Either "inside" the media machine, or the belly of a whale. Hard to tell which some days.
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
Principles of Production
As the New Year gets off the ground, it's time to codify some things that have been kicking around in my head for a bit. I'd love to hear some feedback from the net community about these, and hope they are a living document.
This is a set of principles that I commit to conduct my own business by; after years of being in places where people are not treated appropriately.
Production Principles
I believe that how you do business, is as important as how well you do business.
For that reason, I work hard to adhere to a basic set of principles in every aspect of what I do; because media production is an often difficult and messy process, and it doesn't have to be.
I believe everyone that contributes to the production should be respected.
I commit to respecting our teams by being fair in our compensation, and in work schedules.
I commit to respecting our teams by making sure that I have done as much creative preparation as possible, and clearly communicating the creative objectives to all team members in a timely manner.
I commit to respecting our teams by giving our them the appropriate resources they need to execute a successful production.
I believe that deals are made to stand by, not break.
I commit to sticking to agreements made with vendors and freelancers.
My word means a lot to me, I give it with full acknowledgment of the commitment I make, and expect members of the production team to deliver on their commitments as well.
I believe in surrounding ourselves with people smarter than I am.
I commit to hiring excellence. I recognize that production encompasses many specialized talents, and strive to hire individuals who know their specialties well, and have a work ethic that enables outstanding production.
I pay production employees, vendors, and contractors on time.
I believe that not only is this the right thing to do, it often results in directly lower costs of production.
I believe in standing up for what's right.
I commit to zero tolerance of bullying, mistreating, and generally crapping upon of any of our production team members.
If it's a problem within any departments, or even with our executive team, we give our team members full permission to help us find constructive solutions.
I hope that 2010 gives us all more opportunities to do our work in ways that honor good principles of production.
Well, after the better part of a year producing in-house for Networks, I can confidently say, I was wrong.
Producing programming in-house does *not* save money for the Networks.
In fact, in my experience, it actually seems to increase the cost of the programming.
There are a number of reasons for the increase in cost, but in general they can be outlined as follows:
Legal inability to use the lowest-cost vendors; primarily driven by the insurance requirements of the Network. While this worked when out-of-house production companies were willing to assume risks; the Network isn't willing to assume those risks, which results in vendors directly charging more than they would have to otherwise, because they must purchase special insurance policies to satisfy the Network. Direct Price Increase - 7-10%
Financial processes are so slow, that vendors working with the Network increase their pricing. Vendors know that the Networks are notoriously slow in paying their bills. In return for this reality, Networks get just about the worst deals on everything. You may get a good deal once or maybe twice, but after that, forgettaboutit.
These two primary facts of Network life, more than offset the cost savings of going out of house. The final nail in the coffin, at this time; is that Networks simply do not have the experienced people they need, internally, to make good production decisions. They just don't.
It's been a long time since I've posted here - sorry about that. Been very busy with back to back shows.
Here's my thought of the day.
It doesn't matter one whit what your "corporate policy" against bribery is, if you are in a foreign country, and getting out of said foreign country depends upon you greasing some palms.
If you want to say in said country's jail indefinitely, you can sit there and say "it's against my employers policy." Me, on the other hand, will happily shell out the ducats and get myself home.
The last 6-10 months as we've seen cost cutting accelerate at networks, it's interesting to see a new trend emerging.
Some networks are moving more production in-house.
Meaning, they're taking more individual pitches, and fewer pitches from production companies.
This, I believe, is good for the shows, and good for the networks, but good only for the show creators to the extent that they and their lawyers can cut a deal to retain international rights and participation in ancillaries.
Off the bat, in-house production means you might actually have *more* money to spend on your show, since your budget doesn't have to cover the overhead of a third-party production company (typically a 10-15% markup). So if you don't have to whack that off of your actual production budget, maybe you can spend 2-3% more on stuff that actually ends up on-screen.
Most recently, I'm noticing this trend accelerate at places like BET, and E!
The downside is these companies will have to learn to carry larger idle assets in between productions (such as physical production space, and office resources), but the costs of those are far lower than what they lose in "fees" to third party production houses.
It'll be interesting to see if this continues to tick upwards or not. My guess is that it will.
Absolute Proof of how screwed up the stock market is.
Well, it's official, the space-time continuum must be in complete ruins and dolphins everywhere must be close to packing their bags.
As of today, our little indie film "Family," has returned all of its investors capital, plus 3.9%.
Granted, we didn't spend much, but it was still a considerable amount, and the proof that the stock market is a mess?
If you had invested in the S&P 500 in October of 2004 when we financed the bulk of the film, the S&P 500 index was at 1,106.59. Today, at 893.07, you would have lost 19.3% on your investment. That makes a 3.9% positive return not look all too shabby, I suppose.
I never thought I'd see the day an indie film outperforms the stock market over a 5 year period. So, that said, if you're considering an indie film investment, AND the filmmakers have a good plan for selling and marketing the film (DO YOUR DUE DILIGENCE!!!), then hey, maybe now isn't a bad time to support an indie filmmaker.
(Yet Another) Reason Old Media will continue to decline
In another mind-boggling example of why television networks will continue to decline in relevancy and dominance, there is a circumstance that networks foist upon small production companies with great frequency.
That circumstance is called "Deficit Financing."
More and more, I see companies being "forced" into production by a network they want to do a show for, without any funding in place from the network.
With increasing reliance on reality-television formats, which by default means higher reliance on smaller companies less able to cope with the intense cash flow demands of production, I'm pretty certain we're going to continue to see a lot of churn of production companies going out of businesses as their cash flow gets hammered by this setup.
A single reality show episodic pilot might set you back $200-300K, a full series order, several million.
The network says "we want the show delivered on this date" and the production company says, "well, we have to start production on this date to make that date." The problem is the networks drag their feet on cash-flowing production.
With contracts that never account for the current value of money, or have any sort of penalties or interest, production companies put up and shut up, hoping they'll get paid soon enough to not lose their companies.
In the process, they delay payroll, rental payments and a host of other payments that virtually guarantee they'll have more difficult and more costly labor and services agreements on the next show, if they get a next show. Vendors and employees loathe doing business with a company they know is going to screw them and leave them holding an empty bag for a month or more.
This is a self-perpetuating cycle driven by networks that over-value their distribution chain, and by producers who are clinging to the old models because no one has figured out the new one yet.
In the end, this practice leaves behind a lot of carnage and will only result in a lot of pain, and a continued decline of network relevance. Creatives with any wit of business sense will flee farther and farther from these companies until all those networks have left are the idiots who produce junk and will put up with permanent cash-flow handicaps.
There is one note to add; however. That is to say that there *are* a few networks who cash-flow properly, and quickly, and turn around payments in fair time-periods. Those are an exception, not the rule, they will survive, and eventually attract the smartest talent to their networks.
As the PGA has finally started to release publicity about it being a part of their 2009 "Produced By" conference, now is a great time to finally release some of the behind-the-scenes photos from the production.
The link above is to a Picasa Album of the pics - though I've not yet had time to caption them - I'll try to over the next few weeks.
The shoot itself was really quite interesting, and we assessed both the physical production and the image capture performances of eight cinema cameras. The cameras were selected based upon their common ability to capture 4:4:4 10 bit images, and deliver 4:4:4 10-bit DPX files for DI and film outs. (which is the reason a number of other excellent cameras, such as the Sony PWM-EX3 were left out - it can "only" record 4:2:2).
The cameras in the test included: - Arri 435 film camera (various Kodak film stocks, but primarily 5217) - Arri D21 digital camera - Panavision Genesis digital camera (based on the same sensor as the Sony F35) - Panasonic 3700 digital camera - RED One digital camera - Sony F23 digital camera - Sony F35 digital camera - Thomson Viper
Some cameras were tethered to decks, some had their own on board storage, some used tape. The full results of the test, as covered by ASC members from the whitepaper perspective, and from the production and narrative side by nine field teams of documentary filmmakers (which I produced, along with PGA member Michael Shores), will be presented this summer, and then be archived in the libraries of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, the American Society of Cinematographers, and the Producers Guild of America.
We took each camera from delivering 10 bit DPX files, (and conversions from native capture files such as with RED RAW) to Laser Pacific for both one-light and fully-windowed Digital Intermediate passes, which are then being finaled as DCP (digital cinema packages) and as filmed out negatives.
The results of the tests really showed that producers and DP's alike face a growing need to consider not only the aesthetics and the budget of their shows, but the workflows in production and post production in terms of extra time transcoding or managing data.
Anyone interested in the results should really check out the upcoming conference, and I hope that eventually the PGA and ASC will make the documentary (for which we shot over 100 hours of footage) and the white papers accessible online.
I wanted to follow up a bit on my earlier post about Hollywood being more of a young persons game (in general).
When we're young, most of us have a lot fewer responsibilities (eg - family, mortgage, etc), which means we can take more gambles on our time. Hence the moves by so many young people to spend a year as some producers intern hoping to make enough connections they can get a paying job.
Anyway, I don't mean the prior post or the changing big media dynamics to discourage young people from joining "the business." As a matter of fact, big media desperately needs young people with fresh ideas, particularly fresh business ideas that will help our storytelling mediums move into new business models. Or finding news ways to mix and match old business models with new distribution in a compelling way.
Lastly, if you *do* actually manage to get into the business in a meaningful way at a young age, you will learn a lot of things there are no other ways to learn.
Most of showbiz won't teach you to be the corporate 9-5'er type; so if that's what you're looking for, showbiz probably isn't for you. (though, let's be honest, how many people out there honestly think they're going to have a 40 year job at one company and retire in the US? I think that's a myth that's pretty well shredded by now, right?)
But it will teach you to be resourceful, and pay attention. Or in somecases, it'll force you to BS until you can't BS anymore and give up, go home, or BS someone with enough money that you actually fail upwards, which happens a lot on the network and studio sides.
So anyway, for those of you who love to learn, meet new people who do amazing things, and are ok with not having a steady paycheck, c'mon down!
As has been noted many times over the years, Hollywood is largely a "young persons business."
I happened across a quote in the interesting study above, that I think makes a spot-on judgement on the psychology of producers making content (emphasis mine):
A more puzzling question is why the producers persist in the face of declining audience figures. Here Wu and Huberman are a little more convincing. They argue that like gamblers, video producers overestimate the chance of winning when the probabilities are small.
And as one gets older, one tends to get wiser, and realize the truth of the above statement.
Now, that's not to say you can't still build an ok living out of making television shows or films, but I can tell you first hand that every single person still putting in 100 hour weeks as Associate Producers or PA's or whatever, ALL have their own ideas for their own shows, and that we all overestimate our chances of "winning." That is, the chance of selling your show and going on to make lots of $$ on it, are in reality, very slim.
Also, and more interesting psychologically (and sociologically) are the researchers findings that:
...the success of videos uploaded to YouTube suggest that quality has little affect on success and persistence seems to actually reduce it.
Read the short abstract in full - it has some interesting data, and as more studies like this get published, it'll be interesting to see how it changes media creation in the coming generations.
(hint on my position: how many bands and painters are there out there you've never heard of, but have made a living doing what they do? The same will hold true for media creators. Vast numbers will never make a dime at it, and will do it anyway.)
By the way, just to follow up on the Artist as Marketer thread I just posted, this is exactly what we did with our indie film, "Family."
In addition to the film itself, we (meaning the director, and myself as the producer) cut our own trailers, created our own printing artwork and silk screened DVD promos to hand out at the American Film Market, and I built the website myself (figure it out, y'all - plenty of tutorials on the web...).
This led to us selling the film to a reputable sales company, and while I'm not going to argue whether or not it's a *good* movie (I like my first film, Solitude, better), it'll actually make it's money back.
I've worked inside large production companies at the exec level, and can safely say that had "Family" gone through one of those, and/or a large distributor, the movie would never, ever recoup what was spent on it because we'd be paying off overhead forever and a day.
It IS possible to do your marketing and do it well. It just takes some creative thought and a little work - and for all you "creatives" out there, who think you're only responsible for your "vision" of your movie or television show or whatever, you're going to be into a world of hurt when your services are exchanged for those of others who are willing and able to contribute more than just ideas.
As I've posted a few times about the realities of the evolving IP marketplace as dictated by the consumer and not the rights holder, Trent Reznor just keep on popping up with gems. This quote is one that terrifies most of the highest earners in creative businesses:
"As an artist, you are now the marketer."
Wait a minute, that means you're destroying my carefully crafted business model that relies upon delivering a highly-polished turd wrapped in sticky marketing hooks for "your people" to figure out how to sell... because if I tried to sell it on it's merits... well, then... uh... I'd be broke.
To which, I say, GOOD!
For the first time in a century it would be dependent upon the folks who call themselves the "creatives" to create their way into making better content, and figure out how to monetize and market it themselves.
And guess what, if you can't figure it out, it doesn't mean the market is betraying you, it probably means that either your content, or your business model, or your marketing (or all three), totally sucked. And you don't deserve to get paid for it.
Imagine how much more $$ you could make if you didn't have to pay for all the overhead from the (large) production company and the (large) distributor in making media? I can tell you right now that on a $7m production I've worked on, that somehow, the company and the distributor had to make at least another $3m on top of that just to cover overhead.
Now, this still leaves a gaping hole on "well, how do we finance our media projects" and that, my friends, is still very much an open discussion. I do not know how that is going to be solved, yet, but it will be.
Overheads will be smaller, budgets will be smaller, and if you're any good at what you do, your profit margins will be higher, and you'll be happier because you're dealing with a smaller number of schmoes upstream in the foodchain.
As I've mentioned time and time again, our business (entertainment) is in a rocky period of creative destruction. I believe this is good for culture and society, and probably less good for loads upon loads of highly paid execs - but oh well.
We aren't making money from downloading, we are sharing copies of stuff we have gotten through renting or borrowing from friends. You wont make any more money by shutting down the Internet. The only reason you don't make as much as you would like is due to the quality of most of your product. The Dark Knight made money, it was good. The Love Guru didn't as it sucked big time.
Start believing in vision and stop believing in focus groups. Take a risk, make entertaining art or get the hell out.
Or just keep trying to remake the world the way you think it should be, ie the 1980's.
Welcome to the 21st Century, torrents will never die, and you cant put the genie back in the bottle.
Get over it, shut up and hang on, its gonna be a bumpy ride.
This is spot-on. We've had a media culture for a very, very long time where the hits (Dark Knight) subsidize the losses (The Love Guru). As the safety net disintegrates for the losers (and there's a LOT of bad, awful, terrible movies); of course there's going to be a lot of rancor and squealing.
In the old media model (still very much in existence, but fighting for its existence); A studio producer can easily collect a 6-7 figure producing fee for a film. You get paid most of this upfront. And there's too many variables to "know" if a film is going to be good or bad at the end. Directing, casting, writing, exec notes, cutting, scoring, acting - all things that can go badly after a film has been greenlit. It's not easy.
At the same time, we're quickly moving into an age where if your media sucks, the only $$ you will have made are the crazy upfront costs we all acknowledge hurt profitability - but lots of producers can't (or won't) work on a film for years (often the case) without being able to pay their bills at the very least.
Interesting times we live in - but the commenter above is generally right. The large studios will become more and more risk averse - leaving independent producers trying to figure out new business models (which they are not largely very good at...)
Some minimal coverage of topics at SXSWi today over on CNET.
For those who don't follow the business, SXSWi is the "digital" portion of the South By SouthWest arts conference that happens in Austin, Texas. I wish I could have attended this year, but alas, no such smiling luck upon me this time. I'm sure I would have loved such provocative forums as "Old Media Finds New Voice Through Twitter."
Anyone want to put odds on the more proper title of that forum being "Old Media PR Hacks Find New Medium to put out Old Message?"
But, the point is not to complain or make fun of, the primary thing in the article that caught my eye was this:
But however edgy some of the thinking may be at SXSWi, and however much its demographic may deviate from the U.S. population as a whole, the revenue crisis is real, and this is one of the places where it takes center stage. According to Avner Ronen, the sense of uncertainty over profits is what's holding back some of the innovation that SXSWi's masses are so eager to set in motion.
"That's what's scary for the media companies dealing with Boxee," he said. "They saw what happened with newspapers. It's unlike the record industry, it's not like they fought it. They endorsed it, they executed very well against it, it's just...the analog dollars to digital pennies thing."
Here's where things become... well, wonky. It's NOT A REVENUE CRISIS. It's a crisis of profit margins, and confidence in the product.
For big media companies with millions of dollars in executive overhead, the crisis isn't that they're not making enough, it's that their overhead costs are too high in a market that is just now starting to more accurately reflect the world.
It wasn't that 50 million people tuning in to watch M*A*S*H was because they all loved the show; it was also partly because it didn't have much to compete with. I don't even want to use the term "fractured demographic" because that implies that 18-49 Males is even a realistic map of that world. That is a REAL demographic measurement still in use today.
How many of you think that all 18-49 males are all the same, raise your hand. That's what I thought. Mass media worked because of limited choice, not because it reflected the makeup of the audiences.
And we built infrastructure and command and control systems to support a fictional market; and now that we've finally started to see the amazing diversity of interests and groups in the world, you can't cost effectively create content that large enough audiences will like; and generate enough revenues to spend $15-30 million a year just on your creative "overhead."
One company I know, for instance, just hired it's FIFTEENTH (15!!!) Creative exec. This is a company that develops primarily one kind of programming, and has only three shows on the air in the US. Just doing the math makes me ill. That's well over $2.5m in salaries alone, and on shows where they make a production fee of maybe 10%... it's just not good.
This scenario plays out over, and over, and over again at media companies. These kinds of structures will not stand the test of time. And it's not like these huge overhead expenditures are "what you have to pay to keep top talent," to use a phrase we keep hearing. Take a look at track records. Seriously, look. We have a "hit" subsidized business model at the large networks, studios and prodco's. Those huge overheads still result in many a failure each year. And time and again, the same companies will hire people they "like" or have worked with and schmooze well with, regardless of the fact their last show was an utter disaster both in production, and in ratings. Just because you've "done" something, doesn't mean you've done it well. We would do well to remember that.
There's plenty of opportunity out there for leaner, meaner, just as creative and able to execute and make healthy profits off of revenues that the large companies say "isn't enough."
The fact is, the $$ can be enough in a well-managed enterprise (even though it may be "less than before"), you just have to be willing and able to adjust your cost and overhead structure to make the $$ work, and that's a painful and difficult process. It's especially terrifying for companies that are used to being big enough that they can point fingers at someone else in the company when one of their decisions goes wrong.
It may also mean you end up doing a lot of things yourself that in the past you would hire out while you sat in the corner office. Suck it up, rock at it, and keep moving.
Oh, and by the way, the Renaissance wasn't the greatest period in arts in history because it made the most amount of money for it's artists. It was because they were creating great art, and trying new forms of expression.
I firmly believe the "Golden Age" of artistic media lies ahead of us, not behind us.
And now, back to the stuff I more regularly blog about, the entertainment business.
One of my favorite blogs is run by the guys over at Techdirt, and in particular, Mike Masnick. Most of the posts are insightful and deal with a lot of stuff that we in the Producers Guild (as producers) are not dealing with in any meaningful, proactive ways. Specifically, a lot of the posts about the state of copyright, and Big Content's utter failure to adapt business models to social realities are spot on in my opinion.
Masnick recently gave a presentation at Midem that he posted online that I believe is profoundly relevant to the survival of creative professions. I highly recommend taking 15 minutes to watch it.
The "profound" parts I'm referring to are two salient points that reflect the world we live in today.
Connect With Fans
Reasons to Buy
In the past, film & television production were socially-exclusive enough (means of production and distribution were limited); that simply by their nature, producers could make something, then put it out do a little marketing, and expect to have an audience (connect with fans).
Those days are rapidly falling into the sunset, but Producers haven't changed their mindset. We are largely, willfully ignorant.
There is a big hurdle to overcome in changing this mindset, and that is the assumption that as "creatives" that whatever we make deserves to have a profitable audience by the mere act of creating it.
Coming back to Mike's presentation, which is crafted around the changing music business; applying his two points to any creative content reveals a great big gaping hole in what we do in the content creation business.
Besides just creating the content, how do we Connect with Fans, and what added value do we offer? There are precious few examples of this in the media business (yet).
One great example, however, are the fan communities that Peter Jackson consistently builds when he does a film. He lets his fans into the process with tons of behind the scenes footage, AND allowing fans to ask questions and then answers them. He builds a conversation.
But far too few producers, directors, and content creators take this kind of approach. We cannot mistake a "behind the scenes" video website for conversation. The fact that he answers fan questions is the primary value.
Adding value, however is something we're even worse at. We don't offer special editions (that ARE really special, other than in label only), signed by cast members. We don't offer chances to meet cast or crew or come to set, or anything special. We just make, and say "here ya go, now pay me."
One interesting and innovative example of "adding value" to creative content comes from Josh Freese, drummer for Nine Inch Nails. Freese recently released some new tracks and is selling them in packages that range from $7 for the album and three music vids all the way up to $75,000. What do you get for $75,000?
$75,000 (limited edition of 1)
-Signed CD/DVD and digital download -T-shirt -Go on tour with Josh for a few days. -Have Josh write, record and release a 5 song EP about you and your life story. -Take home any of his drumsets (only one but you can choose which one.) -Take shrooms and cruise Hollywood in Danny from TOOL's Lamborgini OR play quarters and then hop on the Ouija board for a while. -Josh will join your band for a month...play shows, record, party with groupies, etc.... -If you don't have a band he'll be your personal assistant for a month (4 day work weeks, 10 am to 4 pm) -Take a limo down to Tijuana and he'll show you how it's done (what that means exactly we can't legally get into here) -If you don't live in Southern California (but are a US resident) he'll come to you and be your personal assistant/cabana boy for 2 weeks. -Take a flying trapeze lesson with Josh and Robin from NIN, go back to Robin's place afterwards and his wife will make you raw lasagna.
Ok, maybe a bit extreme, but it makes a point, right? And someone might just buy it. That's like selling almost 11,000 albums in one fell swoop, but without the cost of ... um, 11,000 albums.
You know, that if you're a good enough producer, and you treat people right, you could easily set up a dinner with 2 or 3 of the stars from your movie, and one lucky fan (make sure you get a few promotional days with your talent included in their contract, and that something like that could be considered promotional - guaranteed to get a bigger bang PR wise out of that than to hold a PR conference...). Of course, you'll also have to pay for the dinner, and security and whatnot to make sure the winning bidder isn't a crazy nut bent on hurting anyone, but hey, that's manageable.
At any rate, I think Mike is dead-on, and content producers really need to start thinking of better ways to connect with our fans, and giving them reasons to buy. One side effect of this, I believe, is that when we make something fans do connect with, we'll have a much more satisfying work experience as producers than we currently have when we get our Nielsen numbers or box office reports.
I, for one, would love to get to sit down with a few fans who really enjoyed our work and share a meal. That's a whole lot more positive reinforcement than we often get from our creative execs or distribution partners.
You know, no matter what can or can't be said about the web, there's one thing for sure.
Ten years ago or so, the only way you got a good laugh was either: A) Someone told you a joke B) You randomly happened across something that made you chuckle
Situation B, above, has exponentially expanded with the advent of the web, and it makes me happy to have things come across my RSS feeds almost daily that give my wife and I a good laugh.
I sent in a post a few days ago from Daily Variety about directors freely admitting "stealing ideas" as a topic for discussion over at Techdirt, and Mike Masnick picked it up. Cool, and thanks!
But what's really really cool is a quote from Thomas Jefferson someone posted in the comments that I'd not heard before, and I want to highlight a few bits of it (emphasis is mine).
It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property.
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.
Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it.
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.
Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.
Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody.
Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea.
We've come a long, long way from that standpoint. I'm not yet convinced that where we stand in the US on copyright law is the place that our founding fathers had envisioned us standing when they created copyright.
I've been doing a lot of work cross media in the last year, from $10,000 new media pilots to $5m reality tv shows, and one thing that really has become clear. That is that while we are constantly being asked to "do it better, faster, cheaper," we have little means of achieving this in many instances.
First, we're told "you have no budget, but call this agent, because we want this on camera talent." OK, as soon as your engaged in speaking with agents, and you're most likely now in talent union waters, you are not doing things cheaper. And that's ok. It's a fine choice to make, you just have to be aware of what it means when you get asked
Second, and more important to me personally, we have no toolsets that can help us do things better fast cheaper. All of our process management (production management) tools are really clunky, old, and pretty much suck.
The budgeting programs don't talk to the scheduling programs, and vice versa (except for one-time, "get your show started" imports - but there's no way for budgeting and scheduling programs to monitor each other and auto-update or auto-flag changes in one that affect the other). The budgeting and accounting softwares, well, there's really only one, and it's terrible, oh, and if you don't have internet access, your accountant is dead in the water and can't do anything at all.
We do not have any tools that make the production process (or the creative process for that matter) more intuitive and easier to manage, and easier to share information across the departments that exist within a media project.
Someday soon, we will - it's just going to take some work. For now, we're stuck with the same old processes, and 20th century communication models - where things are honestly, still done in triplicate in some parts of the process.
I posted a while back about OTOY, a startup here in Burbank that had stated it was going to create real-time HD server-side photoreal rendering. It sounded like vaporware.
But it most definitely is not.
In conjuction with AMD, they expect to have the first real-time, render-in-the-cloud platform doing it's thing by late this year.
The announcement at CES this year, interestingly enough, included partners from *ahem* Lucasfilm.
Think digital storytelling is going to be relegated only to those companies who can build their own massive render farms in the future?
Subscribe to Uglyshz RSS
