This is what I think has replaced the indie film:
http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/16/5...r-who-has-more-subscribers-than-justin-bieber
http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/16/5...r-who-has-more-subscribers-than-justin-bieber
The new indie film
- Thread starter Gillvane
- Start date
GHKAM
Well-known member
It's interesting how so many video people fret and pixel-peep on these forums, when many of the top YouTubers' videos have abysmal video quality, with average video cameras, not following any particular rules, not locking exposure, poor audio, etc. etc.
There are exceptions, but content is king or perhaps it's more about belonging to a certain youth demographic.
Granted this is a different thing than filmmaking but my overall point is rarely is there any mention, by the actual internet audience, complaining of video quality.
I think that's a good point. Image quality should come last, not first. If you don't have some good content, it doesn't make any difference how good your IQ is. And if you do have good content, well let's just say content people want to watch (it's not necessarily "good"), then they may not be concerned with IQ at all.
I dont know how it is for nonfilmakers, but when you say things like that, think about how when we see something not lit, not white balanced, not composed well, with bad sound, we instantly assume its crap and turn it off, content/story aside. Production values add legitimacy to a project.
I think non video/filmmaker people generally dont notice production values, but theory is that subconsciously they know something is "off" when those values are poor, and it turns them off.
I think non video/filmmaker people generally dont notice production values, but theory is that subconsciously they know something is "off" when those values are poor, and it turns them off.
adkimery
Veteran
Why? Just because something new comes out doesn't meant that something pre-existing will cease to exist. Has blogging replaced the novel?
They aren't complaining because it's free and it's not in the same genre (for lack of a better term) as scripted TV and movies. The expectations are far different so it's an apples to oranges comparison. Charge $4.99 to rent a feature length drama made by amateurs with abysmal video quality, poor audio, autofocus and auto exposure hunting all the time, etc., and the audience reaction will not be as forgiving.
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
I agree. I do not think that this replaces "Indie Film", by that I mean independently produced feature length fictional narrative motion pictures. I think this is something particularly different from that. Here is a "Front Line" documentary episode that talks about "Generation Like". I recently watched it and it is pretty good.
Loki
Veteran
This is an awesome breakdown of the machine that is youtube that is working in this guys favour.
Totally worth the watch. Brings to light how exactly youtube pushes content; fascinating things at play here.
For what it's worth I can't stand this guy's channel.... he just sounds high pitched and obnoxious... I do like the idea behind the lets play movement though.
Totally worth the watch. Brings to light how exactly youtube pushes content; fascinating things at play here.
For what it's worth I can't stand this guy's channel.... he just sounds high pitched and obnoxious... I do like the idea behind the lets play movement though.
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
That is interesting. Yeah, this is not a replacement for indie film. It is the technology driven "Democratization" and, more importantly, the quantification of Celebrity Culture.
groveChuck
U-matic Member
For the 11-14 year old viewer?
G
Guest
Guest
All comes down to "intent" or values applied to the content.
There is no over arching rule. Sometimes it is completely about beautiful imagery, usually not.
My job is first and foremost about image making. So that is what I obsess about. If a beautiful image does not apply to a business or investors needs, then, I probably will not be hired. Also, I have never been hired for "making good content", I have always been hired because people like the way my work looks.
Focusing on "content" as if it is something, is a terrible preoccupation of the mind. Content is a by-product, not a source.
The "content" is what you are making look good. If there is no content, there is nothing for you to make look good.
Great video. Thanks for posting.
I wasn't very succinct in the original post. What I'm talking about is the current lack of funding for indie films versus in the hey day when you could get foreign distribution rights up front, some tax credits to sell, and put together a budget for an indie film. That has all changed since the sales of DVDs to rental houses (the old Direct to Video movies) can no longer make you money on an indie film.
It's because of a lot of things and there are many articles on this sea change in indie film financing. But I do think part of it is the advent of popular youtube content that competes for viewers time. So yes, in a way there is some "replacement".
Can you still go out and make an indie film? Of course. You might even win Cannes, or get a distribution deal, or self distribute on a streaming outlet and make a lot of money. But can you get financing up front for your indie film like back in the day? No, you cannot.
That too has been replaced somewhat with crowd sourcing, but its' a very different animal than getting up front financing from distributors.
Last edited:
I think it's dependent on the project. If it's a narrative, a fictional story, then I'm extremely critical of everything you mentioned and if you don't have good production values I'm not going to watch. But a tutorial? A comedy piece from someone like Jenna Marbles? I don't even look at the production value. I don't expect to see production value, so I don't miss it. In fact in some cases it might even have a negative effect. Would a Jenna Marbles video be as effective on youtube if it did have a high production value? I think it wouldn't. Just to be clear, my gf is a Jenna Marbles fan. I think it's more of a chick thing, but to be fair Jenna Marbles is one of those rare youtubers that has graduated from youtube to Hollywood.
I'm not a big Let's play fan. But the video about how youtube works was very interesting. I've actually been fascinated for a long time with niche genres on youtube. Videos that I don't find interesting myself, but that have a small but dedicated fanbase.
An example is "haul" videos where it's just a video of people showing you what the bought that day on a shopping spree. I was like, what? People watch other people buying stuff? Really?
Or even more niche is "thinspo" videos, also called thinspiration. They are videos girls watch to inspire them to be skinny. There's people posting, OMG you're going to get an eating disorder! and people posting, mind your own business we like to be skinny. It's just a very odd niche genre.
The question is, are you willing to do "whatever it takes" to get ahead in that world? Are you willing to make these kinds of videos just to get a fanbase/profits, no matter how awful/stupid you personally think they are? Or would you rather die poor/ in obscurity chasing something you actually like doing/feel good about rather than jumping on a trend bandwagon? Im sure these folks actually are passionate about these subjects but many of us are so, worrying about this replacing indie film is kind of moot unless this world is something youd actually want to consider.
I find this subject interesting. I'm not worried about it. There are many things I find interesting and enjoy discussing that I don't necessarily want to do. I watched a documentary about a guy that has been injecting snake venom for over 10 years. It was odd and quite interesting but I don't want to try it.
I don't think you can "jump on the bandwagon" unless you do have a passion for a subject of some kind. I don't have a passion for playing video games so watching me play video games would be the most boring thing in the world. The point of the discussion was not to say I want to do these sorts of videos, or to suggest you should do these sorts of videos. It's simply an interesting look at the way indie film production has changed with the advent of the youtube phenomena.
GHKAM
Well-known member
Wow, they are really thorough with their documentaries. Thanks for the link.
I was still wondering after viewing: what percentage of young people do/don't use the internet in that way? And it seems that model is based on a number of popular, finite websites - Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, etc.. What will happen when, say 7 years from now, a 15 year old who used the net that way is now 22? Have they migrated from those sites, is the landscape of the internet and technology completely different? When, 7 years from now, a 15 year old in 2021 uses the internet, how will those changes apply?
Perhaps the next wave of teenagers will find it uncool to Like a Doritos or Oreos page. Since much of this seems dependent on those social media sites, it's not necessarily cemented in the future - seems very characteristic only of very recent times. Perhaps even a fad that will be looked back on (in disdain).
If these sites were just a mechanical, digital delivery system, I wouldn't view the act of kids using the internet in a social context, making videos, etc. as intrinsically bad....but the collection of data, the tie-ins to sponsorship, using kids to market products is exploitative and, although "transparent", is actually quite nefarious.
It's a shame all the decades of research, manpower and innovation has reduced the internet to this, (at least in this context)...hopefully, it will evolve to something more meaningful in the future.
Last edited:
GHKAM
Well-known member
Maybe accepting poor production quality is a form of rebellion against what's "supposed to be" - good production values, 24p, etc.? Just like a teenager appreciates an untuned guitar in a punk rock band, not caring about the status quo, so is the same as viewing an improperly exposed image on YouTube?
And what if a whole generation of kids, having consumed so many hours of YouTube videos, become conditioned to those production values? Will the 'circa 2014 YouTube' look actually be an artistic option for a theaterical release?
Just speculating.
Last edited:
I still think it's a matter of context. HD video look is great for a football game. That doesn't mean you want to see The Hunger Games (I'm just picking the top grossing film of 2013) look like a football game.
Crappy video poorly lit works just fine for Jenna Marbles telling you some stupid jokes on youtube. Again, I don't think peole want to see The Hunger Games look like that.
It's not, IMO, a matter of "conditioning" but a matter of context. Camera angles, camera movement, editing, lighting, are not relevant to a cats in funny hats video. They are very relevant to a fictional story trying to get you to suspend your disbelief and submerge you into the story. There is no story to submerge yourself into with a Jenna Marbles video, and if you made it look like the Hunger Games it would be weird because you'd be wondering, where's the story here?
I think it's like wearing a bathing suit at the beach, not the grocery store. Just because you wear a bathing suit at the beach and it feels great doesn't mean it's going to be what people wear to shop for tomatoes in the future. It's about context.
I don't think it's rebellion. It's just grab your video and shoot. You are capturing reality. Reality doesn't need editing, lighting, etc. It just is.
Will kids in the future use Facebook? I don't know. There's already tons of popular alternatives younger people are using like Zurker.
https://my.zurker.com/z.r?a=create
Last edited:
ugafan
Looking for a woman
at some point i've gotten old and the world around me has changed, because i don't get it.