Given that I don’t plan on having a finished film until January 2013, I believe it’s too early to seriously contact anyone regarding my film’s distribution. Too much networking would be counterproductive now, when I have nothing to show. Here’s a list of some people I’d like to get in touch with once 15 Minutes of Faye is completed and is ready for distribution. (Where appropriate, I’ve already contacted some of these people.)
Jarod Neece
Feature Film Programmer at SXSW
@jneece
Chad Hartigan
Successful Microbudget Filmmaker
@chadhartigan
Alex Holdridge
Successful Microbudget Filmmaker
catcher22productions@hotmail.com
Dan Eckman
Successful Microbudget Filmmaker
@daneckman
Sheri Candler
Independent Film Marketing Strategist
@shericandler
John Yost
Microbudget Film Enthusiast and Writer for Filmmaker Magazine
john@fifthcolumnfeatures.com
Stephen Kelliher
Head of Sales & Marketing at Bankside Films (a foreign distributor of microbudget dramas)
stephen@bankside-films.com
Matt Dentler
Indie Film Guru
@MattDentler
Susan Johnson
Independent Film Producer
info@braveartfilms.com
Seth Caplan
Independent Film Producer
@sethcaplan
Jean Twenge and W. Keith Campbell
Authors of “The Narcissism Epidemic” (a book which deeply influenced my film)
JeanTwenge@gmail.com
wkeithcampbell@gmail.com
Wade Tatangelo
Bradenton Herald Features Writer
wtatangelo@bradenton.com
I really wanted to find contact info for Anne Walker-McBay, who has produced most of Richard Linklater’s films, which I admire very much and are somewhat similar to my film, but she's not on Twitter and I couldn't find her e-mail address anywhere.
I also plan on contacting relevant members of the panel of judges who awarded us our grant from CMF.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Monday, March 26, 2012
Week 11 Homework
I called Ostrow & Company, which is a producer’s rep and sales agent that’s been around since the year 2000. They represent low-budget feature films, but have also successfully represented several microbudget films in the past. They have a fee of $12,000 for their services, but the testimonials on their website and their claimed 90% success rate suggest they are legit. (They money goes primarily to research where and how your film will fit into its market, and working their list of contacts to try and get you distribution.) They don’t accept every film submitted, and are actually quite picky, only accepting the ones they think they can successfully market.
They did say they’d be interested in a film like 15 Minutes of Faye though, even though it has such a small budget and no stars. Good story and characters are more important to Ostrow than star power, though that does help too. More than anything, they said marketability is the #1 thing they look for when choosing whether to represent a film or not. They accept open submissions, and they also actively scout the festival circuit, which they said is the most important source of films they represent. They say they know of every film that’s in any major or regional festival in the U.S. For clients, they target films they a.) think will be marketable, and b.) know don’t have distribution yet, and they approach filmmakers at each festival prior to the festival’s start.
When submitting your film to them to be represented, it’s better to work up a relationship with someone who works for them first, instead of sending your screener in cold. They’re more likely to pay attention to your film if they know it’s coming in advance. If your film is screening in a major or regional festival, it’s even more likely they’ll want to represent you. Ostrow does both narrative and documentary films, but no experimental films.
Footnote: Since I’ve read that sales agencies which require a fee to represent filmmakers are shady, I looked up some online reviews of Ostrow & Company. The reviews are fairly mixed, with some filmmakers calling them scam artists while others claim they are extremely reliable. There were more positive reviews than negative reviews though.
They did say they’d be interested in a film like 15 Minutes of Faye though, even though it has such a small budget and no stars. Good story and characters are more important to Ostrow than star power, though that does help too. More than anything, they said marketability is the #1 thing they look for when choosing whether to represent a film or not. They accept open submissions, and they also actively scout the festival circuit, which they said is the most important source of films they represent. They say they know of every film that’s in any major or regional festival in the U.S. For clients, they target films they a.) think will be marketable, and b.) know don’t have distribution yet, and they approach filmmakers at each festival prior to the festival’s start.
When submitting your film to them to be represented, it’s better to work up a relationship with someone who works for them first, instead of sending your screener in cold. They’re more likely to pay attention to your film if they know it’s coming in advance. If your film is screening in a major or regional festival, it’s even more likely they’ll want to represent you. Ostrow does both narrative and documentary films, but no experimental films.
Footnote: Since I’ve read that sales agencies which require a fee to represent filmmakers are shady, I looked up some online reviews of Ostrow & Company. The reviews are fairly mixed, with some filmmakers calling them scam artists while others claim they are extremely reliable. There were more positive reviews than negative reviews though.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Bullfrog Films
I called Bullfrog Films, mentioned by Jon Reiss as one of the major players in the educational market, and spoke with Elizabeth Stanley, who was really friendly and eager to help. She said that while Bullfrog Films usually does not acquire narrative films, there are exceptions, but usually with biopics: fictionalizations of the life of a famous scientist, politician, etc. She said she’d have to see our films first in order to make a decision, but Bullfrog Films probably would not be interested in most narratives or experimental films. I specifically asked about Nils’ documentary, but she said films dealing with spirituality are not a strong part of their collection, and she couldn’t find any spiritual titles in their database. Bullfrog Films is also uninterested in films about filmmaking, or behind-the-scenes featurettes (unless the featurettes are specifically about one of the films they acquire, in which case they’d be a selling point).
I also asked her about a hypothetical scenario, in which all of our films perfectly fit in the Bullfrog collection - would she acquire a bundle of films? Basically, no. Each film is always considered on its own merits, and Bullfrog does a separate contract with each producer. The only scenario in which a bundle of films would be considered would be if a single producer has more than one film (s)he produced, and both films fit well into Bullfrog’s collection. She did mention that Bullfrog has relationships with film cooperatives, though.
Ms. Stanley specified that the length of your film is very important in the educational market. Under an hour is very important for high school, while colleges and universities aren’t as particular about length. Having two different running times of your film is a selling point. Study guides and bonus features are also selling points.
For more information, she pointed me in the direction of the National Media Market (www.nmm.net), a conference held every fall at which all of the educational distributors show up. She also recommended Bullfrog Communities.com, especially if we have films relevant to their collection whose filmmakers are interested in public group screenings where admission is charged.
I also asked her about a hypothetical scenario, in which all of our films perfectly fit in the Bullfrog collection - would she acquire a bundle of films? Basically, no. Each film is always considered on its own merits, and Bullfrog does a separate contract with each producer. The only scenario in which a bundle of films would be considered would be if a single producer has more than one film (s)he produced, and both films fit well into Bullfrog’s collection. She did mention that Bullfrog has relationships with film cooperatives, though.
Ms. Stanley specified that the length of your film is very important in the educational market. Under an hour is very important for high school, while colleges and universities aren’t as particular about length. Having two different running times of your film is a selling point. Study guides and bonus features are also selling points.
For more information, she pointed me in the direction of the National Media Market (www.nmm.net), a conference held every fall at which all of the educational distributors show up. She also recommended Bullfrog Communities.com, especially if we have films relevant to their collection whose filmmakers are interested in public group screenings where admission is charged.
Distribution Windows for 15 Minutes of Faye
1. Theatrical
N/A - It is nearly impossible for a microbudget film to get a theatrical distribution deal, especially without cross-collateralization. Four-walling and other similar options are cost-prohibitive.
2. Semi-theatrical
N/A - My film will not appeal to museums, schools, etc. I would not be able to find a large enough audience to fill semi-theatrical venues because there is no obvious core community who would automatically attend my film without cost-prohibitive marketing. If I can find small hipster bars which would agree to hold paid screenings of my film, I would consider these screenings as long as marketing to the bars’ patrons would be cheap enough.
3. Cable VOD
N/A - Cable VOD is usually reserved for large films which can reach a wide audience. My film would not play well here.
4. TV + Free VOD
AMC Networks holds somewhat of a monopoly on U.S. channels which acquire indie films - it owns both the Sundance Channel and IFC. Despite the fact that getting a distribution deal with these companies is still nearly impossible for the smallest films, I think my film would fit right in on their channels in terms of genre and tone. Generally, Sundance and IFC don’t acquire films unless they have a festival pedigree, or some other type of clout. Neither channel accepts unsolicited submissions, so there’s no point in contacting them.
I don’t know of any other TV channels which acquire films like mine, and couldn’t find any. If you’re aware of any, please let me know.
5. Educational
Buyers include Bullfrog, Icarus, California Newsreel, Cinema Guild, and other smaller companies. Most focus exclusively on documentaries, but Bullfrog may be interested in narrative biopics. See my other blog post about Bullfrog Films for more information.
Contact info:
John Hoskyns-Abrahall
John@bullfrogfilms.com
6. Foreign TV
ID Communications is a foreign sales agent which actually specializes in micro- and low-budget digital films. It has the usual doc and horror lists, but it also does straight-up drama films, and appears to have had success selling such films at international markets.
Contact info:
contact@idcommunications.org
Another option which I’ve mentioned before is Bankside Films, a London-based sales agency that also deals with distribution. Bankside has sold small films like mine in foreign markets. They distributed In Search of a Midnight Kiss (produced for only $12,000) internationally, and You Instead, a low-budget film about a female rock star similar to my film.
Contact info:
Stephen Kelliher - Head of Sales & Marketing
stephen@bankside-films.com
+44 (0)20-7734-3566
7. Retail DVD
N/A - Physical media is on its way out, and will be even further gone by the time my film is ready for DVD distribution a year and a half from now. From Jon Reiss’ description in Think Outside the Box Office, the splitting of rights and deliverables lists seem like unnecessary burdens, when you could just sell the DVD (or streaming/downloadable media) on your film’s website, using an effective online marketing campaign, and keep all of the revenue.
If I were to pursue DVD distribution, some companies which have distributed films similar to mine are:
-Olive Films
-Avatar Films - E-mail acquisitions@avatarfilms.com
-Microcinema International - E-mail info@microcinema.com
-IndiePix - Submissions guidelines
While poking around their websites, I discovered an upside of DVD distribution: unlike television and theatrical distribution companies, DVD distribution companies usually accept unsolicited submissions.
8. Direct DVD
N/A - Same as above.
9. Hulu/Netflix + Other Internet
There are several sites I will consider when distributing my film:
-Distribber (and similar sites)
-Netflix (currently acquiring boatloads of long tail content)
-Hulu
-iTunes
-Amazon VOD
-YouTube
-Babelgum (e-mail content@babblegum.com)
-Mubi
-Jaman (submission page on website)
One great thing about online distribution is that - as far as I know - online distribution deals are sometimes non-exclusive, leaving you free to pursue deals with other companies, and sell your film on your own website. (Babelgum is a notable exception.) There are plenty of other, smaller distribution sites, but I’d like to go with reputable sites which have good track records.
10. Direct Internet from your site
I liked what I read about the sites in Think Outside the Box Office which could help with DIY distribution:
-Film Annex
-Youreeeka
-Stonehenge
-Amazon
If 15 Minutes of Faye doesn’t get much festival play (and maybe even if it does), my plan is to sell the film from my website as download-to-own, streaming, and DVD (whichever the buyer prefers). Depending on pricing, I’ll probably have to sell around 2,000 copies to break even. Once the film is available to purchase on my website, it’s just a matter of executing an effect grassroots marketing campaign.
I have several resources for this:
-Reaching out to the community of people who helped make the film, including the venues and bands, and their fan bases.
-Coordinating with the authors of The Narcissism Epidemic, the book which partially inspired me to make the film, to reach their readership.
-Publicizing the film on the Campus Moviefest network, as part of the grant we won from them.
-Reaching out to online film blogs and publications.
-Getting as much local press as possible, and holding free local screenings at which we sell DVDs. (A few of our filming locations have already offered to do this for us.)
-Creating a six-episode web series featuring characters from the film, to help market the film online.
-Posting BTS “Making Of” documentaries online, and passing them around to the online film community.
-Promoting the film with ads on Facebook and Google.
-Marketing the film to guidance counselors trying to help people. (I’m still in contact with several of my high school teachers, who have supported the film and may be willing to help with this.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A note on film festivals:
When I refer to the necessity of my film playing in festivals, I am aware that festivals are from the old world and are increasingly irrelevant in an online market. I have no misconceptions about my film becoming the next big thing on the festival circuit, obtaining a big distribution deal, or building massive levels of buzz. Despite that, I also know that no film like mine has ever succeeded anywhere outside of the festival circuit. (If I’m wrong about this, please let me know.) Plus, the FAQ pages of most DVD and online distributors continue to mention film festival play as a major selling point. So although the odds are obviously against me, the festival circuit is a logical place to start for my film. My goal with festivals is not fame (wouldn’t that be ironic?); it’s credibility. I will pursue other distribution options as well, but film festivals have always been and will continue to be a major goal for 15 Minutes of Faye, unless I discover a better venue through which to market it. Also, my film was relatively cheap to make, like all the others here at UCF. Even the smallest of distribution sales could allow me to break even, which is all I care about, since the film was self-financed. My primary goal is to get the film seen by as many people as possible. Financial concerns are secondary.
N/A - It is nearly impossible for a microbudget film to get a theatrical distribution deal, especially without cross-collateralization. Four-walling and other similar options are cost-prohibitive.
2. Semi-theatrical
N/A - My film will not appeal to museums, schools, etc. I would not be able to find a large enough audience to fill semi-theatrical venues because there is no obvious core community who would automatically attend my film without cost-prohibitive marketing. If I can find small hipster bars which would agree to hold paid screenings of my film, I would consider these screenings as long as marketing to the bars’ patrons would be cheap enough.
3. Cable VOD
N/A - Cable VOD is usually reserved for large films which can reach a wide audience. My film would not play well here.
4. TV + Free VOD
AMC Networks holds somewhat of a monopoly on U.S. channels which acquire indie films - it owns both the Sundance Channel and IFC. Despite the fact that getting a distribution deal with these companies is still nearly impossible for the smallest films, I think my film would fit right in on their channels in terms of genre and tone. Generally, Sundance and IFC don’t acquire films unless they have a festival pedigree, or some other type of clout. Neither channel accepts unsolicited submissions, so there’s no point in contacting them.
I don’t know of any other TV channels which acquire films like mine, and couldn’t find any. If you’re aware of any, please let me know.
5. Educational
Buyers include Bullfrog, Icarus, California Newsreel, Cinema Guild, and other smaller companies. Most focus exclusively on documentaries, but Bullfrog may be interested in narrative biopics. See my other blog post about Bullfrog Films for more information.
Contact info:
John Hoskyns-Abrahall
John@bullfrogfilms.com
6. Foreign TV
ID Communications is a foreign sales agent which actually specializes in micro- and low-budget digital films. It has the usual doc and horror lists, but it also does straight-up drama films, and appears to have had success selling such films at international markets.
Contact info:
contact@idcommunications.org
Another option which I’ve mentioned before is Bankside Films, a London-based sales agency that also deals with distribution. Bankside has sold small films like mine in foreign markets. They distributed In Search of a Midnight Kiss (produced for only $12,000) internationally, and You Instead, a low-budget film about a female rock star similar to my film.
Contact info:
Stephen Kelliher - Head of Sales & Marketing
stephen@bankside-films.com
+44 (0)20-7734-3566
7. Retail DVD
N/A - Physical media is on its way out, and will be even further gone by the time my film is ready for DVD distribution a year and a half from now. From Jon Reiss’ description in Think Outside the Box Office, the splitting of rights and deliverables lists seem like unnecessary burdens, when you could just sell the DVD (or streaming/downloadable media) on your film’s website, using an effective online marketing campaign, and keep all of the revenue.
If I were to pursue DVD distribution, some companies which have distributed films similar to mine are:
-Olive Films
-Avatar Films - E-mail acquisitions@avatarfilms.com
-Microcinema International - E-mail info@microcinema.com
-IndiePix - Submissions guidelines
While poking around their websites, I discovered an upside of DVD distribution: unlike television and theatrical distribution companies, DVD distribution companies usually accept unsolicited submissions.
8. Direct DVD
N/A - Same as above.
9. Hulu/Netflix + Other Internet
There are several sites I will consider when distributing my film:
-Distribber (and similar sites)
-Netflix (currently acquiring boatloads of long tail content)
-Hulu
-iTunes
-Amazon VOD
-YouTube
-Babelgum (e-mail content@babblegum.com)
-Mubi
-Jaman (submission page on website)
One great thing about online distribution is that - as far as I know - online distribution deals are sometimes non-exclusive, leaving you free to pursue deals with other companies, and sell your film on your own website. (Babelgum is a notable exception.) There are plenty of other, smaller distribution sites, but I’d like to go with reputable sites which have good track records.
10. Direct Internet from your site
I liked what I read about the sites in Think Outside the Box Office which could help with DIY distribution:
-Film Annex
-Youreeeka
-Stonehenge
-Amazon
If 15 Minutes of Faye doesn’t get much festival play (and maybe even if it does), my plan is to sell the film from my website as download-to-own, streaming, and DVD (whichever the buyer prefers). Depending on pricing, I’ll probably have to sell around 2,000 copies to break even. Once the film is available to purchase on my website, it’s just a matter of executing an effect grassroots marketing campaign.
I have several resources for this:
-Reaching out to the community of people who helped make the film, including the venues and bands, and their fan bases.
-Coordinating with the authors of The Narcissism Epidemic, the book which partially inspired me to make the film, to reach their readership.
-Publicizing the film on the Campus Moviefest network, as part of the grant we won from them.
-Reaching out to online film blogs and publications.
-Getting as much local press as possible, and holding free local screenings at which we sell DVDs. (A few of our filming locations have already offered to do this for us.)
-Creating a six-episode web series featuring characters from the film, to help market the film online.
-Posting BTS “Making Of” documentaries online, and passing them around to the online film community.
-Promoting the film with ads on Facebook and Google.
-Marketing the film to guidance counselors trying to help people. (I’m still in contact with several of my high school teachers, who have supported the film and may be willing to help with this.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A note on film festivals:
When I refer to the necessity of my film playing in festivals, I am aware that festivals are from the old world and are increasingly irrelevant in an online market. I have no misconceptions about my film becoming the next big thing on the festival circuit, obtaining a big distribution deal, or building massive levels of buzz. Despite that, I also know that no film like mine has ever succeeded anywhere outside of the festival circuit. (If I’m wrong about this, please let me know.) Plus, the FAQ pages of most DVD and online distributors continue to mention film festival play as a major selling point. So although the odds are obviously against me, the festival circuit is a logical place to start for my film. My goal with festivals is not fame (wouldn’t that be ironic?); it’s credibility. I will pursue other distribution options as well, but film festivals have always been and will continue to be a major goal for 15 Minutes of Faye, unless I discover a better venue through which to market it. Also, my film was relatively cheap to make, like all the others here at UCF. Even the smallest of distribution sales could allow me to break even, which is all I care about, since the film was self-financed. My primary goal is to get the film seen by as many people as possible. Financial concerns are secondary.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Week 7 Homework
In his 1991 introduction to Ender's Game, author Orson Scott Card writes about the transaction between storyteller and audience. "The 'true' story is not the one that exists in my mind; it is certainly not the written words on the bound paper that you hold in your hands. The story in my mind is nothing but a hope; the text of the story is the tool I created in order to try and make that hope a reality. The story itself, the true story, is the one that audience members create in their minds, guided and shaped by my text, but then transformed, elucidated, expanded, edited, and clarified by their own experience, their own desires, their own hopes and fears.”
I find that my personal artistic manifesto (unlike my procedural “this is how I should work” manifesto, which is most of what I wrote in my last assignment) varies too much from project to project to pin down completely, but I’ve always felt the above quote was very accurate, even though I never considered transmedia and audience involvement in my art until recently. In fact, deep and detailed fictional universes have always appealed to me significantly - I am a major fanboy of most of the franchises Frank Rose used as examples in The Art of Immersion.
The anti-establishment/anti-art portions of Dadaism and the Fluxus movement don’t appeal to my personal sensibilities/manifesto, but the Fluxus movement does seem to be an ancestor of our philosophies here at UCF, and to the concept of transmedia as Rose describes its applications in pop culture. Fluxus creators enjoy experimenting with the intersection of different media types. Notably (and timely), some of the Fluxus philosophy even advocates open-source art, unbound by copyright restrictions. I do identify with the anti-gatekeeper and DIY sensibilities of Fluxus, and I find its advocating of interactivity interesting.
But, allow me to play devil’s advocate. The idea of audience involvement in new art forms appeals to me, whereas the idea of audience participation in the traditional (emphasis on that word) artistic process is difficult to accept. There are plenty of counterexamples to those provided by Rose. Teddy Blass, the founder of Nolanfans.com, the largest Christopher Nolan fan website, discovered in his site’s forums that users were uniting together to create a major fan film. Within weeks, however, the effort fell apart due to infighting and lack of authoritative hierarchy. Other would-be crowdsource production communities, such as Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s Hitrecord.org, are successful in producing content, but at an unfortunately mediocre level of quality. (Assuming quality is the goal, which it may not be in issue-oriented projects such as World Without Oil.) “Made for the masses” and “made by the masses” appear to have the same effect on artistic integrity.
Notably, Rose’s examples of successful story universes which involve audience interactivity are all massively budgeted franchises, whereas most microbudget efforts to involve audiences directly in the storytelling - at least ones of which I’ve heard - are not as successful. Real interactive successes such as Star Wreck, Homestar Runner, and Red vs. Blue still had a core group of just a few collaborators instead of giving their audience true power to tell a story, while JibJab gives its audiences power to create greeting cards; not stories.
Even in Rose’s book, examples of people "participating" in a story world really aren't. It's just kids writing Harry Potter fan fiction or fans tweeting as Mad Men characters, but none of this "participation" takes place in the official canon of the story worlds. In the context of traditional novel writing and filmmaking, wouldn't that become chaos? For example, if someone gets a copy of 15 Minutes of Faye and recuts it as they see fit, I’m of course completely okay with that, but it would unsettle me if they claimed their remix was part of the official canon of my story universe. The focal point of a franchise around which fans rally (i.e. the original work) would start to collapse if every single fan gets a piece of the storytelling action.
I realize these are the beginning stages of a new art form, which is why I think rather than having a progressive view of the old art form, it's more productive to adopt a view of two separate art forms: the old and the new (whatever the new may be or become). I also realize that the new art form needs to start somewhere: in this case, by branching off of the old art form. In addition, my above arguments view transmedia as an “or” world of traditional zero-sum, when I should be treating it as an “and” world. But ironically, this is no different than the way the experts treat it. From what I’ve read about the professional world of interactive storytelling, most of what’s come so far has been fun side distractions from the “main” story, which is still told by “the professionals,” because, as Kim LeMasters complains on page 310 of The Art of Immersion, “How do you get a human being to behave the way you wish them to behave?” Will a story whose plot and characters are thought out in immense detail for years before the artist creates them be equal in quality to a story created by accident on The Sims? I’m very skeptical, but the point I just made isn’t entirely a fair point, since transmedia is so early in its development. As Kojima says on page 132, "I believe that even today we can tell only a simple story without really interfering with gameplay." The key, I think, is to create a universe (rather than one specific story) so rich with specific possibilities that the audience/player/user will experience a high-quality story no matter which paths (s)he chooses.
Someone has to crack the code of how to give the audience total control of the story without sacrificing artistic quality. I think video games and the research into emotions described by Rose are on the cutting edge of this. After reading about that, the concept of integrating text messages into my film, and other similar gimmicks described in the transmedia chapter of Think Outside the Box Office, seem cheap and old-fashioned. What makes more sense to me is that if we really want to involve our audiences in immersive story worlds, we’ll have to abandon the traditional form of filmmaking in its entirety, instead of adding these gimmicky modifiers to our projects (whether the size of 15 Minutes of Faye, or The Dark Knight), and clinging proprietarily to our possession of the story. We need to, as the Fluxus Manifesto states, “Promote non-art reality to be grasped by all peoples, not only critics, dilettantes and professionals.” When you divorce the concept of transmedia from traditional filmmaking, it becomes very interesting to me, but sadly, I don’t think it’s compatible with the UCF Film Program.
Interactive universes are something to consider at the conceptual level of a project - not something to tack on after it’s finished. Most of the examples in Rose’s book (with the possible exception of The Matrix), created their alternate realities based on demand - no alternate realities were originally intended for their story. These interactive universes are not part of the main story; they complement the main story. They’re admittedly very cool, but they’re still gimmicks.
I think Filippo Tommaso Marinetti’s line from The Futurist Manifesto applies to film and transmedia: “[Art] will not be overtaken by progress; rather, it will absorb progress in its evolution.” Futurism, and its rejection of the past, appealed more to my personal sensibilities than the other manifestos about which I read (I promise I’m not a fascist). Something new is coming, which I believe is not entirely compatible with traditional filmmaking, even at the microbudget level. As described in paragraphs above, tacking interactive modifiers onto a pre-existing story only works well, I believe, with franchises of scale. Personally, I’m interested in both the traditional and the new, but not necessarily in combining them. (Though admittedly I’m still very new to all of these ideas, so my views are constantly evolving. I have too much to learn to allow myself to be close-minded about any of this.)
I find that my personal artistic manifesto (unlike my procedural “this is how I should work” manifesto, which is most of what I wrote in my last assignment) varies too much from project to project to pin down completely, but I’ve always felt the above quote was very accurate, even though I never considered transmedia and audience involvement in my art until recently. In fact, deep and detailed fictional universes have always appealed to me significantly - I am a major fanboy of most of the franchises Frank Rose used as examples in The Art of Immersion.
The anti-establishment/anti-art portions of Dadaism and the Fluxus movement don’t appeal to my personal sensibilities/manifesto, but the Fluxus movement does seem to be an ancestor of our philosophies here at UCF, and to the concept of transmedia as Rose describes its applications in pop culture. Fluxus creators enjoy experimenting with the intersection of different media types. Notably (and timely), some of the Fluxus philosophy even advocates open-source art, unbound by copyright restrictions. I do identify with the anti-gatekeeper and DIY sensibilities of Fluxus, and I find its advocating of interactivity interesting.
But, allow me to play devil’s advocate. The idea of audience involvement in new art forms appeals to me, whereas the idea of audience participation in the traditional (emphasis on that word) artistic process is difficult to accept. There are plenty of counterexamples to those provided by Rose. Teddy Blass, the founder of Nolanfans.com, the largest Christopher Nolan fan website, discovered in his site’s forums that users were uniting together to create a major fan film. Within weeks, however, the effort fell apart due to infighting and lack of authoritative hierarchy. Other would-be crowdsource production communities, such as Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s Hitrecord.org, are successful in producing content, but at an unfortunately mediocre level of quality. (Assuming quality is the goal, which it may not be in issue-oriented projects such as World Without Oil.) “Made for the masses” and “made by the masses” appear to have the same effect on artistic integrity.
Notably, Rose’s examples of successful story universes which involve audience interactivity are all massively budgeted franchises, whereas most microbudget efforts to involve audiences directly in the storytelling - at least ones of which I’ve heard - are not as successful. Real interactive successes such as Star Wreck, Homestar Runner, and Red vs. Blue still had a core group of just a few collaborators instead of giving their audience true power to tell a story, while JibJab gives its audiences power to create greeting cards; not stories.
Even in Rose’s book, examples of people "participating" in a story world really aren't. It's just kids writing Harry Potter fan fiction or fans tweeting as Mad Men characters, but none of this "participation" takes place in the official canon of the story worlds. In the context of traditional novel writing and filmmaking, wouldn't that become chaos? For example, if someone gets a copy of 15 Minutes of Faye and recuts it as they see fit, I’m of course completely okay with that, but it would unsettle me if they claimed their remix was part of the official canon of my story universe. The focal point of a franchise around which fans rally (i.e. the original work) would start to collapse if every single fan gets a piece of the storytelling action.
I realize these are the beginning stages of a new art form, which is why I think rather than having a progressive view of the old art form, it's more productive to adopt a view of two separate art forms: the old and the new (whatever the new may be or become). I also realize that the new art form needs to start somewhere: in this case, by branching off of the old art form. In addition, my above arguments view transmedia as an “or” world of traditional zero-sum, when I should be treating it as an “and” world. But ironically, this is no different than the way the experts treat it. From what I’ve read about the professional world of interactive storytelling, most of what’s come so far has been fun side distractions from the “main” story, which is still told by “the professionals,” because, as Kim LeMasters complains on page 310 of The Art of Immersion, “How do you get a human being to behave the way you wish them to behave?” Will a story whose plot and characters are thought out in immense detail for years before the artist creates them be equal in quality to a story created by accident on The Sims? I’m very skeptical, but the point I just made isn’t entirely a fair point, since transmedia is so early in its development. As Kojima says on page 132, "I believe that even today we can tell only a simple story without really interfering with gameplay." The key, I think, is to create a universe (rather than one specific story) so rich with specific possibilities that the audience/player/user will experience a high-quality story no matter which paths (s)he chooses.
Someone has to crack the code of how to give the audience total control of the story without sacrificing artistic quality. I think video games and the research into emotions described by Rose are on the cutting edge of this. After reading about that, the concept of integrating text messages into my film, and other similar gimmicks described in the transmedia chapter of Think Outside the Box Office, seem cheap and old-fashioned. What makes more sense to me is that if we really want to involve our audiences in immersive story worlds, we’ll have to abandon the traditional form of filmmaking in its entirety, instead of adding these gimmicky modifiers to our projects (whether the size of 15 Minutes of Faye, or The Dark Knight), and clinging proprietarily to our possession of the story. We need to, as the Fluxus Manifesto states, “Promote non-art reality to be grasped by all peoples, not only critics, dilettantes and professionals.” When you divorce the concept of transmedia from traditional filmmaking, it becomes very interesting to me, but sadly, I don’t think it’s compatible with the UCF Film Program.
Interactive universes are something to consider at the conceptual level of a project - not something to tack on after it’s finished. Most of the examples in Rose’s book (with the possible exception of The Matrix), created their alternate realities based on demand - no alternate realities were originally intended for their story. These interactive universes are not part of the main story; they complement the main story. They’re admittedly very cool, but they’re still gimmicks.
I think Filippo Tommaso Marinetti’s line from The Futurist Manifesto applies to film and transmedia: “[Art] will not be overtaken by progress; rather, it will absorb progress in its evolution.” Futurism, and its rejection of the past, appealed more to my personal sensibilities than the other manifestos about which I read (I promise I’m not a fascist). Something new is coming, which I believe is not entirely compatible with traditional filmmaking, even at the microbudget level. As described in paragraphs above, tacking interactive modifiers onto a pre-existing story only works well, I believe, with franchises of scale. Personally, I’m interested in both the traditional and the new, but not necessarily in combining them. (Though admittedly I’m still very new to all of these ideas, so my views are constantly evolving. I have too much to learn to allow myself to be close-minded about any of this.)
Monday, February 20, 2012
Week 6 Homework
This is the first draft of my personal filmmaking manifesto. It is not meant to be an objective statement about what filmmaking should be to filmmakers in general. Instead, its purpose is to remind myself about what filmmaking should be to me. Hopefully it’s okay that I borrowed some of these from Sally Potter’s manifesto, which I loved. Many of these statements derive from my learning experience on 15 Minutes of Faye. (I might have only realized a third of these prior to making the film.)
The belief that it’s all been done before is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Make movies cheap enough that you and your collaborators can have complete creative control. No need for financiers.
Only work on something you believe in. Life is too short to practice insincerity.
You must love your story enough to marry it for the following four years (at least).
Film is communication, so always keep your audience in mind.
BUT, make every film first and foremost for yourself. Success is internal; not external.
Be very receptive to others’ input, but unless they are your direct collaborators, give them no control whatsoever of your film. (This applies equally to real-world control, and also to mental/emotional control over the ideas in your mind.)
Bigger isn’t better. Smaller isn’t better. Better is better.
Film is not always the best medium for your story, so only make a film if your story can only be told (or can be told best) on screen.
You can’t always choose what happens while you are making a film, but you can choose your point of view about what happens.
Be bold.
Choose your team carefully and honor them. Never speak negatively about your colleagues.
Avoid negative people.
Work with people who genuinely love what they do, and not just what it does for their professional career.
The love of money is the root of all creative mediocrity.
The people who believe an outside-the-box idea will work before it’s been proven to work are the best people in the world. Keep them around.
Personable is always better than professional.
Quality is always more important than quantity.
If other people discourage you, remember: Most people who say they could do it better have never done it at all.
When in doubt, project yourself ten years into the future and look back – what will you be proud of having done? Indecision is a lack of the longer view or wider perspective.
Vision without action is a daydream. Action without vision is a nightmare.
Do not let procedure or “the way movies are supposed to be made” influence you or your collaborators. Think and act outside the box.
Be very careful who you trust to handle your money.
Anticipate every possible problem and plan accordingly.
Edit quickly, but edit right. Do not sacrifice quality for speed.
Always remember your ultimate goals for the film, and how those fit with your ultimate goals for your life.
For any number of stupid reasons, people will tell you you can’t do it. You can. (Whether you should is another important question that only you can answer for yourself.)
The belief that it’s all been done before is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Make movies cheap enough that you and your collaborators can have complete creative control. No need for financiers.
Only work on something you believe in. Life is too short to practice insincerity.
You must love your story enough to marry it for the following four years (at least).
Film is communication, so always keep your audience in mind.
BUT, make every film first and foremost for yourself. Success is internal; not external.
Be very receptive to others’ input, but unless they are your direct collaborators, give them no control whatsoever of your film. (This applies equally to real-world control, and also to mental/emotional control over the ideas in your mind.)
Bigger isn’t better. Smaller isn’t better. Better is better.
Film is not always the best medium for your story, so only make a film if your story can only be told (or can be told best) on screen.
You can’t always choose what happens while you are making a film, but you can choose your point of view about what happens.
Be bold.
Choose your team carefully and honor them. Never speak negatively about your colleagues.
Avoid negative people.
Work with people who genuinely love what they do, and not just what it does for their professional career.
The love of money is the root of all creative mediocrity.
The people who believe an outside-the-box idea will work before it’s been proven to work are the best people in the world. Keep them around.
Personable is always better than professional.
Quality is always more important than quantity.
If other people discourage you, remember: Most people who say they could do it better have never done it at all.
When in doubt, project yourself ten years into the future and look back – what will you be proud of having done? Indecision is a lack of the longer view or wider perspective.
Vision without action is a daydream. Action without vision is a nightmare.
Do not let procedure or “the way movies are supposed to be made” influence you or your collaborators. Think and act outside the box.
Be very careful who you trust to handle your money.
Anticipate every possible problem and plan accordingly.
Edit quickly, but edit right. Do not sacrifice quality for speed.
Always remember your ultimate goals for the film, and how those fit with your ultimate goals for your life.
For any number of stupid reasons, people will tell you you can’t do it. You can. (Whether you should is another important question that only you can answer for yourself.)
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Week 5 Homework
It appears that Netflix, Hulu, and YouTube are the major players in developing and/or acquiring original content for internet consumption, because they’re all already integrated enough to be able to mass release content to a specific audience at relatively low cost (compared to studios). Netflix is releasing Lillyhammer, House of Cards, Arrested Development, Orange is the New Black, and Hemlock Grove. Hulu intends to spend $500 million on content this year, including narrative series Battleground, documentary series A Day in the Life, and an untitled new doc series from Richard Linklater. Youtube is launching over 100 new channels centered around celebrities. Amazon, AOL and Yahoo are also funding original online content, because, as AOL Video SVP Ran Harnevo puts it, “The economics of original web video are finally starting to make sense, because companies like AOL have finally reached the scale necessary to attract real brand dollars.” Vodo.net, a Bittorrent subsidiary, crowdfunds its own content, including the web series Pioneer One.
Netflix makes its money from subscriptions; the rest make their money from ads. Though Netflix, Hulu, and YouTube acquire indie content, it’s very difficult to find specific percentages of profit splits with filmmakers - I could only find vague references. YouTube’s partner program provides content creators with a very small fraction of ad profit, based on each video’s view count. I also read negative posts about the percentage of revenue Netflix and Hulu share with filmmakers. Considering these companies have massively-reduced marketing (and in our case, production) costs, this is a surprisingly old-school way of dealing with filmmakers financially.
Some smaller players have been emerging as well. SnagFilms is a website which acquires and distributes documentaries online, and earns revenue through ads. Babelgum has been around since 2007, and acquires good indie films for online viewing. Babelgum earns its money through ads, shares profit 50/50 with the filmmaker, and requires exclusive streaming and mobile rights. IndieFlix is a similar company which earns revenue from subscriptions instead.
Interestingly, some “indie” sites like Kickstarter and IndieGoGo are starting to be co-opted by celebrities, drawing money from the crowdfunding culture to fund their own projects. There’s even one weird website which apparently exists partially to crowdfund studio productions.
Laurence Billiet of Babelgum claims that the future of online entertainment will be “curated content,” meaning that in an environment saturated with content, users need trusted sources to sort through the bad stuff to deliver the content they want to see. Ted Sarandos of Netflix echos this belief: “When you have millions of choices, and we live in a world of unlimited choice, you really do need some tools to find things.” I think there’s some truth in this, but it is still a traditional “top-down” view of entertainment. Many online users prefer a more democratic “bottom-up” approach to content: let the masses curate content for each other.
There will always be an audience for the old, centralized way, but I agree that most of these internet players are just trying to recreate a more centralized model (though Netflix’s demolishing of release “windows” is fairly progressive). The content being acquired by the major players is celebrity-driven and operates in economies of scale, not to mention these channels are nearly impossible for smaller content creators to break into - just like the old Hollywood system. To take full advantage of the internet, distributors will have to stop fighting piracy, and instead find a way to monetize a distributed network.
YouTube is probably the most progressive of content acquirers, since on YouTube (as opposed to Hulu, Netflix, and others), content creators really do stand a chance of success based solely on the merit of their work. But obviously YouTube still sees potential for revenue in celebrity-driven content as well.
My film, unfortunately, doesn’t fit in anywhere on the internet, in my opinion. Other than YouTube, the major players are just too focused on traditional non-niche content. I would be interested in working with Babelgum, but films which do well there usually have a festival pedigree. I create a comedy web series on YouTube as a side-project, and through my many failures and rare successes, I’ve gathered a sense of what appeals to the online world. 15 Minutes of Faye would perform better in traditional film festivals, which is fine with me, since my primary goal is to get the film seen by as many people as possible. Monetization would be nice, but after reading Think Outside the Box Office, I have little hope that recouping my production expenses is a realistic expectation (unless I want to spend the next three years getting my film out there - which I don’t).
An interesting footnote: In the interview with Ted Sarandos, he points out that one of the reasons for Netflix’s success was its wide assortment of television shows - long-form serialized storytelling. “In some ways it’s like the new literature … where you have the ability for a story to develop and for characters to develop, and more importantly for the audience to develop relationships with the characters.” As Jon Reiss points out, television’s core business is repeat viewers. These trends are dire news for creators of traditional narrative feature films, but good news for the transmedia creator.
Netflix makes its money from subscriptions; the rest make their money from ads. Though Netflix, Hulu, and YouTube acquire indie content, it’s very difficult to find specific percentages of profit splits with filmmakers - I could only find vague references. YouTube’s partner program provides content creators with a very small fraction of ad profit, based on each video’s view count. I also read negative posts about the percentage of revenue Netflix and Hulu share with filmmakers. Considering these companies have massively-reduced marketing (and in our case, production) costs, this is a surprisingly old-school way of dealing with filmmakers financially.
Some smaller players have been emerging as well. SnagFilms is a website which acquires and distributes documentaries online, and earns revenue through ads. Babelgum has been around since 2007, and acquires good indie films for online viewing. Babelgum earns its money through ads, shares profit 50/50 with the filmmaker, and requires exclusive streaming and mobile rights. IndieFlix is a similar company which earns revenue from subscriptions instead.
Interestingly, some “indie” sites like Kickstarter and IndieGoGo are starting to be co-opted by celebrities, drawing money from the crowdfunding culture to fund their own projects. There’s even one weird website which apparently exists partially to crowdfund studio productions.
Laurence Billiet of Babelgum claims that the future of online entertainment will be “curated content,” meaning that in an environment saturated with content, users need trusted sources to sort through the bad stuff to deliver the content they want to see. Ted Sarandos of Netflix echos this belief: “When you have millions of choices, and we live in a world of unlimited choice, you really do need some tools to find things.” I think there’s some truth in this, but it is still a traditional “top-down” view of entertainment. Many online users prefer a more democratic “bottom-up” approach to content: let the masses curate content for each other.
There will always be an audience for the old, centralized way, but I agree that most of these internet players are just trying to recreate a more centralized model (though Netflix’s demolishing of release “windows” is fairly progressive). The content being acquired by the major players is celebrity-driven and operates in economies of scale, not to mention these channels are nearly impossible for smaller content creators to break into - just like the old Hollywood system. To take full advantage of the internet, distributors will have to stop fighting piracy, and instead find a way to monetize a distributed network.
YouTube is probably the most progressive of content acquirers, since on YouTube (as opposed to Hulu, Netflix, and others), content creators really do stand a chance of success based solely on the merit of their work. But obviously YouTube still sees potential for revenue in celebrity-driven content as well.
My film, unfortunately, doesn’t fit in anywhere on the internet, in my opinion. Other than YouTube, the major players are just too focused on traditional non-niche content. I would be interested in working with Babelgum, but films which do well there usually have a festival pedigree. I create a comedy web series on YouTube as a side-project, and through my many failures and rare successes, I’ve gathered a sense of what appeals to the online world. 15 Minutes of Faye would perform better in traditional film festivals, which is fine with me, since my primary goal is to get the film seen by as many people as possible. Monetization would be nice, but after reading Think Outside the Box Office, I have little hope that recouping my production expenses is a realistic expectation (unless I want to spend the next three years getting my film out there - which I don’t).
An interesting footnote: In the interview with Ted Sarandos, he points out that one of the reasons for Netflix’s success was its wide assortment of television shows - long-form serialized storytelling. “In some ways it’s like the new literature … where you have the ability for a story to develop and for characters to develop, and more importantly for the audience to develop relationships with the characters.” As Jon Reiss points out, television’s core business is repeat viewers. These trends are dire news for creators of traditional narrative feature films, but good news for the transmedia creator.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)