Amazing art!

Next time you think your movie needs lots of talky dialog, watch this video, and remember that we trade in a visual medium.

Straight to Audience, not Straight to Video

I love this post by Sherri Candler, a Los Angeles-based low-budget film marketing advisor, where she suggests that we change the term "straight to video" (or straight to DVD) to "straight to audience." Amen!

Filmmakers have been doing this for decades, now, probably as far back as John Cassavetes. But the difference now is the presence of The Great Disintermediator- the Internet. Search engines, YouTube and it's ilk, and social networks have made it possible to find an audience simply by posting your content online. Doing that and only that will not necessarily gain you much traffic, or any money, but it can help you find what Kevin Kelly calls 1,000 true fans.

With such a core audience, you become your own distribution company, for whatever content you produce- movies, music, books, blogs, podcasts, speeches, etc. It's an approach I've been advocating for sometime here on this blog, and on the Texas Film Scene, and is also the thrust of a book I'm writing on entrepreneurship in the digital age (if you're interested in knowing when this book is shipping, email me).

Straight to audience is not as sexy as a box office release, but considering that most indie filmmakers now only score a box office release if they (a) get chosen by the Festival Gods, or (b) pay for their own 4-walling, it certainly is a lot cheaper. Straight to audience has also helped Texas filmmakers like Blake Calhoun and Mike Maden score pretty sweet Hollywood production deals on the strength of their straight-to-audience work. Besides- and I know this is heresy- on most nights, I would rather enjoy a movie on my dirt-cheap home theater system than pay $20+food+gas+babysitter for a movie ticket. At $35 per outing, it takes only 25 movies to recoup the cost of my 47-inch LCD. Avatar or Star Trek is a different story, of course.

Straight-to-audience also scares people because it sounds like sales, which it is. It's time for artists to stop fearing sales, and start embracing it. If you love what you're selling, then selling is no chore. If you don't, why are you making that movie, again?

$50 horror flick 'Colin' takes Cannes by storm

Well, actually it was fifty pounds (Sterling), but I don't have the British keyboard settings enabled. Still, pretty cheap.

Colin is a no-budget movie by London director Marc Price, which tells the story from the zombie's perspective. A nice twist, playing on the American Werewolf theme.

Price took 18 months to organize (and write?) the project, cast and staffed entirely with volunteers from his Facebook group. The project garnered acceptance to Cannes, and awards at many smaller festivals worldwide. It has done so well, in fact, that it has an extensive theatrical release schedule! Not bad for fifty bucks.

No doubt many in Hollywood will trash the movie, and call attention to all it's low-budget production faults, instead of focusing on what a determined young director was able to do with no money. Smart studios will see this as a great way to mitigate their risk. As with Texas' own Pink: The Series, and the recent Uruguayan director who made a 5-minute version of War of the Worlds for $500, studios are making big offers to small indy filmmakers who prove that they can attract eyeballs in the vast Internet wasteland, and proving once again that it doesn't have to cost millions of dollars to make good movies; Hollywood just doesn't know any other way.

Stay at home actor

I love this. Reminds me of the Tonya Harding vs. Paula Jones sketch on SNL a while back. Thanks to Robert Dugan for the link.

Austin's funniest villain? Find out Dec. 14!

I had a blast doing my comedy debut at Cap City Comedy Club back in November. Now, I'm ready to go back for seconds. Come join me and several dozen of my closest friends on Monday, December 14, at 8 p.m., for a great lineup of some 20 rookies, and a veteran headline act. It's a fun night out. Besides, after all the fiscal doom and gloom this year, who couldn't use a good laugh?

Comcast-NBC deal on the brink

Cable provider Comcast is eyeing NBC-Universal for a price of about $30 billion, according to Bloomberg. In a previous post, I predicted this would happen, since it makes sense for cable companies to find ways to add value to customers, beyond just being a series of tubes.

What about you?

What does this mean for filmmakers, actors, writers, and directors? As with vertical integration in any industry, it should stabilize the demand for content, and those artists and skilled tradespeople who provide it... for a while. Let's face it: if you want to create art that takes $40 million of stars and special effects, you need a big studio behind you. Hollywood will continue to consolidate not only structurally, but in terms of content, too: big, comic-book, tent-pole movies will become Hollywood's main (perhaps ONLY) competitive advantage. There will be fewer shows made, probably, and they will likely continue to skew young. So if you're 18 and hungry, you should still plan on moving L.A. to jump start your movie-making career.

Regardless of NBC's short-term fate, the industry still faces larger issues, including a business model that doesn't depend on traditional commercial advertising and DVD sales. The music business highlights the importance of finding new ways to monetize digital content. NBC-Universal is a player; Universal Music Group, which bought BMG, is the largest of the "big 4" major labels.

So if you don't fit the major studio demo, or want to make movies outside that niche, try looking to the indie music industry, which is finding ways to redefine what business they are actually in.

Epic development

Paramount, Lionsgate, and MGM have launched a new TV network called EpixHD. It will feature movies that are still in the "pay TV window"; that is, after their theatrical run has finished, but before the DVD release.

What sets the new network apart, though, is that it will bundle an on-demand Internet streaming service, similar to Netflix Streaming or Hulu, allowing users to watch 720p high-def movies from the Epix catalog on demand, rather than be subject to run-of-schedule, like HBO subscribers, who are forced to endure the latest episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm 56 times in a week.

Originally, the company wanted to have cable providers like Time-Warner and Cox bundle the service with existing cable packages, shifting the burden of payment from subscribers to cable providers. Verizon, for one, said no thanks. They will offer EpixHD on their FiOS TV network, but at a $9.99 premium charge. Other cable providers and ISPs are likely to follow suit.

To combat that move, EpixHD is offering a free 30-day pass on their site. No doubt they will use information they get from you to lobby the ISPs and cable providers to bundle the channel, and to spam you with offers. But hey, it'll save you $10 or so!

iPhone Bluetooth Keyboards?

They're here! Sort of.

Some innovative companies have announced portable Bluetooth keyboards for the iPhone! (Way to be cutting edge, Apple. Palm had this kind of stuff 10 years ago for their PDAs and smart phones. Yeeesh.)

Oh, but wait- they don't actually work yet. Apple has not released drivers for the iPhone, so consumers can't enjoy this very useful technology unless we hack our phone. I wrote about the need for iPhone keyboards, and the available hacks a while back on my Easy Tech Zealot blog.

I suspect the reason is that Apple doesn't want to cannibalize possible "MacTablet" customers. Truth is, most die-hard Macheads that I know would buy both. I think Apple is missing an opportunity to cement the iPhone as the platform of choice for many users, especially with Android phones hot on their heels.

Google's Android is free, with many different suppliers, phone vendors, and price points. It's hard to compete with free, and even harder to compete with Google. Remember Yahoo, Hotmail, Outlook, Internet Explorer, and MS-Office? Google has supplanted or is rivaling all of those once-leading products. It will take time, but many phone users will choose "cheap and good enough" over "expensive and elegant." Many already have. So, lighten up, Apple. Give us the BT keyboard, already!

Tweeting during auditions

I'm not sure if this is bad form or not.

Daryl Eisenberg of DE Casting in New York, NY, has been using the popular insta-blog service Twitter during her casting sessions, though not during the actual auditions, she claims. As an actor, I feel empathy for the people who feel slighted by her actions, and am maybe a bit icnredulous that she was not doing it during actual auditions, though I give her the benefit of the doubt, since I wasn't there.

However, it's instructive to read what she was actually tweeting. The feedback is honest and blunt, which is what most actors need. I don't think reading the tea leaves of a casting director's musings will make us better actors per se, but it can certainly help identify and eliminate behaviors these CDs feel is "unprofessional" or even just plain old annoying.

Different CDs have different likes and disklikes, and being able to listen in on their thoughts, especially during a live casting session, seems to me like invaluable acting intelligence.

What do you think?

$4.5 million gross profit on indie feature

Yeah, that got my attention, too.

My friend Joe McReynolds hipped me to Lance Weiler's feature film site. I had heard of Lance's Workbook Project, but hadn't put his face to the films. Weiler claims to have made $4.5 million from self-distribution of his first feature, The Last Broadcast. His Workbook Project is wildly popular, and has returned him more money than a book advance he turned down to start it.

DIY DAYS LA - When the Audience Takes Control - panel

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.

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.

Nothing new under the sun

Good artists borrow; great artists steal.
-Pablo Picasso (maybe)

This great article called The Ecstasy of Influence: A plagarism in Harper's Magazine explores the question of plagarism in art- any art- and whether it really is such a black and white issue.

Fascinating stuff. Plagarism, thinly cloaked as "research," occurs all the time in both academic and pop-literature. In academia, we call it "standing on the shoulders of giants;" in popular publishing, we call it "stealing." Did black blues musicians rip off negro spirituals and Irish folk music? Did Elvis rip-off black blues musicians? Did the Beatles rip off Elvis? I'm sure you can think of about 1,000 movie equivalents here.

Does any of this matter? You be the judge.

Making money making movies

Graphic by Recruitment Matters

"Without money, there is no art."

Actually, it depends on how you look at it. There is lots of art that was made for free, or for very little money actually derived from, or earmarked for, the art itself. This is where our infamous day job comes in. But actually making art full-time? Yeah, that takes money. It takes making money from your art. It requires monetizing your art.

Or at least that's been the traditional thinking. Certainly, if you ask big record labels or movie studios who are in the business of selling little plastic discs, they'll tell you it does.

But Chris Anderson speculated, and I believe he's correct, that anything that is digital will be free. In that case, how does an artist survive? He (or she) survives by monetizing something, but not necessarily their art.

This same debate has been raging in the publishing world for a couple of years, and particularly in the newspaper industry. Now, the numbers are finally in, and they do not point to paid content as the way to right Big Newspapers' sinking ship.

Somewhere in here, there are lessons for filmmakers, since, as we know, our content can and will be free, in some cases, by design.

NEW! Texas Film Scene site now open!

I have thrown open the doors, ready or not, to the Texas Film Scene social network.  In 24 hours, almost 30 members have joined, formed two sub-groups within the network, and are adding content and traffic like crazy.

It's free to join, and there are tons of good tools for networking and publicizing your own events and work.  Plus, it will be a great place to meet other filmmakers without all the "noise" of Facebook or MySpace.

Pop over and see what you think!