Trent Haaga's new DVD out in UK

Moviemaker pal Trent Haaga has just released his very successful Dead Girl on DVD in the UK (PAL players only, sorry). But look for it soon here in the U.S.

Kick ass, Trent!

24 Hour Film Race Results

Congratulations to the 24HFR Austin winner Bryan Hunt! His film Breathe took first place; our film Sexual Hunger came in second, and also walked away with:

• Audience Award
• Best Acting Ensemble
• Best Original Music Score
• Best Set Design
• Best Writing

So, it was a terrific learning experience for our whole, wonderful team. Check out all the entries on the 24HFR page.

We had a lot of fun, and made a great, entertaining little film. Much thanks to Texas Film Scene member Cheryal Loosmore for organizing the Austin leg of the contest.

Texas native is semi-finalist in Netflix contest

Houston native Robbie Pickering is a semi-finalist in the Netflix Find Your Voice competition, which offers a prize package worth $350,000. Robbie asked that fellow Texas filmmakers vote for his trailer Natural Selection.

NOTE: The above movie is NOT Robbie's film. Click the "Visit and Vote" button to get to the semi-finalist page, and look for Natural Selection. Then tell Netflix that their "Share Video" feature randomly sucks.

It would be a great thing for a Texas filmmaker to win. Cruise over to the Netflix site and help a brother out. Check out the other fine trailers, too, from several talented filmmakers around the world.

Good luck, Robbie!

Post-mortem of the AFTRA Contract

John Cygan, a self-described "middle class actor" and SAG member, offers some thoughts on the aftermath of the AFTRA deal.

I personally take all union-versus-producers talk (from both sides) with a grain of salt, but it is an interesting take. At the very least, it confirms that those filmmakers who are making Webisodes probably have the right idea for the future.

Thanks to Nikki Finke's Deadline Hollywood for the link.

Time to stop reaching for the stars?

We've known that big stars are no longer enough to ensure box office success. Now, apparently, they're no longer enough to even greenlight a movie.

Lisa Wilson, president of international distribution at GK Films remarked recently to Variety: "I've heard of stories about films in the middle of production that have bank notes that still haven't cleared yet." Will Smith can still get a film greenlit sight-unseen, according to Brian O'Shea, executive VP of worldwide distribution at Odd Lot Intl.

So, if stars can't get big films made, what can? Positioning.

Producers, including indie filmmakers like those at the Texas Film Scene, need to start with the idea of what will bring people to the film. That could be an actor, but it could be a great writer, or a unique location (particularly if you are marketing the film locally or regionally), or a fantastic logline. Hollywood types love these so-called "high concept" movies, because they can be more easily marketed.

And books. Hollywood loves, loves, loves movies based on best-sellers, like Twilight, Harry Potter, or James Bond. Why? Because it reduces risk. Or, at least, it appears to reduce risk. If the book sells well, that (hopefully) proves that there is a built-in audience, just waiting for the movie to be released. And Hollywood is all about reducing risk, particularly on mid-range, $30-100 million dollar films.

As discussed here in previous posts, comic book movies and big-budget extravaganzas are almost the sole purview of Tinsel Town. Nobody does a $250 million dollar, effects-laden blockbuster like Hollywood. Come to think of it, nobody else does them at all, period.

But what about micro-budget indies? For them, the costs of production are so low that even C-list stars can generate enough interest and critical praise to achieve profitability. But if you are trying to raise capital for your film, it may be better to invest in a unique story, or other marketable hook, than in a "name" actor, unless that actor can demonstrate a documented following and fan base.

Think hard about what marketing position you will take for your film long before you ever call "action."

Thanks to Joseph Kenny for the heads-up on this article.

"This is a revolution." --McG

Good feature interview with superstar director McG in the May 2009 issue of Fast Company magazine. Listeners of our Texas Film Scene podcast will recall that Dallas filmmakers Blake Calhoun and Mike Maden are now partnering with McG's production company.

Here's an excerpt from the interview:

Our dinosaur studio system does not make sense. This is a revolution.
--McG, director of Terminator: Salvation

Words to live by. Check it out.

Orwellian filmmaking

In 1946, George Orwell aptly described the process of feature filmmaking, from writing to producing to directing to acting to shooting to editing and finally, to marketing:

"[It] is a horrible, exhausting struggle, like a long bout of some painful illness. One would never undertake such a thing if one were not driven by some demon whom one can neither resist or [sic] understand. For all one knows that demon is the same instinct that makes a baby squall for attention. And yet it is also true that one can write nothing readable unless one constantly struggles to efface one's personality [...] Good prose is like a window pane."
-Why I Write, by George Orwell

Except that Orwell was talking about writing a novel, of course.

No more fat pipes

Cartoon courtesy of Steve Greenberg

If you live on either coast (not counting the Third Coast), then you may have noticed Cox, Comcast, and Time Warner "capping" the amount of data traffic you can have on your connection, even if you paid for an unlimited account. This is an attempt to wring the last penny out of a failing business model.

Time Warner's latest attempt to avoid becoming just a "fat pipe" from which users download valued content is to buy NBC Universal from General Electric (GE)- maybe. Time Warner, which owns HBO, TNT, CNN, and TBS, plus film studio Warner Bros., would benefit by having additional content-producing channels like USA, Bravo, Sci-Fi, and CNBC, though it would probably shutter Universal Pictures, currently owned by NBC.

GE has tried for years to drop the multi-billion dollar entertainment anchor from it's roster, but with no luck. Despite some hit shows and movies over the past decade, the company does not fit into GE's corporate focus, and diminishing ad revenues plus movie piracy and dwindling DVD sales have made NBC more risk than reward.

This actually makes some sense to me, just as it made sense for Apple to threaten to become it's own recording label if the the Big 4 did not coporate with it's one-size fits all pricing policy (though recently Apple relaxed it's stance a bit).

Cable, satellite, and phone companies transmit bits, but add very little value, other than bill consolidation, if you have your phone, TV, and Internet service with a single company. They are merely "fat pipes" to the Wild West Web, where consumers can pick and choose content exactly to their liking, and watch or listen to it exactly when and where they want.

Some providers have exclusive agreements with certain sports teams or other channels, but for the most part, they struggle to justify their high prices. But if cable companies buy up studios, which are struggling even more, then not only do they control distribution, but they also directly control content (except for piracy, of course).

That could stave off the creditors for a while, until they can think up a real business model.

MPAA says show biz creates jobs

No surprise, the lobby industry for Hollywood published an "impact report" that says show business is good for the economy.

In fact, it says the average salary for "core production staff" (whatever that means) is almost $75,000, over 20% higher than the national average for other jobs. It also points out all the tax money the industry brings to the coffers of state governments.

I certainly don't think the movie industry is bad for any state's economy, and it definitely helps put food on the table of people who work in that industry. But the numbers in this report appear skewed:

Most people (including most actors) involved in the making of any movie, even $20 million-plus films, make nowhere near $75,000. They are paid a decent, but not exorbitant daily rate. For example, most extras on a film set (who arguably have the worst job on set), are paid around $75 for a 12-14 hour day. In non-union states (like Texas), that might be as low as $50 per day.

The "average" salary is highly inflated, both by the grossly large salaries of a few key stars, and a few key studio executives, while those on the front lines do OK during the three months of a shoot, but then are left wondering when and where their next job will come.

Some argue that this is the reason why we need greater union participation. Others argue that stronger unions will only serve to drive up production costs, and make filmmaking a more risky and less profitable business.

My take is that the MPAA is talking out of both sides of its mouth. When it serves the industry, the MPAA will talk about how much money it loses to piracy, star actor profit participation, union demands, and state taxes. But on the other hand, this report touts how much money the industry makes and generates for it's workers and host states.

Any veteran of the music industry will instantly recognize this sort of rhetoric- the same type of stuff the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) spouts. It serves to remind us that Hollywood is big business, no different than Enron or AIG. And we all know how great those companies were for the economy.

Look, movies are business, period. If you make movies to make money, learn the game. As with most industries stiffled by large oligopolies, it helps to look at what innovators like Blake Calhoun and Mike Maden, Robert Rodriguez, Trent Haaga, and others are doing. Just make your own damn movie.

On taking better photos

Great post on taking better photos from Stu Maschowitz over at Prolost. Read it from the home page RSS feed at Texas Film Scene.