Crap, the Bean Counters are going to screw us again!

puredrifting

puredrifting

Major Contributor
https://www.wsj.com/articles/discov...ng-on-low-budget-quarantine-shows-11591311803

We all knew this was coming but to actually see it in the WSJ is depressing.
This is all corporate speak for "For as many of our shows as we can get away
with, we're going to be doing as much talent self shooting from home
as possible to save as much as possible."

If you are a regular Discovery Network shooter or sound mixer, this ain't good news at all.

Love the shot of the Go Pro atop a Sachtler Video 18 or something larger.

Anyone want to join me in live streaming Cat Videos and ASMR content with Influencers? ;-) It's the future.
 
The possibilities of how the pandemic will affect business ... wow.

You're proposal is no joke. I think you have a valid business plan. I was joking a week or two back about one vlogger making money with over a million hits while cable and networks production stand idle. Considering that most good vloggers have at least as many if not many more viewers than a hit network tv show (1 million), it makes a lot of sense to move on and go where the money is going.
 
Sometimes I hate it when I'm right, but I said back at the beginning of all this that the broadcast/network world was going to crash down. As far as TV goes, the last recession didn't even cause a blip on the radar. But this... This is going to take us out like the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs.
 
Paul F said:
The possibilities of how the pandemic will affect business ... wow.

You're proposal is no joke. I think you have a valid business plan. I was joking a week or two back about one vlogger making money with over a million hits while cable and networks production stand idle...
Click to expand...
That's because he was in Minsk, making wisecracks exactly where I once made wisecracks. Many years ago.

As to cable TV, I recall watching an Alan Dershowtz interview (I think it was 2016) and the host was in the studio with all the lighting and the makeup and Dersh was sitting in his tattered underpants, gulping boilermakers and chewing on some leftover pizza slices. Or maybe he wasn't. It was hard to tell. The picture was pixelated and low res and the sound was full of echo and reverb. But it was a talking head show and the dialog was clear enough. And no one from the news channel even went to Dersh's house and told him to upgrade his upload speed and get some cheesy LED lights and a cheap mic. And maybe a hairpiece to cover up his bald spot.
 
I wonder what sector of Production is safest and most stable moving forward...

It does seem like these gopro shows are opening themselves up to competition though. I've seen so many producers pitch some variant of "let's take this popular, low-budget show but make it more expensively with higher production value!" Even when I go to shoot it for them, it usually seems like the wrong choice. Like, the low-budget original was either adequately good-looking and the talking mattered more anyway, or looking low-budget was actually part of the appeal.

But for broadcast TV shows?
 
I don't think this is the end of professional production. But it does foretell the end for a lot of shooters and some production companies in particular who make a living off of filming
this kind of content for Discovery Networks. I do wonder if general audiences are discerning anymore about things like good lighting, clear sound, professional camera movement.
Everything in production for the past twenty years has been about "The Democratization of Video". I think we are way past that now, it's too democratized, anyone can make anything
right now with almost any tools. And as we see, the old retorts of "The cream rises to the top", and "content is king" seem to have been false too. it seems more like ultra narrowcasting
is king. Spend an extra hour on YouTube more than you normally do, look and explore.

I am almost mystified on a daily basis that there are soooo mannnny subcultures, crazy dedicated audiences of millions that worship so many things that really, in a normal, sane world, wouldn't even exist,
much less have rabid audiences of millions. ASMR. Watching others play video games, plucking hairs and popping pimples, Anime/Manga, Cosplay, Fantasy Play, PG-13 rated sexual fetish, not graphic but implied.
The list goes on and on. In a way, the fact that production is highly dumbing down, so to speak, makes sense because the market is so astronomically splintered, content must be made for next to nothing because
the mass audience really doesn't exist much anymore, other than maybe for the Superbowl, World Cup and The Olympics.
 
Content is King remains true. It's just that the content is now as you described; spread over thousands of microcosms.

Viewers never demanded perfection in cinematography, lighting, sound, sets, or costumes. They were delivered by competing entities that were trying to perfect and up their game. Movies and television were a 'noble cause'. Participants wanted to excel. It was an exclusive club. One had to pay their dues working in the proverbial mail room and work their way up. Access was limited. Content was hard to make. Distribution was exclusive.

The barriers are gone. Everyone has a camera and distribution. With that, we see that all the creative craft of the cinematographer and all the other experts is unnecessary. Sure, we all still want to see a great one hour drama or movie that is well executed. But we also found out that the masses also are entertained with a phone hand-held vertically and no crew.

We all know it was heading that way for quite some time. The pandemic is just the black swan that is pushing things down the road.

Oh! I saw a bird doing something funny. Where's my phone... See ya!
 
puredrifting said:
... I do wonder if general audiences are discerning anymore about things like good lighting, clear sound, professional camera movement.
Click to expand...
Of course, not. Or they'd be making an effort to make reasonably good looking videos themselves.

PS. It's like one of my e-friends from that other part of the world would link to an old Soviet film clip and I'd write that it is high school quality production on a bum's budget ... then delete the comment because someone would get upset. And, even though they have seen their share of the Hollywood feature material, they still don't care. And they're part of the artist colony to boot.
 
This is from the XXX-rated category (so, click off if you're offended).

The 1970's adult film was made by people who were on the fringe of Hollywood. They were professional actors, writers, directors who needed extra money or had no qualms about the foray into porn. But production of that era occasionally achieved B-grade Hollywood movie quality. When VCR and Video Cameras took over film in the mid-1980's, the quantity of the produced material skyrocketed while the quality dropped precipitously. When the internet took over, the quality pretty much disappeared across the board and people began to record themselves the way others recorded cats and cockatoos.

In Hollywood, the major streamers are trying to maintain quality but others have to get whatever they can.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kgg
Paul F said:
Viewers never demanded perfection in cinematography, lighting, sound, sets, or costumes. They were delivered by competing entities that were trying to perfect and up their game. Movies and television were a 'noble cause'. Participants wanted to excel. It was an exclusive club. One had to pay their dues working in the proverbial mail room and work their way up. Access was limited. Content was hard to make. Distribution was exclusive.

The barriers are gone. Everyone has a camera and distribution. With that, we see that all the creative craft of the cinematographer and all the other experts is unnecessary. Sure, we all still want to see a great one hour drama or movie that is well executed. But we also found out that the masses also are entertained with a phone hand-held vertically and no crew.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree with you, but not entirely. I think viewers DO demand perfection in cinematography for some things (even if they couldn't identify what constitutes such). That's why Marvel movies and GOT looked so good and so real.

I would say that "content" breaks down into roughly 2 categories:

1. Fantasy
2. Reality

For "fantasy" (which could be Marvel or could be rom-coms), we want the spectacle to look as beautiful as possible and we want the illusion to be as believable as possible.

For "reality" (which could be a cooking show, network news interviews, a youtube review or how-to demo), we want information transfer but we dont care that much how it looks or sounds as long as it's not distractingly bad. Sometimes, looking crappy is part of the appeal and makes things look honest and more real.

Of course, you have reality tv which is a fantasy masquerading as reality. I think it's really important for the Kardashians to maintain their look (I think they've even started doing some sort of video photoshopping to themselves in the interview portion of the program). And for sure Kim and many others photoshop their Instagram posts.

We don't WANT that reality TV stuff to look like a fantasy spectacle, so they need to manipulate it invisibly. But reality TV and instagram influencers are about lifestyle and image anyway, not about information, so I would definitely put them in the "fantasy" camp. (Which is borne out by the fact that both groups hire skilled cameramen and do not self-shoot)
 
Colbert was getting around 15 million views per week on youtube before covid, and is getting around 15 million views per week now that he shoots at home instead of shooting in an expensive studio with a big crew. I'm guessing his TV ratings must be doing just as well too. But that doesn't mean he'll still be able to pull this off once we get rid of the pandemic: now every competitor is also shooting from home, and the audience has been captive at home for months (no restaurants, no going to the movies, etc).

The virus will have long-term effects on the way we do things, but I'm not sure we can deduce them by just looking at its short-term effects.
 
Great discussion. I totally agree with Paul, ultra high production values and shooting a football game with 32 cameras is really an upsell. A value-add to try to impress the audience to tune in. These things are not absolute. I (we) like them as it is our craft but normal peoples' enjoyment is so far away from this level of production. The overall industry kept pushing in this direction not wanting to notice or admit that it is too far away from reality. Yes, it will always have a place but the ground has washed away under the foundation so to speak and 'without any permission' folks created a new paradigm along with the help of Google.

So in the end, this gets back to the need to stay in tune with your customer base and innovate or you will be compromised. It is not easy.
 
DLD said:
This is from the XXX-rated category (so, click off if you're offended).

The 1970's adult film was made by people who were on the fringe of Hollywood. They were professional actors, writers, directors who needed extra money or had no qualms about the foray into porn. But production of that era occasionally achieved B-grade Hollywood movie quality. When VCR and Video Cameras took over film in the mid-1980's, the quantity of the produced material skyrocketed while the quality dropped precipitously. When the internet took over, the quality pretty much disappeared across the board and people began to record themselves the way others recorded cats and cockatoos.

In Hollywood, the major streamers are trying to maintain quality but others have to get whatever they can.
Click to expand...

Once again the porn industry led the way and predicted the future.
 
I think the broadcast television world of the last 60+ years was not built on choice. When the chips finally got put on the table, people basically were not necessarily tuning in from a pure interest point of view. Things look so simple when looking back.

What I do not like is along with the massive fragmentation, the ability to make a living in the space kind of get diminished.
 
ahalpert said:
I mostly agree with you, but not entirely. I think viewers DO demand perfection in cinematography for some things (even if they couldn't identify what constitutes such). That's why Marvel movies and GOT looked so good and so real.

I would say that "content" breaks down into roughly 2 categories:

1. Fantasy
2. Reality

For "fantasy" (which could be Marvel or could be rom-coms), we want the spectacle to look as beautiful as possible and we want the illusion to be as believable as possible.

For "reality" (which could be a cooking show, network news interviews, a youtube review or how-to demo), we want information transfer but we dont care that much how it looks or sounds as long as it's not distractingly bad. Sometimes, looking crappy is part of the appeal and makes things look honest and more real.

Of course, you have reality tv which is a fantasy masquerading as reality. I think it's really important for the Kardashians to maintain their look (I think they've even started doing some sort of video photoshopping to themselves in the interview portion of the program). And for sure Kim and many others photoshop their Instagram posts.

We don't WANT that reality TV stuff to look like a fantasy spectacle, so they need to manipulate it invisibly. But reality TV and instagram influencers are about lifestyle and image anyway, not about information, so I would definitely put them in the "fantasy" camp. (Which is borne out by the fact that both groups hire skilled cameramen and do not self-shoot)
Click to expand...

I agree with all of this Abe. Problem for most of us is we are not in the Marvel Business.
Most DVXers are in the episodic or occasional TV, Social Media, Documentary businesses. And for most of us,
the bar is being lowered to a point where many clients are just doing it themselves or
having their nephew from film school doing it. I was hating life when budgets went from me shooting
with my beloved small crews (all of the best work of my career has been done with a 3-10 person crew) to
present day which is one man band and I consider it a luxury when I can occasionally even get a 3-4 person crew.

It's funny, I don't mind OMB and I'm pretty good at it. Like Eric at least used to do, I have done plenty of OMB
shoots with 3-4 cameras and sound and directing, by myself. But from a financial standpoint, doing this is stupid, all
we are doing is conditioning clients to hire OMBs to do the work of 3-4 people for much less than they would pay for 3-4
people.

For our live streaming business, we have three PTZ robotic cameras. Most times we deploy them, we are NOT hiring
any camera operators, and that's sad. It's just one of us with the control panel. Granted, the cameras are mostly locked off
and usually just one angle following speakers to and from a podium, but still, it's not a good precedent but its usually all of the
meager budgets that clients want to pay that is causing it, thats why our long term goal with live streaming is to up the budgets
and present things with live streaming that the average OMB or small company simply cannot accomplish. Motion control, jib arms,
real sets, hair & makeup, props, production design, sound mixer, things that make our clients live streams look and feel closer to
broadcast television and less like a podcast with some cameras thrown up in the corners.
 
Last edited:
puredrifting said:
I agree with all of this Abe. Problem for most of us is we are not in the Marvel Business.
Most DVXers are in the episodic or occasional TV, Social Media, Documentary businesses. And for most of us,
the bar is being lowered to a point where many clients are just doing it themselves or
having their nephew from film school doing it. I was hating life when budgets went from me shooting
with my beloved small crews (all of the best work of my career has been done with a 3-10 person crew) to
present day which is one man band and I consider it a luxury when I can occasionally even get a 3-4 person crew.

It's funny, I don't mind OMB and I'm pretty good at it. Like Eric at least used to do, I have done plenty of OMB
shoots with 3-4 cameras and sound and directing, by myself. But from a financial standpoint, doing this is stupid, all
we are doing is conditioning clients to hire OMBs to do the work of 3-4 people for much less than they would pay for 3-4
people.

For our live streaming business, we have three PTZ robotic cameras. Most times we deploy them, we are NOT hiring
any camera operators, and that's sad. It's just one of us with the control panel. Granted, the cameras are mostly locked off
and usually just one angle following speakers to and from a podium, but still, it's not a good precedent but its usually all of the
meager budgets that clients want to pay that is causing it, thats why our long term goal with live streaming is to up the budgets
and present things with live streaming that the average OMB os small company simply cannot accomplish. Motion control, jib arms,
real sets, hair & makeup, props, production design, sound mixer, things that make our clients live streams look and feel closer to
broadcast television and less like a podcast with some cameras thrown up in the corners.
Click to expand...

But that’s the problem, now. They don’t give a rats @$$ about it looking like “broadcast television” anymore. Even the broadcasters. My level of standards and ‘give a damn’ has been higher than most of my broadcast/network clients for years, now. Yeah, some still care and appreciate and want good work, but those are mostly the old school guys that are being shuffled out. We try to get the younger guys on-board and sometimes you’ll get the “wow, that looks good or that’s better than our last crew”, but then you never see them again. It’s just incredibly frustrating when you know you can perform at a high level, but it’s just not seen as valuable anymore and you’re sitting around while the bottom feeders are busy.
 
Bassman2003 said:
Great discussion. I totally agree with Paul, ultra high production values and shooting a football game with 32 cameras is really an upsell. A value-add to try to impress the audience to tune in. These things are not absolute. I (we) like them as it is our craft but normal peoples' enjoyment is so far away from this level of production. The overall industry kept pushing in this direction not wanting to notice or admit that it is too far away from reality. Yes, it will always have a place but the ground has washed away under the foundation so to speak and 'without any permission' folks created a new paradigm along with the help of Google.

So in the end, this gets back to the need to stay in tune with your customer base and innovate or you will be compromised. It is not easy.
Click to expand...

I'm not a big sports fan, so maybe my opinion on this isn't the best - but I genuinely feel that cinematography has enhanced sports viewing SO much and elevated the experience of every game for fans.

The high resolution, the slow motion, the crazy camera angles - having the camera flying over the field or positioned atop the basket.

It gives people an enhanced way to experience the action, and having so many cameras of such high quality and with such fancy rigs in all the right places is key.

Or look at baseball - it becomes a suspense thriller of dueling close-ups of the batter and the pitcher. There's no way that a wide shot of the field has the same drama.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top