Food for thought

J_Barnes

J_Barnes

Veteran
Here’s the pitch:

There seems to be a glut of creative and technically adept people waiting just outside the video industry, with only a scant few video and television jobs to share between them. I see too many people in this industry spending 95% of their time looking for work and it seems that only 5% of us are working.

Maybe you're like me, and you're tired of waiting to get a foot in the door, maybe you want to make your own door. Video is cheap, the internet is ubiquitous, and there's a network of public access and internet distribution channels that are being left fully unexplored. Maybe we can take a portion of that time we spend looking for work and apply it to creating some interesting programming, packaged shows created for the love of the subject, for the enjoyment of the process, and not with the intention of a make-or-break sale to network.

If we can create shows for no money, why can't we offer them for distribution without cost? If you could express yourself creatively and socially, extend your industry exposure and build yourself a thicker resume while waiting for a paying gig, wouldn’t you feel better about your efforts? Wouldn’t you feel that all the energy you’ve poured into learning this craft was justified?

If you think any of this applies to you, if you’ve got an interesting idea for programming, if there are subjects out there that you’d like to explore, drop me an email and tell me about them. I’ve got a few ideas myself, and maybe our ideas are worth more then the casual dinner conversation we afford them.

I'm in the washington DC area right now, and I'm ready to start working on some of my ideas. Drop me a line and tell me about yours.

avacantlot@y(nospam)ahoo.com
 
Re: Food for thought

Hey J_Barnes,

I'm looking for some collaborators in the DC Metro area to exchange work on personal projects. My current interest is in developing and producing high quality narrative shorts, documentaries, and experimental films. I'm more concerned with wide distribution than paid distribution :). Let's talk.
 
Re: Food for thought

Hey guys,
I like this talk. I did not get into this work because i love the business. I did get into it to collaborate, inspire , and be inspired. I am not in the DC area, but I am mobile, and a lot of work can be done from afar. I guess my yardstick for "success" is moving the percentage of work that i am doing more toward the projects i choose. It is (gratefully!) working out, but i want more.

an approach that has been working, with some musical collaborations has been to send anything: a riff, a lyric, a few tracks, to my friends in Mexico, Colorado, etc. they play with it and send it back, and some good stuff has been coming from it. This could obvioously work with film as well. We don't have to follow ANY particular format for production, just get an idea, do part of it, and pass it on.

this does not address distribution, but it can be pretty satisfying!

if you want to play:

marloshui@hotmail.com
 
Re: Food for thought

Well, there's certainly a lot of momentum in open source, and a lot of people have been trying to come up with ways it could be applicable to motion content creation.

The problem I see with the way people have been thinking about open source video is that they're viewing it as a dynamic project when in actuality, video typically needs to reach a final form at some point and it demands authorship. I think that in the end, the way open source applies to video makes it more of an open-content exchange rather then a collaborative project, and I don't really see that as having legs.

I don't really see a direct application to dramatic theatrical works, be they short-playing or long, but rather to packaged content shows which would be able to be syndicated. I think that a lot of the DV momentum has been behind feature films and documentaries, but I think the most obvious application of the medium is in television production.

Look, without going into detail here about the specifics of my ideas, I can say that they revolve around this specific concept:

Established television producers have been incorperating more and more prosumer-grade cameras into their productions. While most of these shows still maintain one or two broadcast shoulder rigs, they're doing a ton of insert work with PD150s and DVX100s, and some shows are transitioning completely to prosumer miniDV for their production work. It's obvious that miniDV is lower quality then cameras that cost twenty times as much, but these producers are sacrificing a bit of quality to capture the obvious gains in budget and workfllow.

So the idea is this: If established television producers are lowering their *technical* quality down to our standards, why can't we raise the quality of our *content* up to meet theirs?


It's just an idea, but I think I have some practical ways to apply it. I should start a website or something.
 
Re: Food for thought

May I be so bold as to suggest that I have the answer you seek? I have spent some time investigating internet TV. One of the best streaming sites i found is kulakswoodshed.com. They stream live music for 2 hours a day, the rest is archived footage, 24/7. All content (live performances) is created in their storefront coffee house in N. Hollywood. Unknown artists from all over the U.S. appear for free. There is no advertising, all costs are covered by donations and sponsor memberships. The budget runs about $4000 per month. Inspiration is free.

The idea I am working on is this: 12 or more dedicated amateur film/video producers form a company to stream video on the net. Each member is required to produce content every week, by any means necessary. If you can find a sponsor, more money for you, (the network takes a cut of course) if not, that's ok too. Each producer is truly independant, answering only to the board of directors. (fellow producers) We could buy in for about $1000 each. Cheap. We pay for this by raising donations (ala PBS) and sponsorship of individual programs.

In short, we form our own web network. There are currenly no rules or restrictions to webcasting. We could slide in under the radar and get a foot in the door. Don't anybody tell me it can't be done. This is already working in the U.K., with corporate sponsorship.  I also believe it would be possible to one day generate enough cashflow to make a profit, and maybe eat once in a while.

What makes this plan so workable is our digital media. In some ways the short films you provide here are this plan in action. We could accept programming digitally from anywhere in the world. We would not have to be together in a physical sense, ever. No network censorship, except by consensus. This is the fruition of the digital revolution.

I know from my limited experience in the music biz that there are thousands of worthy artists who will never get any exposure, because mainstream media has no more room for them. At the same time, cable and satellite tv are expanding so fast that they are short of quality content. We need an independant movement like the indie record biz. The web will provide the medium, we must provide the content. Our network could be a showcase for the industry, a stepping stone for some, a great opportunity for all.
It's time for my medication, so I must go now.

"Two guys think they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top