karapetkov
Well-known member
Make the downloads cheap, quick and easy enough, and it will work.
Otherwise, we're all dead and so is Hollywood.
The Democratization of technology in moviemaking
- Thread starter Luis Caffesse
- Start date
Make the downloads cheap, quick and easy enough, and it will work.
Otherwise, we're all dead and so is Hollywood.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
I've always felt that content is king but also think that one mustn't nail it to be successful. So many films that have so so and even crappy stories but still find a market.
It's your actors first and foremost in my eyes. The second an audience realizes your talent can't act, it's done.
I will always digress to films like 28 Days Later, Open Water and the recent Once.
The talent in all of these films were well above average and it worked. It worked despite the perfect script, the perfect endings or the perfect stories. It worked despite rudiement cinematic techniques (especially in shooting on a SD format and extreme low budgets).
The sound design must be there and usually is once picked up for release but I strongly feel, your films will start with talent that is beleivable.
The audience will forgive us for half ass stories or incomplete ideas; the world is filled with these films. But we are never inundated with shitty actors.
(I am not referring to the slate of direct to DVD films from amatuer filmmakers picked up by indie labels)
Batutta
Major Contributor
Cheap only works if you sell millions and millions. I doubt most films will sell in the millions. When you have a glut, only the premium stuff gets noticed, the rest is just noise...I wish I could be positive about this. I'm just not seeing it. Much like the economy, things will be great for the elite at the top, everyone else will struggle just to survive.
You make money by selling it to a distributor online. The distributor then takes your content and hosts it on their site, throwing Yellow Pages ads in front of it that people HAVE to interact with to watch the content.
Money comes from advertisers on websites. I can't see where anyone making money off of internet content unless they sell to the larger outlets that can guarantee advertisers hundreds of thousands of hits daily.
That's where the money comes from.
Money comes from advertisers on websites. I can't see where anyone making money off of internet content unless they sell to the larger outlets that can guarantee advertisers hundreds of thousands of hits daily.
That's where the money comes from.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
or
createspace.com
createspace.com
karapetkov
Well-known member
Like now, but the difference will be that your movie will be one-click-away and your buck too.
It won't be paradise, but it will be easier than it is now.
The elite will be those who can afford "the new internet promoting" of their product - banners and ads on every site and on the most popular ones.
It will all be in the Net - the whole marketing game. TV will be on the net, radio, everything... that's totally obvious.
The new Spielberg movie will have a paid banner on the frontpage of IMDB, but just below it could be a link to your little movie that somehow got popular and become a sensation.
You and Spielberg will be one-click-away.
Don't you like that idea?
Distribution will be instant, global and much easier than it is now.
Of course, you have to make a killer movie.
That is, was and always will be what where talking about.
The key is making good movies.
...
Indies of the world, unite! :laugh:
karapetkov
Well-known member
I think that the Internet is going to effect the most profound change on the entertainment industries combined. And we're all gonna be tuning into the most popular Internet show in the world, which will be coming from some place in Des Moines. We're all gonna lose our jobs. We're all gonna be on the Internet trying to find an audience.
Steven Spielberg
(.. who "agrees" with me )
Steven Spielberg
(.. who "agrees" with me
)
Batutta
Major Contributor
I think that the Internet is going to effect the most profound change on the entertainment industries combined. And we're all gonna be tuning into the most popular Internet show in the world, which will be coming from some place in Des Moines. We're all gonna lose our jobs. We're all gonna be on the Internet trying to find an audience.
Steven Spielberg
(.. who "agrees" with me
I'm not disagreeing, I just don't think there will be much money there. The only money will be made by the people who own "the series of tubes".
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Self promotion is always a benefit
Putting your film on Createspace isn't the only idea; setting up a blog, a MySpace Film Account, Forum pimping and countless other avenues will spread your product around
Putting your film on Createspace isn't the only idea; setting up a blog, a MySpace Film Account, Forum pimping and countless other avenues will spread your product around
karapetkov
Well-known member
You're right, but only related to the current state of things.
In 3-5-10 years when you're gonna have an additional BILLION of broadband Inet audience, "the money" thing is gonna drastically change.
Have faith, brother.
Audiences are not shrinking. They're growing. Because every human on earth is a potential audience, and last I checked we've passed 6 billion, and still going strong. Problem is the technology to MAKE the films is ahead of the technology to DISTRIBUTE them. I'd wager that very soon we'll need MORE content, not less!!! Because with 6 billion people, a fractional niche audience can still be huge.
Yes, most of the world still doesn't even have a telephone. But that's my point. The POTENTIAL audience is gigantic. And let's not forget this: how many times have you looked at the newspaper's movie section or gone to the video store and walked in circles thinking there's NOTHING I want to watch. Fast forward 10 years from now where your TV is a super-fast Google powered storehouse of content. You like snake docs? Google "snake documentary" and then download for a couple of dollars any snake doc you want. You like horror? Well some really cool LOW BUDGET horror is being made right now in Romania that you wouldn't be able to see without the power of Google (or its future equivalent). Wouldn't you pay a couple bucks for something good that you really did want to watch, instead of Legally Blonde 7?
When I can sit home and devour content that I tailor to my interests, at a price point that makes economic sense, then I'll watch a lot more stuff. It will be insanely easy--certainly easier than traipsing to the movie theatre or the video store or bittorrent. Yes, a real movie theatre is still the ideal place to view. But now it's clearly one option among many, and we need more options for distribution.
It may actually turn out that there isn't nearly enough GOOD content to feed the future distribution vortex coming our way.
Yes, most of the world still doesn't even have a telephone. But that's my point. The POTENTIAL audience is gigantic. And let's not forget this: how many times have you looked at the newspaper's movie section or gone to the video store and walked in circles thinking there's NOTHING I want to watch. Fast forward 10 years from now where your TV is a super-fast Google powered storehouse of content. You like snake docs? Google "snake documentary" and then download for a couple of dollars any snake doc you want. You like horror? Well some really cool LOW BUDGET horror is being made right now in Romania that you wouldn't be able to see without the power of Google (or its future equivalent). Wouldn't you pay a couple bucks for something good that you really did want to watch, instead of Legally Blonde 7?
When I can sit home and devour content that I tailor to my interests, at a price point that makes economic sense, then I'll watch a lot more stuff. It will be insanely easy--certainly easier than traipsing to the movie theatre or the video store or bittorrent. Yes, a real movie theatre is still the ideal place to view. But now it's clearly one option among many, and we need more options for distribution.
It may actually turn out that there isn't nearly enough GOOD content to feed the future distribution vortex coming our way.
dougspice
Veteran
That's the real problem. It's already a problem, right now: of the millions of videos on YouTube, of the dozens of supposedly "professionally produced" web series, a tiny, tiny fraction of that is worth watching – or even watchable.
The problem becomes not the content, but the filters between you and the content. Or else you have 7 billion people drowning in crap. It brings to mind Murrow's thoughts on television, times a thousand.
The problem becomes not the content, but the filters between you and the content. Or else you have 7 billion people drowning in crap. It brings to mind Murrow's thoughts on television, times a thousand.
Aren't websites the new version of TV networks?
Why couldn't you get a bunch of other filmmakers and develop a lot of content, bundle it, and make your on TV network/website?
The build it and they will come theory.
adkimery
Veteran
I pretty much agree w/Batutta's posts that monetizing video on the internet is more elusive and difficult than people predicted it would be. The iTMS took off like gang busters but the video side, and AppleTV, haven't exactly set the world on fire. Stage 6 shut down, Revver is looking for a buyer...
And people, as a whole, really aren't watching that much video online right now. I don't remember the exact split, but something like 10% of people who watch video on the internet are responsible for like 90% of the total amount of video watched. Don't quote those numbers, but basically you have a lot of people who barely watch video on line and a few people who watch a ton of it. And I'll bet dollars to donuts that the vast majority of online videos being watched aren't feature length films.
Once you make it, how do you get people to watch it? There are hundreds of thousands of pieces of new media up loaded onto the 'net each day. How do you get your needle to stick out of that haystack? Yeah, you have the guys from "4 Eyed Monster" who did everything grass roots, but when time is money nothing is truly free. How much pro bono work did they do on their own film to get the word out? People might point out what Radiohead and NIN are doing right now w/self distribution of their albums, but those are very rich dudes whom already have a massive following world wide. I think most of us here are in a bit different situation in terms of wealth and fame.
Yeah, one day video distribution over the 'net will mature, but it's off to a much rockier start than anyone anticipated.
-A
And people, as a whole, really aren't watching that much video online right now. I don't remember the exact split, but something like 10% of people who watch video on the internet are responsible for like 90% of the total amount of video watched. Don't quote those numbers, but basically you have a lot of people who barely watch video on line and a few people who watch a ton of it. And I'll bet dollars to donuts that the vast majority of online videos being watched aren't feature length films.
Once you make it, how do you get people to watch it? There are hundreds of thousands of pieces of new media up loaded onto the 'net each day. How do you get your needle to stick out of that haystack? Yeah, you have the guys from "4 Eyed Monster" who did everything grass roots, but when time is money nothing is truly free. How much pro bono work did they do on their own film to get the word out? People might point out what Radiohead and NIN are doing right now w/self distribution of their albums, but those are very rich dudes whom already have a massive following world wide. I think most of us here are in a bit different situation in terms of wealth and fame.
Yeah, one day video distribution over the 'net will mature, but it's off to a much rockier start than anyone anticipated.
-A
karapetkov
Well-known member
Other thing to consider is that, even with all the new tech, the cost for creating a feature is considerable [incl. lowest-budget ones].
Even for my country [where it's comparatively cheaper to shoot], I can't see how you can create a feature for less than 50-100 000 $. Lower than that, it will be too big a compromise with many things, and the result will be crap.
We're talking about all the rental costs, permits, fees for the crew\cast, transport, catering, etc.
The alternative would be a really low-budget story [minimum characters, minimum locations, character study type of story, no vfx, no fancy post, etc.] and a totally un-paid crew\cast, cause you either pay everybody [something] or you pay noone nothing.
It's not good practice to pay some members of the crew, but others not.
Either everyone gets paid [something], or noone gets paid.
So... all I'm trying to say is that, in the case of feature films, the sea of indie productions will not be that big, because it simply is never cheap.
Even the lowest theoretical amount for a feature - 50k $ - is not exactly "pocket money" that you can find easily.
50k $ is 50k $, and 50k Euro is [now] a double trouble.
rogar-Thinking(DBG
On the other hand... saving only the cost of shooting on film, gives me the above mentioned 50-100 000 $, and maybe more...
...
With short films it will be different, me thinks.
There will be a true ocean of sh*t.
But I see no problem with that, cause most of that shi* will probably be no-budget and also free to watch\download online.
Even for my country [where it's comparatively cheaper to shoot], I can't see how you can create a feature for less than 50-100 000 $. Lower than that, it will be too big a compromise with many things, and the result will be crap.
We're talking about all the rental costs, permits, fees for the crew\cast, transport, catering, etc.
The alternative would be a really low-budget story [minimum characters, minimum locations, character study type of story, no vfx, no fancy post, etc.] and a totally un-paid crew\cast, cause you either pay everybody [something] or you pay noone nothing.
It's not good practice to pay some members of the crew, but others not.
Either everyone gets paid [something], or noone gets paid.
So... all I'm trying to say is that, in the case of feature films, the sea of indie productions will not be that big, because it simply is never cheap.
Even the lowest theoretical amount for a feature - 50k $ - is not exactly "pocket money" that you can find easily.
50k $ is 50k $, and 50k Euro is [now] a double trouble.
rogar-Thinking(DBGOn the other hand... saving only the cost of shooting on film, gives me the above mentioned 50-100 000 $
, and maybe more......
With short films it will be different, me thinks.
There will be a true ocean of sh*t
.But I see no problem with that, cause most of that shi* will probably be no-budget and also free to watch\download online.
mjjason
Well-known member
There is already a thriving video industry on the web that is raking in billions via streamed or downloadable video. The Porn industry.
They have already found a way to make money on the web. Some create themed websites that charge a montly fee others create a star that people pay to watch. In the end they make billions via video downloads and streaming video.
Once the movie industry figures out how to modify their product to meet that same system they will follow suit.
They have already found a way to make money on the web. Some create themed websites that charge a montly fee others create a star that people pay to watch. In the end they make billions via video downloads and streaming video.
Once the movie industry figures out how to modify their product to meet that same system they will follow suit.
pmark23
Veteran
You guys will hate me, but I get my movie fix from eMule and The Pirate Bay. I haven't stepped into a movie theatre since the last millennium.
I don't really have a choice, because I live in Russia, and not even in a major city -- not that it matters anyway because there are no English-language films on DVD, and I can't buy them from anywhere because nobody makes English language DVD's for this region anymore. In short, the studios f--ked themselves out of at least one paying customer over here.
So instead I download my entertainment. I only have a 128kbit DSL line (if that!), but I can get about five movies a week. I burn a compilation onto DVD and watch them on a plasma TV in the living-room (or just watch them on the computer if I'm feeling lazy).
I would gladly pay a buck or two per download BUT I CAN'T! Still, I think this is the future -- at least it will be when the studios stop screwing things up.
I don't really have a choice, because I live in Russia, and not even in a major city -- not that it matters anyway because there are no English-language films on DVD, and I can't buy them from anywhere because nobody makes English language DVD's for this region anymore. In short, the studios f--ked themselves out of at least one paying customer over here.
So instead I download my entertainment. I only have a 128kbit DSL line (if that!), but I can get about five movies a week. I burn a compilation onto DVD and watch them on a plasma TV in the living-room (or just watch them on the computer if I'm feeling lazy).
I would gladly pay a buck or two per download BUT I CAN'T! Still, I think this is the future -- at least it will be when the studios stop screwing things up.
Batutta
Major Contributor
The difference is that porn is about the cheapest entertainment to produce. All you need is a few people willing to screw on camera, one location, and a camera (not even a good one). They make money because productions costs are so absurdly low. Also, the vast majority of people making porn don't earn much. Again, there's a glut, and the ones making most of the money aren't the porn producers, but the portals that show it. But let me ask you this, did you get into this business with the hope that someday your work would be shown on the internet? I sure as hell didn't.
mjjason
Well-known member
No I did not. I, likely probably everyone on here, dreams of a huge theatrical release and all that hoopla. But the times change and those that change with it are those that survive. I am quite sure film people of the 20s and 30s didn't see television as a viable system. It was cheap, the productions were low, and the quality wasn't all that great. But people embrassed it and it flourished. Today people don't think twice about seeing movie stars, directors, or producers doing TV or vice versa. The online world will follow suit.
Also (going on a tangent a bit here) I don't think what we know of as the internet today will be what it stays as in the future. More and more big players are getting a hold of the internet. I am quite sure that we are not too far off from a point were TV is fully interactive and the net is basically how we access everything we want to watch. TV schedules will be a thing of the past as most people will control what they want to watch and when they want to watch it.
We are already at the beginning of this change with the advent of Tivo, DVRs, VOD, and the web. I am quite sure the web, tv, and the film industry will blend into a hybrid/on-demand system that the user controls what they view. Those that figure out how to search and shuffle through all the drudge to get to what the user wants will be those that make money. Similar to how google makes money today. The content providers (film-makers and the like) will likely make money through studios that host their content.
This is all just an idea but that is how I see it happening. It may very well go a different route.
Anhar_Miah
Veteran
I too dream of seeing my work on the big screen, and here is a twist, with todays "Home Cinema" technology, I think its very viable that one could produce a film and then project it in your own "Cinema", of course anly a few will see your work , but at least its one way to make that dream a reality.. I guess thats looking at it from the art side alone and not the business side
, but at least its one way to make that dream a reality.. I guess thats looking at it from the art side alone and not the business side