HD For Indies

High Definition Video for Independent Filmmakers
A How To Guide for Digital Filmmakers
Welcome all! This is my blog to share my latest research,
thoughts, etc. on utilizing HD for independent filmmaking.

YES, I am available for consulting
Contact me at mike@hdforindies.com

All content copyright 2004-2007 Mike Curtis.

Sunday, September 03, 2006

Harsh talk about indies - hard truth or unnecessary pessimism?

DVXuser.com -- The online community for filmmaking - View Single Post - RED thoughts

Barry Green goes on a rant, and I mostly agree with him. He's talking about how even if Red (or any other production technology) revolutionizes production, how to successfully advertise and market your film is the real challenge. Even if you had a thing of beauty in the can all done and paid for, it is STILL a challenge to get it into theaters, get folks interested in it, and get them to come out and see it. The star system adds some consistency and reliability to the effort - we recognize stars, and their agents etc. try to only place them in projects they think will be successful, so if Clooney is in it, it CAN'T be TOTALLY wretched, etc. - stars are less about their innate talent (from a business sense) and more about their associative power to bring people into the theaters...but recent studies (somebody throw me the link, midnight on Sunday here, CinemaTech maybe?) show that star power....doesn't really matter all that much. And sometimes even hurts box office (or hurts the likelihood of box office success).

Anyway, I'm veering off course here - Barry puts it down, hard and true, about the challenges of the movie business. He then goes on about YouTube and filtering unheard of talent, and the Soderbergh quote I referenced the other day pops to mind:

I don’t know where the middle point is—“I can’t find anyone to vouch for the legitimacy of this thing that somebody’s asking me to download”—and access that’s being controlled by a bunch of people...

The context was big sucky movies get marketed to death because (not said but presumed) they work that whole lowest common denominator thing. Truly indie pfhunky stuff from the fringe can't cut through the noise of the herd to be heard - so what's the middle ground that relies on word of mouth, BUT gets somewhere, WITHOUT going through the official Arbiters Of Taste.

Go read, good food for thought. I sat here typing this, and the Voices In My Head (when not telling me to clean the guns, sharpen the knives, and wipe all the drives) were debating whether I should be a good marketer, and rah-rah about how digital technology will revolutionize and empower the indie filmmaker, or if I should be brutally honest and say lower cost production and/or better quality for same money is nice, but does NOT profoundly change the game. If anything, for some projects, the only thing it can do is greenlight a project that couldn't afford to me made the other/old way...but the challenges of distribution remain the same. Maybe digital makes it easier to greenlight a tight budget cable project, but for features...if the camera and editorial/coloring post budget is a major portion of your budget...you don't have a terribly large production going on. You still need a talented cast and crew....oh yeah and don't forget a good story, cogent direction, good performances, etc. etc. etc. Insert the old quote about the 3 movies: the one written, the one shot, and the one edited.

My internal cynic says pretty much only the Big Folks get the big marketing budgets to push their stuff. But the other voices say that the little guys DO get to pop up out of nowhere if they make something good with their friends and no stars every once in a while an it gets picked up. The catch is, how often? The odds are onerously stacked - many thousands of films get submitted to Sundance, 100ish get in, and what - 10 get theatrical distro deals? If that many? That's terrible odds. Counter voice - but you can't win if you don't play. Counter-counter voice - yeah, but for every 10 great little indie flicks, Holllywood says "Bag it - let's make 'Garfield II' instead!"

Oh, the horror, the horror....

In any case, I'm not trying to dash anyone's dreams and be the cynical "I TOLD you you couldn't do it!", nor do I wish to be the unrealistic "Rah Rah! Change the world with your movie! Anyone can do it with hope and a dream if you believe in yourself!" type. Oh, god, just barf on a rainbow for me, OK?

I just want to be honest and straightforward about all this. (But I also want to hang on to that "red guitar/three chords/truth" vision, too!)

{evilmikey}
Then again, I do want your consulting dollars, too.
>: D
{/evilmikey}

Mostly kidding there - I got into all this because I got sick of doing motion graphics for high tech biz to biz marketing communication stuff, and wanted to do something that I gave a damn about, but also thought I could be good at (using the skills from my previous career). But I DO want to earn a living, and blogging 3-6 hours a day, while fun as all get out, don't pay the billz! So I gotsta consult, and sell some DVDs, etc. to support my R&D blogging habit. And, as a post in another day or two will talk about, there's the whole thing about do I say nice things about the companies I work with, or do I work with the companies that I like the products of, and therefore say nice things about them? Yeah - I work with the folks that I think rock and that fit into my view of what I think is a good idea.

Alright, I think that's enough midnight on a Sunday open mental spigot flow - now it's your turn to sound off - what do YOU folks think of all this? Comment link below or email me (address at top of page).

-mike

Posted by: Mike Curtis / 9/03/2006 11:16:00 PM

Comments:

Agree 100%. But then, my favorite indie movie is The Celebration. Which was shot on a 1CCD Sony PC3. But had story, acting and directing that was through-the-roof good. And got distribution and was a major success because of that.

Red (or any other similar tech breakthrough) might still be useful, though, for buzz and getting stuff for free. Maybe you can get a great DP interested in your project if he is excited about shooting on the Red. Maybe it will help your project stand out. Maybe more festivals will want to show your film due to snobbish pride. Maybe it will help seduce distributors. But I agree with Mike. It won't get you any kind of major deal on its own.

Just my usual 2c, sorry if I'm repeating myself. Love to you all.

Bruce Allen

# posted by

Bruce Allen : Mon Sep 04, 12:10:00 AM CST

I agree, too.
The thing red will change is give more people the opportunity to shoot filmlike stuff. Basically it´s the extension of the miniDV-wave, more people will shoot higher resolution images, but let´s face it, we will see way more movies that suck. I took part at the britspotting movie challenge & video challenge, watched numerous student`s movie festivals and so on, shot on Hi8 up to 35mm - there were only a few watchable ones.
It takes Talent and infinite patienience to "make" it, the red can only be a part of your path to sucess.

# posted by

priyesh : Mon Sep 04, 03:44:00 AM CST

I work in a cinema in the UK and the big films have done terrible business, except perhaps for Pirates 2.

Things have got to change.

I'm writing a script at the moment, and have decided to shoot it on a HD format. Looking at it realistically, it might turn out to be just a project to be enjoyed by myself and some close friends.

# posted by

Julian : Mon Sep 04, 04:09:00 AM CST

You want to set your film apart? Dedicate yourself, educate, practice, don't quit, don't get impatient and recognize that every opportunity to CREATE is a blessing, one that wouldn't have been available AT ALL twenty-fifty-two hundred years ago.
The problem is, people get greedy. You want to have it all, and your sense of entitlement leads you to believe that you DESERVE it all - it's a Big Mac mentality. Instead of asking what "Hollywood" can do for you, flip that question around. After all, you're making movies for an AUDIENCE, right..? Right?
First, know your audience. Then, know your form. When you understand those things, and you have the necessary humility, you will be on the road to making your film - whatever it may be. And authentic, respectful film will get an audience - and more importantly, it will fulfill the TRUE purpose of art, one that's often forgotten in a commercial form - communication.

# posted by

Anonymous : Mon Sep 04, 10:26:00 AM CST

Anonymous above - well said.

Also, something I should have thrown in there - it is a far, far better thing to do something simple well, than to do something complicated poorly.

Another way of thinking about that - don't be too ambitious such that you get too thin. I'd rather see a tight, well choreographed, well edited fist fight than a bad car chase.

Or a well edited & acted two cameras on sticks back and forth in a coffeeshop than a poorly shot crane and dolly job of the same (esp. if too much pointless camera gymnastics/theatrics).

-mike

# posted by

Mike Curtis : Mon Sep 04, 10:46:00 AM CST

I personally am completely at a loss as to why people would even want to enter corporate Hollywood and options on material, spec scripts, overseas rights, blah, blah, blah. I believe that Red and other digital tools will open up the craft to a lot of new participants. But, if you want to make a career, craft, vocation, business of making motion media, you could do a lot worse by just building up a catalog of material and letting your audience find you and you taking the time to market to your audience. There are a number of small regional studios that are just getting started and will be the success stories that people try to emulate in the future. Keep your costs low, target your market, and develop a brand.

http://www.cinemahill.com/home.htm

http://www.sonnyboo.com/

http://www.enigmafactory.com/

My two cents

# posted by

Anonymous : Mon Sep 04, 11:37:00 AM CST

Written by someone who doesn't understand the economics of it, from an armchair, conjecturing how a gizmo is going to change the world of movies, which it isn't. One of the stupidest things I've read in a while.

Can we please see some objectivity on this web site sometime soon? Yeh, it's very nice that Jim Jannard is making a do it all camera for 10k, but it won't write good scripts will it?

Red Camera. It's not film. It won't look like film. It's just better video. Get over it. Jeez. We've been here before and we never seem to learn.

# posted by

Anonymous : Mon Sep 04, 01:20:00 PM CST

10k?! 4k?!!You only need to spend $11.20 to make better films by buying "The art of dramatic writing" by Lajos Egri...Seriously the things that will make your films better are super cheap...books... They will help you create the most important piece of your film which is the most often neglected and underdeveloped thing in modern productions...the script... Its strange...there's tons of info online about the technical aspects of creating a film but very little in comparision about screenwriting, story development, dramatic structure... etc... Love me them books... I say become a student of story first and sata striping later :)

# posted by

mdotstrange : Mon Sep 04, 02:23:00 PM CST

Everyone here is so confused and retarded! Has anyone ever looked at the footage content of dvxuser? Maybe once in a while you see some narrative work but for the most part dvxuser is all about showing off your backyard camera tests of your children and your wife. Personally, I cannot wait to see the "filmlike" backyard home videos that Red will really be able to produce. BRING EM ON! FUCK HOLLYWOOD!

# posted by

Anonymous : Mon Sep 04, 02:43:00 PM CST

Anonymous (complaining about the armchair commentary) - that critique would be more valid if you were willing to stick your name on it...

Are you complaining about the comments and their objectivity, or my objectivity? And if you're going to bitch about mine, at least put it in the right place - this article is saying that Red is NOT going to change the industry, no piece of gear is.

And at least get your facts right - it isn't $10K, or anywhere close to that.

And as for how good it looks...you don't know, you haven't seen it. I have.

I've been working with professionally shot images for nearly 15 years now from film and video - not quite so armchair.

Yeah, I'm bitching, and at you, but get your OWN facts straight, and at least put your name on it if you're going to bitch.

-mike, in a cranky mood because his laptop is hosing the day before leaving

# posted by

Mike Curtis : Mon Sep 04, 03:02:00 PM CST

I definitely agree with most of this commentary, but there is another side to the whole discussion people seem to overlook. Rome wasn't built in a day, right? In order for indies to get their work in front of large audiences without spending $100M there are a lot of hurdles to overcome. While the creative side is completely up to the individual, the financial side desperately needs addressing.

You can't expect to have affordable production AND cheap mass marketing AND distro all at once, it comes in phases based on the needs of the market. As production gets more affordable, more content will inevitably be produced. With this will come the need for more distribution options - remember, this need did not exist when the majors controlled everything. Inovators like Netflix and others WILL come along and help fulfill this part of the equation, especially once one player jumps in and proves viability. There needs to be a LOT more high-quality indie production out there for low-cost / subsidized distribution to make any kind of financial sense, and RED is but one way of getting there.

Ultimately, the marketing angle is being worked out as we speak, as more people turn to the internet and social networks like myspace, blogs etc. for cultural information. In theory, one could market a film very cheaply by building good word of mouth campaigns online, and using the leverage of that buzz to make their small marketing budget go further. Free/cheap technologies like the web can help address both the marketing AND distribution problem, but not the production issue. We need this part of the equation solved before the other components will fall into place.

Ultimately, I look at the indie film world much like the music world. Many good musicians are too lazy to market themselves and build buzz, sell their products online and hustle to make it work. Instead, they sell their souls to some major label who exploits them, robs them blind and then tosses them out like trash. Those artists that DO promote themselves online, take matters into their own hands and pay attention to the business side of commercial art forms are hugely successful, not to mention enjoying near-total creative freedom. You'd think the choice was obvious, but people are tremendously lazy and hard-headed and, sadly, want everything handed to them packaged with a bow-tie.

# posted by

beenyweenies : Mon Sep 04, 03:45:00 PM CST

beenyweenies - good commentary, but I'm wondering if the indie/internet/word of mouth thing is going to be able to do enough, fast enough. There is definitely a critical mass thing going on with popular entertainment. Some things we come across slowly (like kids discovering Akira now years after it came out), or like Office Space that did sucky in theaters but rocked on DVD.

MySpace etc....nobody has Done It yet - nothing that has popped above the noise level. And there's LOTS of noise.

Balance that against the fact that there is only so much time, and people are only going to watch just so many movies, regardless of how many are out there.

Think about books - there are far more great books out there than one could possibly read in a lifetime....you're gonna read as much and as often as you're gonna read....just because huge quantities out there doesn't mean you're going to scarf it all down.

If there is a glut of content out there, the best will have to compete for the limited attention folks will give it, in ANY viewing medium - theaters, TV, DVD, online, whatever.

Does this mean those with superior marketing skills and budget will win? I hope not, but my biz gut says they sure have an advantage in that arena...

-mike

# posted by

Mike Curtis : Mon Sep 04, 04:02:00 PM CST

Really great commentary beenyweenies!

I think we should look at his model more closely and the only example that I know of to illustrate it is Alex Ferrari's 'Broken.' According to Alex on an imdb.com post dated June 20th, 2006, he had close to 4000 units sold at 19.95. I think that even he would admit to slacking off on the promotion front once he found a producer and started working on the full-length feature. There are very few people out there with his experience and talent. But, why make a feature and split the profits with a producer or studio? Just 'Long Tail' it....I love saying that:) If you can get someone to professionally subtitle the short in Mandarin, Japanese, French, and Spanish, just shoot for 7500 units in the first 12 months and 1000 units annually thereafter on netflix, amazon, website sells (i.e. hkfilms, deepdiscountdvd, ebay, blah, blah, blah.) Then you serialize the 'Broken' franchise.

You can see the genre-sandbox the guy plays in, http://www.enigmafactory.com/ef_production.html. Just build up the 'Enigma Factory Brand.' At some point in time, if he consistently delivers quality material, people will stop by his site to check out what he's working on next. Ala, what Mike Curtis is talking about today.:) Now, this is just an example. I don't know Alex Ferrari. He's just the first filmmaker who enticed me enough that I came out of my pocket to pay for a short on a DVD:)

In short, it's not about getting in a theatre or doing enough, fast enough. It really is about finding 10,000 people who like your material and getting them to recognize your brand. Everything else will work itself out if your material is packaged well enough and you can deliver the material quickly and easily enough.

My two cents

# posted by

Jon7athan : Mon Sep 04, 04:48:00 PM CST

I'll start with budgets, end with content....

Bruce (no relation) mentioned The Celebration. True, shot on video (actually the PC-7E). But the budget was.... now.... remember this is a video shot feature.... the budget was 1.3 million dollars. Let that settle in. Box office was 1.65 million, probably had some video. Not sure what the marketing budget cost - but I think it's important to keep things in perspective. Not many people can just add 1.3 million to their cost of camera and friends.

I've known TWO filmmakers here in Los Angeles who were tired of talking about directing and finally decided that with the DV revolution - they would take the chance. Both set aside about 20,000. Both ended up spending over 200k. One from their own savings, one got investors. The own savings has never finished the movie. The other got distribution, but isn't likely to ever recover the costs. And these people had over a decade of film experience each.

This is why I am so impressed with Primer (budget $16k I believe). If you listen to his commentary though you can hear that he has incredible discipline in his filmmaking process. And no film experience. Yet... his discipline combined with his concept ended up making a movie with reached some people.

When thinking about budgets, indies tend to think about the camera too much I think. How much does it cost to feed all these people helping you make your movie? Add up 18 days of 2 meals/day for 10 people. Yes, maybe you have friends who are going to help out on your quest... but you're not even going to feed them? Props? Art direction? Lighting equipment? Grip equipment? And... audio equipment... and audio post-production? Without foley, the movie won't feel right.

Yes, you could just take a camera and shoot people and have your friends help out for free and finish a movie that way on the cheap. Lots of people are doing it. Talk to distributors, they'll tell you how many. They feel like home movies because they're not using any of the tools of the trade.

The reason why all this extra stuff exists is to help tell your stories. The tools of the trade give the art form an ability to communicate beyond the surface level. Now, that said... You don't HAVE to use paint brushes to make a painting. You could finger paint. However... if you are finger-painting, you absolutely better make sure that you're not trying to do something that finger-painting can't do... like... realism. If you try, you will probably fail and it will look like bad realism. However... you COULD make a brilliant finger painting as long as you adopted that as your intention. Oddly, most people don't. I don't know why. They are trying to do Hollywood stories with their finger-paints. That isn't really going to work. "Tarnation" was an example of a film that embraced what it was and was well rewarded for it. "Five More Minutes" is a short which does the same.

Personally I think the one thing studio movies so often are missing is this: Sincerity.

There are so many people with so many opinions that the sincerity sometimes just gets sucked out of it. So why don't indy movies have this? I think too many indies are wanting to be something they are not and it shows in their work. People in general have this problem, not just indy filmmakers - it's just that your work is like a megaphone.

This is where indies could really shine... maybe not try to make the next Reservoir Dogs or SAW... maybe make something that rings true. You know, Napoleon Dynamite, frankly, had this. There was a truth to that character. I thought the movie went dead about half way in, but the character was so true that the film was a hit.

This is the thing... 30 years ago studios weren't making "horror" films as we think of them today. A few spooky movies... but a studio wouldn't do what you see today. However, now they do. Big companies will release some of the most hideous imagery you could imagine. That market is no longer fringe.

So, ask yourself, what are the studio unable to make today?

# posted by

Mark Allen : Mon Sep 04, 04:51:00 PM CST

Right on cue:)

http://www.ifc.com/ifc/insiderNews?CAT0=5827&NID=17589&CLR=black&BCLR=000000

# posted by

Anonymous : Tue Sep 05, 09:54:00 AM CST

Here's a boingboing.net link to an article about stars' correlations to box office returns:

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/08/29/big_stars_dont_sell_.html

A direct NYT link is:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/media/28cast.html?ei=5090&en=66b8f9ce879c8df3&ex=1314417600&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

# posted by

Jose Mata : Tue Sep 05, 01:48:00 PM CST

A tool is only good as the skills of the user.

But when a tool is rarely available for use and experimentation (like a 35mm or High-end HD camera) filmmakers tend to think in terms of theory and reputation. I can do this, or I should get that, etc. But when there's a tool that's ubiquitous and matches the professional standard. What does that mean?

We'll see more filmmakers experimenting. Hopefully some that will strike a cord with an audience. I'm predicting new genres will emerge from this.

It's all very cyclic. You can draw parallels between traditional graphic designers to the advent of desktop publishing in the 90s, or the introduction of the digital camera, etc. And the common outcome is variety, experimentation and the speed at which we do it.

# posted by

Anonymous : Wed Sep 06, 07:25:00 PM CST

The much bigger threat/opportunity for indie filmmaking is advances in distribution. Until/(if?) user generated content plateus and crashes, we're going to see a huge oversaturation when the cost of production comes down and the access to distribution goes up. The problem is there hasn't developed a solid market for new distribution, and even the studios are increasingly concerned about making money. It may be possible for indie filmmakers to shoot a film and get it out there to an audience, but if it's them and 19,000 others doing the same thing to small eclectic audiences, it doen't spell an end to their table waiting (or exist as a particularly viable career).

Stars are a large part for standing out from the crowd, but if everyone can be an indie filmmaker, it becomes even more dependent on the "who you know" methodology.

# posted by

Anonymous : Thu Sep 07, 01:04:00 AM CST

HD For Indies

Advertisements

Great HD Links

Archives

Sunday, September 03, 2006

Harsh talk about indies - hard truth or unnecessary pessimism?