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.)
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
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.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Week 4 Homework
My choice for a sales agency would be Bankside Films, a London-based sales agency that also deals with distribution. Bankside has sold films from numerous countries in both US and foreign markets, and often small films at that. They sold (and distributed in non-US territories) In Search of a Midnight Kiss (produced for only $12,000) to IFC films, and You Instead, a low-budget film about a female rock star similar to my film. Since 15 Minutes of Faye is a straight-up drama, I think it will have more success overseas (at least in Western countries), so a sales agent based in Europe could help a lot. Also, Bankside films is big enough to have professional clout, but small enough to care about every film they take on.
Contact info:
Stephen Kelliher - Head of Sales & Marketing
stephen@bankside-films.com
+44 (0)20-7734-3566
Contact info:
Stephen Kelliher - Head of Sales & Marketing
stephen@bankside-films.com
+44 (0)20-7734-3566
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Week 2 Homework
15 Minutes of Faye is a dark comedy of manners about a talentless narcissist obsessed with becoming famous by seducing his celebrity ex-girlfriend. The film could be loosely classified as mumblecore, a genre which traditionally does very well in film festivals. Though the film is microbudget, it was shot on high definition with professional lenses, giving it the look of a much higher-budget film. The fact that it is microbudget also means it will cost less for you to acquire than similar, but higher-budgeted romantic dramedies. The film was partially crowdfunded, both through personal connections and through the internet (including our official website and our Facebook page), so there is already a small market for this film in Florida. Also, the title begins with a numeral, which would help with a potential VOD release. Campus MovieFest will help us market the film, as part of a grant we won with their organization during pre-production. In addition, we've held three test screenings with unbiased audiences, who rated the film highly in terms of its pacing, comedy, and thematic material.
Examples of similar films which were successful include Chad Hartigan’s film Luke and Brie are on a First Date, and one of my personal favorites, In Search of a Midnight Kiss, which cost $12,000 to produce, and grossed over $170,000 after being acquired for distribution, not to mention playing at over twenty film festivals, and winning the jury award at the Florida Film Festival. I believe with the right marketing strategy, 15 Minutes of Faye could achieve equal success.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Week 1 Homework
Info on 5 Theatrically-distributed Films:
1. Martha Marcy May Marlene
Distributor: Fox Searchlight
Shot On: 35mm
Budget: No data available.
2. Into the Abyss
Distributor: IFC Films
Shot On: High-end digital.
Budget: Less than $1 million.
3. The Artist
Distributor: Weinstein Company
Shot On: 35mm
Budget: $15 million
4. Red Tails
Distributor: Fox
Shot On: HDCAM SR (1080p/24)
Budget: $58 million
5. Being Elmo: A Puppeteer's Journey
Distributor: Submarine Entertainment
Shot On: Sony HVRZ1U (and iPhone 4)
Budget: No data available.
Info on 5 Films Which Did Not Have Theatrical Distribution:
1. Nothing But the Truth
Distributor: Sony Pictures Home Entertainment
Shot On: 35mm
Budget: $11.5 million
Gross Sales: $3 million
2. Dog Soldiers
Distributor: Pathé
Shot On: 16mm
Budget: $500,000
Gross Sales: $5.5 million
3. Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer
Distributor: Anchor Bay Entertainment
Shot On: Arricam LT/ST
Budget: $2.5 million
Gross Sales: No data available.
4. Almighty Thor
Distributor: The Asylum
Shot On: HDSLR
Budget: Less than $1 million
Gross Sales: More than $1 million
5. Luke and Brie are on a First Date
Distributor: Self-distributed
Shot On: Low-end Digital
Budget: $5,000
Gross Sales: More than $5,000
Friday, September 30, 2011
The Last Laugh COP
Loss begets misery.
This is assuming the ending isn't taken into account. The film itself admits the ending is essentially a joke.
This is assuming the ending isn't taken into account. The film itself admits the ending is essentially a joke.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)