Kindle Lightens Load for Screenwriters, Agents

Sit down here by the fire with me kids.  Yes, settle in now...
Back in the old days we pulp screenwriters had to send out our work on...paper!
Yes, we had to actually buy reams and reams of paper and and print out our screenplays... I know, crazy right?  Then we had to punch three holes along the spine and put in two brass brads, only two, with brass washers.

Then we had to put our cover letters and scripts in to envelopes and send them out via the mail.  Shocking! The agents would get these scripts and have to log them in and lug them home to read every night. 

But finally, we got smart and the internet and the Kindle changed things for everyone.
(courtesy Variety)

Video Business Closes Shop

After 29 years the industry trade VIDEO BUSINESS is ceasing publication.

“I’m extremely proud of the role VB has played in the home entertainment industry, consistently breaking news, while providing important analysis and insight to our readers for almost three decades,” said Marcy Magiera, editor-in-chief and associate publisher. “Every staff member and regular contributor here is a first-class business journalist, and I will miss working with this smart, dedicated and caring group of people.”

The full story here.

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.

Indie Film Financing Now Follows Pulp Formula

From Today's Variety commenting on the upcoming American Film Market:

Banks are also becoming more selective in the projects they take on. Comedies, action, horror and thrillers are easier to finance, but dramas require the involvement of major actors. "All those themes that used to dominate the independent space -- death, suicide, social causes, women's issues -- are tough to get financed. I can't get the presales or have the confidence to cover my gaps," Hutkin says.

Well, duh.

And that's not to say that these dramas are bad films. It's saying that dramas are a much smaller audience than the average moviegoer demographic. If a movie has a huge budget it NEEDS a huge audience. Dramas traditionally don't deliver those numbers.

Answer - make these dramas inexpensively. Make it to fit the audience and their needs and don't try to shoe horn it into mainstream audience wants and needs.

To take this further: One of the largest publishers in the world of romantic fiction (what some have termed "Women's fiction") is Harlequin. They publish many volumes of affordable romance novels every month, and they have even branched out into online romance fiction.

In other words: They make them cheap, relevant to the audience, and in bulk. They don't put all of their financing eggs in one basket, on one book, nor even on just one romantic theme (click the list of their imprints on their web page). They see lots of little niches and inexpensively come in and fill them.

Now imagine applying that strategy to indie movies and TV. Instead of these bloated $100 million indie dramas about sharecroppers in the 1930's, you would get more intimate movies that cost $10M. Because seriously, the cost to shoot a field crop with a camera costs the same whether it's a $100M or a $10M film. You could send two guys out with a camera or you could send ten, and that little image inside the frame would look the same...

And that is all that counts.

This economic downturn is the reality check the Hollywood system has needed. Anyone can make a watchable film at a $100M budget... it takes a genius to produce one for next to nothing. That's when you know whether or not the writer, director, DP and actors (as well as the crew) have the chops and the drive to really entertain you. The $100M film has such a steep hill to climb to make money it's almost a losing proposition from the start - especially so for movies with niche appeal. If it fails, people are out of jobs. The doors close.

But if you make that niche movie for next to nothing and it fails? Well then banks and other lenders don't go out of business. People move on to the next one...and maybe if you're good enough they'll take a chance on you and finance your project.

A Modest Proposal Indeed

Anne Thompson's Variety blog has a guest piece by former 25 year agent Nancy Nigrosh, who in Swiftian fashion takes the Hollywood writing/development process to task in what she calls her "parting shot."

"Why is it so ingrained in Hollywood that one person alone cannot write a producible screenplay?

The Writer's Guild Of America's 2007-8 strike was supposed to be about a bigger piece of the pie for the future distribution of a writer's produced work… the pie in the digital sky.

But the real truth is that the actual day –to- day script development process based on writer elimination has created the real strife. Historically this practice has led to the cyclical bloodletting every time the guild’s contract with the buyer /employer gang known as the Association of Motion Picture and Television Producers, expires. If something doesn't fundamentally change, there will be more strikes in the future, as each contract expires, creating a negative cycle of meltdown Hollywood and its doting mama, California, can ill afford."

The rest can be found here.

Thanks, Nancy. I agree with everything you say, and I'm sorry that your piece here is your swan song from the industry. While I don't want to turn my back on "Hollywood", I am devoting more time to building my own entertainment house and reaching my readers/viewers directly.

I won't be rewritten, unless I decide otherwise.

(and in the near future I am developing a way for us to collaborate)