Paramount Ponies Up for Pulp Filmmakers

(Okay, they say "microbudget," but hey...) From Variety:

Paramount to produce more micro-budget films

Studio will spend $1 million annually to develop 10 to 20 films

Seeking to replicate the stunning success of "Paranormal Activity," Paramount's launching an initiative that will spend $1 million annually to develop and produce microbudget films.

Move, unveiled Thursday, is designed to place between 10 and 20 projects in development by the end of next year, with no individual budget topping $100,000.

Paramount Film Group prexy Adam Goodman, promoted to the slot in June, cooked up the plan in the successful wake of "Paranormal," made for $15,000 and grossing more than $100 million domestically.

Goodman indicated the funds, which will come out of the studio's overall production budget, will be targeted at both unknowns and established filmmakers, with the goal of increasing the studio's ability to find new voices and ideas. In addition, the initiative's aimed at giving Paramount a more diverse portfolio of titles at a time when Hollywood's devoting most of its resources to megabudget pics, such as Par's "Transformers" and "Star Trek" franchises.

The studio hasn't set a target of how many projects would receive a theatrical release. The microbudget projects could also conceivably be remade with conventional budgets.

Paramount originally planned to release "Shutter Island" in early October but, citing costs, decided in late August to push that title back to February and opted for "Paranormal Activity" instead.

Par was able to make effective use of a low-cost grassroots release strategy, starting with a dozen midnight screenings of Oren Peli's horror-thriller in college towns before launching a gradual rollout that built on strong word of mouth.

Note: How Paramount is using the same strategy they used in "Paranormal Activity" to determine the effectiveness of their movies and how and where they will be released. That is, they "ask the audience" first and roll out the movie from there based on the word of mouth. I have no doubt some of these movies will go Direct 2 Download/DVD/Netflix - but they will still be profitable for the studio, and their risk is minimal -- especially as they cultivate the audience and perhaps sell them other Paramount products along the way.

Now all we need are unusual stories to tell. Stories that go for the throat.
Hmmm... wonder where we'll get those?

Jon Reis: New Media Order Manifesto

From Indiewire news:

John Reiss, filmmaker turned author of the new book THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX OFFICE recently gave a speech at the CPH:DOX forum in Copenhagen. In that speech he outlines a manifesto of sorts derived from the work he researched for his book and his own experience:

"But just as a way of introducing myself – I will give you a brief introduction to my own horror story.

In 2007, I was at the Tribeca film festival where I was trying to sell my documentary “Bomb It.” We did everything by the old school book, kept the screeners a secret, we spent $20,000 launching the film at the festival, with the result of packed houses and hundreds of people turned away. After all the excitement, what we had were a few $10,000 all rights deals that we rejected. A week after Tribeca, our film was available for sale on Canal Street — as a bootleg.

A number of lucky films each year will still get overall deals that make some kind of financial sense for them. However these deals are not available to the vast majority of filmmakers at this time. We are in the midst of a new world order or crisis."

I have taken portions of Jon's manifesto and reposted them here. I urge you to go and read the more detailed aspects in the original post on IndieWire.

1. KNOW YOUR FILM/KNOW YOURSELF. EVERY FILM IS DIFFERENT AND SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUCH

The studio model of distribution was created because it made sense for large mass market films, and for a time it worked for some independent films as well.

However each film is different, and many independent films did not fair well within the studio machine – because they were not marketed to their unique audience.

2. CHANGE YOUR ATTITUDE TOWARD MARKETING

As an iconoclastic, ex punk rock anarchist neo Marxist who most recently made a documentary about graffiti and the battle over visual public space, I feel that I have come about as far as anyone could come in this embrace of marketing.

I would argue that the biggest problem facing independent film is not one of distribution – it is one of marketing. It is one thing to put your film out into the world, it is another to get people to know about it, and want to watch it.

It is not a matter of changing your work to meet a supposed market. But to consider what kinds of audiences might be interested in your work and seek to cultivate them.

The artificial divide between art and commerce must be eliminated.

3. DETERMINE YOUR AUDIENCES AND HOW TO REACH THEM FROM INCEPTION

Many independent filmmakers for many years have made films without thinking about who the audiences for their films might be. Or their ideas about audiences are much too general. Alternatively the studios have erred on the other side and catered to a mass audience and left any form of specialty taste behind.

START THE PROCESS AT INCEPTION
It can take a long time to engage your audience. As important as developing individual audience members are connections you can make with organizations that will help you expand your reach.

This audience engagement (aka marketing) will be much more organic if you integrate it into the whole life cycle of a film.

By starting during prep and production, you are allowing your audience to be involved in the creation of your work. This in turn invests them with the success of your film. This can happen through crowdsourcing of various creative aspects of the film or through crowdfunding the budget for the film. These engaged audience members will be active core promoters because they will feel a connection with your film.

4. WHEN YOU HAVE FINISHED YOUR FILM, YOU ARE HALF DONE

Distribution and marketing can take as long and cost as much, or more than you spent on your film. The new 50/50 is not a revenue split but the mental shift that filmmakers must make about the filmmaking process.

Too many filmmakers have no resources for the second half of the process once they finish their films. It is a shame. Why make a brilliant wonderful film if you do not have the resources to get it to its audience.

This is not a hard and fast rule, remember all films are unique. But it is a good guideline when embarking on a project.

- Money for distribution and marketing should be budgeted for, raised and put into escrow. It is far better to have $50,000 to release a $50,000 film than to make a $100,000 film with no way of getting it to an audience.

- We must create new crew positions to be responsible for these tasks.

5. WE MUST TAKE BACK THE THEATRICAL EXPERIENCE AND REDEFINE IT AS LIVE EVENT/ THEATRICAL

Many people feel that the theatrical release is dead. It is too expensive and time consuming for independent filmmakers to engage. I believe it should be reborn.

Theatrical has come to mean a paid screening in conventional theaters with built in sound and visual projection that start on Friday – end Thursday with a review Friday in venuses that all sell popcorn.

Any booking of a film into a projected environment that does not meet the conventions outlined above falls into a category of “non-theatrical” or “semi-theatrical”. Given that these screenings are defined primarily in negative terms (non-, semi-,) it is not surprising that they receive a second-class status.

This classification of theatrical markets wasn’t always the case. In the earliest days of motion picture films, screenings occurred in a variety of spaces: storefronts, tents, public parks, churches. Films often toured with vaudeville acts or circuses or on their own.

6. CREATE PRODUCTS PEOPLE WANT TO BUY

Is it a wonder that in the digital era people have stopped buying DVDs? For what is a DVD but a package of 0s and 1s in a crap plastic case.

We should look to musicians who have struggled with this conundrum for longer than we. Just as they are touring, many of them understand the difference between a physical product and a digital product and not only price them accordingly, but create added value to their physical products that cannot be replicated digitally.

Consider items that your fans and audience will want to purchase, it will be different for every film. Consider books of photographs that contain the DVD. Video games, Toys that can be printed on demand with new three dimensional printers.

7. DIGITAL RIGHTS ARE A MINEFIELD – BE CAREFUL


8. ENTERTAINMENT COMPANIES MUST MOVE BEYOND OLD WAYS OF DOING BUSINESS

Just as filmmakers must think out side the box in terms of the way they make and distribute and market films, companies need to do this as well.

Everyone is hurting in the birth of this new paradigm, so more than ever it is necessary to work together.

I believe it is important for filmmakers to collaborate with experienced and reputable companies in getting their work seen. Unless you are completely committed to DIY for philosophical reasons, or because you cannot find a company to partner with, I recommend DIY being a last resort. You will still end up doing more work than you can imagine on a release in a company supported split rights scenario.

In turn, companies need to embrace the split rights world we live in and stop being so omnivorous of our rights, if you are not going to provide monetary compensation for those rights or have no plans to you should not demand them.

Companies need to be more transparent about their ways of conducting business.

9. EXPLORE NEW WAYS TO TELL STORIES

We live in a fractured marketplace for media. Audiences have media and consumption preferences. You can’t bend them, you must accommodate them.

We must embrace new forms beyond the short and the feature and recognize that a film can be one part of a larger narrative universe that can be explored in a variety of mediums.

Think of a story that takes place via a feature film, but extends out over mobile devices, gaming consoles, social networks, through websites, text messages, downloadable clips, or iPhone apps. An exciting amount of creative potential awaits adventurous filmmakers.

Further, audiences want to participate with culture. By allowing them to participate, filmmakers open themselves up to a deeper relationship with their audiences.

Don’t be proprietary with your media. Give people assets — footage, sounds, environments. Let them re-edit your scenes.

Not all of your audience is going to engage in this way, but a devoted core who will.

10. WE MUST SUPPORT EACH OTHER AS A COMMUNITY

Filmmakers are lovers of film and our best allies. We must support one another’s work. The more generous you are – the more you will receive in return.

Similarly, if there is a film that you love – support it in other ways. Use your newly developed social networking skills to tell your own fans and followers why they should see the film. They are your followers, they are interested in your tastes and opinions, use that power to the good of the film community.

------------------------------------

Edit to add: Scott Kirsner has an audio interview with Jon here.

---------------------------------

Now - it may interest you to know that the movie that was discussed here (see the video at the bottom of that post) SITA SINGS THE BLUES (which you can watch on YouTube for free) is being released on DVD by Indiepix. From the press release:

"To get any film made is a miracle To conceive of a film like this is a greater miracle. Two Thumbs up!"
-- Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun Times

Captivating, mesmerizing, spellbinding"

-- Chicago Reader

"An irrefutable argument for classic 2-D animation as a viable, vibrant low-budget arthouse medium for adults"

-- Variety

THIS DECEMBER, INDIEPIX PRESENTS THE GREATEST BREAK-UP STORY EVER TOLD -- A BEAUTIFULLY ANIMATED MASTERPIECE WHICH HAS PLAYED IN OVER 200 INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVALS AND CAPTURED 30+ AWARDS

Winner of the Prestigious Silver Bear for Best Feature Film at the Berlin International Film Festival in 2008 and numerous other awards, the international festival smash (with 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes), SITA SINGS THE BLUES makes its DVD debut this December courtesy of IndiePix Films. Available for $24.95srp

Sita is a Hindu goddess, the leading lady ofIndia’s epic the Ramayana and a dutiful wife who follows her husband Rama on a 14 year exile to a forest, only to be kidnapped by an evil king from Sri Lanka. Despite remaining faithful to her husband, Sita is put through many tests. Nina (the filmmaker Nina Paley herself) is an artist who finds parallels in Sita’s life when her husband – in India on a work project - decides to break up their marriage and dump her via email. Three hilarious Indonesian shadow puppets with Indian accents – linking the popularity of the Ramayana from India all the way to the Far East - narrate both the ancient tragedy and modern comedy in this beautifully animated interpretation of the epic.

In her first feature length film, Paley juxtaposes multiple narrative and visual styles to create a highly entertaining yet moving vision of the Ramayana. Musical numbers choreographed to the 1920's jazz vocals of Annette Hanshaw feature a cast of hundreds: flying monkeys, evil monsters, gods, goddesses, warriors, sages, and winged eyeballs. A tale of truth, justice and a woman’s cry for equal treatment. SITA SINGS THE BLUES earns its tagline as "The Greatest Break-Up Story Ever Told."

DVD Extras: Director's commentary and interview, the bonus short "Fetch!" and more

Format : DVD/Single

Run time: 82 mins. + extras

Price: $24.95srp

Prebook/Street: November 17/December 15

-------------------------------------

This is an example of new media in action. Using free social networking tools and legal licensing tools to create a unique film experience that makes money for the producer. It's different, it's new (sort of) and it's about the manifesto that Jon speaks of above. There are companies out there that are understanding this is the new paradigm - free, split-rights deals, unique marketing, designed packaging, merchandising, letting go and allowing the fans their turn "at bat."

Quote for Tomorrow

From Warren Ellis regarding his new book released POD, SHIVERING SANDS:

A persistent criticism of my interest in POD has been that only writers at my level of cultural awareness can make any kind of success out of it. And some of them will now be saying, well, even Warren Ellis can only move 400 copies in the first week of a POD project. But, for one thing, it is about the long game. For everybody. The book doesn’t go away. And, for another, if I’m not aware enough of you to order that POD project — whose fault is that, really? Because, I’ve got to tell you, I wasn’t born with a book deal in one hand and an exclusive comics contract wrapped around my other flipper. Hell, when I was starting out, there wasn’t even an internet.

It is about the long game. The building of a library of content and internet presence that allows people to discover and recommend your work.

Post AFM Wrap Up

There really isn't a lot to tell. Lots of product with few sales. Buyers were eager to get to Santa Monica, buy what they absolutely had to and leave. Distributors were left holding films that will be discounted at the next market where Buyers will pick up a movie or two for a song (possibly a dance too, but mainly the song).

Bill Martell has a great wrap up here and recounts our phone conversation as I drove back to Hollywood in shock. Bill and I go to AFM every year and occasionally (always) have a beer (twenty) and discuss what we've seen. This year he didn't feel compelled to go on Sunday, and I was able to wrap most of my business up then and seek out new business on Monday.

Bill calls his post "Is Cinema Dead?" and I have to disagree with the phrasing. I may be splitting hairs here, but I'd rather call his post "How has Cinema Changed and Why Hasn't the Business Changed to Meet it?" We discussed this over the phone - not only regarding a specific project we have together and how we're going to produce it well, but how we - the creative folk - are going to have to approach the business.

This ain't your father's movie business anymore. Not even at the studio level. It's not even a movie business per se, but an intellectual property business. That's due to a variety of factors we're going to have to discuss in the Electrogram. It's scary and it's exciting and it's different than to what you've grown accustomed...

But ultimately I think it's going to be far better for those looking to make their first break into media. There will be more opportunity and the possibility of more reward - more people seeing your work, more people in your genre niche seeing your work, better trend spotting, higher production value, more unusual storytelling options and choices and yes, monetization.

More later.

Whew!

Finished the last round of materials for AFM and received confirmation the client has them and loves them because they are the greatest marketing materials EVAR!

So now I can go over to the corner and have my wonderful cardiac arrest. Isn't film wonderful?

While I'm clutching my chest over here in the corner, possibly stroking out from an aneurysm brought about by the ever present "hurry up and wait" deadlines combined with economic and social stresses -- I want to point you toward something Cousin Jill highlighted the other day.

That something points the way toward changing the game for all of us, but I'm not going to be coy about it - it does mean a revolution. Now I'm not talking about pickaxes and torches and IEDs or anything like that. What Eric Garland is calling for here is an understanding of the fundamental realities facing the motion picture business today.

Don't think so? Try this:

Garland: Yes, but Surfthechannel.com, (an online site where users can find links to a plethora of unauthorized shows and films) doesn't care about that. They're happy to serve up current and past episodes of "24." And just like music, Hollywood's first reaction to that will be "Well, that's just not fair. That's jumping the turnstile, that's breaking the rules. We have to shut that down, because if you remove that option then people will be more patient." You won't remove that option, and you're losing valuable time if you focus on removing that option at the expense of improving that option and bettering that option, beating that option. The music people used to say, "How can you can compete with free?" And now you ask anybody in digital music and they'll tell you, "I'm just trying to compete effectively with free." They've embraced the very condition that up until very recently they said they would reject. I'm telling you, you are going to compete with free. Sometimes you're even going to win, once you make the commitment to living in the marketplace as it is and not as you wish it were or as it once was

"Living in the marketplace as it is..." that opportunity knocking my friends. It's spelled H-A-R-D-W-O-R-K, but it is opportunity to think outside the theater screen or cathode ray tube / flat screen.

But unfortunately, we have to contend with the old guard who want things the way they once were:

Q: Are paywalls one of the solutions? That's what Hulu's leaders are considering.
Absolutely not. What you have is a very effective antipiracy tool in Hulu, and I'm specifically drawing on the numbers and not just citing anecdotal evidence. People really do prefer the Hulu experience. So you actually have cannibalization, for once, of a pirate market by a legitimate market. You have a legitimate market stealing share and audience away from a pirate market. Put that behind a subscription wall and they'll just go back.

Read the whole article. Front to back, back to front. It's a significant shift away from the line of "It'll never happen" or "How can I make money if I'm giving it away for free?" It's an honest assessment of what is going on right now all over the world and points to putting together business models to suit.

More on this in the Pulp Legion Electrogram. It will probably be finished around Turkey day because I will be down in Santa Monica next week attending AFM and several seminars including the SAGIndie panel, The WGA West panel and the Film Independent panel. I want to incorporate what I experience there into the e-gram.

Early rumor has this AFM tagged as a grim affair.

Drip...Drip...Drip...

Ted Hope over at Truly Free Film (which you really do need to place in your Google Readers, kids) had a post up regarding how slow things haven't changed from the dire predictions he made in an older article he wrote for Moviemaker in 1995 titled "Indie Film is Dead.". What's interesting to me is that he lists many problems with the Industry at that 1995 point that make me shake my head a bit.

So I thought I would take a few moments to look at this more closely and add my pithy prose to the mix and discuss the slow drip of change:

Acquisitions are driven by marketability, and marketability alone. Art has no value. Sure a film has to be "good" to be picked up, but what does a distributor truly look for when it acquires a film? Uniqueness of vision? Independent spirit? Discipline? A controlled or unique aesthetic? Try again. Like their Hollywood counterparts, the first item on their menu is a marketable concept, one they already know how to package.

Here's the problem with this statement - As an audience member, I don't care how unique the vision of the film is, or the person's indie spirit, their discipline or unique aesthetic. I want to be entertained. I want to connect to the story in some way and be asking myself, "What happens next?"

Marketability means how easy it is for an audience to connect to and immerse themselves into the movie. If you can't connect to the audience in some way - then why do it?

The major specialty distributors only seek films they believe can gross $2 million at the US box office. There is no small acquisition anymore. When a distributor offers a minimum guarantee of $300,000, they are essentially stating that they believe the film will gross over $2 million at the box office (the MG is nothing more than an advance against future profits – the size of the advance is in direct correlation to a distributor’s conservative estimate of the film’s future revenues).

They know it's a lot of work to distribute a film theatrically. Especially in 1995 when you didn't have digital cinemas. They have to have a reasonable cut off point where they know their efforts are going to be worthwhile monetarily.

There are too many pictures out there that received a theatrical release that did not deserve it. It was the wrong move marketing-wise and choked too many theaters and distributors. The audience simply wasn't there to support it.

The "Big Little" distributors have a surplus of films; they don’t want yours (particularly if it’s an art film). Miramax doesn’t even try to hide the fact that they have over 40 films on the shelf – they promote it. If one of the larger specialty distribs were to pick your film up today, you’d be waiting a year for your premiere.

What's true then is true today...if you're using a "Theatrical release first system." Having a library of content and moving it around so you always have some sort of income flowing in is the model that allowed Trimark to become Artisan to become Lionsgate. No distributor wants to release a movie just to release it. They want to position it so it does its best.

I urge all of you to read the rest of Ted's article and his postscript. Then I want you to start rethinking how to release a movie - and think about what a movie actually is to your business plan - by watching this:



(courtesy of Jill Golick)

Your movie in today's marketplace is simply the tip of the iceberg. Hollywood is The Titannic. We all know how that story ended.

Turn it around. Build the audience first: through email, through the content, through interaction. Then sell the containers: the DVD, the merchandise, and finally the screening event in a theater.

Joining the 21st Century...

And yes, in many cases they are joining while kicking and screaming, but it is happening.
From 2 weeks ago at LBCC (courtesy CBR):

Stephen Christy, Director of Development for Archaia Comics, moderated an in-depth discussion of the future of digital distribution for comics, at the first annual Long Beach Comic Con. Populating the panel were various digital comic creators, including: Rantz Hoseley, the editor of "Comic Book Tattoo" and CEO and Founder of LongBox Inc., Joshua Hale Fialkov, the creator of "Tumor," the first digital graphic novel developed for the Amazon Kindle; David Gallaher, creator of "High Moon," a digital webcomic that runs on ZudaComics.com, and "Box 13," an exclusive iPhone comic; and Matt Maxwell, the creator of 'Strangeways,' a webcomic running on CBR's Robot 6.

Christy focused primarily on the theme of reaching out to the larger potential audience for comic books, outside of the comic book stores, through digital distribution. He described the theory behind LongBox Digital as it being a one stop shop for digital comics. He then announced that all of Archaia's titles will be available on Longbox, eventually.

Zeroing in specifically on Archaia's success with the digital comic, "Tumor," Christy said "'Tumor' has been the number one selling comic on the Kindle for eight weeks, beating comics such as 'Star Trek,' popular mangas, 'Indiana Jones,' and other major licensed projects."

Christy said that Archaia is focusing on new ways to get comics out in front of the public, by looking at Kindle, Longbox, "or through other devices, who we are talking to, which we have not announced yet. The biggest goal is to try and find an audience. How do you find an audience in new ways?"

Regarding "Comic Book Tattoo," Hoseley said "It's a best seller by real book industry standards and comic industry standards. However, on the ICV2 numbers, which are the commonly held tracking numbers for sales and stuff, it would not appear anywhere on the top 500. That's largely because, for all the thousands of copies sold, less than 10% of the copies sold went through the direct market shops. We've sold thousands and thousands and thousands of copies through places like Barnes and Noble, Borders, Amazon, and other direct sales outlets."

Archaia's "Tumor," developed with the Kindle in mind

Christy spoke about the similar case of "Gunnerkrigg Court." "We have a book called 'Gunnerkrigg Court' that is a webcomic that we have a hardcopy of. We sold 10,000 copies of the first edition, which is a $27.00 hard cover, through the book market. And we've sold like 800 through the direct market. 'Gunnerkrigg Court' is like Harry Potter for girls, and I don't know many 8 year old girls that go into regular comic book shops. When we can get a book like 'Gunnerkrigg' out to those 8 year old girls that should be reading it, and they can walk into any Borders or Barnes & Noble or Amazon or just order it online…that's an amazing thing.

"Those are people that wouldn't be reading comics otherwise. They would never be able to find 'Gunnerkrigg Court' if they had to go between issues of Spider-Man and X-Men to do it. This is a new age, a completely new age. And it's something to be happy about, because the audience is limitless. You can only go up from where you are right now, essentially," explained Christy.

(Color highlights mine)

Now every time they say "comics" in the above piece also add "movies, games, books, TV shows and music/audio" (and I'm sure there will be other things to add soon as well). I was lured into a discussion on Sunday regarding new media and gained some insights into the world of financing and how banks and financing institutions "see things" when it comes to loaning producers or entrepreneurs financing.

It really opened my eyes on a few things and how we as media makers have to change their perceptions with solid work that can work on the scale they loan money at (in other words, it doesn't make sense for them to loan money for anything less than $5m because the return on investment is so small. Banks also get nervous when you flip flop the distribution windows and release a DVD yourself without trying for a theatrical release -- even though THEY KNOW the theatrical release will lose money in most cases). They are looking to protect their back end return and the business model they know and have been working under says "Theatrical first."

But that's not the 21st century is it?

That's not a world with more laptops/computers and Iphones than actual televisions. That's not a world where Google - IF it is successful with its Android phone platform - will seriously compete with IPhone but with an open source coding framework for building phone applications.

It is conceivable - in this bastard's twisted mind anyway - that we will be making programs for that phone and laptop with story connections elsewhere on the web accessible via that mobile device. So not only will you be able to watch that KNIGHTMARE web serial/TV/Movie hybrid show -- but you will be able to listen to the classic radio shows too -- and read the pulp novel (pending) -- and play the game -- and read the webcomic -- and discuss all of the above in the forum -- or buy the t-shirt -- or dozens of other world dominating plots I haven't even concocted yet.

But if the response on this little experiment of mine is any indication - there's an audience there that wants to not only watch - but use - their media. If you hook them, and feed them regularly then the rewards will be there.

But I can't use my media in a theater (or at a comic book shop). I can share the experience with a limited number of people... but that's so 20th century.

I'm living in the 21st. Things are faster, wider and more involved. They're also cheaper and that's something any business lender can get behind.

More (rants) as this develops.

(And for those of you thinking that digital will replace print, I have to say "yes and no". It will replace certain aspects of print - floppies - but will reinforce the collectible print editions. One only has to look at the Japanese manga industry to see how this is working. It is a model that can be used for a variety of media)

Roger Corman Presents: SPLATTER

Is it a Cable TV premiere or a D2DVD?

No - it's Netflix's first ever web series! (via Tubefilter)

Netflix, which started as a simple “DVD delivery to your home” service and has grown to delivering movies straight to computer and XBox is now about to tackle the world of web content. And they are doing it with a bang. Literally. To Corey Feldman’s head.

Feldman announced yesterday on his blog that not only will he be reprising his role as Edgar Frog in Lost Boys 3: The Thirst…he’s also going to be starring in Netflix’s first ever web series, Splatter. Not only that, he’s teaming up with legendary directors Joe Dante and Roger Corman to do it.

The project itself is still mostly under wraps but Feldman could say a few things about it. “The project is titled Splatter and is being created for Netflix. This will be their first ever live streaming web series. Splatter will be a multi episode web series that will go live on the web on Halloween weekend. My character’s name is Jonny Splatter. That is pretty much all I am allowed to say for now.”

But there is one more small thing more he can show you… “in light of Friday’s Chiller Eyegore awards ceremony, the folks at Netflix were kind enough to launch a teaser site of the new web series as the show began. I will give you the website address so you can catch the first glimpse for yourself…but before I do that I must give you a warning…this is not for little kids. The material is graphic in nature, and parental discretion is strongly advised…this is a pretty shocking 30 second clip you will see. Please make sure you remove small children before reviewing this teaser. OK now that, that has been said, the address is www.netflix.com/splatter … and remember it’s just a little Halloween fun!”

--------------------------------------------

Okay gang, the takeaway on this is:

1) Netflix thinks there's money in webseries.
2) Netflix has a business model that is very very strong.
3) Roger Corman (a man who doesn't do anything unless he sees the "upside") is doing a web series.

This is good for all of us. Now we have to find out how much they're spending, the structure, etc... the business details.

The Future Belongs To...

Courtesy of Warren Ellis who found this here.

My hands are covered in blood, but I am a mad bastard.

Have We Not Been Saying This For Years Now?!!!

Utilizing one of the most stupid article headlines ever, Variety reports:

Internet influences film audiences

Seriously. Is this where we are at now? Where once-respected entertainment industry publications state the obvious? Here's the whole shebang with my orange highlights on the things the guy on the street already knows:

-------------------------------------------------

If marketing mavens want to reach younger moviegoers when promoting their films, they need to embrace social networks or risk being ignored.

That was the overall message of Moviegoers 2010, the first report on moviegoing habits produced by Stradella Road, the entertainment marketing firm founded by former New Line Web guru Gordon Paddison that hopes to assist film marketers in determining how to reach consumers over the next decade.

The study found that teens and twentysomethings are especially focused on being able to customize entertainment and are quick to share their opinions with others digitally -- especially as usage of the Internet, mobile devices and DVRs has become more widespread. An estimated 94% of all moviegoers are now online.

The younger demo is especially key in spreading word of mouth, with 73% of moviegoers surveyed having profiles on social networking sites.

It's a point that's been made a number of times as sites like MySpace, Facebook and Twitter have grown in popularity. But the study is one of the few to break down specific age groups and how they consume movies and the marketing messages leading up to their releases.

• Teens (age 13-17) are "all about sharing information and group thinking," the report said, with social networking a critical communication tool. They go to movies in large groups and are heavily influenced by their friends' opinions. They also prefer texting over having phone conversations. More than 70% also surf the Web and text while watching TV, and 67% of them socialize with friends online.
• Twentysomethings (age 18-29) "are digital natives that have grown up with technology" and are more likely to go online for movie info and to share what they think about movies via social networks (58% socialize with friends online). They use the Internet to find any kind of information and place a high value on online consumer reviews and sites that aggregate reviews.
• Auds in their 30s are time-constrained, with parenthood dominating their decisions. They split their moviegoing trips between their children and their spouses. They "spend the highest number of hours online and rep the highest use of technology (Internet, broadband access, DVR ownership and cell phone)." They also view the most recorded TV and skip the most ads via their DVRs.
• Those in their 40s embrace traditional media like magazines and newspapers, with moviegoing dominated by special family occasions and influenced by teens.
• And fiftysomethings avoid crowds, prefer matinees and "skip ads because they think there are too many commercials on TV."

Given the increased influence of websites on which consumers buy movie tickets, AOL, Facebook, Fandango, Google, Microsoft, MovieTickets.com and Yahoo were enlisted to supply data for the study.

Study was conducted by surveying 1,547 moderate-to-heavy moviegoers over eight days in July, with an additional 2,305 questioned by phone or online during July. Nielsen NRG managed the research fieldwork.

Although many moviegoers are going online to get info on upcoming releases, TV still dominates as the leading tool to generate awareness for films, with 73% of those surveyed saying they first heard about a movie by watching a 30-second spot. In-theater trailers were close behind with 70%, followed by word of mouth (46%) and the Internet (44%).

Most films are now considered critic-proof, especially among the younger set, with 84% of moviegoers saying, "When they make up their mind to see a movie, it doesn't matter what the critics say about it."

It may depend on who's giving them the thumbs up or down, however.

Of those surveyed, 75% said they trust a friend's opinion more than a movie critic; 80% said they were more likely to see a movie after hearing a positive review from other moviegoers, while only 67% said a thumbs up from a professional critic had the same weight.

Yet only 40% said negative reviews from their peers would dissuade them from seeing a movie, while an even lower 28% would be kept from theaters because of a critic's opinion, meaning that at the end of the day, negative word of mouth doesn't have as much influence.

While 62% now get their reviews online, only auds over 50 rely on newspaper reviews.

The results hardly give Hollywood anything to worry about. The box office is so far up this year and looks like it will be strong for years to come despite the current recession, the study said.

That is mainly because 79% of those questioned said, "Going to the movies is a good escape from everyday life."

-----------------------------------

The next phase of this big research project MUST be a survey of what OTHER forms of web entertainment do these moviegoers enjoy? Do they play games, read books, order merchandise, and so on --- all OUTSIDE of the general Hollywood Studios sphere of influence. While it doesn't say so, I have a sneaking suspicion that we'll find that most people equated the questions regarding movies and "moviegoing" as "getting out of the house and going to the theater" instead of actual MOVIE-WATCHING.

We need to know their movie-WATCHING habits. Because big, multi-million dollar studio releases will be in the theaters, but many indie releases won't (and shouldn't be). Where are audiences watching MOST of their movies? Does peer opinion affect that viewing segment ? How?

These are the questions we need to ask in order to understand and capitalize on the future that's coming.

International Rights: Going the way of the Dinosaur?

VIZ MEDIA ANNOUNCES INUYASHA THE FINAL ACT

SCHEDULED TO STREAM IN THE U.S. SIMULTANEOUS TO AIRING IN JAPAN

Final Episodes Of Smash Hit Anime Based On Rumiko Takahashi Manga To Be Available On VIZ Media’s SHONEN SUNDAY

Web Site Mere Hours After Episodes Air in Japan

San Francisco, CA, September 28, 2009 – VIZ Media, LLC (VIZ Media), one of the entertainment industry's most innovative and comprehensive publishing, animation and licensing companies, delighted anime fans at New York Anime Festival yesterday with an announcement of the near simultaneous Japanese/American simulcast of the action-packed conclusion to the INUYASHA animated series-INUYASHA THE FINAL ACT.

Beginning on October 3^rd, INUYASHA THE FINAL ACT (subtitled) will stream on ShonenSunday.com/anime and Hulu.com mere hours after it airs in Japan. A new episode will air every Saturday thereafter. INUYASHA THE FINAL ACT anime is rated ‘T” teens.

INUYASHA is a hit TV anime series based on the manga by famed creator Rumiko Takahashi, who won the prestigious Shogakukan Manga Award for INUYASHA in 2002. Many of the Takahashi titles have been adapted into other media such as anime, live-action TV series, and film. Takahashi’s manga, as well as the other formats her work has been adapted into, have continued to delight generations of fans around the world. Distinguished by her wonderfully endearing characters, Takahashi’s work adeptly incorporates a wide variety of elements such as comedy, romance, fantasy, and martial arts. Rumiko Takahashi is an artist who truly represents the very best from the world of manga. Please visit the new official North American web site for all Rumiko Takahashi-related news and information located at www.TheRumicWorld.com.

When an enchanted well draws her into the past, Kagome, an ordinary modern schoolgirl, finds her destiny tied to the doglike half-demon Inuyasha and a mythical gem called the Shikon Jewel, or "Jewel of Four Souls," of which the smallest shard can grant the user unimaginable power.

Throughout their quest to restore the shattered Shikon Jewel, Inuyasha and Kagome have never faced an enemy more deadly or more cunning than the demon mastermind Naraku. With the Shikon Jewel nearly whole and in Naraku’s hands, the race to collect the remaining shards intensifies and a battle of epic proportions is brewing on the horizon...

Featuring the works of some of the top shonen manga creators in the world today, Shonen Sunday magazine in Japan provides the content for some of VIZ Media’s most impressive new titles. The magazine recently celebrated its 50^th anniversary since its first issue arrived on newsstands in March of 1959. RIN-NE is the brand new Shonen Sunday manga series by Rumiko Takahashi and the first series ever to be published simultaneously in Japan and North America.

“INUYASHA is one of the longest running anime series in North America and we’re very proud to present the final episodes of this epic adventure to fans in the U.S. mere hours after episodes air in Japan,” says Ken Sasaki, Vice President Strategy & Business Development, VIZ Media. “Rumiko Takahashi created a classic with INUYASHA, and ShonenSunday.com/anime will be THE online destination where INUYASHA fans can watch all 167 previously available episodes, as well as follow the newest episodes from INUYASHA THE FINAL ACT!”

VIZ Media publishes multiple series by Rumiko Takahashi, including her brand new manga series RIN-NE, the INUYASHA manga, INUYASHA ani-manga and THE ART OF INUYASHA. For more information on the INUYASHA anime please visit ShonenSunday.com.

This heralds a future when "TV shows" and other media are broadcast simultaneously around the world via the web. No borders or barriers to be thrown up by government interests. International media commerce.

About VIZ Media, LLC

Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, VIZ Media, LLC (VIZ Media), is one of the most comprehensive and innovative companies in the field of manga (graphic novel) publishing, animation and entertainment licensing of Japanese content. Owned by three of Japan’s largest creators and licensors of manga and animation, Shueisha Inc., Shogakukan Inc., and Shogakukan-Shueisha Productions, Co., Ltd., VIZ Media is a leader in the publishing and distribution of Japanese manga for English speaking audiences in North America, the United Kingdom, Ireland, and South Africa and is a global ex-Asia licensor of Japanese manga and animation. The company offers an integrated product line including the popular monthly manga anthology SHONEN JUMP magazine, graphic novels, and DVDs, and develops, markets, licenses, and distributes animated entertainment for audiences and consumers of all ages. Contact VIZ Media at 295 Bay Street, San Francisco, CA 94133; Phone (415) 546-7073; Fax (415) 546-7086; and web site at www.VIZ.com.

And Who Didn't See This Coming?

From our friends at Tubefilter:

The Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog sequel rumors have been flying since days after the web musical premiered online last summer. Still, despite strong desire from fans and the cast themselves, there wasn’t any movement on the ‘Dr. H 2‘ mostly due to creator Joss Whedon’s primary commitment to his FOX series Dollhouse. But this week there’s new confirmation that the project is moving forward.

During a conference call to promote the new season of Dollhouse, Whedon somewhat officially confirmed that a sequel is going to happen:

The main question, he says, is whether he does it “on a shoe string again” or goes bigger budget and “invites other people into the process.” Either way, he promises that it won’t affect the storyline. (via TV Guide)

In terms of those “other people in the process,” we do hear that Whedon is shopping a digital studio proposal around Hollywood, including to the major studios, looking to raise investment in the $5 million range, according to sources. The unnamed Whedon studio will apparently look to produce four original web series a year, two of which will be directed by Whedon himself. One of those two will be the above mentioned Dr. Horrible sequel.

Hell - Might as well just paste it all up:

By Tubefilter Research estimates, the Streamy-winning show grossed just under $2.5 million, a number that was later reported by in a recent Forbes feature on Whedon. With a production budget just over $200,000, that’s not a bad return on investment (12x). But the question remains can he strike web gold again?

The revenue was largely driven through digital download sales at iTunes partly by accident as the initial release took down the free streaming version on the Dr. Horrible site itself. This, and the short initial window on Hulu caused thousands of fans to pay the $3.99 for the full season. Then there was the highly touted DVD release right in time for the holidays that featured the artfully crafted musical cast and crew commentary. The business model proposed for the new studio would follow that same paid-download and DVD model.

As for the title of Dr. Horrible’s new season, it’s anyone’s guess at this point. The NY Post unsuccessfully tried to sneak it out of Nathan Fillion during an interview about Castle, though Fillion did say he knew what it was.

Also to be determined is whether or not web star Felicia Day will return in some way after her character Penny was killed in the show’s surprising finale. This is Whedon we’re talking about here and who knows, it’s possible Penny could return, as one fan postulates, as Dr. Horrible’s evil clone/robot girlfriend.

A good first step.

But what's interesting are the recent opposing articles articles by the Hollywood Reporter and by Variety. HReporter taking the position that the "Long Tail" isn't working, and Variety showcasing Whedon as someone who caters to a niche.

So which is it? If the Long Tail isn't working and you can't make a profit from a niche (or rather people don't flock to niches as previously thought), then how does Whedon, who Variety characterizes as never having a "hit tv show" able to make his niche work and find financing? How is he able to make $2.5 M from a $200K investment and share that with everyone involved?

I think that what needs to happen is a lot of discussion as to the methodology of the study HR sites in their article, and a redefinition of what constitutes a "niche." I personally think that someone could make a lot of good money from creating content for specific niches - superheroes, steampunk, splatterpunk, alien invasion porn, etc... and spread that content out across many different platforms and revenue streams.

We live in interesting times.

Curiouser and Curiouser...

So - in looking at the post below - we find that XBox is poised to become part of (as in 'major league player') the multi-billion dollar download to own business.

However this post from Chris Albrecht at New TeeVee says that we shouldn't "expect more web series" from XBox anytime soon. The assertion being they are having a tough time inserting ads into their video content and they need material that "moves the needle" for them in terms of viewership.

"Honey made it pretty clear that Xbox isn’t in the web video acquisition game, but didn’t rule it out entirely. Based on our talk, we can offer up this tip from him for those who absolutely gotta be on Xbox: “Gamers love watching things about gaming.” Honey says that the two most popular TV shows on Xbox are South Park’s Make Love Not Warcraft and Guitar Queero. Having a gamer bent is, in part, why Microsoft was so aggressive in obtaining The Guild on an exclusive basis. It also didn’t hurt that The Guild already had a sizeable audience and its star, Day, basically became a spokesperson for Xbox."

This is not a problem.

Now You Know...

What are you going to do about it?

A Passionate Mantra for the Web...

From Miss Emily's post here....

"You don't have to be good, just brave."

What she experienced on Melrose avenue is the emotional surge I feel when I discover a new site on the web. When you click on a site and it's obvious someone cares about the subject so much they have to share it and seek out others. That they put the passion into it...it's that little red-haired girl giving you your first kiss in 5th grade.

As we evolve out of the broadcast model and into the social media model that's what's going to get us through - the passion. You can just tell when someone is doing it for the money and when someone's doing it because they truly love something.There's no reason why new media can't encompass both - the ability to make money from your passions (and not in that Chatsworth sort of way)

In the next couple of weeks I'm going to be spotlighting some of those people out there that are doing it, passionately. That wrap themselves in the pulp like these wonderful women:

(Courtesy of Photofunia)

George Bailey has Nothing on Me

Thanks to all of you in the Legion who have responded to my message
yesterday. While we haven't nearly reached the goal, I feel like
the richest man in town. I am sure many more of you will
respond today as they find my urgent message in their InBox.

[I also feel like the local PBS station]

Many of you have responded with words of support, ideas and actions
that lets me know there's an audience out there hungry for good
entertainment they can use and to which they can contribute. That's
been the core business plan from the start and it's good to know that
our plan is meeting with such a terrific response. Thank you.

Knowing you are out there helps. Don't be shy.

Many people want the option to subscribe and that suggests a lot -
payment options, good customer service and just listening to what
the consumer is saying. As I've said before, a good company of this sort
must cultivate users instead of just readers.

I will answering your emails personally, but overall:

1. Most would subscribe if they could save money and the product was
what they wanted.
2. Yes, posters and prints are part of the plan. Especially from artists
who want to do something different than their usual comic magazine work.
3. As far as genres go, we will be open to publishing and developing
works in a variety of genres - especially if it opens our label up to bringing
in more users. Horror, Cliffhanger action, Spy-Fi, Westerns, Sci-Fi, Adventure.
4. If we do reprint public domain material it will be with the intent of adding
as much value to the property as possible. Illustrations, articles, photos, Omnibus editions, etc...
5. Clothing, especially unusual clothing (Angela!) is also in the plan.
But if you buy it, you must send us a picture of you (or the person you bought it for)wearing it.
6. We will be developing strategic partnerships with other publishers,
advertisers, and others.

All designed to give you good entertainment, cheap!

Thank you all again. Please spread the word. While it says "Donations"
on the button, I am considering all of this an "Investment."

-----------------------------------------------------------

**If you would like to make an investment in the future of pulp media, please go to the top button on the sidebar and donate. We thank you for your support. It's Paypal, so you know it's secure.

Feeling Used...?

In continuation of my rant regarding users here, we find ourselves at a time where we as mediamakers have to have a certain flexibility when it comes to the media we are indeed making. We're not going to be asked to contort into uncomfortable positions but yes we are going to be required to be flexible in order to satisfy not just readers, not just viewers, but users.

What the hell are you talking about, Bill?

What's going to be required, as storytellers is come up with ideas and concepts, characters and plots that can be easily translated to a variety of media in order to engage these users on a variety of levels.

For example say you create the next great science fiction series and you place it up on the web as video. Great...

But understand you're only scratching the surface in terms of the true audience for the work as a whole. Some people don't want to watch web video so they don't go to YouTube and the other sites. It's just not their thing, but they do download books so if you had a book to go with the series or maybe a regular magazine which can be sent to their Kindle, they would read that and realize that your series is the second coming of Luke Skywalker.

Or maybe they just go online to play games (maybe that's all their parents let them do with their computer when its not for schoolwork). So it might be nice to have a game or an application for their phone. A tendril of story that reaches out and pulls the user in to the much larger world you've created giving them a much bigger, broader experience than they originally hoped for when they started using your media.

There's a lot of permutations to this one has to consider:

-- the simplicity of the story bits so that users can easily digest them and use them.

-- the variety of media to use and how frequent a delivery of said story bits.

-- who's your audience? Where do they hang out?

-- the ability to respond to user comments in the work itself.

-- the integrity of the story itself across so many different platforms.

Because we have an audience of users who want to be part of some greater story we're telling. Just like every teenage girl wants to be Bella (yes, I know. Go with it). We as story creators have to assemble the engine and turn the steering wheel, but the users provide the gasoline.

Things have and will continue to change (as they always have).

Saddle up.

Edit to add: Barrett Garese has this here that is pretty balanced and brilliant in its simplicity. It speaks to the fact that the web experience needs to be unique to compete with traditional media forms like TV. Trust me, it can and it will.

H/T to The Artful Writer for finding this one.

Here's a Headline that You Don't Hear Everyday...

But you will.

Watch Michael Jackson Funeral Live on Apple iPhone

Memorial Available on Smartphones & Cell Phones

From Web TV Wire.

What's The Value in Online Video Beyond Money?

While I really shouldn't blog when I'm having a weird day (don't ask), I promised readers that I would address an issue from the comments...

So, RickM writes from my Green screen piece:

Here's what I find depressing. I was blown away by "Prey Alone." It looked great, action editing was superb, the story had a terrific twist. It had everything, it was a homerun. But take a look at the director's IMDB profile -- he's done nothing since. And you've linked to countless pulpy shorts on YouTube that look similarly great and have 500 views in five years (Prey Alone was made in 2004). Search google for links to this superior free entertainment and you'll find two (to the official site). TWO! It has 2000 views on YouTube. Where is the audience? How could this have led nowhere for its makers? As I said, depressing...

Let's address a couple of issues right off the bat:

-- You're equating the number of views and audience size with value for the producers. While I understand the thought process there, I would caution against stepping into an obvious sandtrap.

-- You're also equating small of views with leading nowhere for the filmmakers.

Let's use Saint & Mather as examples here because they're available. And we have several measuring sticks when it comes to value (beyond money) from online video (or D2DVD movies, or any sort of media project). There are several streams of value when it comes to creating, producing and distributing an online video project:

The Number of Views/ Who's watching:

Certainly, having a lot of people watching your video at the outset is a pleasant boost to the ego much in the same way that "festival darlings" used to be. However, you also have to factor in the demographics of who watched the video and where. Who watches is just as important as how many (something you see in television all the time).

Since Saint & Mather are commercial directors one can surmise that their agents sent the link to the video to dozens of advertising agencies around the world. People who are in a position to give them commercial jobs (Just like Ridley Scott and other high profile movie directors do in between feature films).

The two could be happily raking in the cash by making commercials, joining crews on TV series, they could be quite happy being paid to develop a movie or two -- or not. We don't know. I do know - they have representation, they used local funding and tax incentives to make their movie, and their movie was distributed worldwide via the web and possibly other media (DVD sampler reels, etc...).

That's a win.

But let's say this didn't lead to jobs but to just 2000+ people who watched the short movie, liked it and said so...

(also understand this movie was on their website, atomfilms.com, youtube.com, and I'm sure others. The 2000 number is an extremely low reference, and I think actual numbers would range in the 10's of thousands)

The Publicity value:

I just Google searched "Prey Alone" and came up with 792,000 hits on the subject. Let's discount a third of that as unsuitable and come in at 550,000 (+/-) for actual related hits about this short movie. That's quite a few hits - see?

Bottom line: People are talking about this movie - the subject, how it was made, the people who made it - all of the topics publicists and agents dream of for their clients. It seems that everyone who's seen it has talked about it in some way, shape or form - both online and in magazines.

Not too shabby for one 15 minute short film.

The Brand Value:

Saint & Mather have other commercial work up on their site and how to contact them. Let's put this another way - every online video is someone's first. I stumble across new stuff all of the time - only it's not new it's just new to me. People send me links. I recognize titles and names. I try new things from people whose work I've enjoyed before. I bookmark sites and add their feeds.

And I am not alone in this.

Online video never dies. It keeps on representing how good you were when you made it.

(That's both a good and bad thing)

The Experience Value:

You will find that in this business there are people who talk about what they are doing, and those who get it done. The more you can do without supervision - and demonstrate that you are capable and independent and yet willing to work with the team - the better you are.

That comes from doing it - a lot.

If you want to push yourself there's no better way than for someone to say, "We can't afford that," or " You can't do that," and then you go off and show them it can be done - and how. You can do that through online video. You can get better, stronger, faster...

(cue theme music)

Does that mean you're going to "win" every time? Hell no, it means you're going to fail - a lot. But you are going to get better because you will have an audience that WILL tell you how they feel about your work, where it worked and where it didn't. Think of it as defending your thesis day in and day out.

The Educational Resource Value:

On that note, there is an umbrella factor we are forgetting here regarding online video - it serves to educate. At my fingertips I now have access to tons of data and reference when it comes to making my own media. When I pitched my movie to Drew Bellware I told him exactly what kind of movie I was developing by linking video clips within my pitch document.

Used to be you had to go home and edit tape to bring in to a client to demonstrate the concept. Now it all happens online... and the more people who add to it the better. Unless it's more of the useless cat videos.

I can conceive of a time in the next year or so, when all of the material that is taught in film school is available online in real time. That someone can utilize online tools to learn to make all their movies and media...

The Social Value:

Making and sharing media performs a valuable social function. Just ask Iran.

-----------------------------------------

The fact I'm writing this post five years after a 15 minute short film has "aired" should be argument enough that Prey Alone hasn't led to nowhere. Maybe it hasn't led to the two directors being handed the keys to the feature film kingdom (with its many virgins dressed in white), but it's certainly not the fail that your comment implies.

You also have to understand that things are changing, morphing, evolving and the monetary aspect will evolve with it. The audience for online video is growing every day. From old shows finding their way onto the Hulu brainsuck to new stuff like The Mercury Men .

Be a part of it.

Grow with it.

But most of all... just do it.

(Did I really just end this thing with a Nike slogan?)