things that Disney does better than anyone. Disney knows how to market to parents. If you have any doubt about this you should take a quick look at the email war they're currently waging in my inbox. It all started with a flyer my 2-year-old got her hands on (and would not give up). Apparently she found it inside one of her Disney DVDs. For the last two years Disney has been slipping flyers for the Disney Movie Rewards Club inside their DVDs in an attempt to gather your personal information. These adverts are pretty easy to ignore, until you actually read one and realize that it represents digital currency that can be exchanged for posters, movie tickets or backpacks. I gave the flyer to my wife and she signed herself up for the Club.

Then, sort of like a Talking Tina doll that wants to take over your life, the Club started asking her for favors. Would she fill out a questionnaire? Would she give the Club the email addresses of her 5 closest friends? Since there was digital currency involved my wife said 'yes' and I've received email from the Club ever since.

Once or twice a day I get various offers from the Club. Somehow this spam gets through the Hotmail spam filter and as a result I have to browse the subject line (whether I want to or not). Today they finally got me with 'Jim, Everyone Loves A Surprise Gift, Yours Is Inside'. I don't know why I fell for it. I think it's just one of those things that's certain in life: Disney will find your weakness.

So I went to the Disney Movie Reward site, a place that is a riot of color and buttons. There are 18 buttons in the first inch of screen space, and 5 of those buttons cause more buttons to appear when you 'mouse over' them. All in all there are 41 buttons that can appear at the top of the page. It's a wonder of modern computing. I retrieved my free gift, which is the image at the top of this article.

Then I got to thinking, why in the world is Disney spamming me in the first place? I have to give them credit for being unrelenting and merciless. But what a waste of marketing resources. The only thing the Disney Movie Club can do is give you free stuff. The more codes you enter from your DVD purchases the more free stuff you get. There doesn't seem to be a way for them to make money from the thing. And this is a state of the art website (I mean, seriously, I think they launch the space shuttle with less than 41 buttons).

So I did a little research and I found the secret plan behind the Disney Movie Rewards Club. They intend to sell me DVDs through the Club. I don't know how they are going to do it, but after seeing the time they've put into the site and the way they've invaded my inbox I think they may actually succeed. I found a summary of the Club that Alta Resources wrote up, which mentions such features as 'Title-of-the-Month' and 'cast members' that will staff the phones when I call in. Alta Resources, it turns out, is the laser sharp marketing team that Disney hired to build and operate the Club.

If you get a chance you should view the spooky 'Who We Are' video that Alta Resources put together to promote their company. While the intro is calm and relaxing about 45 seconds in this really intense lady stares directly at you without blinking. Are these guys trying to hypnotize me into buying Disney DVDs?

Well, whatever they're doing, it's working. The email that suckered me in was so refined it even had a feedback component, where I could supposedly tell Disney if I was happy with their email.

Often these links are 'fake'; they're simply used to determine if consumers are actually reading the spam. But in the case of Alta Resources I'll bet the next email I receive will be based on my preference selection. If you want to know how to reach out to customers and properly embrace them you should take a look at what the Alta Resources guys are doing. But if you come back hypnotized and brain-washed don't say I didn't warn you.

P.S. In case you're curious here is the case study that Alta Resources put together for the Disney Movie Rewards Club:

CONSUMER DIRECT-ORDER MARKETING - CASE STUDY

Problem Situation

Alta Resources Solution

People

Process

Technology

Results

Activist/clown's documentary: a thorn in the side of the establishment

Thu, 29 Jan 2009 14:06:26 -0500

Kansas City activist Philip Klein is busy promoting his new documentary Begging for Billionaires � The Attack on Property Rights in America, which "exposes the tricks city governments use to seize private property from everyday citizens [through eminent domain] and hand it to billionaire developers and Fortune 500 companies � absurdly justifying their actions as community economic development.� The story is told through interviews with agonized victims and government officials who sweat for the camera at government meetings and offer parting words as they run for cover from angry, camera wielding activists. The director, Philip Klein, is quite a character. His parents owned a traveling carnival business, and he grew up among carnies and sideshow entertainers. He's a graduate of Ringling Bros. and Barnum Bailey Clown College � seriously. Best of all, he's a vocal activist who likes to use political theater and guerilla journalism to expose shady politics in his home town of Kansas City.

Trailer
Homepage

Screen Actors Guild Fires Bald Guy

Tue, 27 Jan 2009 10:56:49 -0500

Yesterday the Screen Actors Guild gave the boot to executive director (and chief negotiator) Doug Allen. Prior to being fired, Doug spent the last seven months telling the producers union that he wanted more money than all the other unions combined. And also that he wanted a golden chariot, like the one in Spartacus. When the producers failed to cave in to his demands Doug pushed for a strike (primarily to show how serious he was about the chariot thing). Doug's dreams of being anointed emperor, however, came crashing down when SAG members came to their senses and realized that only a crazy person would attempt to authorize a strike vote in the middle of a deep recession.

Though strike-hungry SAG President Alan Rosenberg is still employed he was recently quoted as saying �I�m angry... Sad. Disappointed. The last two days I feel sort of isolated. I�m shut out from planning meetings. I feel isolated from the operations of the union.�.

So what does this board action mean for the stalled contract talks with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers? The WSJ quoted Todd Hissong, a SAG board member based in Chicago, as saying,"Nobody is high-fiving each other in the hallways or declaring today a victory. We despise that we had to do this to put the guild back on the course to sanity, but hopefully this move will reopen negotiations." Which roughly translates as "We were idiots not to sign back in June."

Seven months ago many blogs, including this one, were screaming for a deal. Back then the SAG President was trying to blow-up AFTRA's newly minted deal with the producers. At the time I pointed out that Alan was elected into office with only 8% of the vote. His mandate could not have been any weaker, and yet he played his hand like he was holding pocket aces.

Now that SAG has folded I think we can expect a deal within weeks.

Sumner Redstone Shakes Down My 2 Year Old

Wed, 31 Dec 2008 13:04:04 -0500

Why is Dora crying?

A. The Viacom empire is based on leverage and can no longer cover its debt obligations (and needs to soak Time Warner Cable for every last penny)

B. Shari Redstone bet the farm on Disney Digital 3D and "Bolt 3D" was a bust

C. It is written (in a number of national publications)

D. All of the above

If you've been following my blog you know the answer is D. All of the above. Sumner Redstone, a man who loves to borrow, whose daughter bet the farm on Disney Digital 3D, is searching for coin in the Time Warner purse. Today he placed full-page ads in a variety of newspapers, trying to get a better hold on it. It reminds me of the time I was pickpocketed on a subway platform in Seoul. The Wall Street Journal reports that Sumner is asking for a double-digit percentage increase in fees paid by Time Warner Cable and will pull his Viacom channels tonight (at midnight) if he doesn't get it. But if Dora doesn't go exploring tomorrow she won't be the only one who''ll be crying. To blunt the wrath of the nation's children Sumner is running a print campaign that paints Time Warner as the bad guy. There's even a 30 second spot that Viacom put together to gain viewer sympathy. The full court press hasn't brought tears to Time Warner's eyes, whose spokesman responded with this statement:

"They are asking for huge increases and we don't know how we are supposed to sell this to our customers in this economy."I wish Time Warner Cable had the guts to tell the public that the current brinksmanship is based, to some degree, on Sumner's massive debt. If Sumner wasn't slowly losing pieces of his empire to his creditors I don't think he would be shaking down Time Warner for a big fee increase. But times are tough, and when you've built an empire on debt, everybody around you needs to suffer.

Just don't tell my 2 year old daughter that Dora won't be on the air after tonight. I've tried to explain to her that Sumner is not the best money manager (he lost 99.9% of his investment in Midway Games) and that this latest debacle is just another example of his managerial incompetence, but she won't listen. 2 year olds are funny that way.

Yes, Virginia, there is a career path

Fri, 26 Dec 2008 12:59:28 -0500

If you're worried about your career in digital distribution you'll be happy to know there was a ray of sunshine this week. Warner Bros. just opened up a spot in their Digital Distribution division, and the job is as juicy a plum as you'll ever find. It's posted on the Warner Bros. Career Site, but since any hiring in a downturn is newsworthy, I've posted the details here:

Animation Glut

Thu, 25 Dec 2008 19:26:40 -0500

I think the animation business is in trouble. I just took my son to see "The Tale of Despereaux" and, while charming at times, the final 20 minutes were lifted right out of Orwell's 1984:

"The rat", said O'Brien, still addressing his invisible audience,"although a rodent, is carnivorous. You are aware of that. You will have heard of the things that happen in the poor quarters of this town. In some streets a woman dare not leave her baby alone in the house, even for five minutes. The rats are certain to attack it. Within quite a small time they will strip it to the bones. They also attack sick or dying people. They show astonishing intelligence in knowing when a human being is helpless." My son actually had to watch rats tie up a princess and eat her, all the while hearing her painful shrieks. Eventually Despereaux saves the princess by releasing a cat, but at that point the logic of the story had gone so far over the deep end that I felt like the abyss was gazing into me. I don't know that I would call "The Tale of Despereaux" Orwellian torture porn, but it's not a kids' film. If anything it's a perfect example of what the animation glut is doing to the animation business. It all started back in 2004 when a number of hedge funds were awash in easy credit. Visionless intermediaries like Ryan Kavanaugh saw a chance to connect bankers and hedge fund managers to a lifestyle that they only dreamed about in their New England colonials. The dry suits of Wall Street got to attend a few premieres and their investment dollars, that needed somewhere to go, found their way to Hollywood. But what kind of films would these visionless hacks make?

I think the decision-making process went something like this,"What studio has never lost a dime and regularly grosses over $500,000,000 per picture? Pixar... Hmmm... OK, let's rip off Pixar."

Thus Ryan Kavanaugh's firm, Relativity Media, bank-rolled "The Tale of Despereaux", a CGI film based on the Newbery Medal winning children's book. Ryan even went so far as to contract out the CGI work to Framestore one of the most technically adept VFX houses in the business. Then Ryan made the biggest mistake of his career by allowing Sam Fell anywhere near his movie.

If you've suffered through any portion of Sam's last film, "Flushed Away", you know what I'm talking about.

The result of Ryan's recipe (take a known children's tale, add big names, stir) is a beautifully textured and rendered film that makes no sense whatsoever. To give you an example of how badly adapted the book is, during the first 20 minutes (which have nothing to do with Despereaux, the mouse) a narrator repeatedly tells the audience that the rat you are looking at is not the title character and please just hold on. There are many similar storytelling holes that try the patience. During a long segment that features a depressed king, I heard children asking to go home. During a long segment that involves a pig farmer's daughter, I heard children asking to go home. During the "rats are going to eat the princess" jeopardy I heard a father asking to go home (but now that I think about it that might have been me). And mere seconds after the rat attack scene the narrator tells the audience that "the city folk learned to live with the rats". The carnivorous, flesh eating rats.

While dumb money may not be able to put together a watchable film, there are signs that the animation glut has even hurt the quality of Disney releases. I forced my son to sit through "Bolt 3-D" this week, and I was astounded at how much the Disney Digital 3D treatment actually hurt the production. I've now seen the film in both the 2D and 3D versions, and while the 2D version is a decent animated film, the only images that I can actually recall from the 3D version are: a tire, a pink flamingo, a tree branch and a casino sign. These images were front and center in the 3D production, even though they had nothing to do with the plot.

The animation glut may be causing even smart producers to throw technology at a problem that doesn't exist. My son has never asked to see beautifully textured fur or prominent 3D casino signs. That's not the key to Pixar's success. When Pixar's "Up" turns in another $500,000,000 gross for the company it will finally show that even in a crowded marketplace storytelling is what matters.

Lessig Wants Google To Have Stars Upon Thars

Tue, 16 Dec 2008 13:15:53 -0500

There's a really interesting spat going on right now between the Wall Street Journal and Lawrence Lessig, founder of Creative Commons. The Wall Street Journal insists he's turned on the net neutrality folks, and Lessig insists that his publishing empire and White House aspirations still require people to believe he's a great guy. I think he actually is a great guy, but his desire to get into politics may be causing him to soften his stance toward the nation's network providers. Lessig had previously appeared at every FCC hearing that had a camera in sight, arguing that cable providers should not target certain users with a discriminatory pricing policy. He calls this a "Most Favored Nations" requirement. At issue this week is what his "Most Favored Nations" pricing policy actually means in regard to a proposal Google made to add edge caching servers to various network providers' datacenters.

Lessig insists his MFN requirement shows that he can be both in favor of network neutrality and support Google getting a cherry position inside a provider's datacenter. And on this point I agree with him, edge caching is not the end of the world. But the Wall Street Journal paints a darker picture, in which Google pays network providers for priority routing to those local servers and beyond. And this is indeed the first step toward a two tier internet (composed of the "haves" and the "have nots"). Maybe not the end of the world, but definitely a Sneetches and Sylvester McMonkey McBean kind of thing.

The nerve that is at the heart of this matter is the idea that Google could pay a premium for preferential routing in a provider's network (for content that resides outside of that network). The Wall Street Journal claims this is Google's nefarious plot, and that Lessig is now going along with it. Lessig's denial only states that he was never against charging for routing in the first place. Which leaves open the possibility that he would support network provider charges to content providers that want access to consumers. On this point Lessig has been strangely silent. I've posted the following question on his blog:

Though this issue is somewhat complex I think it can be reduced to a simple narrative: the WSJ, which was recently turned into a mouthpiece for the News Corp. content empire, is going after Google. Google just wants their content to get out to consumers in a fast and efficient manner. But News Corp. is concerned that someday Google's content might compete with their content (or their MySpace site, or their other online properties). So News Corp. is going after Google. Since I like having my YouTube videos streamed without glitches let's hope Google can actually get this edge caching proposal through.

P.S. After this story went to press I did in fact get a response from Lawrence Lessig! Here is what he had to say:

@Green Screen: Again, there are relatively few contexts in which competitors can "double charge." Or put differently, whatever is being charged is whatever could be charged -- lots of times. Sometimes that's not true. That's my concern about leveraging. But when leveraging isn't rational, I'm not worried about double charging. While his response may not seem entirely clear out of context, I think I can translate. Other than when a network provider forces additional charges on a content provider (and has the leverage to do this) he is not concerned about double charging because a free market would simply not tolerate it. This kind of free market thinking, however, turns a blind eye to the possibility that a wealthy content provider could freely offer to pay a surcharge in order to create a barrier to entry for others.

The concern is that edge caching charges could be used to limit competition in the online video space. If a large content provider can make this surcharge the standard cost of business, it would keep out those that cannot pay. In a truly neutral environment a content provider would only need to pay for their connection to the backbone, and could freely choose any ISP to perform this service.

Since AT&T's recent network build-out increased consumer bandwidth to about 25 Mb/sec there should be less need for edge caching in the future. The real question is will AT&T grant content providers neutral access to this bandwidth or will they demand edge caching fees before they open up the pipes? If the Obama administration can pass net neutrality you might hear a lot less about edge caching and lot more about the bandwidth that AT&T has been keeping for itself.

Where's the Bottom?

Mon, 15 Dec 2008 14:14:34 -0500

If you're looking for a job in the industry or, like 120,00 SAG actors facing a strike vote this week, if you're considering walking out on a job in the industry let me give you some sound advice. Stay put for a few more months. The film industry has not yet hit bottom. Entertainment companies need time to re-adjust their business models to deal with the dent in demand this recession has created. Eventually the studios will devise new products that appeal to the connected masses, but for now their first and best approach to dealing with the downturn is to cut heads. Don't let yours be one of them.

How will you know when it's safe to float a resume once again? When sellers reach the point of capitulation. The bottom of a recession is marked by the point at which sellers capitulate and accept drastically lower prices. If you compare this market to previous bear markets it's pretty much on track to encounter a point of capitulation in the next year. But at this moment prices are still too high. For example, the Linens n Things liquidators actually priced items above the standard mark-down the store offered when it was in business. Sales at low-end merchants are up, while luxury goods were off 34.5% in December. The high-end is still priced too high.

Once the point of capitulation is reached money flows back into markets and soon thereafter companies open up new positions in order to meet the expected rise in demand. How long will this process take? Another blog today predicted a three year recession (based on no economic data whatsoever). For the sake of argument let's play along with this parlor game: three years in the U.S. before a point of capitulation is reached? The influence the global economy has upon U.S. based producers makes this scenario highly unlikely. Other countries would certainly have re-priced and re-adjusted well before then. The desire to match those lower cost models would be too great. Or to put it another way, there would be no reason for U.S. producers to keep the same, over-inflated model for 3 years running while the rest of the world gets back to business.

During the last recession I remember being comforted by the words of Louis Rukeyser who was certain that a bull market was always just around the corner.

Now that I know a little more about business cycles I understand why he was so calm during times of panic. There is an end in sight. If you look at Time Warner's stock price over the last year, you can see that the company briefly touched a historic low of about $7, but then quickly bounced back. A potential point of capitulation would be when the markets decide that Time Warner is worth substantially less than $7. This would be the wake-up call that would force Time Warner to cut prices and spur demand.

And the studios need the wake-up call. As far as they're concerned this recession is essentially a big waiting game. DVD's cost about $1 to make, but they're priced at $19.99. At any time the studios could cut the price to $10 and create an enormous uptick in demand. But they would give up a huge amount of profit in the process, and no Hollywood exec wants to be known as the guy that closed the door on the era of $19.99 DVDs. At some point the industry has to change, but that won't happen until the point of capitulation.

I think we'll be out of this period before you know it. The benefit (and perhaps the only benefit) of massive H1-B employment is that U.S. companies can adjust employment faster (with less ill effects) than other nations can. The U.S. will be leading the way out of this cycle next year, not sitting on the bench. When stocks return to the low set in November and consumer goods are finally priced appropriately the opportunities will begin to appear. Just don't do anything crazy till then, like walk off the job because Alan Rosenberg wants you to.

Can Pixar's 'Up' Save Paramount Pictures?

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 15:24:41 -0500

I ran the numbers and I'm pretty sure that Sumner Redstone, owner of Paramount Pictures, is hoping that Pixar's 'Up' will dominate the box office when it opens on May 29th. Why is Paramount's head cheerleader rooting for the other team? It's a long and twisted tale, and at the heart of it is a father's love for his daughter. Sumner wants Pixar to succeed at Paramount's expense because his daughter bet the farm on Disney Digital 3D. If you've been following my blog, you know that I cannot stop watching the car-crash that is the Redstone family. Back in October, Sumner had to part with 12% of his family fortune after he violated covenants on $1.6 billion in debt his holding company, National Amusements, had amassed. When the news broke the Wall Street Journal repeatedly blamed Shari Redstone (Sumner's daughter) for the family's financial jeopardy. Shari runs a theater chain for the family and had invested heavily in Disney Digital 3D gear for the opening of 'Meet the Robinsons'.

'Meet the Robinsons' was a huge bomb, and it remains to be seen if the box office for 'Bolt' was aided by its limited 3D release. In the two years the gear has been sitting around Shari's theater chain there was only one use of it that really made sense, and that was the 'Hannah Montana & Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds Concert'. While that one run was profitable, at no other time has the chain profited from the massive expense that Shari incurred.

And right now Sumner needs profit more than he needs his legs. Another $800 million of the family's debt is due this month and Sumner is scrambling for cash. Today he sold his $800 million stake in Midway Games to help pay down the debt, but unfortunately he sold his stake for $799.9 million less than he paid for it. That's how desperate Sumner has become: he gave up control of Midway Games for a paltry $100,000 (I think another buyer offered a handful of magic beans, but Sumner's mother made him turn that guy down). Sumner's hoping to eventually benefit from the tax loss, but anyone that's willing to walk away from $800 million needs to think twice about the usefulness of his legs.

The only meaningful assets that Sumner has left are the Viacom properties and Shari's theater chain. Sumner has said he will not sell any part of Viacom and that he would consider selling the theaters. It's reasonable to conclude, then, that Sumner's only consideration at present is getting the best price possible for those theaters. To get a decent price Sumner needs a hit movie to utilize all the Disney Digital 3D gear that Shari bought (if that gear turns out to be a money-maker it will greatly enhance the value of the theater chain).

Which brings us to Pixar's 'Up'. It turns out that 'Up' is the only movie in the pipeline that will have anything to do with Disney Digital 3D. If 'Up' plays all summer to packed houses it just might bring in enough revenue to keep the Viacom empire intact. Pete Docter and Bob Peterson, the directors of 'Up', may be Sumner's only hope.

I sure hope those guys know comedy.

My Game Console Is Trying To Ban Derivative Works

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:23:22 -0500

I don't know if you keep up with online gaming services, but XBox Live just released an upgrade to their online service. Not the most exciting lead in, I will admit, but you have to stick around for the punch line. After the upgrade completes, the console presents the user with an astronomically long, 28 section 'Terms of Service' agreement that actually includes a 'no derivate works' clause. Here's a screenshot of the clause:

I wonder what Lawrence Lessig has to say about this.

Of course, Microsoft has every right to protect its intellectual property. I just think it's interesting that Microsoft's definition of intellectual property now covers whatever it is I do on XBox Live. In case you're curious, I'm slogging my way through 'Gears of War 2' right now. But you can't make an interpretive dance or chorale arrangement regarding my character's heroic journey. I already clicked 'Accept'.

House Poor

Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:56:57 -0500

Mindy Kaling is hilarious in 'The Office', but in reality she's just like you and me. Check out her short film 'House Poor' from Strike.TV (requires Adobe Flash Player to view).

Pirates Seize Control of Korean DVD Market

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 18:28:26 -0500

Pirates were in the news this week, seizing their 83rd vessel off the coast of Somalia and the entire Korean DVD market. It might be more accurate to say that pirates have always controlled the DVD market in Korea and this was just the week that Warner Bros. admitted to this and pulled out of the market altogether. Prior to the announcement Warner Bros. was the only major studio still trying to sell $19.98 DVDs in a country where the latest Batman film can be purchased in any subway station for $3 (5,000 Won). Warner now joins the other major studios in wondering if they'll ever see revenue beyond theatrical distribution in that country.

But what Warner should really be worried about is whether or not the situation in Korea is a harbinger of doom for the U.S. DVD market. I think it is. In the past six years the Korean DVD market has dwindled; revenue is now less than half of what it was in 2002. During that time internet access in that country soared, to the point that Korean now leads in the number of DSL connections per head world-wide. In many ways the U.S. is where Korea was 6 years ago. U.S. carriers are just starting to ramp up high-speed DSL and can expect a similar adoption curve as the service becomes available. The studios are acutely aware of this. So now that they've seen where their market is headed, what are they doing?

Warner Bros. has taken an interesting approach in China. They've decided to undercut the pirates with an ultra-low price point of $1. To get this price point Chinese consumers have to download the content, so it's not in direct competition with street vendor piracy (consumers will still step off the subway and buy the thing that's right there in front of them). But it's a start.

Keep in mind that this is a country in which the studios expect to see no revenue, so they're willing to try things out. When you can download Warner Bros. content in the U.S. for $1 you'll know the world as the studios know it has come to an end. But it's still frightening to think that a guy on the street with a pile of ripped DVDs could set the price point for an entire industry. Which yet again brings me back to the point that you need to create something that you can sell through the existing channels (via the studios that control those channels). If Warner Bros. is having this much trouble supporting the $19.98 price point imagine how hard it will be for independents in the future.

Yeah, I know, you were accepted into Sundance. You got past the protesters outside the Marriott (whose CEO, Bill Marriott, tithes to a group that ran slimy ads in favor of Prop. 8) and you won an award. You survived the crooks that Sundance wanted you to get into business with. And now, finally, after all of that, some guy is selling your movie in the Gangnam-gu subway station in Seoul for $3. Do you really think you can fight piracy without a big studio behind you?

Warner's trying out a lower price point to see if that has any effect. They are working night and day to protect their revenue streams (and they've been extremely successful, I might add). They've got international relationships that independent producers can only dream about. Which is why, as much as independents love to disparage the big guys, they cannot live without them. This whole business model has been set up over years of strategic thinking, channel management and price control.

It is sadly, in the end, show-business.

How To Make Money in a Recession

Thu, 06 Nov 2008 11:15:38 -0500

There's a fundamental theory in economics that if people want your product more when the economy is down your product is "inferior". Or stated in another way, everybody in the entertainment business is getting crazy rich right now. Take a look at yesterday's earning report from Time Warner: profit from the content business is up 14% from last quarter. Another entertainment powerhouse, Activision Blizzard, reported incredible earnings yesterday: revenue more than doubled. The CEO, Bobby Kotick, went on to state that "there's nothing that would suggest to us today that our business isn't going to continue to perform well".

So how can you get a piece of this action? The studios have invested heavily over the years in distribution channels that are now performing like champs. As soon as their economists see a price sensitivity appearing in the marketplace they adjust their sales strategies to compensate. They are able to offer their product at multiple price points in distinct venues (theatrical, DVD, VOD, etc) and they have a huge amount of control over price. This "machine" is able to squeeze the most optimal price out of the consumer, resulting in optimal revenue. Unless you have a long standing relationship with WalMart no one is going to cut you in.

Thus your goal should be to create an identity in the marketplace that is of interest to the existing distribution channels. The best way to get your content's identity out there is to distribute your content, in an abbreviated form, at the $0 price point (i.e. free, online distribution). The studios have no interest in this price point, and as long as fresh content exists for sale to the studios after your initial phase of online distribution you won't be stepping on their toes. The "machine" will still run smoothly, just as long as you provide it with distinct content. Thus film festivals, where your entire product is on display, are a horrible venue, while online distribution of a single episode of your content is a brilliant way to get started.

My favorite example of online distribution right now is Strike.TV. Strike.TV was created by WGA writers during the writer's strike. They're a group of industry professionals that know how to work with the "machine" and the thing they've created is beautiful. Take a look at their site if you want to see how to create an online identity that could actually lead to something.

Sumner Redstone Pushed to Sell Paramount Pictures

Mon, 03 Nov 2008 11:31:30 -0500

Today the Wall Street Journal reported that Sumner Redstone has to come up with $800 million by next month, not because of the economy but because of his well-known debt problems. The paper listed his options as 1) sell Paramount Pictures (or some other component of Viacom) 2) sell the movie theater chain that his daughter built or 3) sell his $800 million stake in Midway Games that's lost 97% of its value in the past three years. The Midway Games stake won't cover a smidgen of his debt and his daughter is adamant that she won't agree to a sale of the theater chain, which leaves a sale of Paramount Pictures as his only viable option.

Sumner's already lost 12% of his family fortune on this note, will he lose the studio as well? Stay tuned to find out.

A Farewell to SXSW

Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:11:23 -0400

I think I'm finally over SXSW, the film festival and conference that attempts to be all things to all people. If you look at my posts from earlier in the year you can see how excited I was and how much I was looking forward to the next installment of the party in Austin. Then, after working with the festival organizers, I began to understand the money making machine that is behind the SXSW name. They've spread the SXSW name to an online film festival that only put six movies online and a conference that is essentially funded by the speakers that appear. All of this for the low, low price of $1,145.

Did anyone tell these guys there's a recession going on?

WGA Strike Gives Birth to Strike.TV

Thu, 30 Oct 2008 01:00:00 -0400

I don't know if you had your calendar marked, but yesterday might have been the most important date in the history of online video. It was the date that Strike.TV went live. Stike.TV is a video site that offers original content from WGA members. It was dreamt up during the depths of the WGA strike and the results are amazing. The production standards are far higher than anything else on the internet, and it introduces a business model that is going to revolutionize how online video is produced and sold. Though the first day viewership numbers were mild by YouTube standards, I think we just witnessed a launch that changed the world.

I had a chance to interview Michael Tabb, Supervising Producer and Head of Submissions at Strike.TV and here is what he had to say: What is Strike.TV?

As artists we're now allowing ourselves a canvas on which to paint.

How did Strike.TV come about?

(Strike.TV, CEO) Peter Hyoguchi is a friend and he did Interviewing Hollywood online, and he's done a lot of online content. And he's also a filmmaker that won at the San Francisco and New York Film Festivals with a feature about a homeless mother and daughter in Santa Barbara (�First, Last and Deposit�). I've written on and off with Peter for two years. We were in the middle of the strike, and Peter was gung-ho on making something new happen. Time demands a change from the old model and the old guard. We love being in business with big studios and doing things their way, but at the same time we wanted to open doors for ourselves. So I pointed Peter to Jim Cooper who had done this small piece about why the writers were striking titled "Why We Fight", who was on my picket line. Through Jim he met Ian Deitchman (Stike.TV, Head of Programming).

You can picture eight writers sitting around, on the floor or on chairs, deciding how we are going to do something with all of this time and talent not being utilized. People got brought in on all sides, and a key integration came with Brian Rodda (Strike.TV, Production Manager) who's an actor with tech savvy. People carved out niches for themselves. Rebecca Hughes is running viral marketing. Ken Lazebnik organized a Strike.TV open house with speakers on the business model and filled the Writer�s Guild Theater (almost 600 seats) with writers, directors, actors, cinematographers all wanting to play a part in this idea of carving out a new distribution and testing model for fresh material. People were lining the aisles and sitting on the ground. That�s when we knew we had hit on a nerve. We brought in a slew of professionals. And everybody donated their time to work on this, for free, to help make Strike.TV happen. To this day, I have not been paid a dime for all my efforts.

Was it an exciting time?

It's one of those revolutionary moments, when a new means to get something done comes at a time when the way you've always done it before doesn't seem to be an option. The advent of broadcast quality HD cameras for $3400 and an internet that can take you into every household in America gives Hollywood professionals an opportunity they've never had before. It allows us to take material we hold near and dear to our hearts and see where it stands in the marketplace, on our own terms.

Feature film writers like me are very much used to putting our heart and soul into something, then we're kind of cut out of the process. Once it moves into production it becomes 100% out of our control. It's like giving birth to a baby, breast feeding it for the first year of life, putting your whole heart into it, loving it, and then giving it to someone else to raise. It's a necessary, wonderful process that brings together artists of a written and visual nature, but sometimes there's just an idea that I feel that I should direct because it is so based on my life. No one could answer the questions about these characters the way I could answer them. Strike.TV offers me the opportunity to follow through on that.

How does it work when a writer drives the project (as opposed to a director)?

More like TV, I assume, where that kind of thing is natural. What a director brings to a project is cinematic vision and scope. In our case, if the writer has a great cinematographer, s/he can focus more on the personal elements of the stories. At the same end, some writers went to film school and have the skill set to direct in the more traditional sense. So some writers are using this opportunity on Strike.TV to take the reins of their own material. Yet other writers bring in their own directors and do it just to see their own stuff made by someone else. It really depends on the project and the writer.

We have filmmakers with high concept ideas, really fun shows, and they just want to do it themselves. They don't want to wait for the agent to like the script, and then wait for the production company to get on board, and then wait for them to cast it, and then get a director and then see the director go off and do what they want to do with it. That development process works for many projects, but isn�t necessary for everything. As a filmmaker who dominantly writes feature films, and I truly enjoy the collaborative way Hollywood does things, once in a while you just want to not wait (and wait and wait and wait). You hunger for the film school days of just picking up a camera and shooting something. This is an experience I for one have been starving for and missing, ever since I got out of film school and into this business a decade ago.

What is the role of the Supervising Producer at Strike TV?

It started during the strike; writers went off to shoot their films, so I would keep tabs on them, to make sure things were being done on time so we could launch. The landscape is going to change since we are not in the middle of the strike. Now I am going to be running submissions, so we can keep finding professional filmmakers who want to be heard and seen.

What is the submission process?

We hope to launch our submission page next month allowing new shows and filmmakers a chance to be seen and heard. A chief participant has to be a WGA, DGA or SAG member to get your material on our site. Everybody loves YouTube, but we want to do something slightly different, to bridge the gap between YouTube and NBC. We want to be the United Artists of the web; artists coming together and making their own studio and distribution house.

If you'd like to find out about union contracts for online programming, the WGA contact is Elizabeth Flack (eflack@wga.org). We also encourage SAG membership, the SAG contact is Joanna Mamey (jmamey@sag.org). The DGA contact is Michael Zeeck.

What is the development process like?

One of the best things about our site is that we don't give writers development notes. You can ask for help, but the idea is to let an artist create their own canvas and not tell them how to do it. We can reinvent what works on the largest playground in the world, the net. With the exception of explicit, adult content it�s an unlimited canvas with no network rules. We are about artistic integrity and the individual artist's voice, unfiltered. We are not marketing to the lowest common denominator. Some shows will have big audiences; some shows will have small audiences. Also Strike.TV allows all its filmmakers to seek out interest from production companies based on the attention we garnish them, and they have the right to take their content elsewhere. That previous success will allow the filmmaker more say in the final product (in the case of a sale) than they would have otherwise. They can say (as a result of the Strike.TV viewership) that the audience wants this show the way they did it, and that will allow the filmmaker to maintain his vision (if the show is picked up). Then you don't have to kowtow to the powers that be in the same way. And let�s be clear, I have nothing against the powers that be. The powers that be do what they know works, and that's what they should do given the amount of money they've put into everything. All we're doing at Strike.TV is allowing artists to come up with another way of doing things and see if that works and develop that business model.

How many shows do you have?

We have 40 shows, and 200 episodes are ready to go. We'll be rolling them out every week, which means something new for viewers every week (sometimes twice a week). Kick it at the office on your lunch break eating in your cubicle and watch a new show. Then run to the water cooler and ask your friends if they saw the new �Chucky� creator�s horror pilot �5 or Die� that launched on Strike.TV this week.

How many episodes of each show are produced?

The filmmaker makes his or her own product. We don't finance the films at this time just like we don't tell you how to make it. From example the creator of "lonelygirl15" has already shot 36 episodes (of With the Angles). She knows how to do it.

Then we have "Speedy Date", it's a speed dating scenario. You met these ten couples, and you drop in on each conversation. It's a wonderful character study about relationships, love, everything you'd want and he's already shot 10 episodes.

That said, one of my personal dreams and goals for Strike.TV is to fund shows ourselves. As Strike.TV grows an audience, it translates into more advertising dollars aimed at our site. I see a time in the future where we produce shows entirely through ad support advance sales. We want an advertiser to say "I want a pre-roll before your show before it airs".

What is the business model?

For the first three months all the profits are going to charity. We saw an economic hardship coming and we knew we had to do something about that. While we ramp the viewership up, the funds are going to charity. In three months, the idea is that we'll have more advertising dollars and the advertisers will pick the shows they want to advertise on. Strike.TV will share the advertising revenue directly with the filmmakers.

We need to take enough to keep our network going and pay them for all the time, encoding, etc. We are doing a revenue split with the filmmaker. They will get a good share of the proceeds after we've paid out third parties.

Who are the third parties?

We started making deals with several online companies. We're putting our shows on YouTube, Joost and TIVO. And more deals are currently in the works.

Will you get a split from YouTube revenue (i.e. the YouTube Partner model)?

YouTube gets paid for ads on their site before Strike.TV gets a cut, which we split with filmmakers. For ad revenue on our own site, we have outsource people doing ad sales that have to get paid before us as well. These are the third parties that get a cut before we get cut in. Once revenue gets to Strike.TV, we still want to give the artists a bigger share than what we get.

Your encode quality appears to be really high. Who are your partners?

Bit Gravity and Episodic technology. These players have been designed to show HD quality online. It's as good as the internet gets. It takes an enormous amount of bandwidth. For bandwidth costs we're looking at six figures a month.

What kind of viewership numbers are you seeing?

There were well over 16,000 views of the shows just the first day.

Do you have a show in the pipeline?

Yes, it's called Shadow Academy. It's animated. I've worked with Stan Lee a couple times and I'm a big fan of his. This show is kind of dark and twisted. The concept is "Where do all the missing children go?" In the show they're drafted into a program and put into the Shadow Academy. They're going to be turned into devices for our government. So instead of this happy little story where you have special powers and you go to a wizard academy, these are the kids that nobody loves nor wants and they're going to screw with their DNA and give them powers that they may not want. It features Corey Haim, Miguel Ferrer, Stephen Root and funnyman Brian Posehn.

What animation package are you using?

We're using Photoshop and After Effects. We have some amazing artists, all volunteers. I could always use more help � hint, hint. Some of the animators are still in school, others are working pros. And all the actors came in and did it for free too. They know that the first three months of profit is going to charity.

Who's helped you out along the way?

The original team members are Peter Hyoguchi (CEO), Ian Deitchman (Head of Programming), Ken Lazebnik (Events Coordinator, "Star Trek: Enterprise"), Rebecca Hughes (Head of Viral Marketing), Chip Proser ("Top Gun", "Innerspace"), Lester Lewis ("The Office"), Julie Rayhanabad (Head of PR), Brian Rodda (Production Manager), Patrick Francis (Documentarian and Film Historian), Andy Dijak (Art Director), Doug Powell (Web Technology), Terance Coles (Ad Sales), Chris Barrett of MTA (SVP), Scott Schlichter of Dogma (Encoding), Hannah O'Malley (Webmaster), Michael O�Neil (Web-related Services), Matt Enlow (Viral), Andrew Deitchman (Ad Agency, Mother New York) and Warren Lazerow (Legal, O'Melveny & Meyers).

What lessons have you learned?

The coolest thing about this is that you learn for the first time what it takes once writers are out of the project. Getting my own hands dirty again. Now we are involved with assembling all the stuff that needs assembling. For a film writer this is totally foreign.

Bumping into one of my favorite character actors alive today, Stephen Root, on the picket lines and taking it upon myself to convince him that being in my little Strike.TV show for free is a great idea� It�s a mind blowing experience.

Work for the man and love it as I do, but take the time to do things for yourself as well. You can do both. But sometimes to get work from the man, you need to show them what you can do first without them. Hence, Strike.TV. Carpe diem, my friends

Watch Strike.TV for the launch of their show submissions page, due up in November.

Producers Pitch Sob Story to Actors

Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:47:11 -0400

There's a hot new property in town and I was able to get a glance at the script. The working title is 'The Cutbacks Are Why We Can't Sweeten The SAG Deal'. It's a real tear jerker and apparently most of the producers in the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers have signed on. Here's the Alliance pitching this sob story to the Screen Actors Guild (which still does not have a contract):

"There is simply no justification for SAG to expect a deal that is in excess of what the other guilds negotiated in better economic times. No matter what SAG does -- whether it be authorizing a strike or following a different approach -- it will not change the harsh reality that currently confronts our industry."Will the actors buy this Oscar-worthy performance at a time when the studios are raking in record revenue? The first problem with the 'Cutbacks' storyline is that the fundamentals of the entertainment business are sound. While financing is hard to come by these days the studios have ample cash flow to fund new productions. Paramount Pictures generated $5.2 billion in revenue last year (up 28% from the year prior). Universal's parent company grew revenue by 10% last year and plans to grow by 5% this year. In any economic climate show business is a good business.

But with all the advance press that 'Cutbacks' is getting there must be something to this story, right?

Recently both Paramount and NBC Universal announced reductions in spending. Paramount is making the deepest cut,"reducing the number of films released each year from about 25 to 20." Though Paramount blames the cutback on the current economic climate, it appears that the real reason behind the cutback is that Sumner Redstone's kid has a $1.6 billion loan she can't meet covenants on. Though no one is sure what the $1.6 billion loan is for (the Wall Street Journal attributes the loan to Shari Redstone's movie theater chain expansion) it certainly has nothing to do with Paramount Pictures. But Paramount is in the Viacom family, and when you're in the Viacom family you need to give Sumner what he wants. And right now Sumner needs some cash.

In the case of NBC Universal the reduction amounts to only 3% of its budget. If the forecast of Universal's parent holds true, a 3% cost cut on top of the 5% revenue growth that is expected should make Universal almost as profitable as it was last year. And this, it turns out, is the real reason the actors are getting the squeeze during these "harsh" times. Profit targets must be met, frivolous loans to heirs must be paid off and the actors are the only ones caught out in the cold without a coat.

I think 'Cutbacks' is going to have a long run in this town.

SXSW Plays Hardball

Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:01:05 -0400

Filmmakers face some pretty rough treatment in this business, but usually no one wants to talk about it. I've been holding this story for the past month, but now I think it's finally time to publish it. This all started with a subtly worded threat I received from SXSW (specifically from whomever sends email as film@sxsw.com). In the email, SXSW suggested that two panel ideas I had proposed would not be included in SXSW 2009 because of a comment I posted to IndieWire regarding the New World of online film distribution. I'll let you read the comment and decide for yourself if it deserves retaliation:

Somewhat harsh words, but you have to consider that SXSW had just taken something like $50 from me as an "entrance fee" for an online film festival that only put six films online. So at the time the idea of charging me a bunch of money for not putting my video online seemed like a scam. Come to think of it, it still sounds like a scam. YouTube posts your video and doesn't ask for a cent, while SXSW asks for your money and then doesn't post your video. Years from now we'll look back on this business model and have a good chuckle.

Anyway, minutes after posting this comment I received an email from film@sxsw.com suggesting that the panels I had proposed for the SXSW 2009 conference (which had made it to the short list) were now in trouble. Here is the subtly worded threat:

your comment on IW

Sure enough, when the panel ideas were selected for 2009 my ideas were not on the list. Here is the rejection letter from SXSW:

The ironic thing is that SXSW tried to make the panel selection process appear democratic this year. Panel selection was supposedly based on votes registered at panelpicker.sxsw.com. But since I was notified of my fate before the votes were in it's a safe bet the election was rigged. The odd thing is that none of the competing panels in the category I submitted under (digital filmmaking) were included in the first round of panels for SXSW 2009. The category doesn't even show up in the results page.

I tried to get some information from Hugh Forrest, the organizer, and this was the email exchange we had:

Jim: I am really interested to know if there was interest in my ideas.

Hugh: Yes, yes -- definitely lots of interest in your ideas . . . Could it be that my panel ideas actually had the votes needed to be selected? They weren't uniquely brilliant, but I think I could have done pretty well had I not poked SXSW in the eye. Of course SXSW could put this whole issue to bed by posting the results from the vote, proving that they only randomly send sardonic email to filmmakers (as opposed to tipping over the ballot box to silence dissent). But SXSW refuses to post the vote tally.

For anyone that's worked a day behind the gates this kind of treatment should come as no surprise. There's only a few employers in this industry and there's literally an endless supply of applicants. Once you get on the revenue side of that equation the temptation to abuse the applicants is incredible. Where else are applicants charged $50 for absolutely nothing in return?

For those that are starting out in the industry the lesson here is that powerful organizations like SXSW don't have to tolerate dissent. Once they have a large enough audience they can do what they want and no one is going to call them on it. Like rig an election, or send subtly threatening email to a filmmaker. And if you feel the need to speak out you can pretty much forget about doing business with that organization. It's all part of the business and in this business you're going to take a few lumps. That's why they call it hardball.

Sumner Redstone Shakes the Paramount Piggy Bank

Wed, 15 Oct 2008 16:24:40 -0400

Stick with me on this one, it's kind of convoluted. A few days ago the Wall Street Journal reported that Sumner Redstone, CEO of Viacom, was about to be relieved of "$400 million, or about 20%, of his family's holding in Viacom Inc. and CBS Corp. to repay debt to comply with loan covenants." Basically the tide went out and Sumner was caught swimming without a bathing suit. But why was one of the sharpest dealmakers in the industry about to part with 20% of his family fortune? The Journal named his daughter, Shari Redstone as the culprit. Apparently Sumner picked up a huge $1.6 billion loan so that Shari could expand the 1,500 screen movie theater chain she operates. When the properties that Sumner provided as collateral (Viacom, CBS, Paramount Pictures, etc.) lost value due to the market crash, part of the debt became due. As a result Sumner had to sell off the family the jewels. On Monday Sumner announced that he was able to negotiate the loss down to $233 million, not the $400 million that was originally reported. And again, the Journal reported that the loss was due to Shari's movie theater chain.

Shari finally struck back and released a statement yesterday that said she did not in fact cause her father to sell off those shares (at the worst possible time in the history of the stock market, I might add). While she does not dispute that her $1.6 billion loan got her family into this mess, she claims that her theater chain's expansion into Britain, Chile, and Argentina was not paid for by the loan. Nor was her massive investment into REAL D Digital 3-D projection gear for the opening of 'Meet The Robinsons' paid for by the loan.

Her claim is somewhat dubious, however, since the $25 million opening of Meet The Robinsons certainly did not cover those costs.

Wherever the money went, it's gone now. But Sumner still has a number of properties that are at risk (Viacom continues to act as collateral for the loan). Which brings us to today's announcement that Paramount is cutting back production by 25% to lower costs. Sumner is shaking the Paramount piggy bank, hoping that enough revenue falls out to cover the next loan payment (another $800 million is due in December).

Paramount blames the cutbacks on "the economic slump", but if Sumner Redstone wasn't sitting on a mountain of debt Paramount wouldn't need to transform itself into a cash fountain. Studio work is going to be lost because of the financial ills of the Redstone clan and, while the "economic slump" is a convenient scapegoat, it appears that all of this could have been avoided if Shari had simply managed her theater chain better. Maybe she should have purchased her dad a tie for father's day instead of all that REAL D gear.

Online Distribution "Crooks" Hit Sundance

Thu, 02 Oct 2008 12:02:54 -0400

Wherever money and art collide, a few crooks are created as a byproduct of the chemical reaction. That's what a few dozen acclaimed filmmakers found out this week when Sundance notified them (via email) that they wouldn't be getting paid from the online distribution deal that Sundance had guided them into. The crooked company in the middle of all of this (as filmmaker Carson Mell told IndieWire) is Mediastile, an online distribution company run by Clive Davis' kid. The company has allegedly been stealing from Sundance filmmakers for years. This story came to light when John Cooper, Director of Programming for the Sundance Film Festival, decided to finally pull off the bandage and advised the filmmakers that "Mediastile had failed to honor its commitments" and that "the Institute notified Mediastile that its contract with the Institute has been terminated, effective immediately". John tried to put some distance between himself and the crooks, however, by telling the filmmakers,"You and other filmmakers have your own separate contracts with Mediastile, and the Institute is not a party to those contracts."

It's reasonable for John to try to protect Sundance, but since John actually required filmmakers to enter into an exclusive deal with Mediastile (as reported by IndieWire) he may be as liable as anyone. But will the filmmakers get their due from Sundance? In the email John just happened to mention that he had retained "outside counsel" and that "the Institute's lawyers have been very forceful", statements that could be taken to suggest that unless the filmmakers themselves have counsel they should go looking elsewhere for their money.

Is anyone looking out for the filmmakers? Sundance will go on to screen films year after year. Clive Davis' kid will continue to (allegedly) prey on filmmakers. And the bright and shiny promise of online distribution will get a little bit darker. Carson Mell said of his experience with Mediastile,"Over the course of working with them, my opinion was first that they were incompetent and now that they're crooked." Before they take down the Mediastile site I thought I should at least post the resumes of the officers, just in case you happen to face them across a negotiating table someday:

Mitch Davis, Chief Executive Officer

Jason Turner, President and Chairman

Marjorie Levy, President of Content Acquisition

Adobe Abandons Greenscreen Technology

Sat, 27 Sep 2008 12:52:05 -0400

I think Michelle Gallina is sprucing up her resume. The Adobe product marketing manager was in charge of Adobe's greenscreen product, Adobe Ultra, up until this week's release of Creative Suite 4 which no longer includes Ultra. I was so shocked to see this product drop out of Adobe's line-up that I asked Adobe to comment about the future of Ultra. Here is the response I got from the company:

James, with regard to the inclusion of Adobe Ultra in Creative Suite 4,I want to inform you that this application is not included in any ofCreative Suite Suites.I hope somebody told Michelle. Michelle is still quoted on Adobe's website, pitching their greenscreen product:

Integrating Ultra into Production Premium allows video professionals who don't have the budget to rent special lighting and equipment to pull clean keys even when the scene was shot in less than ideal circumstances.And it's true, Ultra did a great job removing artifacts in the compositing process. It also mangled your sound elements so completely that the Ultra output had to have the audio removed from it. But since we don't have Ultra to kick around any longer I'll refrain from bringing up Adobe's dirty laundry and instead view through the gaping hope that is now left in Creative Suite 4.

Adobe's Creative Suite value proposition is getting a little weak: for more money you now get less video production software. Didn't anybody tell them there's a recession underway? Usually the product marketing manager's on top of that.

Michelle, where are you when Adobe needs you the most?

The Demise of the Sales Agent

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 13:56:32 -0400

A few months back I argued against the sales agent business model that is championed by folks like John Sloss. In a nutshell, these people take on as many clients as possible and try to make a fast sale at Sundance or Cannes. They have very little at stake in the productions they push and use extremely aggressive negotiation tactics to get to a quick close. Just three years ago the New York Times called John Sloss a new power broker and printed John's claim that he 'virtually owns Sundance'. What a difference a few years can make.

Today the Wall Street Journal reported that this year most of John's slate at Sundance went unsold. Has the independent bubble popped? The Journal certainly thinks so. Today's article goes on to document the demise of the independent business as a whole, pointing to the closures of Picturehouse, Warner Independent Pictures and Paramount Vantage as evidence. But for the folks slogging it out in the trenches those companies were about as independent as Czechoslovakia under Marxist rule. What we may be witnessing is the beginning of a new Velet Revolution.

Looking at how we arrived at this turning point, it seems like it all started with the rise of the Sundance Film Festival, which brought empowerment to newbie filmmakers that had no idea how the distribution system worked. These were the kind of filmmakers that would sign a distribution agreement on the back of a napkin. They were the ideologist revolutionaries that would soon be dominated by a firm Stalinist hand. And that hand, it turns out, was John's. But John's hold on power was tenuous at best. As the Times reports:

Some refer derisively to negotiating with him as 'getting Slossed' and point to expensive movies he has sold that sank at the box office, like 'Tadpole', bought by Miramax for more than $5 million in 2002, and 'Pieces of April', which MGM/United Artists bought last year for more than $4 million. As soon as it was clear that indie films could generate big box office each of the majors got into the game to some degree, but the increase in demand was not met with an increase in brilliant, heartfelt movies (those things are limited in supply). So folks like John passed off films by Katie Holmes (Pieces of April) as independent. For some reason I think of Tom Cruise's wife as being about as independent as Czechoslovakia, as well. In the end these pseudo-independent films, marketed by the pseudo-independent distributors did as poorly at the box office as you might think. Which brings us to the present, a time in which audiences are highly suspect of anything that claims to be 'independent' and studios have moved on to charging $1 for 3D glasses.

Thus the corruption that the power players brought into the festival market weakened it to the point that almost no one can make a sale anymore. Hopefully this will encourage the sales agents to move on and leave the independent film scene as it was before, brilliant and heartfelt but without much business sense. But with one enormous advantage that past filmmakers did not have: the ability to self-distribute over the internet. There is no longer a need for a middleman, as folks like John are quickly finding out. John has even started to pass himself off as a friend to filmmakers who have been left on the sidelines with an internet distribution offering. But what John does not get is that the internet is a self-service buffet of niche markets. He can no longer squeeze a fee out of filmmakers because he knows someone at Google.

As anyone that's thrown away $50 on a film festival entrance fee knows the rise of the internet and demise of sales agents cannot come soon enough.

'Kids' Hits the Festival Circuit

Wed, 27 Aug 2008 01:27:11 -0400

On September 21st the Museum of Latin American Art will play host to the 4th Annual Los Angeles International Children's Film Festival and Green Screen Cinema will be there. The festival will unspool the Green Screen Cinema production If Kids Ruled the World, a short film about kids trying to save the environment. Two of the film's stars will be on hand and if they learn to write their names by the 21st they'll sign autographs. And did I mention that admission is absolutely free?

Greatest. Blog. Ever.

Sat, 23 Aug 2008 23:48:29 -0400

In case you missed it when it first aired, Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog is back online, at Hulu.com. The show was written and directed by Joss Whedon, and it's literally the funniest, most inspiring video blog ever created. You should click over to the site before they run out of tickets. If you're still here (and, really, I hope the only reason you're still reading this is that the click button on your mouse doesn't work) it won't spoil anything if I blog about the show's premise. The premise is that Dr. Horrible (Neil Patrick Harris) wants nothing more in life than to join the Evil League of Evil. The Evil League of Evil is composed of Professor Normal, Fake Thomas Jefferson, Tie-Die, Dead Bowie (played by Jed Whedon), Fury Leika and Snake Bite. Their leader is Bad Horse, an evil horse that sends singing telegrams. The League demands that Dr. Horrible gain notoriety before they will consider his application for membership.

It's much better than it sounds on paper. It is, in fact, the greatest blog ever.

Here's my favorite line of dialogue so far:

"Billy, you're driving a spork in your leg."

"So I am."

Monica Sender, Whomever You Are, I Apologize

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:49:50 -0400

Today I thought I'd share some of the challenges associated with maintaining the USC School of Cinematic Arts group on LinkedIn. To be clear, I think the LinkedIn site is an outstanding example of design and execution. They are really professional and they go to great pains to protect your privacy. With the exception of last week, when they went a little too far. Last week LinkedIn decided to change how groups are administered. They took away a number of the tools that group owners had used to determine just who was requesting group membership. So all of a sudden, right after the change, I had a queue full of people that wanted to join the USC School of Cinematic Arts group and I had no way to tell if they were really USC alumni.

So I had to start guessing. The first guy in my queue, Jim Nasium, was clearly a spammer (get it, "gymnasium"). So I deleted that guy. Then there was someone named Monica Sender, and though I couldn't figure out what that name stood for I assumed it was something untoward, so I deleted her. I finally got down to the names of actual filmmakers, but I didn't know what to do without the additional information that LinkedIn used to provide me, so I sent an email to LinkedIn asking for some guidance here. How was I supposed to vet group members if I couldn't even send them an email confirming their identity?

Then I got to thinking about that Monica Sender name. What if I'd made a horrible mistake? So I googled "Monica Sender". It turns out that Monica Sender may be a real person after all. Here is her filmography at the New York Times website:

Monica Sender, Art Assistant

In this digital age it is far too easy to dismiss fellow humans, for there is always someone new and different to click on. I worry that in the process of maintaining the integrity of my group I've lost, in some small way, my humanity. Monica Sender, whomever you are, I apologize.

Paula Wagner's Looking For An Exit

Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:35:15 -0400

This morning the WSJ reported on something that everyone on the set of "Death Race" was aware of months ago: Paula Wagner doesn't really work for United Artists anymore. Though Paula is currently the CEO at United Artists, in her tenure she has produced more films for the competition ("Death Race" for Universal, "The Eye" for Lionsgate) than she has for the home team. The one film she actually released under the UA banner was a tremendous flop and the December release of "Valkyrie" is shaping up to be a Hindenburg-sized disaster as well.

Seriously, Tom Cruise as a Nazi? Those guys kinda have an image problem. The WSJ reported that "Mr. Cruise will likely not be part of her producing ventures going forward" which for the first time in a long time makes me sympathetic toward Tom. Could it be that he was actually the faithful one in this breakup?

I think there's also a lesson in here somewhere about the praetorian ethos that has crept into the top levels in Hollywood. Sure, people have always changed jobs on a whim, but this may be the first CEO that couldn't even be counted on to produce films for her own shingle. Dawn Steel, you are sorely missed.

'Gemini Division's Botched Launch

Sun, 10 Aug 2008 22:00:00 -0400

Rosario Dawson. Science Fiction. And a title that sounds an awful lot like one of my favorite sci-fi novels: The Cassini Division. NBC's new webisodic series Gemini Division seems to have all the elements of a smash hit. So why has nobody heard of this thing?

For starters, take a look at this promotional clip for the show, which debuts on August 18th. If you watch the clip you'll be only the 81st person that's actually done so (as of this writing). I think more people have viewed my lawn than the show's promo material (actually my lawn gets pretty good numbers on YouTube, so maybe that's not a fair comparison). The thing I really don't understand is that with Rosario Dawson leading the cast they should have viewers lined up around the block for this thing. Here's the promo she did for her last film, Death Proof.

Though this kind of salacious advertising turns away her female fans she can certainly pack a theater with young men. Also, the show is prominently displayed on the homepage of NBC.com.

And did I happen to mention the fawning seven page review of the show in this month's Wired? So what went wrong?

The first problem with this show is that it's entirely built around advertisers. Watch for more Cisco product placement than you can shake a VoIP phone at. Next, the site that is hosting this show is entirely devoid of community. While the NBC parent site does allow you to sign up and create an online presence, the Gemini Division site doesn't recognize the login. There is a long, gruesome thread about the broken login system that plagues NBC and I can confirm (after several attempts) there appears to be no way to login to the Gemini Division site. Which is literally the best way to infuriate the online community.

As an independent filmmaker I see the arrival of advertising driven webisodes (starring household names) as both a blessing and a curse. It creates a new employment path for film students that want to get into the business, but it also crowds the space that was previously owned by really sincere, offbeat individuals that would otherwise be asking you if you wanted fries with your burger. Should slick dealmakers like Stan Rogow (the show's producer) take away the creative outlet of these folks? There are those that would argue there is plenty of space for both types of productions, and that you can simply ignore the commercial webisodes if you so choose. From the lowly numbers that Gemini Division is turning in it looks like that is exactly what viewers are doing.

iTunes Bricked My iPhone

Wed, 06 Aug 2008 13:44:41 -0400

When you plug your new 3G iPhone into your Windows XP desktop, iTunes will pop up and ask you if you want to upgrade your software (to version 2.01). Though it may seem like iTunes has your best interests at heart, iTunes has a heart made of stone. Do not go along with the iTunes plan. Tie yourself to your mast and ignore her siren song. For she will crash your iPhone on a sea of incompatibility and brick the thing. She's a jealous mistress that way. It turns out that the only way to resuscitate your phone after the "iTunes update of death" is to recover your phone back to the original factory image. And where is the "recover" button located? In iTunes, of course.

When I came groveling back to iTunes, asking her to "recover" the iPhone she had just destroyed, I could swear I heard her whisper, in soft electronic tones,"I ain't mad. I ain't never been mad. We're gonna get a little place. Down in the flat, we'lI have a field of alfalfa for the rabbits. And you get to tend the rabbits." And then she wiped away all my contacts, notes and music (as a result of the recovery process).

Remind me not to get on iTunes bad side.

Where Did Cuil.com's $33 Million Go?

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:36:22 -0400

If you randomly type letters into your browser you might have come across Cuil.com this week, a new search engine that claims to have "Three times as many Web pages as Google!" The site has a Wal-Mart heir on the board, $33 million in funding and absolutely no ability to return relevant search results. It may be the biggest search engine implosion in the history of the internet. You really should give this site a try. The results are hilarious. For example, if you enter "Cuil com" into the Cuil.com search engine the first page of results does not include Cuil.com:

Didn't anybody tell them that a new search engine launched this week?

While Cuil.com may not be aware of its own existence Google certainly is. Here's what Google displays when you search for the term "Cuil":

Google seems to be taking the Cuil threat seriously. Instead of providing a link to Cuil.com (as the top ranked result) Google essentially says,"We'd rather you read this bad press". Remind me to not get on the bad side of Google.

To be fair to Cuil, returning relevant search results is not the easiest thing in the world. Search engines have to deal with the overloaded meanings we place on various word combinations. Take the phrase "Green Screen Cinema". This is a common term in the film industry but the first two words in this phrase could be used to describe such things as the environment or patio blinds. How does Cuil handle the term "Green Screen Cinema"? Cuil doesn't even know there's a GreeScreenCinema domain. Nowhere in the search results could I find my site name.

After a number of different searches I finally did find a link to my site, next to a picture of some Bollywood star. Cuil made it appear as if the picture came from my site but it's not my image and I don't think Cuil has rights to it either. I don't know what offense would cause you to shut down a $33 million investment but I imagine that putting fake pictures next to search results is near the top of that list.

I don't think Google has to worry about this site. Cuil may be funded by Wal-Mart, but it bares more than a passing resemblance to a Bialystock and Bloom production. Check out Cuil.com before they shutter the production and run the producers out of town.

MetaFest Call For Entries

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:35:09 -0400

Fellow 'SC alumnus Mark Poggi contacted me the other day about an online film festival he's working on called MetaFest. The call for entries just went out and Mark would like your submissions of 10 minutes or less. The winners get a theatrical premiere here in the Bay Area (in addition to exposure on Metacafe.com) so it sounds like a pretty good deal all around. Here's Mark's press release:

Metacafe�

Microcinema International

www.metacafe.com/metafest

Free Film School: Dissonance

Sun, 20 Jul 2008 20:16:19 -0400

At long last I am proud to present the movie that Moby doesn't want you to see: "Giant Baby Attack!" This film is a demonstration of the concepts of dissonance and ostinato as they are found in the Poltergeist score, written by Jerry Goldsmith. Dissonance (a clashing or unresolved musical interval) and ostinato (a constantly recurring melodic fragment) are staples of the horror genre. To see how these concepts work to make otherwise brave people sleep with a light on, read more. "Giant Baby Attack!" initially sets the tone of the film by repeating four vibraphone notes over and over again. Though the initial video images are cheerful, the repetitiveness of the soundtrack is quite creepy. It almost sounds as if there's something wrong with the orchestra. Why do they keep repeating those notes? Don't they have sheet music? Is the conductor dead?

Ostinato of deep notes (called "basso ostinato") sets an ominous mood. An extreme example of this technique can be found throughout the Halloween soundtrack. Though John Carpenter could not read or write music at the time he composed the soundtrack, by simply imitating the basso ostinato style he was able to create a truly effective soundscape.

The "Poltergeist" score is an example of what can be done when this style is in the hands of a master. Filmtracks calls it an "intelligent horror score that slowly and brilliantly transform attractive harmony into frightfully atonal terror". From the samples I've used in "Giant Baby Attack!" you can hear the incredible complexity that Jerry Goldsmith brought to the score. Not only were his basso ostinato sections rich with layers that evoked emotions in the listener, he then pierced that fabric with dissonant wails that were truly frightening.

At the height of the panic in "Giant Baby Attack!" there is a clockwork sound that clashes directly with the orchestra. The use of dissonance at this point unnerves the listener. It throws the listener off balance and makes them long for the relative clarity of the basso ostinato (creepy though it may be). In this way ostinato and dissonance act as the one-two punch of the cinematic world. The soundtrack puts you on edge intially with ostinato, then takes away whatever sanity you had left with a sharp moment of dissonance. This is how true horror is created.

I hope I've made my point that you don't have to revel in gore in order to scare your audience. A horrifying tone can be set with a plodding, repetitive score punctuated by dissonant shrieks. Watch "Giant Baby Attack" without the music and see how different the experience is. Dissonance and ostinato make this film much more frightening than would be possible otherwise.

'He won many battles, his childhood friends became famous soldiers'

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:23:54 -0400

If you're a science fiction fan like me then you've probably seen your fair share of the SCI FI Channel. I think I can even say without fear of marital retribution that the SCI FI Channel is hands down better than the Food Channel. One of the great things about the channel is that they fund their own "Original Movie" productions. And the movies they produce are great. Take the case of "Grendel", which debuted about ten months before Robert Zemeckis' Beowulf hit theaters. It was the exact right product at the exact right time.

I'm so enamored of their productions that I wanted to find out what kind of people actually work for the SCI FI Channel. As luck would have it I was able to get in contact with Ron Fernandez, the screenwriter for "Grendel". Ron also wrote Rock Monster for the channel.

Here's how Ron broke into the business:

'Dark Knight' in IMAX: Great Film or Greatest Film Ever?

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:11:39 -0400

This radiant Dark Knight review just came in from guest correspondent Jason Calacanis. Jason writes:

Paramount Loses $450 Million Financing Deal

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:13:29 -0400

Paramount Pictures is in trouble and I don't see a Federation ship on the horizon that's going to swoop in and save them. You probably already knew that their star player is looking to get into business with an alleged Indian video pirate. Then just yesterday the studio admitted to losing a $450 million film financing deal with Deutsche Bank. Normally I wouldn't raise an eyebrow over a financing deal gone bad, but apparently some of the funds were meant to cover films currently in distribution. From The Hollywood Reporter:

Paramount's outside financing effort was designed to provide production funds for two dozen or more feature films from its upcoming slate, including "Tropic Thunder," produced by DreamWorksNext week Paramount screens "Tropic Thunder" for the press. The film is in the can, so there shouldn't be any remaining production costs. Did Paramount just lose their ad budget? In the case of "Tropic Thunder" it could just be that Paramount just wanted to unload a turkey before Thanksgiving dinner. The press screening that I mentioned doesn't actually include any film critics. Valleywag reports that,"None of the invited reporters, as best we can tell, are film critics." Maybe Paramount was hoping that the Tech Trader Daily blog (one of the invitees) will give the movie a glowing review. The blog sure went easy on the Novellus Q3 Guidance, you know, so maybe they'll come through. As Robert Fulford says,"In the search for useful quotes, no outlet is too obscure".

Aside from the flop that "Tropic Thunder" is shaping up to be the studio now has a serious, long-term problem. Where is the money going to come from? The Los Angeles Times reports today that "Paramount does not plan to seek another overall slate deal through a bank but instead will continue to co-finance its movies on a picture-by-picture basis with partners such as Spyglass Entertainment and Level 1 Entertainment, a person familiar with Paramount's strategy said". This does not bode well for Paramount. In the past the same partner (Spyglass) that brought them bombs like "The Love Guru" has turned around and delivered hits to the competition. Today Warner Bros. is sitting on a big pile of cash from the $51 million opening of "Wanted", a Spyglass production. Paramount wakes up in the middle of the night from dreams about that kind of opening.

I think it's called the snowball effect. Once the town sees that you're weak, they'll only bring you the projects that no one else will take. For years Paramount couldn't get a decent film off the ground (outside of the Star Trek franchise), and then Spielberg waltzed in and saved them. Now that he's signaling that he wants out, the financing has dried up and people on the lot are having serious meetings about "Love Guru II". If for some reason Level 1 cannot come through with a reboot of the Star Trek franchise (already pushed from Christmas 2008 to May 8, 2009) they'll use the Paramount lot to park cars. If the $450 million from Deutsche Bank was earmarked to pay for the next Star Trek film then Paramount should start hiring valets now.

S.F. Frozen Film Festival Opening Night

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:44:42 -0400

The S.F. Frozen Film Festival is now under way after last night's kick-off event at Space Gallery. The festival includes a number of gems this year, but if you do only one thing this weekend I recommend you catch the Oscar winning short film "Simulacra". "Simulacra" stars a robot that emotes so well he makes Wall-E look like he phoned in his performance.

Photos from opening night can be found on my Flickr photostream. More screenshots from "Simulacra" can be found after the jump: