Katrina is not just a cute Russian Girl

Reading the posts online and watching news of Hurricane Katrina - and even 2000 miles away, that thing looks scary as hell.

Brendan Loy, a blogger in South Bend, Indiana, is covering this really well in his blog.

There's also Eye of the Storm.

A few folks who are staying put are blogging too:
Doc Brite

On the brighter side, it doesn't look like many folks (who are bloggers anyway) are sticking around. Looking at the numbers, it appears that over 90% of the inhabitants of the city are going to be gone by the time this thing hits.

To those who stay behind, and to those who are about to loose so much, the prayers of many are with you, and those who don't pray wish you well.

Reductionism in Story

I have another theory that you all can shoot down, about why movies suck so much anymore.

Way back in Aristotle's Poetics, we were taught about the three basic story contexts that still remain true today.
1. Man vs. Man
2. Man vs. Nature
3. Man vs. Himself
("Man" of course, meaning "human" or even as general as "protagonist")

Now, what's interesting is that every single story that really gets us, is about what?

Conflict.

Either with the Roman Empire, or within our own heads. Between what I believe and what my parents wish I believed. Every single story in the world is told and presented in a way that it lays bare a character who must decide how to deal with that conflict.

He must chose either bravery, and overcome the conflict, or he chooses cowardice, and the conflict defeats him.

I believe this is at the heart of our lack of good storytellers today. We have become a world of little personal accountability, and even less honor. A world where pleasing as many people as possible breeds the will to overcome conflict right out of us.

We have so few left who understand courage and bravery that as a result, that our accounting of it as a virtue suffers.

How can a storyteller reach within his (or her) characters and give them things which he himself has never understood?

Conflict in storytelling does not exist as simply a means to create a character arc or provide action sequences or make a development executive happy. Conflict exists only so that it may reveal the true hearts of our characters through their actions and either inspire us with their bravery, or grieve us for their lack of it. Along the way, informing of us, the audience, of the kinds of human beings we may or may not want to be.

This is the core of storytelling, and sometimes I feel it to be fading from our memories.

Active Audiences

My partners and I have begun what will likely be a very, very long discussion about engaging our audiences in our stories long before we begin production on a film. Partly as a marketing strategy (i.e. "ploy"), partly because it seems like a novel way to break through some clutter, and partly because we can no longer assume our audience is passive.

We used to assume that because the audience doesn't interact with the viewing of the movie, that ours was a passive medium. But it seems to us that could not be further from the truth. From moment to moment along the life of creating a motion picture, details about stories become available, actors are announced, directors are chosen, production art is shown, test screenings are held, trailers released, and blogs and bulletin boards are filled with opinions and thoughts from our audiences. Technology has made our audience more active than they have ever been in the history of the movies.

We can fear it, or we can embrace it.

So we're starting to think about ways to involve our audiences from the moment we secure rights to a script or book or whatnot, and go from there. The details of how we propose to do that are what we hope will prove this could work. The first real test of it is probably at least a year away at this point. But it will be an interesting experience, and it's going to shake things up for us as a company in some possibly unpredictable ways(as to "how things have always been done").

But I love disruptive change. :)

Commercially Viable

I want to expand for a moment on the "commercially viable" statement of my last post, and clarify this concept a bit.

Storytelling, when done well, is something that has the power to enrich our lives as an audience both through its telling and through our participation in that telling. A good story might show up in a movie screen, a theater stage, a television screen, or your mobile phone. It might show up in the overall theme of a good story, or it might show up in just the smallest performance of a single actor and character in an otherwise flawed presentation.

This illustrates how a great script can go terribly wrong, or a bad script can be turned into something better.

This is also why, when people send me scripts or stories or tell me about a project that has a "good heart" (which sometimes people seem to like to use interchangably with "good script"), it doesn't mean anything to me. I couldn't care less if the story is about a some guy with a hockey mask that kills people, or Mother Teresa. What I want, what we as an audience demand, are characters we can identify with in some way that informs us of who we are. Or who we don't want to be. Or the choices we would or wouldn't make in a certain situation.

Those elements, and finding ways for your audience to pick up on them, assess them, then use them to gauge their own existences - THAT is good storytelling, and what's more - THAT is commercially viable.

Commerically viable just means that as an overall project, (writers, producers, directors, actors, release patterns and marketing strategies), will all come together to communicate these virtues to a large enough audience that given a certain budget level, the property will earn a return.

If your film or project cannot find the audience to support making it, it is because one or more of those overall project elements was lacking.

Content Creators, be (more) aware

Had some interesting convo's and developments (or lack thereof) this week that have brought up a topic I haven't yet seen discussed much. That is the issue of distributor fraud, and the devaluation of content in a flooded market.

They are two seperate issues, but the first, was actually brought up in a finance discussion with Imperial Capital Bank and their entertainment division for financing of a television series we're working on.

Evidently, due to high rates of distributors never paying on contracts for content, the discount rate on most distribution contracts against a loan is quite high. Save for a dozen or so major distributors that the bank has relationships and a history with, all these new channels coming out of the woodwork for satellite distribution, and IP distribution, whatever, the contracts are not worth the paper they are printed on. Which of course, makes it a tenuous at best, and straight-up-stupid at worst, idea to finance original content without the upfronts to cover your production costs. (Like THAT ever happens.)

For many years, we've heard of theater owners and what not running films extra times and not reporting it, or under-reporting ticket sales so that they can keep more of the cash coming into the theater.

Now, take the 4500 theaters in the US, and multiply that exponentially to get the number of outlets a content creator has to distribute to these days.

Makes a lot of sense to get rid of the middleman/distributor altogether. Like those blokes over at Blowing Smoke. Now, let's get that on the next iteration of iTunes as a download for $1.99. Whatd'ya say?

Now, on the devaluation of content. In discussions with a number of new media outlets, including the aforementioned satellite network operator, there's a LOT of the same mantra going around. "Oh, we get a lot of our content from auteurs."

Which sounds great right? WRONG.

Why? Allow me to present a new definition of "auteur" in the digital age.

Digital Auteur - any person or persons who pick up a moving picture camera, edit something together, and are willing to give it away for free.

"Auteurs," in my experience, often have a sense of creative superiority that very, very rarely translates into something the audience can connect to, or understand in a way that reaches enough people to be commercially viable. They are typically also those people with utterly no business sense at all, and will happily give away "their" stuff till the end of time (or bankruptcy).

This shit drives me nuts.

Oh, and one last thing. When I say "commercially viable" I'm addressing a story or point of view, communicated and presented in such a way that it holds enough value that it just might not lose money.

The Downside of Digital

Just had a kind of depressing conversation with one of my business parnters, and some of what was said rings very true... and follows some of the thinking I had earlier today.

Beyond the creative fulfillment of the career I chose, I also chose this business because it was one where you could become wealthy. Where you could create your own retirement funds based on residuals and whatnot, and fuck the 401K's and company pensions (which may or may not be there anyway, as we see these days). This was the a large part of the dream I had.

And then, a funny thing happened. I saw some guy driving an insanely expensive car today, and it occured to me that I used to just be "biding the time" until I too could buy one of those. For I was certain it would come. But today... today the thought that flashed past my brain was the one that said..."you may never have things like that." And it was ok. Instead, I wondered if I'd ever be able to afford one home (much less the 3 or 4 I thought I'd buy), AND health care and some investments. It's the first time I've ever really felt like.... maybe I will never be wealthy. Maybe I'll always be struggling and that's what it is. And it's... kind of depressing, but kind of... just ok. I hate to disappoint my friends who for years have shaken their heads and asked me how it is that I'm not a multi-millionaire or some studio mogul yet... and truth be told... sometimes I don't get it either. But perhaps it's not my destiny.

The point, and it's relation to the title of this post, is that my partner and I were talking about "THE GAP" in our media business between the have's and have not's - and how much that reflects the overall status of our American society. He's not wrong. On one hand, we have the $150 million dollar Michael Bay budgets, and on the other, the $1,100 "My Date With Drew" budgets. The micro-budget filmmaking days have only been made possible by the advent of digital... and maybe it's not "the greatest thing ever" that I've always thought it was. As it seems to have helped create disparity than already existed in this world of "either you make it yourself for no money at all, or you make it for lots of money upfront and screw everything else" but making it for lots of money upfront means that you MUST have done something before that made lots of money. It means the middle ground vanishes.. . and becomes a harder and harder place to make a living. You either scrabble for nothing, or you make shitloads of money.

It's a sad, and frustrating world sometimes.

Now Comes the Darkness

Five minutes ago, I finished the "polish" on the script I completed yesterday.

I just sent it out to my partners and colleagues.

Now I wait to find out if I believe pigs fly, and turds smell like roses, or if the script is actually any good.

Personal Note? I have not been more proud of anything I've ever written than this script.

Hoop de Hoops

Tomorrow, I get to go jump through more hoops trying to get financing for our company and progamming.

I love hoops!

Just as long as they don't get set of fire in the middle of my jumping through them. (It's ok if they're on fire from the get go).

And to the Scalawags

I say, "YAY! I received my first blog comment!!! YAY!"

Thanks Adriana (whoever you are)!

Well, that didn't take long

Just eleven days ago, in this post, I was thinking about the podcasts and their impact on the film and tv business.

Funny to see this article today from Wired Magazine, as television programming starts to release "audio only" podcasts of their shows.

How much further behind is video? I mean, really? We've already got sites like this providing video blogging tools online.

Apple better make sure their transaction management back end is hunky-dory and working smoothly if they want to be the ones to ride the next wave.

Hell, seeing as how their hardware lock-in is about to expire due to both new breakthroughs in the software (courtesy of some very smart hackers) and their shift to Intel chips, they might be better off looking at operating like a transaction management company that happens to make software, than a computer manufacture.

Fascinating times.

On Fire

About one hour ago, I wrote two little words that I haven't written in a very long time.

THE END.

Then, I immediately began my first rewrite, by changing those two words to "TO BE CONTINUED."

Yesterday, somehow, I managed to write 25 pages of script, followed by another 15 today, for a total of 113 pages which I began writing 4 weeks ago tomorrow.

I'm way too close to it at this point to offer any kind of objective opinion on whether or not it's good. But it sure feels good. It feels like it doesn't suck.

And can I just say, for the record, how much I love my speedy little Hewlett Packard 6210 printer? I used to hate HP stuff, mainly for their horrible software... but I must say, I've been very pleased with this thing.

OK - well, now I have to *GULP* let people read it, and rip it apart so I can start over again. hehe.

Whole Lotta Shaking Goin' On

In the spirit of the writing mood I am in, I shall offer this tonight:

Temblors Rattle Theater Owners

Much like the Southern California landscape has hundreds of small tremors each day, so too has the theatrical exhibition industry been shaken around lightly by the ever-encroaching home video release windows.

While the pressures of high-quality home displays and home surround sound, minus the obnoxious kids, and sticky floors have continued to mount on the tectonic plates of theaters, the larger movie studios seem to be waking up to the fact that something smells like it's burning.

And it's their ass.

Today's temblor struck about a 6.0 on the open-ended Richter Scale when Disney CEO-designate Bob Iger stated that "it is not inconceivable that the studio would release a DVD even during theatrical runs."

Theater owners have a rocky road ahead, and if they had any brains at all, would hurry up with digital projection and distribution so that they can book indie films or whatever they want in their theaters, AND SELL THE DVD's right outside the door when you leave, and earn some of their profits right there.

Smells like roses to me.

Theories & the Web

OK, so maybe the last post isn't a good theory.

I've gotten some pretty quick feedback from a number of people who don't agree.

So, I could backtrack and delete the post, and try to convince myself that I NEVER post anything that might not be right, or I could leave it, and say, you know what? I might be wrong, but I want to know what people think, and a dialogue that results in my changing a theory or an attitude is still one that means I learn something. That in itself is valuable.

I still believe that fear as a marketing tool is deplorable. I still believe that it is over-used, and very often inappropriate.

Are there things we should be informed and possible afraid of, yes. Does that include that my guests might think less of me if there's spot on my dishes because I used the wrong dish soap? Hell no.

So I reached for "inauthenticity." Maybe it's too far a reach - but I still think there's something there - because something that deserves being feared, really, should have it's roots in truth, and reason.

Creating fear based on something that is unreasonable, I think, makes it inauthentic.

Fear and Blogging

As commercials on the television blaze past, I notice how many of them use a quick sound bite or bit of dramatization to induce fear in order to get you to buy something.

Either fear of a situation, or of *not* having something, or a zillion other little psychological zingers they seem to go after to push your buttons. The buttons directly connected to your wallet.

I think the ad industry as a whole uses a lot of fear not *only* because of it's efficacy, but because it's easier to scare people than it is to present facts (facts that might need backing up), or to inspire or otherwise convince.

Out of all the blogs I read, even ones that at some points or others endorse products, it seems that fear as a marketing tool, for the most part, is completely missing from the equation.

This brings a theory to mind.

Fear based marketing is, by nature, inauthentic.

What do you think?

Watching This

I don't know if the movie is any good or not, and frankly haven't even yet watched any of their previews.

However, I'm very interested to see what happens with these guys film. Distributing via a blog?

Hm. Will it work?

Leader as Artist

Business school case study finally gets it right, and reminds me that when I allow myself to do so, I get very carried away and passionate about storytelling, and the audience... and the technologies I can use to convey those.

Sometimes my pragmatist side sucks and isn't nearly as fun as my bubble-blowing, mystic eight-ball asking, jumping up and down for no apparent reason, split personality.

*smiles*

The Creative Side - for a change

While I mainly post about company things from big picture standpoints, and broad views of my industry, there's a lot of things that I don't generally post about. Mainly because they're some of the things that *everyone* else in this godforsaken town proclaims as loudly as possible, and chat up in every circle (jerk) they can get themselves invited to (or crash).

At any rate, I'm going to drop myself to their level for just a minute, and say that while I'm still trying to find what's going to pay my bills next, I'm enjoying the challenges of the two properties that I'm working on creatively right now.

The first, a script that I've mentioned once or twice before. The full 40-page treatment took about six weeks, and was pretty satisfactorily completed on July 15th. I began writing the actual script the next day, and as of today, 3 weeks later, I've written through page 56 and just finished the mid-act II climax - oddly enough, right about where it should be.

For a while, I was concerned there wouldn't be enough material for a 110-ish page script. Now, I don't think that's going to be a problem. Just the rough scene and character descriptions for the rest of the as-yet-unwritten full scenes and dialog for the rest of the screenplay make it a 77 page document. It's probably gonna need some editing (there's a reason we call it a "first draft" right?). At any rate, I'm pretty dang pleased with it so far. We'll see what other folks think in a few more weeks. It could conceivably suck big hairy goat balls. But I'm having fun writing it, so there.

On top of that, the television series I created has gone through a few very productive development meetings with a couple of my partners, and it's very satisfying to make progress that other people confirm is good. Validation, Yay! Validation!

I must admit, I think it's a damn good series concept, and could be an outstanding and timely show.

At any rate, now that I've stood on my swiss cheese box for a moment, I shall move on.

Thank you. Carry on.

Gatekeepers & Stupidity

Sometimes, an event happens that results in a moment of clarity that just makes you stop and think "my god, it really IS that stupid." I just had one of those.

One of our board of advisors members hooked us up with the CEO of a nationwide satellite network recently, and I looked over their demographic angle, and came up with a couple of show ideas. One I pitched, and they liked it enough to still be working with us on trying to iron out a N. American distribution deal for it.

But there's the kicker. They're a startup network, with no capital for producing programming. Hence, no cash. Which means, we're supposed to fund it ourselves. And then basically license it to them for what??? Ad time on their grid? Yay. We can't use ad time to cover our (upfront) production costs or our overhead now can we?

At any rate, in my frustration, because I know it's got the right ingredients to be a GREAT show, timely and innovative. I start picking up the phone and calling the big guys. And I should have known this, because it works the same way in our feature film world, but they will not take unsolicited pitches - and pitches have to be submitted through an agency, or an entertainment lawyer.

And we wonder why the studios and large companies are having such problems with creating GOOD content? (which by default means that agents and entertainment lawyers must be able to identify good content first, and second, be on the lookout for new shows from new companies... riiiiight).

WAKE THE F**K UP JACKASSES!

Practical Bits & Thoughts

Following on the footsteps of the previous post in which I mentioned the tech side of the DGA's annual "Digital Day," there are a lot of significant things happening in the business right now that I think are exciting.

As with any conversation for me, that has to do with storytelling, and technology - I get pretty passionate, and excited. Matter of fact, I'm pretty wound up right now.

In thinking of all the things that are happening in our business, the changes in production, post-production, and delivery are all amazing. This, I truly believe, is a GREAT TIME to be a filmmaker.

But what is changing even further are the underlying economics and sociological model of our business.

First, regarding the business itself, consider the following:

Film and television were the dominant, most widely consumed entertainment product (after books, of course) for a very long time. For many years, the theaters were the only places that you could see movies. Then came television. And a corresponding decline in theatrical attendance. (which spawned lots of new "gimmicks" to get people back in the theaters, like CinemaScope, et. al.). Then came home video which was still an overall revenue driver. So it was just competition with different formats, but the same media. Now, it's not only different formats, it's different media. It's video games, and the internet itself as our competition.

Incidentally, the most profitable time in history for the movie studios was when they OWNED the theater chains themselves, which the FTC forced them out of in 1948 as part of an antitrust proceeding.

The problems of continuing with business as usual however, are mounting.

1. First and foremost, narrative content (movies and television, et. al.) have lost significant market share to games.
In 2004, the domestic theatrical business did about $9.4 billion in box office - while this was an increase in dollars over previous years, it was achieved through wider releases and more screens (and therefore, higher costs) and through high ticket prices. Real admissions dropped by about 2% (after a 4% drop in 2003)
The game business, however, piled up over $7 billion in sales, and growing tremendously.

This is not say that the film business is going away, or being overtaken by video games. Our business is racking up DOUBLE the theatrical receipts in home video and VOD, which puts it up around a $30 Billion dollar industry.

The point IS, however that film and television have significant competition, where before, there was very little.

2. Second, and equally important, is that the audience themselves now dictate when, where, and how they want to consume their media.

The importance of this concept, and it's impact on the movie business, cannot be understated.

Outside of the movie theater itself, WE, the movie business, must do all that we can to find ways to deliver our stories to as many people as possible, in as many formats as possible, as efficiently as we can.

Does this add to our costs? Yes.
Does it make it more difficult to market the content? Yes.
Will it make us a lot better profits if we can execute smartly? Yes.

But executing smartly means that the costs must go down.

It's very interesting to me that also for the first time in history, we have people out there making films for $1,100 and yet at the same time, studios greenlighting budgets of ungodly proportions like the $150 million budget on the plate for David Fincher's adaptation of "The Curious Case of Benjamin Buttons" (the budget WAS over $200 million until the studio came back and said it had to be 'less').

The disparity is amazing, and while in most cases the difference in production value is vast, the hit or miss of story doesn't seem to be any better at the top end, than at the bottom end.

What's it all mean? It means that movies that cost more, don't necessarily make more. It means that star salaries in the stratosphere automatically mean that those stars will no longer get access to the "best" material, because much of it exists outside of the studio system.

It also has much further reaching implications as well, from the labor unions that will break your shoot and your budget the first chance they get (weren't unions originally created to battle BIG business??? I would argue that more and more films and filmmakers are going to become smaller and smaller business, as a whole.), to the amount of crap we will all have to filter through to find the good stories.

Anyway, the aside aside, our audience now dictate their experience with our stories - and it is the number of audience members we reach, and whether or not our story (or ad campaigns) are successful that determines whether or not we stay in business.

We can no longer spoon feed them our stories when and where WE determine it's best for us.

The day is coming soon where films, one-off's, indies and the like, will be consumed just like podcasts and music tracks on iTunes - maybe on something called iMedia.

It will change everything, just as small time podcasters are hitting the big time because they suddenly have found the means to get their voices out there to the world at large, so too, filmmakers and storytellers around the world will break out.

And it's all rooted in the brave new world of the digits.

What this means for the economics of the business? Chaos, for a few years, to be sure, while the new models work themselves out. Yeeehaw! It's going to be an interesting ride, for sure.

(footnote: by the way, you 'film purists' out there. Here's something new to consider, when you claim that because film is "organic" it's better. 1. Film is made on a synthetic base made from oil. 2. Both CCD's and transistors are made of silicon, which is organic. So there.)

Inspiring Storyteller

This past weekend, I was fortunate enough to attend the Director's Guild "Digital Day," there really wasn't anything groundbreaking.

There was the standard phalanx of digital cinematography tools (which, I'm going to have more to say about below), post-production tools - and some other innovative stuff, but nothing totally earth-shattering.

Until Ray Bradbury spoke.

Just before he was wheeled in (he's in a wheelchair now) from the wings of stage left in Theater 1, a giant picture of him as a 5 or 6 year old boy was projected on the screen. A young boy with the slight scowl of being annoyed at standing in one place long enough to have his picture taken, and some small bit of wonder at the world that we all have when we are children.

Ray Bradbury, somehow, almost impossibly so, has retained to this day that sense of wonder, and "what if" that not only resulted in all the wonderful works of his career, but so obviously permeates the mans heart so deeply that he is driven to share it in every word he speaks. When he speaks of a few of the events that shaped his life as a storyteller, the affect and love of which he spoke of the people and moments, are so palpable that at a couple of points I had to wipe away tears.

So rarely do we see people with such gifts, who boldly acknowledge that there are emotions of virtue, and the honest expression of them fills our life with a breath that is far from ordinary. Those emotions, virtues, ideals... and honest expressions are mostly locked up and put away in favor of things that we hope won't make us appear weak or foolish to our peers and the world at large.

To them, Ray Bradbury continues to thumb his nose. All the way up to his final "Now I'm gonna get the hell outta here" and the long standing ovation that followed, his inspiration will stick with me for a long time.

To Mr. Bradbury, I thank you from the bottom of my heart.

More to come on the practical bits of Digital Day and all the thoughts about it swirling around in my head.