Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Sony's PMW-EX1 HD Solid State Compact Camcorder

Boasting superb picture quality, state of the art media interface and interoperability, Sony has brought the best HD workflow solution to the compact camcorder market.

The latest addition to Sony's XDCAM family of tapeless acquisition tools with the launch of the exciting new XDCAM EX™ compact camcorder. In addition to the existing XDCAM™ HD optical disc-based products, the new XDCAM EX camcorder, the PMW-EX1, offers all the benefits of tapeless workflow, selectable bit rates and outstanding picture performance that users have come to expect with XDCAM HD, coupled with new creative recording features and lens features which will redefine the standard for the professional compact camcorder market.

The PMW-EX1 is a very compact, robust high-performance camcorder that uniquely uses newly developed flash memory cards, the SxS PRO™, as its recording medium.

The SxS memory card, which realizes 800Mbps high-speed data transfer, enables non-linear capabilities such as instant random access and file-based operation. Equipped with two SxS memory card slots, the PMW-EX1 can record up to 100 minutes of the highest quality HD footage at 35Mbps or 140 minutes at 25Mbps using two 16-GB SxS memory cards.

The image sensor used in the PMW-EX1 camcorder is a newly developed three x 1/2 type Exmor™ CMOS sensor, each with an effective pixel count of 1920 x 1080, which produce images in full HD resolution. The low-light capabilities of this new sensor will be of particular interest to all those who need to be able to capture footage in limited lighting situations.

READ MORE...
http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/markets/10014/xdcamEX_overview.shtml

Copyright 2005-2007 Sony Electronics Inc. All Rights Reserved

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Will Soap Operas look like Reality TV?

If you're budgeting soap operas (or any other studio-bound sitcoms), production changes on "Guiding Light" are going to have an impact on your costs.

On Feb. 29, the show is dumping its stock of $1M pedestal cameras and outfitting itself with 8-pound digital minicams that cost anywhere from $10,000 to $25,000 each. That should enable the show to be shoot with greater flexibility and mobility.

No biggie in the film world, but a marked changed for live TV. Costs will change and even the length of the work day may be altered. I'm left to wonder if the soaps are about to invent a new art form or if everything will eventually look like Reality TV....

Norman
Norman C. Berns
ncberns@gmail.com
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

sounds like there may be room for a college soap shot on cell phone
cameras...lol.

"The Horny and the Hungover"?

; )

sounds as close to a new art form as current reality tv to me.

--Wil
whaslup
whaslup@gmail.com

Monday, January 28, 2008

Writers, Creativity and a Piece of the Pie

Think Tank Entertainment is an associated group of experienced film and video veterans that are uniquely dedicated to the fusion of out-of-the-box thinking with proven methods of profitable entertainment creation.

As a small indie producer I have no beef against unions,and my approach here is not from a studio view, but from an Independent film perspective.

Although many of us may not have jobs without writers, not all concepts come from writers. An executive producer may have a great concept and hire a writer to craft this concept into a marketable picture or show, So then, where did the "job" come from? The executive producer also finds the money (or invests it him or herself) to make the page come "alive" into a marketable picture.

He/she gets a producer who puts all the elements together, and they are responsible for everything from contracts, investor agreements, IRS filings, state filings, on and on and on... this is why producers seem to make more than many "creatives", it is just a matter of responsibility and sometimes risk. This is why a director often makes more than a writer, because the director has more responsibility at the creative helm.

It is an interesting conundrum to me. In my opinion, writers are the creative heart of a picture. Although a filmmaker can mangle a good script, it is very tough to do a good picture on a bad script (if not impossible). This is a given in my mind. Assuming this is true, does this alone give writers, or other "creatives", the right to have percentages of sales revenue on a picture beyond their work-for-hire salaries and benefits when they have no management responsibility or risk to make the picture? Hmmm...

Writers and actors are considered more a part of the integral creation of a production as "creators" (above-the-line) so they of course feel some "ownership" in the project- more than a grip or gaffer might have. Also on the marketability side of things too I guess, but it does beg the question, say, about DP's, who, in my estimation, are as integral to the finished creative work as an actor or a writer (as we know, DP's, along with the director, interpret what is written to create it in visual terms).

Next DP's will be wanting a piece of the proverbial pie and based on how I understand WGA logic, they should probably get a piece under current union "philosophy" . What about Production Designers? They have allot to do with the creativity and marketability of a project (Star Wars for example). Will we see PD's coming out with signs wanting more of the revenue beyond their salaries? Where does it end?

This leaves us with an interesting situation of economics. If the cost of the making of a product is the same as its sale price (or approaches same), that product is likely doomed in the marketplace. If investors can scarcely receive recoupment on a production, let alone any profit, there just won't be many investors in film anymore. Union terms are usually directed at the "Big 7" in Hollywood, but in this focus Indies can get trampled because our economics differ from the big studios.

We don't have a stable cash flow from many projects and bank guarantees that can pay for on-going accounting departments, etc, yet we still have to abide by Big 7 contracts and this can make it more difficult to make a margin for our investors on a union project. To me, again, if more and more of a percentage is given to people who did not invest capital or take risk in a project, it will make it more difficult for the capital investors to get their principal back and receive ROI. Even studios have had to diversify due to the outflow of payments on pictures and the need to cover the "bombs" and costs.

I wonder if a work-for-hire car designer for GM gets a piece of every car sold on top of his salary and benefits? He/she was a creative force for the making of a product (although granted not an "art" or "creative" product- but a product just the same). Why doesn't the automobile union argue on his behalf of the car designer to have a percentage of all sell-through? Just an intriguing scenario. Not a perfect analogy, but maybe somewhat applicable.

The investors carry the risk on a production and this is why they should always get first moneys whenever possible, and an ROI on their investment. What has a hired actor, writer or director actually risked? They hopefully were at least paid a wage commensurate with the budget of the production. Is this pay, with union benefits, not fair and sufficient?

Each percentage given to "creatives" who have invested no risk in a production just costs the investor potential revenue- the guy who put up hard money to get the picture made. Again, it was also the Executive Producers (or filmmaker) who started the project, gathered the investors and is on the line for the investment agreements, puts production elements together, and often risks their own capital too on a production.

I believe that above-the-line and below-the-line should absolutely be paid fairly for what they do and have no squawk with collective bargaining or salary standards. It is just when someone with little to no risk or management responsibility demands a percentage out of the pocket of someone who is risking real money that I am uneasy about.

I think we are stuck with some percentages going out of the pockets of investors to unions, but do union members feel it is fair to take money from the pockets of those who risk the most on a picture- the investors or from the filmmakers who sign on the dotted line and is responsible to those investors? Shouldn't pay be based on the scope of the job and the risk therein? Is that not fair?

Just some thoughts that hopefully will not make people yell at me disrespectfully. I appreciate your attention.

Regards,

Keith

Keith Randal Duncan
Executive Producer
ThinkTank Entertainment
www.thinktankenter.com

Sunday, January 27, 2008

FAMILY FILMS vs SEX & VIOLENCE

Jim Godat" wrote:

I guess nobody is interested in investing in a charming, family short like "Once Upon A Time And Not So Long Ago". All they seem to want is sex and violence nowadays.

- Jim Godat edward201952@

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

what is it about? i wouldn't invest, i'm 17, but i'd like to hear what it's about.
- laura_garrigos - laura_garrigos.cors@yahoo.com

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

Give me a feature full of sex and violence anyday!

Investing in a 'charming family short' is charity and should not be called an investment at all.

I suggest you seek philanthropists, possibly of a religious persuasion, who will want to see your project produced for reasons other than generating a return on their investment.

- Justin Oz Base - justinob@yahoo.com.au

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

Oh, You're Oh so wrong.

Family stories are EXACTLY where the biggest market it on a consistent basis and in FACT if the short is a great story, it's just a precursor to the full length feature film. All day long stories are optioned and turned into Full length features from both outlines (7 to 20 pages) and short films.

So I say - Shoot away, make your charming, family driven short and you may selling the next Goonies, Spyderwick, Lord Of the Rings, Benjie series, etc.

If it's sex and violence you want, just surf the net, no one is paying top dollar for those script or movies and in the long run it's about as lucrative as collecting rocks in your back yard.

Good Luck Jim and as corny as it sound, listen to your own heart and creative drive - that's where the best ideas come from and Hollywood knows it!

- John Aguirre - moviecritic3@yahoo.com

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Just look at all the films being made that are based on true stories. The sky is the limit.

- Gilbert Flores - gflo52@yahoo.com

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

I must say I fully agree with john!

Enough with sex and violence there is a reason movies like enchanted or ratatouille make tremendous box office and are seen over and over again on dvd.

Ditto, follow your heart and go create beautuful uplifting stories even if in short format! Good luck!

- lexylsf@yahoo.com
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Saturday, January 26, 2008

Video game sales break records

NPD Group reports a record-breaking year in video game sales.

THE VIDEO GAME INDUSTRY IS NOW GROSSING ALMOST TWICE WHAT THE MOVIE INDUSTRY GROSSES as total video game sales rose to more than $17 billion last year, according to the NPD Group, making 2007 by far the biggest year in gaming history.

These numbers marked a 43 percent increase year over year, solidifying the games industry's strong lead in growth over movie box office revenue, which totaled $9.7 billion at a 4 percent increase.

Holiday shoppers made December the most lucrative month of all. Sales of both the Wii and Xbox 360 were strong, but it was the Nintendo DS that posted the biggest December totals, with a staggering 2.5 million systems ending up under trees nationwide. Sony's PS3, saw a strong rise in December, but the more expensive system still tailed its competition.

No prizes for guessing the top-selling game of the year, though: Halo 3 wound up shifting just short of 5 million copies.

By YVG Staff
Copyright 22 Jan 2008, Yahoo! Inc. All rights Reserved.

Friday, January 25, 2008

Filming with RED

The new RED camera is changing the way films are made.

Liberty Bell Films in association with Mayan Moon Films is gearing up to shoot our first feature-length motion picture called "The Root People".

We are seeking investors for this project which will be filmed under the SAG Modified Low Budget Agreement with name talent.

The film will be shot with a professional cast and crew using the new ground-breaking RED Camera. Click on the link to view "The Root People" trailer which was shot with the Red camera courtesy of Red Acquisition Warehouse.

Wade Ballance directed this trailer. Jim McKinney was the cinematographer and Mark Kochanowicz played the lead role.

WATCH THE 6MB TRAILER HERE.

WATCH THE HIGH QUALITY 32MB TRAILER HERE.

More information about this project can be found at www.mayanmoonfilms.com . Enjoy and invest!

Thursday, January 24, 2008

We're looking for the Perfect Pitch!

Do you have a unique, compelling story concept?

Are you looking for help getting your film made?

Give us your best 60-second video pitch and see what the world and our panel of industry experts have to say.

Here's how it works:
*Create a 60-second video pitch that outlines your film’s storyline in the most compelling way possible.
*Upload your video before April 1, 2008. Files must be in avi, mov, flv, m4v, mpg, vob, dv, or wmv formats.
*Tell your friends and family to visit the site to vote. Voting begins on January 17, 2008, so get your entry in early to maximize your number of votes!
*The 20 entries that receive the most votes as of April 1, 2008, will move on to the final round.
*The 20 finalists will submit a short business plan and cover letter by May 1, 2008. *These materials along with the original pitch will be judged by a panel of industry pros.
*A grand prize winner and four runners-up will be announced on June 3, 2008.

SUBMIT YOUR PERFECT PITCH
http://digitalcontentproducer.com/perfectpitch/

© 2008 Avid Technology, Inc. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

J.J.Abrams - Media - What Comes Next?

Jeffrey Jacob Abrams (also credited as J.J. Abrams - born in 1966) is an Emmy Award-winning film and television producer, writer, actor, composer, and director.

In 2005 Abrams received Emmys for Outstanding Directing in a Drama Series for the Lost pilot, as well as Outstanding Drama Series for Lost. He is also an Emmy nominee for his Alias pilot script and his Lost pilot script (co-written with Lindelof). Abrams won a Golden Globe Award for Outstanding Drama Series for Lost.

Cloverfield's a Monster! and the JJ Abrams-produced monster movie, grossed $46 million over the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday weekend. There's no stopping this man now!

The "Mission: Impossible III" (2006), director and co-writer J.J. Abrams is now finishing Star Trek (2008) as director/producer.

CLICK HERE to sit in on a brilliant talk he gave...

http://static.videoegg.com/ted/flash/fullscreen.html?v=/ted/movies/JJABRAMS-2007&cid=/ted/movies

Monday, January 21, 2008

FINDING VENTURE CAPITAL TO MAKE YOUR FILMS

I had a teleconference yesterday with a the Los Angeles vice president of a "successful" growing film company that has funded, released and distributed some minor films. Some of the films had B stars. Because of this fact, his location in LA and the fact that his company has a nice website that boasts a colorful slate of films they will make, he is able to attract venture capital, get a good salary and make more films.

I looked at all the projects his company was planning to produce and I read all the info on his site and determined that they will probably get investors, but they are getting investors who don't care or understand what makes a film attactive to the larger audiences and hence, they certainly won't seem to care if they lose all their money or are rewarded with a small profit. Instead, they are razzle-dazzled into thinking that they are investing in what I felt was a large but quick and poorly selected slate of films that might by chance produce a big winner sometime down the road.

To my knowledge, there wasn't a single film on his website that I would ever consider funding (even if I had the capital) although I will admit that some had good titles and interesting concepts. Still, they were all minor films and I felt that they even if they were well made, they would never be any more than just that.

From our conversation, I also gathered that his goal was to attract more investors, continue to pay himself a good salary and add more interesting schlock titles to their slate of films in order to make the slate look bigger and hence, better. Quantity instead of quality!

He briefly looked at my projects but when he heard that like everyone else, I needed money to make my films, he dismissed me without exploring further. He mentioned he was looking for films that already had at a good amount of the budget money raised, a sure sign that he would use this to his advantage to show new investors that he was successful in raising money. It struck me funny that he didn't even look to explore the quality of what I had or the marketing potential.

I know how good my projects are and how commercial they should be if properly made because I have had industry professionals tell me. None of them could predict if I had any winners, but I wrote him and his company off feeling that he didn't even care to learn any more. "It'd his loss," I said to myself. "He will never know how much better my films are than his."

Every filmmaker is looking for the same thing: Venture Capital.

A filmmaker writes me that he has been through the process of trying to secure film funding for his films and he thinks there's really only one sure fire way to be able to raise investment money for an independent film.

You have to have produced a film that was profitable, and more importantly, something the investor you're approaching knows, and loved. It's great when you find out that the investor you're talking with has a DVD copy of your film sitting in his/her personal collection.

Investors are smart people. They know as well as anyone else that you can easily show on a paper business plan how your film has the potential to make $7 million worldwide with a budget of only $500,000.00, but when it comes down to it, the film's success is really tied to a huge number of intangibles that you simply can't predict with any accuracy in even the best of business plans.

Even starting with a great script (and that is very subjective), the director's vision, the look the DP creates, the performances of the actors, and even the social climate two years from now when the film is going to be released have a lot to do with how successful the film will be. If any of these (or any of the countless other intangible items) fail to hit the mark, it can render all of your financial predictions moot.

In addition, every investor is going to have his/her own reasons for wanting to invest in the project. Just for giggles, I thought I'd give you a brief account of my personal experience with investors.

For my first feature film, our entertainment attorney found exactly three investors (former or current clients) that were very interested in our project. Each of them loved everything about the concept. We were pretty confident that we would raise the money (which for the record was $500,000.00 -- a very small amount relatively speaking) from at laest one of the three prospects.

But life isn't that simple. Here's what happened:

Investor "A" backed out because he had previously invested one million dollars in another independent film and the production company spent most of the money before the film had gone into production. There was literally nothing to show for it except the rewritten screenplay. The investor became nervous and requested to see the production company's books. He was told straight out that under the state law (I think the film was being made in Arizona or New Mexico), they were not required to turn over any of the company's books for review and they refused to do so.

This was in 2004. As a result, that particular investor decided he would never invest in another production. He still hasn't received a penny of his money back and last I heard was still in litigation.

Investor "B" was rather eccentric and lived somewhere in Europe. I say "somewhere" because according to our attorney, the investor didn't want anyone to know exactly where he lived, nor did he want to be bothered by anyone. His instructions were simply to send him the information and wait for him to get back to us. We sent him the info but he never got back to us.

According to our attorney, he couldn't contact him because if he did, "he would go raving mad" and would never talk to any of us after that. Investors are a funny lot but I guess when you have big money, you can act pretty much however you please.

Investor "C" pulled out of our film at the last moment to "invest in a Steven Spielberg film". We later found out that the picture he invested in turned out to be "Munich".

I guess if you're going to lose funding to another project, it's a real honor to lose it to Steven Spielberg...

Saturday, January 19, 2008

SETTING UP YOUR LLC

Sean McKnight writes:
I sat down with an accountant tonight and set up my production company as an official LLC.

I would highly recommend doing this for anyone that's serious about setting up their own company. There's a lot to learn, especially when it comes to selling DVDs yourself (sales tax) and just wanting to make this business your living.

If you're wanting to take your freelancing to another level or getting a startup going, sit down with your accountant and ask a lot of questions!
- Sean McKnight
"I'm a local filmmaker working on establishing my own movie production company." http://www.cinema-alliance.com/

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jeannie Sconzo writes:
Just yesterday I registered as an LLC. We didn't sit with an accountant but ordered the reading materials that cover all of the rules, regulations and changes that occur with filing taxes as an official company.
- Jeannie “Actor” http://jeannie.sconzo.com

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Gary Gustin writes:
This is all great information. I've read that forming a Limited Liability Company has advantages over forming a "C" Company especially avoiding double taxation.

The more we know...the more we grow. Thanks, Gary
- Gary Gustin "Film Actor" http://www.garygustin.com/

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
David writes:
Yes, I agree, highly recommended even if you are only planning to do a feature -- ha, "only do a feature" like that's so easy. However, for my feature, "Aftermath", we did set up and LLC, we became a SAG signatory and we do have a lawyer.

- David "I am a writer-director, screenwriting teacher and try to offer whatever help I can to whoever needs it."
http://filmind.meetup.com/239/members/2712072/

©2008, Meetup Inc.

Friday, January 18, 2008

Z Day is coming...

There has to be a reason why Peter Joseph's ZEITGEIST, the most downloaded feature movie on the Internet (2.1 million downloads a month) will be playing everywhere on March 15th, Z day.

There has to be a reason why 70,000 people download and watch it every day and the reason is that this will be the most eye-opening two hours of your life. You may not agree with everything you see, but you will sit transfixed and mesmerized at what this film has to say. Is the ending is inevitable?

Zeitgeist was created as a nonprofit filmiac expression to inspire people to start looking at the world from a more critical perspective and to understand that very often things are not what the population at large thinks they are.

The information in Zeitgeist was established over a year long period of research and the current Source page on this site lists the basic sources used / referenced and the Interactive Transcript includes exact source references and further information.

It's important to point out that there is a tendency to simply disbelieve things that are counter to our understanding, without the necessary research performed. For example, some information contained in Part 1 and Part 3, specifically, is not obtained by simple keyword searches on the Internet. You have to dig deeper. For instance, very often people who look up "Horus" or "The Federal Reserve" on the Internet draw their conclusions from very general or biased sources.

Online encyclopedias or text book Encyclopedias often do not contain the information contained in Zeitgeist. However, if one takes the time to read the sources provided, they will find that what is being presented is based on documented evidence.

Any corrections, clarifications & further points regarding the film are found on the Clarifications page. Non-Profit DVDs / Free Video Downloads are available through the Downloads page.

That being said, It is my hope that people will not take what is said in the film as the truth, but find out for themselves, for truth is not told, it is realized.

WATCH IT NOW as a free streaming download from Google and your belief in things may NEVER BE THE SAME.

CLICK HERE to go to the Official Site for 'Zeitgeist, the Movie'

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Time to make your Film = NOW!!!

REPORT: Studios Cancel Writers Contracts

The Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday, January 15th that four major studios have canceled dozens of writer's contracts, effectively conceding that the current television season cannot be salvaged.

The newspaper indicated that the move warns that the development of next season's crop of new shows could also be in jeopardy because of the 2-month-old writers strike.

January typically marks the start of pilot season, when networks order their new comedies and dramas but with writers not working, networks do not have a pool of scripts from which to choose.

Warner Bros. Television, 20th Century Fox Television, CBS Paramount Network Television and NBC Universal each confirmed to the Times that they terminated development and production agreements. Studios typically pay $500,000 to $2 million a year per writer for them to develop ideas for new TV shows.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE...
http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/news/ap/20080115/120040932000.html
Copyright © 2008 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

This whole year will be a mess with studio productions. The WGA is on strike and I bet the DGA and SAG go as well when their contracts end in July 08...

I think the shutdown of studio production work could benefit indie-filmmakers though. More name talent will be available to your micro-budget film because he/she is not working on a studio show/film. They'll probably work cheap because of the love of the craft and to stick it to the studios. This of course, is if you sign one of SAG's indie low budget contracts.

I'm not sure how it will pan out for the IATSE members affected by the work stoppage.

Mark Kochanowicz
http://www.phillyactor.com
http://www.libertybellfilms.com
© Copyright 2006 - Mark Kochanowicz. All Rights Reserved.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

THE REEL/REAL DEAL ON HOLLYWOOD

QUESTION: Wanna write, produce, and direct movie?
ANSWER: Buy Dov's book.

From Reel to Deal: Everything You Need to Create a Successful Independent Film is a 400+ page volume that should cost $100,000 dollars on the open market, 'cos that's what it's worth, in valuable information alone.

You've all heard how film schools like USC, UCLA, NYU all teach film theory? They do. And it's a waste of time to learn theory, unless you wanna teach theory or study theory.

If you wanna make movies, forget those $80,000-dollar film schools, the $200 short courses and jump-start your career in film producing, directing, shooting, lighting, writing, selling, dealing, financing, etc. by buying this book.

If you can't do your own film after reading this gem, then stick with your day job and tell everyone you "tried."

Dov's book, FROM REEL TO DEAL, is transcribed from his seminars (which are also superb), so it sounds VERY conversational, like he's sitting right in front of you, while you kick back in a comfy wingback chair, and he's showing you everything you need to succeed in Hollywood. Reading the book feels like your own private lecture, and it's not the typical college lecture, either. This man stimulates, drives, energizes, empowers. He shows and he tells.

What's most important in Dov's book is that he cuts to the chase and leaves out the film-school theory. This is a first rate practical approach to film making; from A to Z and beyond that jumps right into this abbreviated list:

1. Producers: who they are, what they do, how they do it
2. Indie vs. Studios: which one are you? Do you have the money to write those 38 different checks during preproduction, production and postproduction?
3. The SCRIPT: it's gotta be great! Dov shows you the formula all the A-list scripters use, the TOP SECRET one with all the plot highs and lows that stimulate an audience
4. Registering and Copyrighting your work: you only need it if you're going to court. Just make the movie!
5. Forming your own production company: set up an LLC, get partners, option scripts, etc.
6. Financing: call on those wealthy dentists in town, the ones who donate to the ballet, theatre, symphony. They don't get back anything from those entities, do they? Tell them how they'll make a mint from financing your movie. If not dentists, call lawyers, other doctors, wealthy grandmas!
7. Budgets: what it REALLY costs to make a movie in Hollywood! I mean, the REAL DEAL here. How much producers, directors and actors get paid for each type of budget; how much film stock costs; how much the belwo-the-line talent costs, etc.
8. Equipment and Film: how to get the best deals with a little haggling, and how to get them to help you find a great crew.
9. Sound and Lighting: finding the best sound and lighting technicians, with their own equipment, and what to look for in each type of worker
10. Directing: a crash course in how to talk with and move those "movable props" called actors
11. Production Crew: how to find the best, hire them for cheap, feed them well, treat them like gold, and have them do the best jobs for you
12. Postproduction: picture editing, sound editing, music score, ADR, Foley, mix, M&E and opticals
13. Filmmaking, from A to Z: how to do a low-budget medium-budget, and a high-budget movie; how to maximize your resources
14. Publicity and Film Festivals: how to get your movie seen by the Who's Who of Hollywood and the World
15. Distribution: who they are, what they do, how they do it, and how to get the best deal from them
16. The Game Plan: a. get the script; b. get the $$$; c. hire great people; d. publicity (trades); e. get ready to shoot; f. more publicity . . . and read this great book to find out more!

Quentin Tarentino, Robert Rodriguez, Guy Ritchie et al. all took Dov's course and launched their careers! Will Smith, Queen Latifah, Michael Jackson et al. took Dov's course and enhanced their careers.

Are these people much different from you? If you have talent and drive and energy, you can do it too.

Dov's book simply shows you how. - By Dean Garner

READ MORE about the book or BUY the book

http://www.amazon.com/Reel-Deal-Everything-Successful-Independent/dp/0446674621/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200369935&sr=1-1
© 1996-2008, Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates

Sunday, January 13, 2008

New Modem To Allow Superfast Downloads

Comcast Chairman/CEO Brian Roberts surprised attendees of the CES (Consumer Electronics Show) in Las Vegas Tuesday last week by unveiling a new cable modem capable of downloading a two-hour movie in high definition in just four minutes.

The same feature film would take more than six hours to download via a high-speed DSL modem, he said, or seven days via a dial-up modem.

Roberts said that he expects millions of the modems to be delivered to Comcast subscribers by the end of the year.

samheer2005

samheer@pacbell.net

Filmmakers face book-to-screen challenge

David Benioff was sitting on a plane, having a perfectly pleasant conversation with an elderly female passenger about his job as a screenwriter. He happened to that he was working on an adaptation of a book, "The Kite Runner."

The passenger grabbed his arm and exclaimed, "That's my favorite novel. Don't change a word!"

"The Kite Runner" is based on the international best-seller about a man who returns to Afghanistan to right a childhood wrong. The film is one of an inordinately large number of films in this year's awards race that come from a book.

Screenwriters like Benioff are acutely aware of the inevitable comparisons between the book and the movie, and they face the daunting challenge of telling a cinematic story that will resonate with audiences while remaining somewhat faithful to the source material.

Every year there are several book-club favorites that turn up on the big screen at the multiplex. Perusing the list of Academy Award best-picture winners can feel like a trip to Barnes & Noble, from "Gone With the Wind" and "The Godfather" to "The Silence of the Lambs" and "The English Patient."

But during this tumultuous, writer's strike-hobbled awards season, at least a dozen movies with literary roots have real shots at winning the biggest prizes. Some of those novels, like Khaled Hosseini's "The Kite Runner," are beloved and readers feel proprietary about them. Others, like Ian McEwan's "Atonement" and Jean-Dominique Bauby's memoir "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly," seemed impossible to adapt to the big screen because they were too complicated and too internal.

The adaptations themselves range from the Coen brothers' "No Country for Old Men," which maintained much of Cormac McCarthy's rich Texas vernacular, to Paul Thomas Anderson's "There Will Be Blood," in which the writer-director merely used Upton Sinclair's "Oil!" as a leaping-off point. Still others come from novellas ("Lust, Caution"), graphic novels ("Persepolis") or are based on non-fiction works ("Charlie Wilson's War," "Into the Wild," and "A Mighty Heart").

Benioff was lucky in that he'd read "The Kite Runner" before he got the job, and he'd started his screenplay before the book became a huge hit. Halfway through his first draft, though, he began to feel a lot of pressure on his shoulders.

"It's an amazingly emotional story. People become attached to those characters and they really long for redemption for Amir, for him to make up for what he has done, to heal those wounds," he said.

As a novelist himself, having written "25th Hour" and adapted the screenplay for director Spike Lee, Benioff said he "felt an extra layer of pressure — I didn't want to let Khaled down. I liked him a lot and respected him a lot and he was a real ally. ... When it's your own book, you want the movie to be good but there's less pressure."

Veteran Ronald Harwood already has an Oscar for adapting 2002's "The Pianist," but still found himself pacing his Paris flat for weeks, trying to figure a way into "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly." The late author, Bauby, was the editor of French Elle who suffered a paralyzing stroke at 43 and used his left eyelid to blink out what he wanted to say, letter by letter. Harwood tried to blink the alphabet to get into Bauby's head and it drove him mad.

In a flash, it occurred to him to begin from Bauby's woozy, obscured perspective in the hospital room.

"That was my breakthrough," said Harwood, whose script is up for a Golden Globe and who has a new book of his own on the subject, "Ronald Harwood's Adaptations: From Other Works Into Films."

"I thought, `This is the story I could tell — the story of his illness.' And the camera did the blinking — that was my idea, because it did two things: It gives the audience the sense of what it's like to have locked-in syndrome, and the second thing it did was that they didn't have to look at him for two hours, which would have been dreadful."

Christopher Hampton read "Atonement," a sweeping drama about a young girl's damaging lie, while on vacation and found it so obviously cinematic, he became inspired. He couldn't wait to dash home, pick up the phone and call someone about writing the script. The movie has a leading seven Globe nominations, including best screenplay.

"I didn't know it would turn out to be far harder than I thought it was going to be," said Hampton, who won an Oscar for 1988's "Dangerous Liaisons." "It was a long, long process with many, many drafts."

Adapting "Atonement" was daunting because it's about a writer and much of it takes place within the characters' interiors. Hampton initially had written in voiceover and a framing device — none of which exists in the finished version, which is much closer to the book's structure.

READ MORE By CHRISTY LEMIRE, AP Movie Writer

Copyright © 2008 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080112/ap_on_en_mo/film_page_to_screen

Saturday, January 12, 2008

CES 2008: Canon displays range of camcorders

New CAMCORDER models capture to internal Flash memory and SDHC memory cards

As the digital revolution continuues, consumers are watching more video than any other form of media.

The major consumer electronics manufacturers have answered this call with new camcorders that capture to a variety of different formats. Tape based camcorders are slowly giving way to tapeless camcorders due to reliability and convenience. There is really no reason to fumble with switching out a video tape when you can easily continue to capture using one of the tapeless-based camcorders.

It appears that most all video camera manufacturers have embraced hard disk-based recording, while others are offering up DVD and even Blu Ray DVD recording. Canon has introduced 12 new camcorders that capture to miniDV, DVD, internal Flash memory and SDHC memory cards.

The VIXIA HD Family

The VIXIA line of Canon HD camcorders capture in high definition AVCHD and HDV video file formats. The cameras include the Canon VIXIA HF10 Dual Flash Memory camcorder (featuring a 16GB internal Flash memory drive as well as the capability to capture to SDHC memory cards), VIXIA HV30 HD camcorder and the VIXIA HF100 Flash Memory camcorder (capturing to SDHC memory cards).

The models feature Canon’s 30p Progressive Mode, (in addition to 24p) a Canon 12x HD Video Lens, a Canon 3.3 Megapixel Full HD CMOS Image Sensor, and capture and playback at 1920 x 1080 Full HD resolution. They also feature a Mini Advanced Accessory Shoe for attacing optional mics and video lights.

The Canon VIXIA HV 30 captures HD resolution video to miniDV tapes. It features a Canon 10X HD Video Lens, Canon 2.96 Megapixel Full HD CMOS Image Sensor, DIGIC DV II Image Processor, a 30p Progressive Mode (and 24p Cinema Mode), and a 2.7-inch Widescreen Multi-Angle Vivid LCD.

READ MORE By John Virata, senior editor of Digital Media Online.

© Copyright, 2007 Digital Media Online, All Rights Reserved

Friday, January 11, 2008

Netflix to deliver films direct to TV

Company pacts with LG Electronics for unit By ASSOCIATED PRESS

The DVD-by-mail service Netflix Inc. will begin delivering movies and other programming directly to televisions later this year through a new set-top box that will pipe entertainment over a high-speed Internet connection.

The set-top box, will be made by LG Electronics Inc. as part of a partnership announced late Wednesday' It's designed to broaden the appeal of a year-old streaming service that Netflix provides to its 7 million subscribers at no additional charge.

LG Electronics didn't reveal how much the set-top box will cost when it hits the market in the summer or early autumn. Similar devices made by Apple Inc. and Vudu Inc. cost $299 to $399.

A bevy of other gadgets designed to bring more digital entertainment into living rooms is expected to be unveiled next week at the CES, a major consumer electronics show in Las Vegas.

Netflix's streaming service is the cornerstone of the Los Gatos-based company's strategy to retain and attract customers as technology makes it easier to rent and buy movies within a few minutes instead of waiting for them to be delivered through the mail.

Although Netflix says its subscribers have watched more than 10 million movies and TV episodes through its "Watch Instantly" option so far, the streaming service has been too constraining for many subscribers.

That's because all the streaming service's programming must be watched on a personal computer, unless the viewer knows how to link high-speed Internet connection into a TV monitor.

The set-top box is supposed to serve as a bridge that will enable just about anyone with a high-speed Internet connection to plug in a few wires so they will be able to access Netflix's Watch Instantly feature on their TVs.

Subscribers will still need to use a computer to pick out which programs they're interested in streaming. The selections, culled from more than 6,000 titles available in streaming library, will then show up on the TV screen.

"It's going to be very slick and easy," said Netflix's chief executive officer Reed Hastings. "We want the TV experience to be very relaxing and not like visiting a Web site."

Depending on which subscription plan they have, Netflix customers can watch anywhere from five to 48 hours of programming through the streaming service each month at no extra cost.

The LG Electronics alliance is just the first of several partnerships Netflix hopes to strike this year to extend its delivery options beyond the mail. Although he wouldn't provide specifics, Hastings listed video game consoles and high-definition DVD players as other potential channels for Netflix.

Hastings added, "We want to see 100 Netflix-capable devices on the market."

With more than 90,000 titles available in its DVD library, delivering movies through the mail is expected to remain Netflix's primary money maker for years to come.

Nevertheless, Netflix has spent about $40 million on the development of its streaming service during the past year.

The financial commitment hasn't been enough to convince many investors that Netflix will be able to survive a widely anticipated shift that that will turn DVDs into an afterthought as digital downloading proliferates.

The persisting worries are one of the biggest reasons that Netflix's stock price remains roughly 30 percent below its highs of nearly four years ago, even though the company has become more profitable while signing up millions of new subscribers since then. Netflix shares fell 27 cents Wednesday to finish at $26.35.

Netflix's growth tapered off last year amid tougher competition from Blockbuster Inc., but Blockbuster recently signaled it's backing off in the battle by raising the prices of several popular plans.

One of Netflix's most formidable threats yet may be looming just around the corner, with Apple reportedly preparing to launch an online movie rental service that is supposed to include titles from News Corp.'s Twentieth Century Fox and Walt Disney Co.

Apple so far hasn't commented on the reports, which have predicted a formal announcement will be made at the Cupertino-based company's Macworld conference later this month.

An online movie rental service could give more people a reason to buy Apple's device for delivering programming to TVs. The gadget, called Apple TV, so far hasn't taken off like the company's wildly popular iPod and iPhone. Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster estimates about 1.8 million Apple TV devices had been sold through 2007, but he expects another 2.9 million units to ship this year.

"If (Apple) does what has been reported, they will reach a very big market. But the addition of Apple to the rental market isn't causing us to lose any sleep."

By MICHAEL LIEDTKE http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010300474.html
(c) 2008, ASSOCIATED PRESS
© Copyright 1996-2008 The Washington Post Company

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

SINOHUI

sinohui
Producer - Film
San Jose, CA
Writer/Producer/Director

Sinohui Hinojosa hails from Phoenix, Arizona, where 120 degrees (in the shade) is the norm not the exception.

The son of an incredibly hard working mother who supported his habits of spending full days at the cinema (some say to get out of the heat) to enjoy amazing films from the first half of this century, directed by marvels such as Howard Hawks, Orson Wells, Frank Capra and Charlie Chaplin. Inspired by the audacity of Gene Kelly and Fred Astaire, the music of George and Ira Gershwin and the unrivaled hope expressed by the performances of Audrey Hepburn and Joan Leslie, Sinohui decided early on that a career in filmmaking would be his ultimate goal.

After a brief stint in the US Air Force in the 80's, he spent time editing video and studying film, while he worked selling the films he loves as a senior sales representative working with retail buyers and distributors...that is, until the digital revolution changed the fabric of his reality.

Determined to start anew after a successful career in DVD sales, Sinohui started to produce and direct his own short films in the late 90's, organizing cast and crew - shooting in both film and digital formats with films like Pod Nation, screened at the Orinda film Festival. While writing, producing and directing as in independent filmmaker, he also conceived of Emerging Artist Productions, a SF Bay Area production house, where as Creative Director he works on corporate, commercial and indie film projects, specializing in post-production support for indie film.

In Jan 2007 he revealed a rough cut of Scare Me: Behind the Screams (a feature length documentary, he produced and directed) at private screenings at Dreamland Village at the Sundance Film Festival in Utah, with additional showings out of competition at the Cinequest Film Festival in San Jose, CA.

He is currently working on episodic content for the web, two new feature length scripts, producing behind the scenes footage for a big budget feature and is currently in preproduction for his directorial duties on the feature A Forgotten Innocence which goes before the lens next July.

Sinohui Hinojosa
Creative Director - Emerging Artist Productions
http://www.nextcat.com/sinohui

http://www.youtube.com/EmergingArtist2007

(c)2005 - 2008 Nextcat Inc. - All Rights Reserved

Regarding ONLINE DISTRIBUTION

Domination of the online distribution market has always been the end-game for Netflix (just read their annual reports going back several years). Unfortunately, they were caught off guard by Apples iPod/iTunes.

I think its still early days though. As with any other technological innovation, I firmly believe that the medium ultimately changes the message. We are still experiencing a cultural lag, where we are simply transferring the old linear product onto a new platform without truly thinking about ways new value can be created.

What exactly do I mean by this? Well think of the early days of cinema. It looked like live theatre with a camera stuck in front of it. The real revolution came when writers and directors realised that they can control the audience's POV (point of view).

Now think of the invention of the low cost digital cameras / post production. Its resulted in whole new genres flourishing (e.g. documentaries and reality TV).

Now what's the one thing about online distribution that hasn't yet been fully exploited? INTERACTIVITY! We still make linear products.

That's why I've shot my new short film with three different casts, and heaps of interactive options (not just simple alternate endings).

The way I see it, interactivity has two big benefits:

1. It empowers the consumer with greater choice to customise the product.
2. It improves our defences against piracy by making the transaction more of an online "service" - which is harder to steal than an online product. It's harder to steal, because any pirated (peer-to-peer) linear version of a movie would forfeit the consumers ability to customise the product in a server based environment.

There is a reason why musicians tour more these days; because its harder to steal a service than a product.

Fingers crossed, I hope to bump into some of you guys in some North American film festivals this year.

Cheers,

Anthony Peterson
Writer / Director
Sydney, Australia
Mobile: 0419 404 120
peterson.anthony@gmail.com
http://www.myspace.com/anthonyrpeterson

Tuesday, January 08, 2008

Independent films going online

Domination of the online distribution market has always been the end-game for Netflix (just read their annual reports going back several years). Unfortunately, they were caught off guard by Apple's iPod/iTunes.

Somewhere over the rainbow is a place where indie filmmakers use the Internet to sell their movies all over the world. They don't have to spend a fortune on prints and theatrical distribution; they sell their movies online directly to their target audience, and pocket a hefty cut of the revenues.

That magic moment may not be far off, says producer Linda Nelson, whose microbudget crime drama "Shifted" is available as a video download, a DVD or rental at www.Unbox.com.

While the pic's sales to date are nowhere near that of a major studio release, Nelson is on a mission to get filmmakers away from established distribution -- to remove what she sees as greedy intermediaries from the system. Nelson Madison Films has launched Indie Co-op, a subsidiary, to help filmmakers self-distribute their
films on the Internet.

"This could break up the logjam and allow more content to flow out," she says. "A lot is falling into place right now."

Nelson co-wrote "Shifted," a bare-bones thriller about a homeless man, with her business and life partner Michael Madison, who directed.

Filmed under a SAG indie contract with deferred actors' salaries, "Shifted" cost about $100,000 to make. "It stinks," admits Nelson. "(But) for what we had, it's amazing."

While the movie has tallied less than $1,000 in sales on Amazon Unbox, Nelson says she's applying what she's learned to help other indie filmmakers release their films without giving away the store to distributors.

Since arriving in Los Angeles in 1980, the former overseas investment banker and computer systems analyst has had an adversarial relationship with the movie business. She ran up against at least one shady business partner, and her ambitious plans to renovate eight movie palaces for large-screen formats ran afoul of both Imax and the '90s exhibition bust. She and Madison gave up on large formats after
they failed to close the DVD rights to their 2002 Iwerks concert doc, "INSYNC: Bigger Than Live," which grossed $1.8 million in North America.

Unable to raise funding after two years for a slate of indie features, she and Madison finally "got brave," she says. They picked themselves up and shot "Shifted," a picture they couldself-finance and control.

The film's producer and director of photography, Nelson bought a light Canon XL S1 camera and shot with Madison, who doubled as her director and leading man. They filmed inside a self-storage facility they were managing.

After many rejections from film festivals, "Shifted" was accepted by L.A.'s Dances With Films in July 2006, where it scored positive reviews from FilmThreat.com, SilverBulletComicbo oks.com's Don't Call Me Fanboy blog and CBS Radio.

"We knew we didn't have the quality to stand up to a theatrical release," Nelson says. "But we got five offers from DVD distributors." Nelson, however, was shocked by the deal terms, which were typical: No advance without a star or a decent budget. No piece of the backend. The distributor hangs on to its rights for seven to 10 years. And when they sell the DVD on the Internet via Amazon or Netflix, the distrib
takes 25% of the gross and subtracts all expenses, including replicating and supplying DVDs and marketing. (Netflix won't take any films without a distributor. )

Nelson was amazed, too, by the distributors' lack of accountability. "They send quarterly reports by country," she says, "But they don't tell you how many units they sold. They don't keep track by film. They don't have systems or bookkeeping capabilities. There's no such thing as making money. What you get upfront is what you are going to see."

But this situation won't last much longer, Nelson predicts. "Everything is changing," she says. Any neophyte filmmaker faces a huge puzzle when it comes to selling theatrical, TV and video rights around the world. But it's nothing the right software can't solve.

Nelson found a do-it-yourself- DVD distribution company called CustomFlix, which was bought by Amazon in July 2005, and started supporting Amazon's video download service in December 2006. "Shifted" was the first CustomFlix movie to be sold on Amazon Unbox.

Nelson sent CustomFlix her movie, uploaded her artwork, figured out how much she wanted to charge, and posted her trailer, pictures and posters. All she had to do was click a box, and "Shifted" was for sale on Amazon Unbox.

Unlike other DVD distribs, Amazon Unbox and CustomFlix offers a 50/50 deal: Half of the revenue goes to the filmmaker. Even if the money has yet to add up to $1,000, "I get a check every month," says Nelson.

On the Amazon Unbox "Shifted" Web page, the film is available to rent for $2.99 for 30 days, for video download for $8.99, or for DVD sale for $14.95. The "studio" is listed as CustomFlix.

Another Nelson discovery is inDplay.com, a business-to-business application for buyers and sellers of film rights and a digital marketplace. "It's fabulous software, a DRM management system that is usable by anyone," Nelson says.

Via inDplay, filmmakers can create, edit and approve contract offers, and list their film libraries. Nelson hopes that inDplay will soon work with CustomFlix to stream movies for free for distributors, doing away with mailing clunky DVD screeners.

At long last, as Nelson chases her vision of a nimble do-it-yourself future for filmmakers, she seems to have found her niche.

samheer2005 - samheer@pacbell.net

Monday, January 07, 2008

Striking writers in talks to launch Web start-ups

MOVING TO NEW MEDIA: Aaron Mendelsohn, a Writers Guild board member known for the “Air Bud” franchise, is in a group that plans to produce programming for the Internet independently of Hollywood studios at odds with the union. “It’s in development and rapidly incubating,” he says.

Dozens of striking film and TV writers are negotiating with venture capitalists in an effort to set up companies that would bypass the Hollywood studio system and reach consumers with video entertainment through the Internet.

At least seven groups, composed of members of the striking Writers Guild of America, plan to form Internet-based companies that, if successful, could create an alternative economic model to the one at the heart of the walkout.

Three of the groups are working on ventures that would function much like United Artists, the production company created 80 years ago by Charlie Chaplin and other top stars who wanted to break free from studio domination.

"It's in development and rapidly incubating," said Aaron Mendelsohn, a guild board member and co-creator of the "Air Bud" movies.

Writers left their jobs Nov. 5, virtually shutting down television production and throwing 10,000 people out of work. The Writers Guild of America is fighting the major studios over how much their members will be paid when their work is distributed online.

Silicon Valley investors historically have been averse to backing entertainment start-ups, believing that such efforts were less likely to generate huge paydays than technology companies. But they began considering a broader range of entertainment investments after observing the enormous sums paid for popular Web video companies, including the $1.65 billion that Google Inc. plunked down last year for YouTube, a site where users post their home-made clips.

They also have been emboldened by major advertisers, which prefer supporting professionally created Web entertainment to backing user-generated content that can be in poor taste that might be on other Internet sites.

PART 2 - CLICK HERE By Joseph Menn, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-webwriters17dec17,0,4998256,full.story?coll=la-home-center

Copyright 2008 Los Angeles Times

Come on, writers, SCRIPT your futures

The Big Picture: Hollywood is a town awash in hyphenates. TV is loaded with writer-producers. The movie biz is full of writer-directors. There's even a legion of actor-filmmakers like Clint Eastwood, George Clooney and many others. But as the writer's strike continues, I think the future belongs to a tantalizing new hyphenate: the writer-entrepreneur.

Visiting a UCLA film class the other night, I was asked to name the most influential filmmakers of our era. The choices were pretty obvious: Steven Spielberg, Peter Jackson, John Lasseter, George Lucas. . . . As the names spilled out, I realized they all have one thing in common. They're filmmaker-entrepreneurs, artists-turned-businessmen who helped start their own companies to further their work, became financially independent and created a world that operates under a radically different set of rules from the vacuous studio assembly lines.

It's telling that the current writer's strike is about new media yet both sides seem to be following old-school models.

Writer Guild of America members, listen up! There is a lesson here.

Just ask Tony Gilroy, the writer-director of "Michael Clayton," a nervy thriller that's won critical raves this fall. Gilroy had a script that was dead in the water until a total outsider -- a Boston real estate developer named Steve Samuels -- promised if Gilroy could get a star and stick to a budget, he'd bankroll the film.

Gilroy didn't see himself as an entrepreneur. He just had a script that was burning a hole in his pocket. "I'd say the experience was more about my wising up than becoming a visionary," he explained the other day. "But the moment I started chasing private-equity money, it didn't take me long before I'd realized that I'd short-circuited the formula for getting a greenlight. I didn't need studio approval at all. All I needed was one guy who believed in the movie and would put his money where his mouth was."

Gilroy is now a convert. "The studios have got to be hoping that this idea about being entrepreneurs doesn't sweep over the TV show runners, because once you start seeing really good production values on the Internet, I mean, what does Larry David really need HBO for? This is all everybody is talking about on the line. They're not talking about healthcare. They're going, 'Wow, is there a different way to get our movies and TV shows made?' "

READ MORE - By Patrick Goldstein, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-et-gold20nov20,0,372891.story?coll=la-home-entertainment

Copyright 2008 Los Angeles Times

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Striking writers in talks to launch Web start-ups

MOVING TO NEW MEDIA: Aaron Mendelsohn, a Writers Guild board member known for the “Air Bud” franchise, is in a group that plans to produce programming for the Internet independently of Hollywood studios at odds with the union. “It’s in development and rapidly incubating,” he says.

Dozens of striking film and TV writers are negotiating with venture capitalists in an effort to set up companies that would bypass the Hollywood studio system and reach consumers with video entertainment through the Internet.

At least seven groups, composed of members of the striking Writers Guild of America, plan to form Internet-based companies that, if successful, could create an alternative economic model to the one at the heart of the walkout.

Three of the groups are working on ventures that would function much like United Artists, the production company created 80 years ago by Charlie Chaplin and other top stars who wanted to break free from studio domination.

"It's in development and rapidly incubating," said Aaron Mendelsohn, a guild board member and co-creator of the "Air Bud" movies.

Writers left their jobs Nov. 5, virtually shutting down television production and throwing 10,000 people out of work. The Writers Guild of America is fighting the major studios over how much their members will be paid when their work is distributed online.

Silicon Valley investors historically have been averse to backing entertainment start-ups, believing that such efforts were less likely to generate huge paydays than technology companies. But they began considering a broader range of entertainment investments after observing the enormous sums paid for popular Web video companies, including the $1.65 billion that Google Inc. plunked down last year for YouTube, a site where users post their home-made clips.

They also have been emboldened by major advertisers, which prefer supporting professionally created Web entertainment to backing user-generated content that can be in poor taste that might be on other Internet sites.

PART 2 - CLICK HERE By Joseph Menn, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-webwriters17dec17,0,4998256,full.story?coll=la-home-center

Copyright 2008 Los Angeles Times

Saturday, January 05, 2008

TEST AUDIENCES

Sometime last year, I visited the start-up studio of a colleague marshalling an independent CG feature animated film.

I was extremely impressed not only with the professional quality of the work environment, but also with the tale (relayed over lunch) of how they created a 3D animatic from their script on a shoestring budget and then used this to attract investors who were now partnered with them in full-bore production. The film was on track to come out in a year, at which point he would try to land a distributor at the film festival premiere. Where many people only talk and dream, they were actually making it happen!

"This is great," I said to my colleague, "how many test audience screenings do you have planned between now and final color?"

"None." he said. I almost choked on my panini.

"None? Not even a small theater in Long Beach?" "Nope," he replied, "it is what it is, and we're getting it done." He seemed firmly set on this, and since I wasn't being paid to offer my opinions, I finished my sandwich and thanked him for the tour.

As I walked to my car, I couldn't help shaking my head. How could they be keen-eyed on so many levels, but completely blind to the importance of putting their hard-won film up in front of an impartial, general audience? I thought of the illumination that test screenings brought, not only to the major studio productions on which I had worked, but also to the independent short films that I or my colleagues had produced.

Although we "knew" our films better than anyone, we were also so close to the work that it was easy to grow myopic over time. The collective, impartial eye of a "beta test" audience never failed to surprise and inform us regarding what worked and what didn't. Sure, it was scary and always meant adjustments, but it was ultimately more valuable and less impactful to receive that feedback while the car was still "in the shop" than once it was on display "in the showroom".

Also, we kept an open mind and we were always free to disregard the feedback we didn't care for. As John Vorhaus once said, "God may take advice from cherubim and angels, but in the end what God says goes."

Summer: their film is finished and has premiered at a major festival. I'm chatting at a party with a friend who worked on the project, and I ask him how it went. "Not well," he replied, "the audience reaction at the festival was lukewarm, and they didn't land a distributor. So now they're furiously re-working and re-editing the thing."

"Did they ever have a test screening?" I asked.

"You mean for a general audience?" he replied. "No, they screened it for the crew and the investors, but that was it."

"So tbe premiere was effectively their first impartial audience reaction?"

"Yep," he said, "and it wasn't the one they were hoping for."

I wasn't exactly happy to hear this, but I also wasn't surprised.

The morale of the story: "Beta sooner than later."

Get your work out there before it's "finished", and get some honest and unbiased feedback from a range of testers. You're not obligated to act upon anything they say but their reaction to your work just may surprise you - and inform you in many ways you never expected.

You've worked too hard to settle for anything less. - Kevin Geiger (c) 2007 Kevin Geiger

http://www.animationoptions.com/pages/blog.htm

User Generated Content and the Distribution Revolution

"Your Grassroots Are Showing" examines the progression of independent content distribution from festivals through online to mobile, touching - among other things -upon the concept of "user generated content" and the "Machinima" phenomenon.

User generated content (UGC) has revolutionized the world of entertainment. Programs and films that rain down from the heavens on pre-ordained schedules are being supplanted by content that springs freely from the ground up.

User generated content provides multiple points of entry for an eclectic group of creators who dwell outside of the traditional networks and studios. The output of these artists and filmmakers not only resonates with the viewing public on a grassroots level, but also breaks down (or simply ignores) Old School distinctions between content "producers" and content "consumers".

What motivates independent content creators? Fame and fortune? Perhaps. But more likely the motivation, consciously realized or not, is akin to that expressed by Bronwyn Kidd in the quote on the left: the need to create with a unique voice, and the ability to do so unconstrained by conventional media concerns. And while Kidd here speaks specifically of short film production, this guiding principle can be applied to most user generated content.

The reference to "markets" is noteworthy. There is a market for such work, and there is money to be made. Independent artists owe it to themselves to learn as much as possible about the business of entertainment, even as they proceed to reinvigorate and redefine that very business. To neglect to do so is to risk exploitation by those who do pay attention to such things.

READ MORE by Kevin Geiger

http://www.animationcoop.org/pages/features/monthly_Grassroots.htm
©2007 The Animation Co-op
2340 Overland Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90064 USA
(310)689-6062

Friday, January 04, 2008

3-Acts: A LECTURE by Stephen J. Cannell

Often, I ask a writer this question, "WHAT IS THE THREE ACT STRUCTURE?"

I am usually told that it is a beginning, middle and an end, but this is not the answer.

A lunch line has a beginning, middle and an end. The Three-Act structure is critical to good dramatic writing, and each act has specific story moves. Every great movie, book or play that has stood the test of time has a solid Three-Act structure. (Elizabethan Dramas were five act plays, but still had a strictly prescribed structure.) The only place where this is not the case is in a one-act play, where "slice of life" writing is the rule.

In ACT ONE (book or screenplay) the protagonist meets all of the characters in the play. We also find out what the main problem of the story is. Everybody can usually plot Act One because we have to know the problem to have the idea. The trick in Act One is to keep it interesting. Don't just start rolling out story points. Start at the most interesting point, where there is conflict and excitement, and help the audience sort it out.

Act One is a preparation act for the viewer or reader. They are asking who is the hero. Do I like this person? Is this guy a heavy? Do I care about the relationships? What is the problem for the hero? Is the problem gripping?

You should try to have a quick attack on Act One. Don't start your play with "Once upon a time." Open with a hook.

FADE IN: Three men are chasing a woman down a deserted alley; she is carrying a screaming infant.

What's going on? Who is she? Whose baby is it? Let's go! Get the story started! Make it interesting! By the end of Act One you should also have introduced the heavy (antagonist) and set up all of the secondary character relationships.

ACT TWO is the most important act in the drama because you have the two most important structural moves in the story.

THE COMPLICATION usually comes at the top of Act Two. The problem that we already set up in Act One, now has to become much more dangerous and difficult. A good way to design the complications is to let it be a piece of the back-story that has remained hidden until Act Two.

The baby in the woman's arms is not hers, as she originally thought when she left the hospital, but was accidentally switched in pediatrics by an angel nurse, who is in reality the New Messiah. Now all the evil forces on earth are trying to kill the new Christ child. (Much bigger problem!)

The heroes must then start to try to solve this bigger, more complicated problem, while the adversaries make moves to defeat them. YOUR ADVERSARIES MUST BE IN MOTION. Adversaries should not be standing around, waiting to be caught.

At the end of Act Two is the second act curtain. This is the destruction of the hero's plan. At the end of Act Two the protagonist should be almost destroyed, and at the lowest point in the drama, either physically and/or emotionally. He (or she) is flat on his back and it looks like there is no way he can succeed.

READ MORE...

http://www.writerswrite.com/screenwriting/lecture4.htm
Copyright © 1997-2007 by Writers Write, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

TODAY'S MOST IMPORTANT JOB IN FILMMAKING?

Not so long ago, visual effects were an isolated corner of post-production, a "black-box" process headed by amiable engineers who kept largely to themselves. Today, Vfx supervisors are increasingly important as Tech pros move up in the film production hierarchy. The vfx supervisor of an effects-heavy tentpole is part of pre-production, shooting and post. He or she starts on the film before the editor and continues after the writers and d.p. have moved on.

That has turned the job into a kind of uber-technician- diplomat whose job touches all departments, as Sam Raimi was somewhat shocked to discover when he started work on the "Spider-Man" franchise.

"Here was a department that usually would provide a specialty part of a single shot," he says. "But now this department would provide not only the main character, which is outrageously different, but entire environments. Suddenly they have the power and the responsibility of the costume department, the acting department, and they work immediately with the directors, versus just the editors.

"Then, in addition, because they create the environment, they now are the people to consult with about what the set is going to look like, and how the set will be designed and where the action will take place and the feel of the film."

That hasn't been an entirely comfortable transition for other department heads, who are used to supervising their work directly. After all, it will have their name on it.

"Spider-Man 3" vfx supervisor Scott Stokdyk calls those newly overlapping responsibilities "a huge issue" on sets.

"The creative guidelines are laid out by the heads of departments while you're shooting. The cinematographer lights a set that's designed by the production designer and that creates the look for a sequence. The visual effects match what's established, which is less of a creative kind of task and more of an execution task.

"Where it gets tricky is there's a fine line between matching and creating something that's similar to the design, where you have to interpret the work of the cinematographer and production designer, and then you have things that are created only on the computer."

Casting, the digital way
On a film with important digital characters, the vfx department even contributes actors. This can be achieved, for instance, by tweaking motion capture data as was done to animate Davy Jones in the second and third installments of "Pirates of the Caribbean"; by animating characters that must match live-action actors, as in "Spider-Man 3"; or by creating fully animated performances, such as the daemons in "The Golden Compass."

Chris Weitz, writer-director of "The Golden Compass," had never done a visual effects film before. He relied on his supervisor, Michael Fink, to give the animal daemons a slightly human, slightly magical quality that reflects their supernatural abilities, and to give them a convincing intelligence as they interact with real thesps.

He sympathizes with Fink as "a department head with the pressure of a big departmental budget on his back, and the pressure of explaining to people who aren't familiar with what he does how things get done."

Vfx have become less mysterious to other designers as they have become familiar with Adobe Photoshop software, with its vfx-like tools. But everyone is still adjusting to this new world.

Joe Letteri of Weta Digital, vfx supervisor on new release "The Water Horse," remembers a "King Kong" meeting where someone passed photos of period New Yorkers to the costume designer.

"I said I need a copy of that," says Letteri, "and they said, 'What, are you designing costumes now? Oh, I guess you are.' Because I was going to do the digital doubles."

Vfx supervisors aren't just passive observers on the set, either. On "Transformers, " Scott Farrar says he worked every day on set, much like a d.p., consulting with helmer Michael Bay and the camera operators. "I'm sort of an adviser and a visual referee," says Farrar. "Sometimes when something isn't working at all, I have to speak up and say, 'Let's try something else.'"

This explosion of power for the vfx supervisor has its roots in a more basic change, says Bay.

"Visual effects have become a serious way of creating whatever you can imagine," he says. "Before, they used to be a little thing where we can fix this and fix that. Now we can change everything. Whatever your palette, whatever you conceive in your mind, you can envision and make. That's how powerful it's become."

As Spidey fans well know, with great power comes great responsibility. Yet even character-oriented helmers like Weitz are discovering that their vfx teams can handle that responsibility.

"(The CG artists) really are creative types and artists just as much as anyone else working on the movie," says Weitz. "They're just as concerned with the look of the film as anybody else. They're not just guys who are concerned with robots and want to have things blow up."

samheer2005
samheer@pacbell.net

Wednesday, January 02, 2008

REMAKING "STAR WARS"

"STAR WARS", the Hollywood blockbuster, is slowly being recreated and remade in a garage in Lincolnshire, Great Britain for three thousand pounds instead of millions of dollars.

Using friends, family and computer technology, Darren is re-making "STAR WARS". Hard to believe but although it looks almost exactly like George Lucas' first film, it simply isn't.

Building the sets, props, homemade R2D2 and recreating the film would have been impossible just ten short years ago. Thanks to advances in computer programs and hardware, "STAR WARS" can be completely remade today in a converted garage just thirty short years after its world premiere.

CLICK HERE to see how it's done using work helmets cardboard tubes, spray paint, water pistols and a PC.
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=5779222&ch=4226715&src=news